[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Become a Patron!

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 45 KB, 814x575, 1590285709552.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11705281 No.11705281 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

Which is better, chemistry or physics?

>> No.11705283

t. chemfag

>> No.11705286

t. physicsfag

>> No.11705287

t. Physfag

>> No.11705296

t. Chemsicsfag

>> No.11705297

better at what? fag.

>> No.11705308

chemistry makes me want to blow out my brains
t. EE fag

>> No.11705312

Get back to those gaussian wave functions, engy! You need to learn how NPN transistors work if you want a career.

>> No.11705382

Chemistry is physics. And physics is math.

>> No.11705388


It's not just alchemy I swear. The laws of magic dictate that the fields would be separate.

>> No.11705477

Chemistry, hands down. Literally stream the show when I do elementary demonstrations at parties with everyday household cleaning items. Physicsfags could never.
>inb4 chlorine cloud burns my alveoli one of these days

>> No.11705482

t. retard

>> No.11705552

>Chemistry is physics
Wrong. Physical processes are different from chemical ones.

>> No.11705580

Choosing between those two.
I just want to be respected man... sad shit.

>> No.11705592
File: 1.79 MB, 2200x2000, 0292117B-6DEE-43FF-9057-8F0C7E0D0ACE.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

You must be at least 18 years old to post here.

>> No.11705622

Posting orbitals doesn't prove me wrong.

>> No.11705626
File: 59 KB, 680x560, 1283171529070.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.11705629

This color scheme makes it difficult to see the nodes.

>> No.11705684

Wrong. Chemical processes are just physical processes.

>> No.11705696


>> No.11705766

>nodes clearly visible

Lmao inorganic chemists truly are one dipshit deviation above anal(ytical) chemists

>> No.11705778

They're not even consistent with their color scheme. Black is used both for nodes and for negative values. It's a bad graphic. I'm a physical chemist.

>> No.11706078
File: 149 KB, 500x500, 1581784241589.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

By all means, it's chemistry
Physics is a very active subject. And by active, I mean that you are going to get a LOT of idiots who spout nonsensical popsci and /x/ who always try to force their delusion about multiple worlds and paranormals unto the quantum fields and stuff like the Penrose Diagram or Kerr geometry

At Chemistry, your subject is quiet.
Your people are filled with people who are there because they actually wanted to learn.
You'll find a couple of idiots who wanted to create booms and poisons but they always get shaved off after a couple of days. The field is very underrated.

And I am saying this as a Physicsfag, by the way

Whoa, really?
What exactly can you do with household cleaning items other than chlorine cloud? Please tell. I wanna try

>> No.11706089

Best answer I ever heard on the difference is this
Study of atomic weights and the percentage chance that one element can mix with another
Study of changing the rules when the percentage chance that one element can mix with another causes cognitive dissonance

>> No.11706208
File: 72 KB, 360x480, 1567324240146.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

thank you anon

Well, can extract a lot of different solvent use in household product. But if you know your chemistry well enough only very few things are out of reach (very high pressure, very low/high temperature).
Check out nurdrage yt channel he synthesized pyrimethamine using readily available chemicals

>> No.11706210

t. chemfag

>> No.11706228

Physical Chemistry, obviously.
Physical Chemistry is the answer. It is the physics of chemistry. Has no one heard of this field?

>> No.11706229

Physics is more fundamental and more likely to undergo "philosophical" revolutions.
Chemistry has its physical framework set in place, so its just a case of seeing what can be done with it. But i think dealing with bulk material transformations is way more interesting than mathematical models.

>> No.11706546

t. Chemfag

>> No.11706692

t. Physics fag

>> No.11706697

Chemistry because I have a natural talent for it apparently.
t. Physfag

>> No.11706758

Chemical physics
t. physicalchemistryfag

>> No.11706764

Sucking cock
t. pussyfag

>> No.11706765

i liek this thread, 6/10
t. faggotfag

>> No.11706805

There is no difference

>> No.11706836

>resonance stabilization on benzene
>draws 1-methylcyclohexane

>> No.11706944

>It is the physics of chemistry.
t. theoretical physical chemist

>> No.11707072

I think chemistry is better at helping you the understand the perceivable reality around you.

You learn about mircroscopic events to explain what you can perceive everyday around you.

Modern physics is about understanding phenomena, that are much to big or to small for a human to even perceive.

So you learn to explain event that you can't even really imagine with even tinier principles.

I love more classical aspects of physics and the foundation of mordern physics which both still had a big practical impact and are a big part of chemical education, the current state of physical resarch ist much less appealing to me.
Wide parts of it aren't less abstract and inapplicable than theology.

>> No.11707120

You'd be better served studying material sciences or some engineering if you want to know how 'the world around you' works.

>> No.11707143

I'm actually studying chemistry right now with a focus on material science and I'm planning to go into the field as my postgradual studies next year.

Our material science department doesn't train pure material scientists, it consists of working groups out of the fields of physics, chemistry, technology and even molecular biology.

>> No.11707154

>nonsense and /x/
behold: https://mmswiki.is/index.php/Basic_Science_of_MMS

>> No.11707203
File: 880 KB, 4800x3600, haven1-i_see_stars-01.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Physics. And I did some minor chemistry as part of my PhD in Physics.

>> No.11707324
File: 121 KB, 710x711, sci.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.11707329

t. Chemfag

>> No.11707335

I wanna get physical with her chemistry if you know what I mean

>> No.11707436

I admit, I felt nauseous reading all that crap
But I am holding my position
Every 3 days, there is bound to be another article saying that scientists have proven Einstein wrong

Bitch, if Einstein is wrong, every physics book written in the last 80 years would have to be rewritten including nukes, satellites, and the entire astrophysics.

>> No.11707479
File: 329 KB, 1245x1497, 1568686263972.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.11707509

both are cool

>> No.11707520

Chemical physics > physical chemistry
I'm being totally unironic here btw, yes there's a difference, although of course it's just my opinion that one is better (more interesting) than the other.
If you're an undergrad though it literally doesn't matter because it's not like you get to make a distinction when you have so many fundamentals to learn.

>> No.11707644

Chemistry because it just wants to answer concrete questions, like "Is Oganesson a noble gas" and nobody cares about foundations.

>> No.11707657
File: 39 KB, 720x466, mathfagsbtfod.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

and math is philosophy.
/his/ wins again.

>> No.11707673
File: 166 KB, 945x261, x k c d.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.11707964
File: 553 KB, 1221x963, 1564246646436.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

I'm thinking I should just do both, then do mathematics in my own time for pleasure.
Is there anything wrong with this grand plan?

Do I run into any issues by not specializing more?

>> No.11707967

start with math before anything else

>> No.11708019
File: 285 KB, 768x606, 1565631051154.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

I'm serious with the specialization question.

Everyone you hear about seems to have a PhD in the Biology of the penises of african swallows.

Will I run into issues by going to Uni for literally just "Chemistry and Physics"?

>> No.11708029

>i can't detect fine differences in hues
t. low iq

>> No.11708049

try both, see what appeals to you more. Doing both seriously won’t get you far, there is only so much time in a day. There are specializations, for example physical chemistry, which you might enjoy.
Compared to physics, chemistry is a lot of memorization and straight up lab work. If you want to know about the inner workings of reactions, i’d recommend physics first, solely based on the statistical mechanics and quantum mechanics lectures.
If it would cost you extra to enroll in both (assuming you live in 3rd world USA), you should be able to just join lectures in your off time, if they are publicly available.

>> No.11708059

I assume op is starting a bachelor’s, and i’ve only ever seen physical chem as specialization/master’s.

>> No.11708062
File: 22 KB, 325x298, 1570622452119.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>assuming you live in 3rd world USA
I don't, the whole thing would be funded by the govt if I did it.
The problem is, that I only get X number of days of free cash, and X is not enough for a masters in both if I do them independently.
I'm thinking I should either see if I can do them at the same time, or do them one at a time at double pace.
Should be easy enough, if it's anything compared to all my previous studies.

>> No.11708068

>Every 3 days, there is bound to be another article saying that scientists have proven Einstein wrong
lol, only reading popsci and assuming that’s physics.

>> No.11708142

Colorblind people have higher average IQs than the general population.

>> No.11708160
File: 189 KB, 1440x1581, Screenshot_20200524-185709~2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

I'm taking organic chemistry over the summer as we speak. It's fascinating, but brutal. My brain isn't quite wired to the chemists' frequency yet (I'm a bio major). Like look at this. My initial step would be to break the pi bond and have an electron grab an electrophile, but how can I tell which is the electrophile? Shit is confusing.

>> No.11708173

>I'm a bio major
Please, share with us all the horrors you felt as you discover that the only threads you like are filled to the brim with /pol/tards
We wan't to laugh at your suffering

>> No.11708182

Being associated with a group does not mean you cannot be judged as an individual idiot

>> No.11708210

My focus is entomology, I doubt /pol/ pays attention to us

>> No.11708227

I'm taking summer courses too. OCHEM 1 and 2. We have piss easy labs each week, with an exam every Friday. My professor emails us the exam and asks for it back within an hour. I'd unironically pay an anon $500 to complete my exams for me over the next 6 weeks.

>> No.11708238

eat shit, subhuman cheater

>> No.11708259
File: 260 KB, 506x765, Screenshot_20200420-181216~2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Except I'm NOT a cheater because I haven't done that

>> No.11708263
File: 72 KB, 800x800, 1409643440487.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

I'm sorry, what?
You are paying for a class and you are also paying for someone to do you exams?

Might as well just pay for a diploma, you dumbshit

>> No.11708292

Most chemists barely understand orbitals

>> No.11708303

I said I would, not that I am.

>> No.11708495

That is if you want an abundance of well paying jobs unless you are top of your class or go to a top school.

>> No.11708614

Physics made me want to blow my brains over the wall and figure out the velocity that my brain splattered.

Chemistry is really fun.

>> No.11708780

>being a bio major
>being able to memorize all amino acids and their functions, names of polypeptides, countless signaling pathways, inhibitors, etc whatever the fuck you people learn
>no intuition to do an elementary level organic chemistry mechanism
>not able to memorize a handful of simple alkene reactions
>not able to use intuiton
Why do we consider biology a science again? It may as well be a social science.
Anyways, I'm a chemistry major and I prefer physics. There is too much "Let's pretend everyone is too stupid to understand this" when it comes to a lot of the math in chemistry. A lot of universities don't even require ODE's for a BS in Chemistry.

>> No.11708805
File: 63 KB, 1200x627, based and chegg pilled.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Tfw brainlets would rather pay 30k a year to get B's and C's than pay 15 dollars a month for Chegg and get A's

>> No.11708976

I respect you anon

>> No.11708991

gross, but good for you

>> No.11709312
File: 185 KB, 770x804, 20200525_015806.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.11709555

He says that his focus is on the study of insects.
That branch has time and time again proven their mettle as the study of insects revolutionized many aspects of ecology and pathogens.
It is bound to prove their worth again with the upcoming insect robots that can spy and assassinate.

This may come as a surprise but all studies, no matter how small, are bound to pay itself back someday. In one instance, some scientists found that rats tend to lick their young because massaging enduces hormone growth unto their babies. It took 40 years for someone to realize that if we massage babies as well, their chance of survival increases
There are studies that took 100+ years to pay back but everything are worth it in the end

>> No.11709570

go easy but goodluck, I feel like im in the same boat

>> No.11709578

YO Ill do it for you lol

>> No.11709773


Depends what you want, it is a lot harder to brainwank yourself and feel smart as a chemist.


[math] CH_3CO_3H [/math]



>> No.11709789


>> No.11710047
File: 21 KB, 200x366, monorteeño.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

ay brah, does chegg has spanish Textbooks? won't spend 15 bucks just to look if it does.

>> No.11710326

anything that's far from biology
t. bio-eng fag

>> No.11710333


>> No.11710364

are you sad about no job prospects?
t. msc in biology neet

>> No.11710466

neither. both take place in physical reality and are annoying and labour intensive.
pure math is better.

>> No.11710764

I guess you could say, they don't BUG you!
*winks at camera*
[Laugh Track]
[Outro music starts]
[Credits roll]
"This has been a 4channel production"
"No anons were hurt during shooting"

>> No.11710889

Underrated, but should have been Flevorium instead of Oganesson for maximum kek

idk about physics but usually lectures on phys chem are part of a chem degree

That question is mainly about memorizing the reactions. "Understanding the reactions" (i.e. learning the mechanisms) helps with that, but in the end you still need to memorize the reactions.
The problem is that just identifying potential nucleophiles/electrophiles often isn't enough to easily predict what will happen, there are many other factors like steric bulk and orbital symmetry that influence reactivity.
Predicting reaction products just based on reagents is often extremely hard if you haven't memorized the reaction (or a similar reaction, so memorizing many reactions helps).
>but how can I tell which is the electrophile?
The beginner's way: Look for positively charged atoms/molecules and atoms in high oxidation states or with lower-than-normal valence (8 electron rule for main group elements other than hydrogen, 18 electron rule for transition metals).
More advanced: Construct MO diagrams and look for low energy empty MOs.
>top left
The electrophile (in the first step of the reaction) is Hg because it's electron deficient (14 electrons, 10 electrons from Hg(II) and 2x2 from OAc ligands).
The easy (but not quite correct) way to picture the ensuing reaction (which is called oxymercuration) is to imagine Hg(II) as a "fat proton" adding to the alkene. Two carbenium ions can result from this, one significantly more stable than the other. The more stable carbenium ion will be formed and is obviously strongly elecrophilic (positive charge, only 6 valence electrons). It will add to the nucleophile present: water.
Borohydride basically just replaces Hg with H, yielding an alcohol (i.e. not the epoxide pictured).
This reaction is analoguous to acid catalysed addition of water to alkenes, but rearrangements of the intermediatary carbenium ion don't happen with Hg(II).

>> No.11710982

>top right
In the peracid there are two oxygen atoms with oxidation state 0, so those are electrophilic. The ensuing reaction is called Prilezhaev epoxidation. In a single step, one oxygen atom is transferred from the peracid to the alkene, yielding the carboxylic acid and an epoxide (so it's the correct answer to the question). For the transition state, look it up on Wikipedia. (Tip for learning named reactions: learn them with the name that describes what the reaction actually does (provided there's one), i.e. Prilezhaev epoxidation instead of just Prilezhaev reaction, Wittig olefination instead of Wittig reaction, etc.)
>bottom left
OsO4 is electrophilic because Os is in oxidation state 8, the reaction that follows is a [3+2]-cycloaddition of OsO4 at the alkene. This intermediate is hydrolyzed to yield an 1,2-Diol (i.e. not the epoxide pictured). Look up dihydroxylation for details. Keep in mind that in practice OsO4 is used in catalytical amounts and a cooxidans is used (because OsO4 is expensive and toxic).
>bottom right
Ozone is the electrophile because of oxygen with oxidation state zero. Again, [3+2]-cycloaddition happens. The resulting compound (5-ring with 3 oxygen atoms in a row) rearranges (mechanism depends on solvent) to yield another 5-ring (only 2 oxygen in a row). The reductive workup yields two ketones/aldehydes (in this case: an aldehyde and formaldehyde, again: not the epoxide pictured). Look up ozonolysis for details.

>> No.11711142

Electro chemistry...

>> No.11711171

chemical bionolgy. physfags can git fukked

>> No.11711192
File: 1.98 MB, 336x252, 1570262335121.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Use the peracid nigga.

>> No.11711730


>> No.11711741

If you need to make drugs, chemistry.
If you need to make a laser gun, physics.

>> No.11712064


t. idolfag

>> No.11712272
File: 13 KB, 256x256, download.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

I was told that memorizing reactions is pointless because there are hundreds of thousands of them, so you need to learn how different substituents behave. What I've done - since my classes are online and our exams are emailed to us, with no supervision - is made a Word document with screencaps of every reaction I've come across, as well as flow charts with something like, say, a benzene in the middle and all of the common reagents spring from it and pointing to what the mixture looks like. I add text descriptions that are easily searchable (for instance, 1-methylcyclohexene pointing to a reaction with hydronium forms 1-methylcyclohexanol, to which I affix a description of "ring with H3O+) so I can ctrl-F what I come across for the exams. I figure I'm at a severe disadvantage as it is, what with a short summer semester and lacking face-to-face instruction, so I'm just evening the odds.

>> No.11712278


Chemistry defers to physics so physics.

>> No.11713481

>I was told that memorizing reactions is pointless (...) so you need to learn how different substituents behave.
This will still involve memorization, though.
Obviously memorizing every reaction known by memorizing reactants and product is an impossible task.
Knowing how a functional group (what you mean by substituent) can behave is very important for understanding mechanisms, and understanding mechanisms is very important because it allows you to memorize every reaction as a sequence of a small amount of "elementary reactions". This will make memorizing reactions a lot easier.
But: Nearly always (by just looking at the reagents) multiple "elementary reactions" are possible (in principle) and often it's nearly impossible to predict why a particular "elementary reaction" should happen instead of another one ad hoc (i.e. in your exam). DON'T THINK YOU CAN WORK OUT EVERYTHING FROM SCRATCH.
Example: Compare mechanisms of the Wittig reaction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wittig_reaction#Classical_mechanism) and the Corey-Chaykovsky reaction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson%E2%80%93Corey%E2%80%93Chaykovsky_reaction#Mechanism). They basically only differ in one atom (Phosphorus vs. Sulfur) and the beginning of the mechanism is the same. But then, in case of Wittig, elimination occurs yielding an alkene (olefine), while in case of Corey-Chaykovsky, (intramolecular) nucleophilic substitution occurs, yielding an epoxide.
There's no fucking way for you to predict that without looking up bond energies or doing quantum chemical calculations. So you still need to memorize that in one case elimination occurs and in the other, substitution.
Many exam questions presume memorization. The question you posted was simply "which is the correct reagent", not "work out mechanisms for the reaction of an alkene with the listed reagents". Of course, the latter kind of questions also exist.
>ring with H3O+
The important part isn't the ring, it's the alkene.

>> No.11713630

marisa is objectively the best 2hu

Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.