/sci/ - Science & Math

[Leo No.6961991]

Do you think mathematics should be taught with the physics background?

Do you think chemistry should be officially inside a physics book too?

Do you think these could happen at least in a boys-only school?

[Anonymous No.6962002]

>>6961991
>Do you think mathematics should be taught with the physics background?
no
>Do you think chemistry should be officially inside a physics book too?
no
>Do you think these could happen at least in a boys-only school?
what?

[Anonymous No.6962005]

>>6961991
No, physicists suck at rigorous math.

[Anonymous No.6962006]

No

No

No

[Leo No.6962017]

>>6962005
Do you think physicists are the smartest of all? I am myself a mathematician, but I have a hard on for physics and even chemistry

[Anonymous No.6962036]

>>6962017
This chart isn't accurate because it counts undergrads instead of grad students. If someone has that source, please post it, it has the three top IQ positions as physics, then CS, then math. Something like 132 for physics, 130 for CS, 129.5 for math if I recall correctly.

Eitherway, the point is that all statistics I've seen show that physics students are typically the smarter group. In any case, I can say that undergrad math students being anything short of retarded is a huge surprise to me, from experience.

[Leo No.6962145]

>>6962002
A Balls only institution of knowledge

[Anonymous No.6962150]

>>6962036
What the fuck are you on about? Why should one only include grad students?

[Anonymous No.6962174]

>>6962150
The discussion is about physicists and mathematicians, not physics majors and math majors. The vast majority of undergrad majors do not go on to become professionals in the field. Well, at this point an awful lot of grad students don't either, but it's a whole lot closer, and a PhD student doing original research is indeed a physicist or mathematician by pretty reasonable criteria.

[Leo No.6962252]

will I bump with sci pics

[Anonymous No.6962272]

Doesn't matter since computer scientists are your masters anyways.

[Anonymous No.6962278]

>>6962005
[citation needed]

[Anonymous No.6962281]

>>6961991
No, physics is shit.

Mathematics should be taught properly instead.

[Leo No.6962285]

>>6962281
Are you a faggot

[Anonymous No.6962371]

>>6961991
>Do you think chemistry should be officially inside a physics book too?

Chemistry has little to do with physics. Yes in theory chemistry is just applied physics but because Schrödinger equation can't be solved you can't use physics to solve most chemistry problems.

[Anonymous No.6962393]

I might be the weird one here, but I really wish classical mechanics were taught together in a calculus course. Something about the two subjects are intertwined, being that they were discovered by the same person, that it's intuitive to teach both at the same time.

And whereas chemistry and physics have quite the gap to cover, chemistry and biology likewise are best introduced to one another.

So much of biochemistry ends with "well it works because of this reaction", and explaining metabolism just doesn't make any sense without a background in (organic) chemistry.

[Anonymous No.6962396]

>>6962393
>Something about the two subjects are intertwined, being that they were discovered by the same person

?

Leibniz did not discover classical mechanics.

[Anonymous No.6962403]

>>6962396
Well, I was thinking of the the other guy, Newton.

[Anonymous No.6962413]

>>6962396
>mfw he was obviously referring to based Newton

[Anonymous No.6962417]

>>6962036
CS students are laughably stupid.

[Anonymous No.6962420]

>>6962371
Is the author/alterer of that graphic willfully disregarding numerical methods, or just retarded?

Same goes for your post.

[Anonymous No.6962427]

>>6962371
>Schrödinger's equation can't be solved

Pretty sure they make you solve it in babbys first quantum mechanics

[Anonymous No.6962459]

>>6962393

I wouldn't go so far, but I do think classical physics should definitely be taught with calculus and that calculus would benefit by drawing examples from physics. The two make a lot of sense together, but they're different enough to warrant different classes.

I think physics and chemistry would really be the dream team. Maybe introduce Gen Chem after kids get their Bachelor's in Physics?

[Anonymous No.6962583]

>>6961991
>Do you think mathematics should be taught with the physics background?
No, the beauty of mathematics is that you define a system (axioms) and derive properties of that system (theorems). When you have a theory in any other field, you look if mathematicans have done something similar before and if you can apply the theorems to your theory. This schpuld be independend of the field (economy, physics...).
>Do you think chemistry should be officially inside a physics book too?
Most of physical chemisty yes. The rest: no.

Much of organic chemistry is more a complicated building block system of names reactions than anything else.

[Anonymous No.6962593]

>>6961991
You'd need a pretty big physics book if you only wanted to teach basic, general chemistry. I agree, chemistry is a subset of physics in a way, but you can't derive too much without setting up experiments. Atoms (and needless to say, molecules) are pretty complex systems which are impossible to predict using mathematical models unless you've gathered experimental data beforehand. It's a whole discipline by itself. So I think you could only teach those parts which are used by physicists and also by chemists (nuclear physics and so).

[Anonymous No.6962598]

>>6962427
For the hydrogen atom. Then after that it's basically just perturbation theory

[Anonymous No.6962814]

>>6962417
Buttmad math waste of space detected.
>real analysis 2
>"... and so we have a > b*cos(c)"
>"prof, I wrote 'b*cos(c) < a' instead, is that OK?"
Typical math retard.jpg

[Anonymous No.6963249]

>>6962420
>>>6962371 (You)
>Is the author/alterer of that graphic willfully disregarding numerical methods, or just retarded?
>Same goes for your post.

I would argue that numerical methods fall more into mathematical and computer science than physics. If you are just finding very accurate approximations then you not any better than the chemists who are doing the same thing with simpler models.

Organic chemists will look at the benzene molecule and say the stability results from the number of resonance structures you can draw. Some physical chemists will say it is because of electron decolonization. The best answer numerical methods can provide is I did the calculation and found that it is lower in energy than cyclohexane by x and this lower energy is greater than the additional lowering of energy caused by an additional three double bonds.


There is no generalized principle in numerical methods that allows you to explain different things. You just plug stuff into the calculator and it spits out a number. You then have to rely on some chemists to explain what is going on.
I will agree that a mathematical equation describing the behavior of a molecular would be better than the current way chemists do it, but a numerical approximation is just a number. It isn't any better than an empirical measurement.

[Anonymous No.6963720]

>>6962598
>Then after that it's basically just perturbation theory.

Calling Hatree-Fock and configuration interaction pertubation theory.
>>6963249

>The best answer numerical methods can provide is I did the calculation and found that it is lower in energy than cyclohexane by x and this lower energy is greater than the additional lowering of energy caused by an additional three double bonds.

I think you seriously underestimate how numerical methods can be mapped back on the reality. In your example, we can calculate cyclohexatriene. Let's for example use the Huckel method, (Because thats easier to do. Using the Hatree-Fock method would require a modification of an quantum chemical programm.) The Huckel matrix for benzol looks like:


0 1 0 0 0 1
1 0 1 0 0 0
0 1 0 1 0 0
0 0 1 0 1 0
0 0 0 1 0 1
1 0 0 0 1 0

Th three lowest orbital energies (for 6 pi -electrons) are: b+2a and two times b-a total energy: 6b + 8a

that for cyclohexatriene looks like

0 1 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 0 0
0 0 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 1
0 0 0 0 1 0

orbital energies: 3 x b+a
total energy: 6b+6a

the difference of 2a is caused by those missing matrix elements.

If we look at Hatree-Fock, we easily see where those matrix elements come from, They arise because <p_2|p_3>!=0 and <p_2|H|p_3>!=0.

So the benzol is more stable because the p-orbitals overlapp and interact.

To answer the question: would the molecule more stable if d_23 were smaller?
You would have to investigate the effect of that change onto a lot of integrals, (you have to change at least one other bond angle. And dont forget the interactions of sigma-orbitals.) And trace the effect through two matrix diagonalizations and one matrix multiplication. And compare it quantitatively to the increased nuclear repulsion.

And thats why you dont use numerical methods to explain things in dephth. It is often to complicated.