The Science Thread

[jeff]

Ah yes the Krebs and Calvin cycles, my students do not enjoy those.

Krebs...
We touched upon that cycle...ask me if I can remember (I can't ).
Cram sessions...

I teach it and to be honest since my interests in Biology lie elsewhere; I have to review it every year before I teach it. Fortunately I do not require them remember too much, Calvin Cycle and Photosynthesis use CO2, sunlight and water and produce carbohydrates, oxygen. Krebs Cycle and Respiration use those and produce ATP, water and CO2.

[Kalah]

I took chemistry for years, until I realized I wasn't really that interested in it. I like lab expereiments, but I hate advanced theory. In the university, we started out using the book "Principles of Chemistry" by Munowitz, which I found rather good. Still, about 60% of the class got a failing grade because they sucked at reading English. The uni is using a Norwegian book now. Much wiser.

I don't regret all those years I studied chemistry, 'cause it has given me a basic understanding of how the world works. It enabled me to understand what the teachers of cell biology, pharmacology, genetics and virology were talking about. Still I have to say I never found it very interesting. Much like maths. It's useful, but boring.

[jeff]

I took chemistry for years, until I realized I wasn't really that interested in it. I like lab expereiments, but I hate advanced theory. In the university, we started out using the book "Principles of Chemistry" by Munowitz, which I found rather good. Still, about 60% of the class got a failing grade because they sucked at reading English. The uni is using a Norwegian book now. Much wiser.

I don't regret all those years I studied chemistry, 'cause it has given me a basic understanding of how the world works. It enabled me to understand what the teachers of cell biology, pharmacology, genetics and virology were talking about. Still I have to say I never found it very interesting. Much like maths. It's useful, but boring.

It is surprising that your universities used english, but that may be why you guys are better at grammar than a lot of us.

[Corribus]

@Corribus: Cool! So that means o-chem is basically not fun.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that. Some people enjoy it very much. The lab portion is definitely more fun than the the lecture portion IMO because you're actually doing something. While o-chem involves a lot of memorization, there's also an element of puzzle-solving to it, particularly towards the end of the class when you have hundreds of reactions at your disposal to complete a synthesis. Since I'm the type of person more interested in concepts and WHY things work, however, I found it a bit superficial.

So...for a logical order, I need to learn about p-chem first.

In my opinion, that would be the best way to learn chemistry - start at the "basics" and work your way to macroscopic systems, but I don't know of any university that teaches it that way, and you'd be very hard-pressed to learn the subject yourself.

So, why do molecules react then?

Thermodynamics. Sort of like the same reason a ball rolls down a hill. I'll be more detailed in a while.

And if you don't find quantum physics cool, that's probably because they're focusing on all the electron-around-atoms part, which while important, isn't very interesting, as, say, tunneling.

Before you learn about tunnelling in chemical systems (which is extremely important btw), molecular structure and chemical bonding, not to mention spectroscopy, you need to learn about QM as applied to atoms.

[Gaidal Cain]

Before you learn about tunnelling in chemical systems (which is extremely important btw), molecular structure and chemical bonding, not to mention spectroscopy, you need to learn about QM as applied to atoms.

But you don't need advanced quantum physics to be able to explain what tunneling is. The basic idea is cool enough as it is. Of course, this might be the physicist in me talking, who's used to start with the Schrödinger equation and solving it. There's a lot one can do without going into the rather 'stamp-collection' that is the basic electron-orbital theory.

It is surprising that your universities used English, but that may be why you guys are better at grammar than a lot of us.

I don't find it surprising at all. After all, Norwegian (even more than Swedish) is a small language. We had some maths book in Swedish, and one engineering book in Swedish also, but all other books has been in English. The market is simply too small to pay for translations or a new text. This has in part lead to Swedish being almost unusable for advanced physics.

[Corribus]

But you don't need advanced quantum physics to be able to explain what tunneling is. The basic idea is cool enough as it is.

At my university tunneling is taught in introductory p-chem classes, usually during discussion of the harmonic oscillator or finite potential well. Around week 3 or 4. Definitely no advanced quantum physics required.

[Caradoc]

The most important reason to avoid taking Chemistry is that it is so dangerous. Way too many serious lab accidents. Better to stick to the equations.

[The Mad Dragon]

Isn't that half the fun though? I loved doing experiemnts.

[Omega_Destroyer]

I was supposed to be some great chemist because I come from a long line of chemists. I killed everyones' hopes by getting a D in highschool chemistry. Man I hated that class.

[Kalah]

Bartlet: "There was a while there I wanted to be a chemistry professor."
Leo: "What happened?"
Bartlet: "I never actually studied chemistry."

[Omega_Destroyer]

Sounds about right.

[winterfate]

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that. Some people enjoy it very much. The lab portion is definitely more fun than the the lecture portion IMO because you're actually doing something. While o-chem involves a lot of memorization, there's also an element of puzzle-solving to it, particularly towards the end of the class when you have hundreds of reactions at your disposal to complete a synthesis. Since I'm the type of person more interested in concepts and WHY things work, however, I found it a bit superficial.

That reminds me about the time I went into Biology and there was this third year student with a HUGE stack of papers listing reactions and diagrams and stuff.

I ask him...is that your o-chem test material?

He answered...Only half of it.



As for the lab...yeah labs are a load of fun...except the ones about plants in Biology I...

And to think I have to take Botany in my second semester of second year...

I'm really starting to hate plants (I can thank my lab professor for that...probably the only professor I've disliked in my whole first year).

Thermodynamics. Sort of like the same reason a ball rolls down a hill. I'll be more detailed in a while.

Sure, take your time. I appreciate you taking your time to indulge me like this.

[Gaidal Cain]

But you don't need advanced quantum physics to be able to explain what tunneling is. The basic idea is cool enough as it is.

At my university tunneling is taught in introductory p-chem classes, usually during discussion of the harmonic oscillator or finite potential well. Around week 3 or 4. Definitely no advanced quantum physics required.

Yes, that's what I was saying, in response to:

Before you learn about tunnelling in chemical systems (which is extremely important btw), molecular structure and chemical bonding, not to mention spectroscopy, you need to learn about QM as applied to atoms.

[theLuckyDragon]

Thermodynamics.

*getting cozy*
This was my favourite part of Physics back in highschool.

[Corribus]

Well you may have to wait a little longer.

[ThunderTitan]

Why was my suggestion about reading a book instead deleted (except that it was fun i mean)?!

[Gaidal Cain]

Why was my suggestion about reading a book instead deleted (except that it was fun i mean)?!

I can't remember the post, so I can't say if it was an active decision or an oversight on my part.

[ThunderTitan]

I can't remember the post, so I can't say if it was an active decision or an oversight on my part.

Who are you, Alberto Gonzales?!

[Gaidal Cain]

I can't remember the post, so I can't say if it was an active decision or an oversight on my part.

Who are you, Alberto Gonzales?!

Lars Danielsson, more likely... Still, I can't remember every single post I have to delete. And if this topic continues in this thread, I might have to run the risk of forgetting a few more posts...

[ThunderTitan]

Lars Danielsson, more likely...

Colbert didn't do a piece on him, so he doesn't matter.

But now really, if the subject really interest the OP why not read a science book about it, and just have C explain what you didn't get?