Thread 16816486

>>16816486 (OP)
Yes, learn all the underlying physical laws and the chemistry stuff will follow logically

>>16816525
Where should I start?

>>16816877
quantum mechanics at the plank length

>>16816877
since you seem like an idiot I'll make it clear, he's trolling you. and to answer you question, no.

>>16816904
Why not?

>>16816923
nobuddy knows nigga
Your lord jesus christ just made it that way
Or maybe it just made itself
Or maybe there's a funuhhhhmental GUTTY lurking down there and it's all defined by one super special group with all the nicest symmetries and that's the only way it can possibly be

>>16816486 (OP)
For schoolwork no. But historically, chemistry discoveries were done by highly-original thinkers.

>>16816486 (OP)
no
>>16816525
>Yes, learn all the underlying physical laws
that require memorization tho

I did it. When I was at school, I didn't learn anything, I just memorised the basics myself, not learning by heart or smth, in high school there was preparation for exams - I didn't prepare. On the last day before the EГЭ (Russian past exam) I reviewed the courses on YouTube overnight, passed 76/100 points with stupid mistakes, bc I was too exited. It is necessary to take into account that I am in Russia, of course, it all depends on your teacher and basic knowledge. The tests are of the same type, it is easy to calculate the answer only on the basics.
Btw I am now finishing the 4th year of a bachelor's degree in chemical technology, I haven't taught a single discipline for a day, but I still understand the subject more than many students.
As a result, everything depends more on your interest in discipline and even more on your mindset.

yes but it's absolutely infeasible
if you want to actually learn chemistry i suggest chemistry the central science it's got five authors whose names i forgot but it's like the bible for high school chemistry

My orgo Prof says not to memorize anything. Is he trolling me

>>16816486 (OP)
You can use shortcuts if you understand what you're doing or seeing, but I don't think you can completely ignore memorization. But it can be fun and very rewarding.

>>16816955
not if you know the "grand unifying theory¨TM" and can derive any formula you want from that

>>16816955
>that require memorization tho
On the same order of a few words a month. You can pretty much derive the entirety of an undergrad physics understanding from a mathematical physics text and the intro chapters of standard texts. That's pretty much all you need to do any problem you'll come across.
When I started my matsci PhD, I was actually kind of blown away by the sheer volume of shit my chemistry-trained peers had and how little it carried them. Meme fucking degree aside from the benchwork.

>>16816486 (OP)
No.
Some memorization will be required. If you rely exclusively on memorization, however, you won't learn much chemistry

>>16816525
You're on the wrong side of the dunning kreuger curve. Logically, it does make sense, but in practice, we don't have such a strong understanding of physics that we can simply calculate the results of chemical reactions. Thus, chemists must all rely on experimentalism..

>>16818320
>we don't have such a strong understanding of physics that we can simply calculate the results of chemical reactions
funnily enough, the solution to this is "we need a stronger understanding of physics" not "we need a stronger understanding of chemistry". the race is lost for chembros

>>16818320
Primal logic is your friend not your enemy

>>16818213
>not if you know the "grand unifying theory¨TM"
but you have to memorize that
I want understanding with zero brain activity

>>16816486 (OP)
start with learning butt and then advance into anus.

>>16819030
I dont think that is possible anon, having a shit memory and not wanting to use it precludes understanding. memory and reasoning work hand in hand to solve problems

>>16819030
>>16816486 (OP)
Knowing how to play music is a different process than learning music theory. I believe in you anon. You can do it.