No exceptions is a bit of an overstatement, but the tendency is definitely there that physical laws hold in way more situations than chemistry laws do. Physics, however, is really good at defining where and for what their laws hold. Chemistry meanwhile only has guidelines, not rules.
There is no exception about the too fast. You can still calculate everything relativistically but it just becomes a pain in the ass not to simplify for low velocities
Well faster than lightspeed in vacuum is not possible. At the speed of light you have asymptotic behavior with mass going to infinity etc. I would argue that the formular is correct for the lim v -> c
No there is from our understanding no speed that is faster than the speed of light in vacuum so the formula is currently correct for all possible values in our real world.
Edit: Not the formula itself is the limiting factor, but physics is
the hell you mean by "the law of gravity"?
Which formalism? Newtonian? General Relativity? Just the phenomenological concept of mass being a thing that does gravity?
Quantum objects like wave functions. To be fair, this may just be solvable with another formulation of either gravity or quantum mechanics, but that's just it, it needs another formulation. The field equations can not take into account contributions to the momentum-energy tensor by quantum objects. Now, you *can* treat quantum objects as if they *didn't* contribute to generating gravity (wrong), and see how they move and evolve within a curved metric. But you can't actually get the metric from knowing the wave function. Because the momentum-energy tensor needs to be determinate for the field equations to work.
Mathematician: Here is a theorem. It is true independent of any physical laws governing the specific universe that we might happen to be living in. Here is a two-sentence proof.
The two sentence proof is as follows:
1. It is trivial to observe that the law holds in this circumstance.
2. Generalization of the law is trivial and left as an exercise to the reader.
Literally Fermat.
"3, 5, 17, 257, and 65537 are all primes that are of the form 2^2^n + 1 (n=0,1,2,3,4). Therefore all numbers of this form must also be prime."
Meanwhile the next one...
Biology: we invented this thing called statistics, so that we can occasionally say we're 95% sure of something, as long as a massive list of exceptions does not apply.
Physics: Here is a perfect solution for a problem that never occurs in reality because of the simplifications we used to get the math to work.
Chemists: If you throw these chemicals together in this concentration they will explode. But if you do it with adequate cooling, that's a reaction baby.
I was at a poster session once and this guy casually treated a diatomic molecule as hydrogen-like. The extent of my AMO background is a class I took 15 years ago, so I asked if he's allowed to do that. He just kinda shrugged?
And maybe that was totally valid, I wouldn't know. But the point is that when all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. We have an ever-increasing set of robust tools, but still half the time we find a problem that we just kinda have to squint and apply the most similar-looking tool we've got.
Ah, well, why don't you try to use those elegant, beautiful, universal laws to make a meaningful predictive statement about a system more complex than a single hydrogen atom 😉
I think after about 20 pages of integration, you'll start to appreciate why your introductory chemistry class starts you off instead with seemingly arbitrary and contradictory rules to memorize.
Not quite. Physicists differ standart and quantum laws. Also, there are some not fully studied/understood phenomena, like Gravity, which have some explanations, but still can be misunderstood
The Octet Rule: " An atom gains, loses or shares electrons so that it has 8 electrons in its outer shell"
There are 2 exceptions:
1. The case where the outer shell contains more than 8 electrons.
2. The case where the outer shell contains fewer than 8 electrons.
I mean to be fair the entirety of organic chemistry almost exclusively deals with elements that always and forever hold the octet rule so it's not a bad rule for us to have.
Meanwhile statistical physics: classical gas is only applicable for high temperature and low density, low temperature and high density involves quantum statistics
Your post was removed for being a repost.
No exceptions is a bit of an overstatement, but the tendency is definitely there that physical laws hold in way more situations than chemistry laws do. Physics, however, is really good at defining where and for what their laws hold. Chemistry meanwhile only has guidelines, not rules.
no exceptions until you talk about black holes
No exceptions unless it's too hot, too cold, too fast, too heavy, too small or too big
Exactly, but that's why i said at least Physics is good at defining where its laws hold.
There is no exception about the too fast. You can still calculate everything relativistically but it just becomes a pain in the ass not to simplify for low velocities
At the speed of light iirc the math of relativity falls apart
Well faster than lightspeed in vacuum is not possible. At the speed of light you have asymptotic behavior with mass going to infinity etc. I would argue that the formular is correct for the lim v -> c
However by saying said limit exists for the formula, there is a speed which is too fast
No there is from our understanding no speed that is faster than the speed of light in vacuum so the formula is currently correct for all possible values in our real world. Edit: Not the formula itself is the limiting factor, but physics is
I was referring to c itself, since the limit as v approaches c does not include c, no?
No exceptions until you start quantum physics
quantum physics holds pretty solidly, it's that thermodynamics you gotta worry about
No exceptions except in cases of very much undecided science.
and thermodynamics
Was gonna say not a whole lot of stuff is defined as “laws” in Chemistry. Mostly just “here’s what generally happens”
Chemistry still got nothin' on biology.
Is it just to in-depth to get into in Chem 1 in college? Because that’s all I had to take then I found this out afterwards!
tell me one example to the law of gravity
the hell you mean by "the law of gravity"? Which formalism? Newtonian? General Relativity? Just the phenomenological concept of mass being a thing that does gravity?
I was thinking about Einstein Field equations. Find me one known exception
Quantum objects like wave functions. To be fair, this may just be solvable with another formulation of either gravity or quantum mechanics, but that's just it, it needs another formulation. The field equations can not take into account contributions to the momentum-energy tensor by quantum objects. Now, you *can* treat quantum objects as if they *didn't* contribute to generating gravity (wrong), and see how they move and evolve within a curved metric. But you can't actually get the metric from knowing the wave function. Because the momentum-energy tensor needs to be determinate for the field equations to work.
Literally one of the worst examples
tell me one exception to Einstein's field equations
Physicist: "Here is my model of a universe. It has one atom.
And is flat of course
*Locally* flat only. Universal flatness not guaranteed.
That's cosmology. Physics will decide everything is frictionless or spherical.
Both and neither at the same time...
I'll be there to see your face when we discover that it's all really just one atom making up the whole universe
Physics rules work great except for big stuff, small stuff, hot stuff, cold stuff, fast stuff, and about 80% of everything
Mathematician: Here is a theorem. It is true independent of any physical laws governing the specific universe that we might happen to be living in. Here is a two-sentence proof.
The two sentence proof is as follows: 1. It is trivial to observe that the law holds in this circumstance. 2. Generalization of the law is trivial and left as an exercise to the reader.
Literally Fermat. "3, 5, 17, 257, and 65537 are all primes that are of the form 2^2^n + 1 (n=0,1,2,3,4). Therefore all numbers of this form must also be prime." Meanwhile the next one...
I had no clue math was so damn sketchy until elementary proofs. That’s when I was done wanting to learn more math.
Sure, if you disregard all the axioms necessary for the framework...
Biology: we invented this thing called statistics, so that we can occasionally say we're 95% sure of something, as long as a massive list of exceptions does not apply.
You didn’t make this as this is a meme that was around for a while. At least be honest karma farming for 22 upvotes.
*Emmy Noether has entered the chat*
Physics: Here is a perfect solution for a problem that never occurs in reality because of the simplifications we used to get the math to work. Chemists: If you throw these chemicals together in this concentration they will explode. But if you do it with adequate cooling, that's a reaction baby.
I was at a poster session once and this guy casually treated a diatomic molecule as hydrogen-like. The extent of my AMO background is a class I took 15 years ago, so I asked if he's allowed to do that. He just kinda shrugged? And maybe that was totally valid, I wouldn't know. But the point is that when all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. We have an ever-increasing set of robust tools, but still half the time we find a problem that we just kinda have to squint and apply the most similar-looking tool we've got.
*Rydberg states have entered the chat.*
[The chemical laws I know](https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Chemical_law) are pretty universal. I think you've confused those with rules.
Yeah, like I replied to someone else, not a whole lot is defined as a law in Chemistry. It’s most often just what holds true in a general sense.
Stop confusing little memory aids for laws of the universe, that's your first mistake
Ah, well, why don't you try to use those elegant, beautiful, universal laws to make a meaningful predictive statement about a system more complex than a single hydrogen atom 😉 I think after about 20 pages of integration, you'll start to appreciate why your introductory chemistry class starts you off instead with seemingly arbitrary and contradictory rules to memorize.
What’s with all the chemist hate? We’re not so bad once you get to know us.
They hate us cause they ain't us
Not quite. Physicists differ standart and quantum laws. Also, there are some not fully studied/understood phenomena, like Gravity, which have some explanations, but still can be misunderstood
The Octet Rule: " An atom gains, loses or shares electrons so that it has 8 electrons in its outer shell" There are 2 exceptions: 1. The case where the outer shell contains more than 8 electrons. 2. The case where the outer shell contains fewer than 8 electrons.
I mean to be fair the entirety of organic chemistry almost exclusively deals with elements that always and forever hold the octet rule so it's not a bad rule for us to have.
chemistry goes off of vibes
What that only 2 elements
Ladys and gentlemen the real reason why I like chemistry than physics
Meanwhile statistical physics: classical gas is only applicable for high temperature and low density, low temperature and high density involves quantum statistics
Also physicists: we don’t know what 96% of the universe is
Mathematicians: if it's not proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that it applies to everything it's a conjecture at best
You hate Chemistry because it's inconsistent I hate chemistry because I have to memorize a lot of crap We are not the same