Is pic related the best general chemistry book out there?

You might also want the more innocuous answer that there simply hasn't been a strong voice within the chemistry educators community to revamp the teaching of chemistry like in the way there's been pressure within the mathematics community. You'd think that after a hundred years, educators would have, either on their own or working with psychologists, compiled the most common errors in student thinking, solved how to correct them as broadly as possible, and perhaps present the material in as systematic and as connected fashion as possible. But unfortunately this has not yet happened.

We really only need one authoritative bible on practical chemistry, lab chemistry, chem engineering, plus the thin sheet of theory needed to steer the future of chemistry in one direction. If someone like Assange or Bill Gates promoted such a work, and through common word of mouth, the future of chemistry will be forever changed, in the way Frye became the single most insightful modern literary critic, and students will no longer need to struggle with the likes of Tro, Brown, Chang, and so on.

There are manuals like this in Latin American countries, but they're too focused on illegal drug production. I don't know. Maybe one of the lab books, could be coupled with a book on household chemistry, a book of cultural chemistry, and a few other works.

I'm not quite so sure how revolutionary it would be. To be honest with you, mid-level chemistry books are pretty good. Clayden for organic chemistry, Lehninger for biochemistry, Mcquarrie for physical chemistry, and Miessler for inorganic chemistry... you legitimately can't go wrong. Besides, there's a lot of difference in scope between chemical engineering and chemistry, considering that in-depth understanding of molecular forces in a lab scenario is downplayed and in-depth understanding of broad reactive forces (mainly kinetics, thermodynamics, etc.) in mass production is highlighted in chemical engineering.

What I think would be incredibly helpful is a general chemistry book that fast-tracks students into understanding the microscopic realm and the physics, energetics, thermodynamics, etc., behind it without being convoluted, so kids can develop an understanding of how matter interactions work and how to apply it. That would make chemistry be a lot more interesting than what people normally see it. Maybe they should make decent chemistry kits for kids then too.

organic chemistry helped structure my thoughts on determinism

I feel that, while chemistry relies on a lot of physics to understand its foundations, it is equally as fundamental to understanding how the universe works in a way that biology can never be. Main concepts I'd hope that a general chemistry course could drive home:

>How physical principles are responsible for the features of each atom and the differences in features between elements.

>How two atoms or more atoms interact with each other, in physical interactions such as collision or bonding, can be reduced to physical properties interacting with each other in unique ways.

>How the aggregate properties of atoms within a molecule, alongside fundamental mathematical and physical principles such as thermodynamics and kinetics, determine how molecules interact with one another.

>How large numbers of molecules form the substances that we interact with everyday and their properties, from the atmospheric gases we breathe to the hemoglobin that nourishes our cells.

>The limits of knowledge in understanding how EXACTLY step-by-step mechanisms in chemistry work (minute-by-minute account, the content and order of the steps, etc.).

>Combining all of those concepts into a holistic, intuitive, and quantitative understanding of how matter works, making connections between all of the points, with further practical applications now that one understands what is possibly out there and how to deal with it.

Once you can begin to visualize reactions on a step-by-step basis, the properties involved from the top-down and the ground-up, and how to use this knowledge to investigate the world around you, then you have a solid grasp of chemistry.

To be honest I tried Paulig's general Chemistry and if you can go through it thoroughly you'll be sure to have an excellent grasp of the subject. It is however, not the most recent in terms of discoveries, but you'd want to read up on research papers for that.

>We really only need one authoritative bible on practical chemistry, lab chemistry, chem engineering, plus the thin sheet of theory needed to steer the future of chemistry in one direction

I think you underestimate the breadth of these fields.

i think you underestimate how much of a nerd bitch you are

this thread inspired me to enroll in general chemistry this fall

ITT: better discussions on chemistry than Veeky Forums

I've had it in my library for 15 years. Just the other day I took it off the shelf and read part of it for the first time (the bit about vitamins). Now I know that vitamins behave differently depending on the animal involved, and the notion of a "vitamin" isn't a single molecule-such-and-such, but rather how certain sets of things interact with a given organism's body.

Also the guy has two fucking nobel prizes and even though the nobel peace prize is a sham, I am still inclined to defer to the text of some fuck who got two of the fuckers. He's clearly doing something right.

A small lament for the central science. I don't know why chemistry is the forgotten third of the three hard sciences.

People remember physics for Newton and Einstein, biology for Darwin, sometimes Watson and Crick. But they don't remember chemistry for Pauling, and they sure as hell don't remember it for Lavoisier.

How do chemistryfags visualize chemistry?

Do you mostly see the mathematical relationships in your head, or diagrams, or do you picture macro visuals like different things mixing together, or do you picture micro visuals like the different molecules interacting and doing their little dance and your brain extrapolates that to what is happening in the whole mixture?

Mostly that. For example, a good general chemistry practice is realizing that an aqueous ionic compound, in reality, is dissociated in solution. This makes it free to easily react with other ionic compounds, increases the entropy of the solution, can possibly create new compounds with unique properties that affect the solutions (like weak acids and bases), etc. It generally depends on the kind of problem, though. Are you trying to understand the kinetics of the solution? Probably more like the former abstract calculations. Are you trying to understand how two molecules will interact thanks to structure? Probably the latter visualizations.

you're learning chemistry, not playing around in a high school lab or making bombs. Chemistry isn't "wow i put these substances that are components of other substances none of which i understand and they make boom boom"

you're on Veeky Forums, not being a real success sparking discussion with today's finest minds. Literature isn't "wow i can make stupid responses that completely misread posts, none of which i understand, and hope the shitpost bait make boom boom"

my point still stands, especially with this cringey post there was no chemistry discussion in this thread at all

There was plenty of meta-chemistry discussion in this thread. Nobody is going to want to sperg out over nucleophilic substitutions unless they're doing homework.

you had neither a point nor anything to stand on

you yourself are an excellent expose on the reality of cancer

If you weren't such a brainlet you could figure all that out on your own with the basic principles you're taught.

Easy Mode: Chemistry The Central Science by Brown & LeMay

Hard Mode: Principles of Modern Chemistry by David W. Oxtoby

>or do you picture micro visuals like the different molecules interacting and doing their little dance and your brain extrapolates that to what is happening in the whole mixture?
This but the 'dance' itself is mathematically described. Organic chemistry requires far more visual abstraction than other branches so much that you don't a lot of maths to describe or understand what is happening

Good recommendations. I would also add that Chemical Principles by Peter Atkins is also a good alternative to Oxtoby.

What intellectual traits makes someone good at chemistry? I imagine it's somewhat similar to math but without the rigor and abstraction. The logic of math skills mixed with memory of a biologist? It seems like a lot of chemistry, at the novice level, is would be following logical steps and a good degree of left brained creativity

I've heard math students treat organic chemistry mechanisms as fuzzy proofing. I imagine that a good chemist would have to have decent thinking skills across the board, since you have to be cognizant of a lot of different factors like an engineer, but visualization skills stand out.

Really depends on what branch you are interested in. However for lab you need to be extremely self critical and 'paranoid' to reduce potential risk to your safety and quality of experiment.