The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Kallisto
Hello Tony and welcome in this Society! :smile:

Have you any special interest in Chemistry (like Peroxidation in terms of atoms and atomic structures).
Thank you in addition to also Organic chemistry and Inorganic chemistry
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by shady2.0
Thank you in addition to also Organic chemistry and Inorganic chemistry


I see. That is a huge range in chemistry. Anything where your interests are specialized? say saccharides, proteins or synthetic materials to name but a few?
Original post by Kallisto
I see. That is a huge range in chemistry. Anything where your interests are specialized? say saccharides, proteins or synthetic materials to name but a few?
Well i can say Transitional elements and Aromatic compounds
For a while, I have researched after particles just to get a clear sturcture of them - for the known ones (protons, electrons, neutrons and photons) at least.

As protons, neutrons and electrons are particles of materials, they are called fermions in general. The electrons have a light mass, they are counted to leptons. Neutrons and protons instead have a heavy mass, that is why they are baryons. Moreover, the nucleus of an atom consists of these particles, that is why they are called nucleons too. Protons and Neutrons are consists of quarks, mainly the up and down ones. These quarks in combination with (a protons for instance consists of two up quarks and one down quark) determine the property of a particle. So, is that right when the compound of these quarks in the inner of a particle (neutrons or protons) is changed, the property of these particles are changed too? so a proton can be turned into a neutron and vice versa, the charge included?! the subatomic particles which conncet the protons and neutrons to a nucleus are gluons. As photons are force carrier particles (because of quantised light energy) which are emitted to be accepted by another ones, namely electrons, they are guage bosons.

Of course the order of particle groups would be endless, if another particles (neutrinos, positrons and muons to name but a few), and another factors (spins and interactions) are considered. But in a raw explained way, are my thoughts right?
Original post by Ivan Yankov
Hello fellows

I am in a dramatic situation so any help would be greatly appreciated. Could you give me any suggestions of undergraduate courses which I can apply for using Chemistry and Physics as special subjects. I am desperate as most of the courses I like require mathatics and another science subject. Anything related to Chemistry, Physics, Pharmacology, Pharmacy, Nanotechnology, Genetics, science and engineering fields are of interest of me. Unfortunatly, only for few of them Chemistry and Physics are eligible for the application.
I hope someone has seen something or knows anything which could brind light in the tunnel.


Hi Ivan,

The UEA offers great undergraduate degrees in both Chemistry and Pharmacy, among other similar subjects, that may be of interest to you. Our Chemistry degree recently achieved a 97% student satisfaction rating from The Guardian, and our Pharmacy and other Science courses are offered with a range of variants including Pharmacy and Drug Discovery, Pharmacy with a Placement Year, and Natural Sciences with a Year Abroad.

Our students need A levels (or equivalent) in Chemistry and one other science subject to apply for most of these, so Physics can often be used for applications.

If you have any questions about studying at UEA, let us know!

Good luck,
Phenol, could get your head into the aromatic ring too lol
Me again!

Wow, that is really a lot what you have written about the particles. Know the Schroedinger equation. Have dealt with it yet, but it is too complex to understand every single essential of it. For me it is one of the most complicated equations which I have ever seen. If I am right, his equation consists of two operators, the hamilton and the time one. They are superordinated to two functions, namely the function of localisation (hamilton) and the function of the changing the quantum system (time). So in total, the equation describes the changing localisation of a particle in dependence to time. That is to say the particles is always changing the localisation in a quantum system to different moments of time. Right? is that the main point of that equation? have always try to understand it, but I am still a bit insecure. Perhaps you can help me?

Have just some question about that depiction of an atom model. Here is the picture . As far as I can see, the matter wave of an electron is depicted. As the electron is moving around the electron path, it comes to astanding wave where the amplitudes are swinging up and down. So it comes to the called to antinodes and nodes. Is that right that the antinodes are forming rooms where a particle might be to a certain moment of time to a certain propability? are these rooms present the quantum system named above? Does Schrödingers equation refer to that modell in particular?

Well, well. Some days ago. I have read so much interesting stuff. Have you ever heard about preons which should be the 'original' particles of quarks and leptons, so fermions? every single preon of the matter has the charge +1/3, while 0 stands for uncharged. The combination of these electric charges forms the charge of the particle and so the particle itself. Examples: a particle which has three preons has the charge +++, so +1 as total charge. That is an anti-electron (positron). Another particle has two preons, the combination is ++0, so +2/3 as total charge. That is an up quark. In terms of antimatter, every single preon has the charge -1/3. So three preons of antimatter has the charge - - -, that is -1 what belongs to an electron. Preons are not proved yet. If they are exist, they are smaller than 10^-19 m, otherwise they can't match in the inner of the quarks. That is why physicists are trying to find out whether the space of a quark has an extension. If this extension exist, it is possible that subparticles like preons might exist in quarks, thus the physicists have a strong argument for the existence of those particles.

Another interesting stuff is the neutrino oscillation. Imagine, a neutrino begin to oscillate after a certain distance which was covered. The greater the distance, the stronger the oscilattion of the neutrino. This oscillation changes the kind of neutrinos (called flavors) all the time while covering distances. That is to say a neutrino has completely different properties in different distances. That is to say a neutrino which is almost moving with light speed, has not a certain property. The properties of neutrinos depend on distances and so to moment of time, as the distances is dependent on moment of time. This is very interesting.

Sorry that I have not given an answer in time. Christmas and new year were in my way. If you want to reply, please quote me.
Reply 4107
It's important to note that the wavefunction which describes the system is always an eigenfunction of the Hamiltonian, with eigenvalue E, the total energy of the system which that eigenfuntion describes. I know that's pretty much what the Schrodinger equation says, but it's good to emphasise that point. Also it is important that the Hamiltonian, like the operators for every other physical observation, is a Hermitian operator, so only has real eigenvalues.
My fiancé has been wanting to pull this on the engineers at his workplace for a while! Would be brilliant to see who falls for it.

Also I am astounded by the level of knowledge you seem to have in your field (and rather jealous as I seem to have forgotten most of my chemical knowledge since graduating). Are you still studying?
Name: Spoderman14
Hobbies: Chemistry, Reading, Ultimate Frisbee
Where you live: Bath, UK
Current Studying level: A2
What you are studying: Chemistry, Physics, Further Maths
Why you like chem: Only subject I've discovered so far that's always engaging, always want to go a bit further into how and why something works, and unlike other subjects, this is always possible in chemistry.
Favorite subject: Chemistry
Hero(s): Ernest Rutherford
Fair enough, I was struggling around for names because I didn't want to put mendeleev like everyone else :wink:

I've yet to go to uni and learn chemistry in a non-sterile school curriculum environment, so I really don't know that much about nitrogen.
Exactly, they don't really go into much detail about anything in school, and again, that's why I wouldn't be able to give a particular area of chemistry that I have much more knowledge in than others.

However since reading why chemical reactions happen amongst other books, I do have a soft spot for MO theory, esp in conjunction with organic mechanisms.
Are you still interest in neutrinos? here are some sources which might be interesting for you:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/2004907_Neutrino_masses_and_particle_physics_beyond_the_standard_model
http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0011248.pdf

Hope that its not too sophisticated for you.
Wow that is amazing! I'm sure you'll excel in your studies when you get there!

Sometimes that's not a bad thing, but you do have to be careful as some things can often overlap so a good background knowledge can also help (I've found from experience anyway)
Name: Dana
Hobbies: Basketball, reading and video games
Current Studying level: A2
What you are studying: Chemistry, Biology and Maths
Why you like chem: It's logical and interesting with everything linked
Favourite subject: Kinetics and rates of reaction
Hero(s): idk
Original post by PlayerBB
Name: Dana
Hobbies: Basketball, reading and video games
Current Studying level: A2
What you are studying: Chemistry, Biology and Maths
Why you like chem: It's logical and interesting with everything linked
Favourite subject: Kinetics and rates of reaction
Hero(s): idk


Hello Dana(PlayerBB) and welcome to the chemistry society! have a nice time in this thread. Are you reading (professional) magazines about chemistry/sciences like me? if (reaction) kinetics is one of your favorite subjects, you surely know the name W. Ostwald?!
Original post by Kallisto
Hello Dana(PlayerBB) and welcome to the chemistry society! have a nice time in this thread. Are you reading (professional) magazines about chemistry/sciences like me? if (reaction) kinetics is one of your favorite subjects, you surely know the name W. Ostwald?!


Hey Kallisto :smile: hope I'll surely have! Yeah actually but not a certain magazine, I read anything I find interesting in the field of chemistry.
Yes indeed, he's a brilliant german chemist, I like his ideas as well the ideas of his cooperate founders of the physical chemistry, S.Arrhenius and Van't

Posted from TSR Mobile
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by PlayerBB
Hey Kallisto :smile: hope I'll surely have! Yeah actually but not a certain magazine, I read anything I find interesting in the field of chemistry.
Yes indeed, he's a brilliant german chemist, I like his ideas as well the ideas of his cooperate founders of the physical chemistry, S.Arrhenius and Van't


That sounds good. I am reading not only magazines about chemistry, but sciences in general. Would say Ostwald fits to your favorite topics in chemistry to be your 'hero'. And he made a great contribute in kinetics. He was one of the first chemist who made investigations in kinetics and found out how to influence it by using catalysts and got a nobel chemistry prize for that. Quite rightely in my opinion.

But it is so difficult to chose a single person, if there are a lot of (well known) chemist who desire a mention, right?. but thinking about the hall of fame carefully, would say my favorite is Linus Pauling. His orbital models has revolutionised our understanding for the structures, his fight against using atomic bombs for testing in cold war was both commendable and successful. Great scientist and a person with greater responsibility for people and our common future.
Original post by Kallisto
That sounds good. I am reading not only magazines about chemistry, but sciences in general. Would say Ostwald fits to your favorite topics in chemistry to be your 'hero'. And he made a great contribute in kinetics. He was one of the first chemist who made investigations in kinetics and found out how to influence it by using catalysts and got a nobel chemistry prize for that. Quite rightely in my opinion.

But it is so difficult to chose a single person, if there are a lot of (well known) chemist who desire a mention, right?. but thinking about the hall of fame carefully, would say my favorite is Linus Pauling. His orbital models has revolutionised our understanding for the structures, his fight against using atomic bombs for testing in cold war was both commendable and successful. Great scientist and a person with greater responsibility for people and our common future.


Hey, sorry for the late reply!
Yeah it's quite difficult to pick a hero when you got so many great scientists with great accomplishments. I admire what Ostwald has done, I really also admire the work of Van't Hoff, He discovered a new method for determining the order of reaction, He also introduced the concept of chemical affinity, as well investigating the theory of dissociation of electrolytes of Svante Arrhenius and provided the right physical justification for it, also he applied the laws of thermodynamics to chemical equilibria
Nice Hero choice, Yeah Linus has shown to be a responsible person and has defended his views, he desrves to be a hero
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by PlayerBB
Hey, sorry for the late reply!
Yeah it's quite difficult to pick a hero when you got so many great scientists with great accomplishments. I admire what Ostwald has done, I really also admire the work of Van't Hoff, He discovered a new method for determining the order of reaction, He also introduced the concept of chemical affinity, as well investigating the theory of dissociation of electrolytes of Svante Arrhenius and provided the right physical justification for it, also he applied the laws of thermodynamics to chemical equilibria
Nice Hero choice, Yeah Linus has shown to be a responsible person and has defended his views, he desrves to be a hero


I see, this is so interesting that I have a question: does his proved theory of dissociation of electrolytes has explained the working of the voltaic pile and the galvanic cell which were hundred years before invented to name but a few? or are there another scientists who have had the same theory (or a similar one at least?) like Arrhenius before?

Latest