Chemistry really soothes my autism, but I don't really like

>>8513058

What's your math level, chem level, and physics level?

>>8513058
quantum chemistry by mcquarrie is bretty good

>>8513092
0 in all 3, well HS level math

>>8513301
i take it back don't read mcquarrie then lol

>>8513311
Anything else for my level?

>>8513317
quantum/physical chemistry isn't exactly my field so I can't really say. A lot of it hinges on a good understanding of calculus so until you get there you're out of luck.

The physics of chemistry can be explained classically for some processes but most chemistry relies on quantum physics which is way out of your depth at the moment.

If you're really interested i uploaded a mcquarrie chapter on harmonic oscillators which explains a lot of infrared spectroscopy, idk what math level you're at in high school but if there's stuff you don't understand you can probably still get something out of it

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/yl1pvx4syhhsn7s/AAAfOa9hJPHKeOQf3fhPDzZWa?dl=0

>>8513341
Appreciated, although I might need some good intro physical and chemistry books. Any recommendations?

>>8513355
Atkins Physical chemistry textbook is 'the standard', although I was never a big textbook person so I can't comment on how good it is. Just widely used.

File: Required Reading.png (3MB, 1360x2765px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1360x2765px

>>8513317

>>8513412
>Keisler
it's a good thing nobody who gets memed into believing these images actually reads the books

>>8513425

Infinitesimals belong in calculus education. It was a mistake to get rid of them.

>>8513447
Infinitesimals are just an intuitive way to explain calculus right?
Do they have any real uses?

>>8513499
There are more rigorous definitions for "infinitesimals" such as "dx" that are useful in general relativity and more advanced QM.

>>8513412
>No orgo or inorganic specialized books
He wants to learn chemistry not obtain a meme degree

>>8514629
I like cooking and distilling as much as everyone else, but please don't pretend that organic/inorganic chemistry aren't literal memes too.
the only non-meme fields of chemistry are physical chemistry and physical organic chemistry.

File: 1479817948700.jpg (35KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 640x480px

>>8513311
McQuarrie actually has math chapters which explain the relevant subjects.

>>8513317
If you want a less math intensive, more intuitive (and take that with a grain of salt for QM) then go for Atkins and DePaula. I'm using both for my current Pchem class and enjoying the hell out of them. Atkins is nice because it has great diagrams and application sections at the end of each chapter which are pretty fascinating.

McQuarrie is much more mathematically rigorous, and it has excellent end of chapter problems.

>>8513317

You can warm up to QM with probability and linear algebra. Focus more on probability to start. QM is not as difficult as everyone makes it out to be. High school math is fine to start with. A lot of the reason QM gets a bad rep is because of the string theory lobby and other speculators who don't contribute to experimental accuracy; they benefit from mass confusion. If you want a level headed explanation of QM I recommend viascience on youtube. Good entry level explanation. Only need high school math to understand.