Reddit reviews Physical Chemistry: A Molecular Approach
We found 17 Reddit comments about Physical Chemistry: A Molecular Approach. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
Used Book in Good Condition
All of the books I can see from top to bottom on Amazon:
Books & Speakers | Price (New)
---|---
Elements of Chemical Reaction Engineering (4th Edition) | $122.84
Molecular Thermodynamics | $80.17
Physical Chemistry: A Molecular Approach | $89.59
Quantum Physics of Atoms, Molecules, Solids, Nuclei, and Particles | $128.32
Introduction to Chemical Engineering Thermodynamics (The Mcgraw-Hill Chemical Engineering Series) | $226.58
Organic Chemistry 8th Edition | $186.00
Elementary Differential Equations | $217.67
Numerical Methods for Engineers, Sixth Edition | $200.67
Applied Partial Differential Equations | $20.46
Transport Phenomena, 2nd Edition | $85.00
Basic Engineering Data Collection and Analysis | $239.49
Calculus (9th Edition) | $146.36
Elementary Principles of Chemical Processes, 3rd Edition | $206.11
Inorganic Chemistry (4th Edition) | $100.00
Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer | $197.11
Biochemistry: A Short Course, 2nd Edition | $161.45
Separation Process Principles: Chemical and Biochemical Operations | $156.71
University Physics with Modern Physics (13th Edition) | $217.58
Speakers | $50.00
Most you can get is $1476.86 (selling all of the books (used and hard cover) in person), and if you sell it on Amazon, they take around 15% in fees, so you'll still get $1255.33. But wait...if you sell it to your university's book store, best they can do is $.01.
Total cost: $2832.11 (including speakers)
Net loss: -$1355.25 (books only). If sold on Amazon, net loss: -$1576.78 (books only). Speakers look nice; I wouldn't sell them.
Edit: Added the two books and the table. /u/The_King_of_Pants gave the price of speakers. ¡Muchas gracias para el oro! Reminder: Never buy your books at the bookstore.
Edit 2: Here are most of the books on Library Genesis
Thanks to /u/WhereToGoTomorrow
It sounds like on one hand you want a historical context for how quantum mechanics came to be, and on the other you want a proof for what are wholly postulated (and thus unprovable) laws. Do you have the same complaints about Newton's Laws? Those are also postulated, but since we can observe them on the spatial and temporal scales we have evolved to experience unaided, they seem more intuitive. If we could instead see the wave nature of the quantum world all the time, Newton's Laws might be equally baffling to ponder. In short, the Schrodinger Equation is no more or less provable than F = ma. We only have their consistent success in reproducing observable phenomena to put stock in.
With that said, the onset of quantum mechanics was a necessary solution to observed phenomena that could not be accounted for with classical laws (for instance, black-body radiation, Young's double slit experiment or Einstein's photoelectric effect). There are six postulates which govern quantum mechanics at its roots, and these are not provable (again, much like Newton's Laws). The only reason these postulates are taken to be laws is that they reproduce everything we can observe on the quantum scale (although, as you learn more about these you will see a certain logic to their necessity, but no formal proof).
As for your question about the imaginary part of the wave function, you should know from calculus that all wave functions have imaginary character via Euler's Relation. If you want to use trig functions, the complex exponential comes along for the ride--and in fact, makes many quantum problems way more approachable than the traditional sine/cosine formulation. The necessity of squaring the wave function (actually, you are multiplying by its complex conjugate) stems from this issue--a complex number has no physical meaning, but by squaring it, you are making the value real.
As for your question about momentum--check out Table 1 in the postulates link above. Momentum is one of a number of Hermitian operators that can operate on your wave function to return a value for an observable phenomenon. Thus, if you determine the wave function for a system of interest, you can operate on that wave function with one of these operators, and you will get back an eigenvalue in front of your wave function that corresponds to an observable phenomenon. This is perhaps a good time to point out that there is not "a wave equation" but rather uncountably many wave equations that govern different systems under different conditions. In fact, the only wave function we can derive analytically is that of the hydrogen atom. Once you introduce more than one electron, their interactions with each other as well as the nucleus need to be solved numerically (by making certain approximations, for instance that the nuclei are fixed in space, since their motion is so much slower than that of the electrons).
I'm sure this is an incomplete answer to your question, and the truth is it takes a long time to wrap your head around what I've discussed here--and this is only scratching the surface of the state of the art. Let me know if I can clarify anything further.
EDIT: I suggest the first 8 chapters of this book for a more complete, coherent introduction to what you are asking about.
This is the book that was used in my physical chemistry class. I enjoyed it quite a bit as it is written very well and the practice problems help quite a bit. The book is extremely thorough when going through all of the derivations of equations and give pretty good logical explanations while going through the problems as long as you understand how the algebra and calculus works. The biggest con with it however is that the figures which go along with some of the book can be quite difficult to understand the first time you are looking at them. The book can also be quite dry at times. Because of this, I had also picked up the Atkins book because I found it used for cheap on amazon. The Atkins book is a bit less dry and the figures are way more pleasant to look at, however it seems to be a little less in depth than the McQuarrie book.
No matter which book you choose to go with just be aware that the class can be extremely difficult for people and the most important thing is to make sure you are putting a lot of time into the class. It might be worthwhile to find a decent calculus review and to go through it before taking the class if you feel at all lacking in that department. If you do this you will succeed and possibly even really enjoy the class. I was incredibly nervous going in to the class but it turned out to be one of my favorite classes I took my entire undergrad.
I think more than just an issue with simplicity or difficulty this is a matter or feasibility. A grad student could easily get their dissertation doing this project for just one molecule. However if you're serious about this let me give you some advice.
Here are some books and resources that will catch you up McQuarrie, Cramer, Marcus Theory, and all things Mukamel for electron transfer.
Good luck!
[EDIT]: As far as temperature goes, that's a concern more so for the effects on a classical level, so you need a MD or semi-empirical system with a good forcefield defined.
McQuarrie is quite well-regarded. I like it.
Don't be too nervous, it's the biggest weed out class and gets a bad reputation for this alone. Perhaps many students who like the idea of chemistry and are not comfortable in math are talking. The fact you're even trying to get ahead means you're the type of student that will be okay. Think of it like a math class for chemistry, outside practice is required.
I can only speak for the thermo semester, I'm finishing that up right now and doing quantum in the fall. Brush up on calc III partial derivatives, specifically with fractions. You'll probably dive head first into gas law partials if thermo is your first semester. They're not even that complex, you just have to be methodical/neat when doing them. Also integration, look up the derivations of root mean square, mean speed etc. If your'e iffy on integration, practice those too.
​
Resources that really helped me:
If the Atkin's book doesn't cut it, usually another university's website will have plenty of material that explains it in other words, just need to Google it.
​
As mentioned, it's a math class for chemistry. Go to the back of the book and solve all different types of problems. Write down on the paper, in english, what a step means if you don't understand initially why it happens. I used Chegg to backwards engineer most problems, wrote down The Why, and then owned the problem solving approach for the future.
​
I only have one more test/ACS final left, I have over a 100% average right now and an A in lab while taking 21 credits with research, tutoring etcetc everyone will have an excuse why it sucks. I'm not inherently good at math either, I just practice. It's all doable, you just need to work some on your own and ask your professor a million questions. They will likely be so smart they don't realize they skip things. They may also be happy someone gives a damn in that class.
Sorry for the long response, but I hope this helps. I often feel dragged down by my peers complaining or instilling fear for classes, just do your own thing.
We used McQuarrie and Simon and I loved it. Not sure if the fact that I was a ChemE major makes a difference in my preferred textbook, but I thought it was great.
It also has a solution guide that I found to be helpful many times for learning how to approach problems.
For physical chemistry, I recommend [this big red brick book](
http://www.amazon.com/Physical-Chemistry-Molecular-Donald-McQuarrie/dp/0935702997) by McQuarrie and Simon. For catalysis, I like this book by Kolasinski.
Similarly, McQuarrie Physical Chemistry may be helpful.
At my school, pchem was divided into a first semester which covered the quantum chemistry of individual atoms/molecules, and a second semester which used some of these quantum ideas (but mostly statistics and thermo) to talk about the statistical mechanics of collections of particles. I believe that McQuarrie's Physical Chemistry covers both, but note that the "mathematical review" sections are just brief interludes. For a more thorough treatment of math methods for physical scientists, consider the Mary Boas book. This book mostly focuses on physics applications, but from my experience in pchem, I would argue that it's just a very "applied" or "specific" version of quantum (or thermal, E&M, etc.) physics.
Also, for quantum chem, it is of utmost importance to be familiar with matrices, vectors, and ideally some of the more fancy portions of a first course in linear algebra, like bases and diagonalization. Although the relative importance of calculus/DE vs. linear algebra might depend on whether your course follows a "Schrodinger" vs. "Heisenberg" (not the Walter White one) approach, respectively.
This is a really great book. Not sure how "undergraduate" it is. But I'm not sure just how undergraduate chemical kinetics, as subject all to its own, is either. The mathematics is not the simplest.
But this book will cover any topic. It's very thorough.
I'd also recommend McQuarrie's PChem book. It has a very clear section on kinetics. And it's my favorite PChem book, but only just nudging out Atkins.
Do a lot of problems. Doing problems helps more than studying your notes.
Also, fuck the textbook they assign. Get this one, it's by far the best pchem book. It does an excellent job of teaching the math and the theory.
http://www.amazon.com/Physical-Chemistry-A-Molecular-Approach/dp/0935702997/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1375808822&sr=8-1&keywords=physical+chemistry+a+molecular+approach
Finally, learn to derive the equations. Even if you aren't tested on derivations, it really helps you grok the material and how all the pieces relate.
See if you can pick up a copy of the textbook before hand, and look through it, and see what you need to learn/ brush up on for the subjects. If they haven't posted a booklist yet, email the professor, they will likely be willing to tell you. If not, take a look at McQuarry, It's a pretty standard book for the course.
As much as I absolutely loved that book, I would not suggest it for OP if they are not familiar with relatively end-stage calculus (there are a number of partial derivatives in there) and quantum theory. It is true that the thermodynamics might help, but even people within my own class of chemistry students at my university struggled to grasp the text. Again, this depends entirely on what OP's learning style.
If, on the other hand, OP is desiring some stimulation from the world of physical chemistry, especially from the aspect of organic chemistry (which I assume to be the next step in OP's studies) would be the Anslyn text Modern Physical Organic Chemistry. It is advanced mind you and assumes some understanding in organic and physical chemistry, but it is a very stimulating approach to both and I would highly recommend both as future reading and as a book simply to keep around - it is quite good.
Again, if OP has a solid mathematical background, the McQuarrie text really is great - one of my favorite texts until my current program.
If OP is looking for something truly interesting that, again, will help to solidify everything they learn as they progress, I would recommend (against most everyone's opinion, partially including my own due to Housecraft's overabundance of fluff) the Inorganic Chemistry by Housecraft. Again, some of this is relatively advanced, but it contains information that is extremely satisfying and, personally, helped to solidify many of the concepts I had learned leading up to that point in my undergraduate career.
If you have some desires, please post more, OP! Nice to hear people in those years are interested in stimulating their own education! Best of luck!
As you get through certain concepts in lecture, do the corresponding problems in the ACS guide. They give pretty good explanations.
My PChem prof used Engel and Reid and it's pretty readable that you should be OK. If you really want another text to draw from I'd look into McQuarrie's text aka "The Big Red Brick".
Have you had any physics? It's normally required for a P-Chem class. Perhaps starting with physics would help you with the regular p-chem textbooks? The P-Chem textbook I see recommended the most here is probably this one, but it isn't really biology based.
The class was called In depth Physical Chemistry 2, we did the first 6 weeks of the lab with additional math specifically for the class. Linear and matrix algebra stuff, PDEs mainly for Schrodinger Equation, Laplace, stuff like that. It was Quantum, then we did 4 weeks of statistical mechanics, mainly related to gases(rms and such). We covered up to group theory stuff, did the variation theorem for determining energy.
The degree is ACS Materials Chemistry if you want to look it up.
My tutor was a PhD Computational Physics student, he said my material was a combination of his Quantum mechanics classes and modern physics classes.
My textbook was "Physical Chemistry, A Molecular Approach" By McQuarrie and Simon.
https://www.amazon.com/Physical-Chemistry-Molecular-Donald-McQuarrie/dp/0935702997/ref=sr_1_1?crid=104CZMDKGH520&keywords=physical+chemistry+a+molecular+approach&qid=1571241383&sprefix=physical+chemistry+a+mol%2Caps%2C128&sr=8-1
> The bra-ket notation is literally just a way of notating linear algebra. The math doesn't change because of how you write it down.
You've obviously never taken a quantum mechanics class. It's taught as one or the other. I'm not arguing it's different, hence why I said the bra-ket "notation". It's simply the way chemists and physicists prefer to represent the schrodinger equation because it makes their math look better for their most commonly used applications.
I present to you, a perfect example.
This here is a book generally used by chemists when being taught quantum mechanics.
https://www.amazon.com/Physical-Chemistry-Molecular-Donald-McQuarrie/dp/0935702997
And now here is a book generally used by physicists when being taught the same thing.
https://www.amazon.com/Principles-Quantum-Mechanics-R-Shankar-ebook/dp/B000SEIXA2
Do you see how one book works almost exclusively in the linear algebra space while the other works almost exclusively using bra-ket notation? It's a choice, made by professors. Yes, you can learn both, it's not hard. This is why I know you've never taken a quantum mechanics class because this is made extraordinarily clear to everybody in the class. "These two things teach you the same stuff but in different ways. We choose to use this way."
> As for physical chemistry defining how everything works, how much particle physics do you do as a physical chemist?
Well considering I'm a spectroscopist, and a mechanist, quite a bit actually. And sure, I'm sure particle theory absolutely can explain pretty much everything.... in the longest most roundabout way possible. I wasn't aware, however, that the interactions of quarks (other than the electron....) came into play for the typical, everyday chemical reactions that occur constantly. In fact, are there not very few reactions that humans can achieve that actually have enough energy to split a proton or neutron into their constituent parts? I'm pretty sure that once the big bang cooled down everything pretty much settled into the subatomic particles we know and love today. So I mean, unless you plan on replicating the types of heat seen in the big bang.... that level of detail is... well... superfluous. Sure, it MAY be useful in SOME nuclear reactions, but even then, not always. If particle theory explained everything, why is it not used to explain everything? Go on.... explain. I'm waiting.
Also I find it funny that you assume that we didn't learn about subatomic particles smaller than the proton and the neutron. We simply know that they aren't really that useful for most normal situations. In theory? Sure. In reality? No. We're chemists, not theorists. We get shit done.
> Edit: it's also worth noting that bra-ket notation is typically introduced at the undergraduate level of quantum mechanics.
Congratulations! You've discovered the meaning of the word "introduced!"