How would you describe briefly your own mental modeling of chemistry?

[pellis]

TL;DR Summary

Can you post a non-trivial summary of how you conceive the fundamentals of chemistry, in physico-chemical terms, in max. 150 words, without using AI assistance?

I'm interested to see how others think about chemistry overall, somewhat like mathematician Jacques Hadamard’s famous survey of leading mathematicians and theoretical physicists "An Essay on the Psychology of Invention in the Mathematical Field" (1945) in which he reported that e.g. Einstein said he sometimes thought kinaesthetically (with his muscles), which makes a sort of sense if you're trying to conceptualise curved spacetime.

Recently, after pondering an unfamiliar area of chemistry, I came to a clearer understanding of my own, which I outlined using only 109 words, and would be interested to learn how others might describe, briefly, their own mental model of the core aspects of chemistry.

I will post mine, written without assistance, following the first three relevant replies here.

 

[Mayhem]

Define "fundamentals of chemistry".

 

[pellis]

Define "fundamentals of chemistry".

Thank you for your interest, Mayhem

That's more or less what I'm asking you to do, rather than bias your approach with my own preconceptions beyond the indications already given above:

- "your own mental modeling"
- "how you conceive [the fundamentals of] chemistry, in physico-chemical terms, "
- "how [others] think about chemistry overall"
- "core aspects of chemistry".

The wording of my post was considered carefully beforehand.

You might like to draft something for yourself about chemistry and then refer back to the question?

It's not meant to be particularly difficult, especially for someone using the handle "Mayhem"

Regards - P

 

[TensorCalculus]

Thank you for your interest, Mayhem

That's more or less what I'm asking you to do, rather than bias your approach with my own preconceptions beyond the indications already given above:

- "your own mental modeling"
- "how you conceive [the fundamentals of] chemistry, in physico-chemical terms, "
- "how [others] think about chemistry overall"
- "core aspects of chemistry".

The wording of my post was considered carefully beforehand.

You might like to draft something for yourself about chemistry and then refer back to the question?

It's not meant to be particularly difficult, especially for someone using the handle "Mayhem"

Regards - P

I still have to agree with @Mayhem that you've defined what you mean by "fundamentals of chemistry" vaguely.

What are you looking for when you mean "fundamentals of chemistry"? It's a highly subjective term... to a Middle school student "fundamentals" may look very different from what someone with a PHD in Chemistry might consider "fundamentals". Someone who has studied chemistry through the lens of physics might see different things as "fundamentals" to someone who has studied it through the lens of biology. And while I know you want different opinions, don't you think this is too much disparity?

Maybe it would do good for you to post your example here, and you can put it in a spoiler tag so that if anyone is worried that looking at your opinion will bias theirs, they don't have to. If I get some idea of what you're looking for, I'll be happy to give writing one a shot. But right now your instructions are a bit... vague.

 

[pellis]

Thank you for your suggestions, TensorCalculus

On reflection, I will leave the challenge in place for a week, to see if anyone has the confidence to offer their own unprompted view of how they think about chemistry.

If I refine the specification further then I will effectively be guiding contributors on how to answer it.

And if I display my own view first then I suspect replies would focus only on differences from my own view (which likely will be many), rather than others’ own consolidated views.

I aim to refine my conception of chemistry by comparing views that may be quite different from my own.

And I hope that others may also find any diversity of views instructive too.

 

[Mayhem]

My advisor explained something to me related to a project involving transition metal complexes of EDTA-type chelators, and mentioned how it builds on the "Irving-Williams series, this really fundamental stuff" so fundamental is a dangerous word.

 

[pellis]

Thanks, @Mayhem – the meaning of fundamental does depend on one's frame of reference, as your example illustrates. But that's part of the point of my question.

As you will know by now, I deliberately left the term open to allow for different personal perspectives – to get a snapshot of how different minds organise the core concepts of chemistry in their own terms, without enforcing a rigid definition.

Referring to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving–Williams_series for a brief reminder (to be honest, I don’t remember if Irving covered it in his lectures at Leeds †), I see there are three explanations used to explain the Series, ending:

“However, none of the [three] explanations can satisfactorily explain the success of the Irving–Williams series in predicting the relative stabilities of transition metal complexes. A recent study of metal-thiolate complexes indicates that an interplay between covalent and electrostatic contributions in metal–ligand binding energies might result in the Irving–Williams series.”

… which confirms the wisdom of your advisor.

I trust this provides you with an opportunity to expand on that if it is part of your own core understanding of chemistry overall, so I invite you to do so, within 150 words, please.

† Incidentally, Harry Irving was one of our lecturers when he was prof at Leeds during my student years. And Williams wrote a text that we used; years before me, he studied at Uppsala U in Sweden, where I subsequently did my post-doc. Small world!

 

[DaveE]

Since you asked: A mix of horror and aversion. That's my mental model.

I'll spare y'all my diatribe about how poorly chemistry was taught in the 1st required class for freshman undergrads at my school. Hint: first week they started with the Schrodinger equation.

 

[pellis]

@DaveE - Sorry to read that. Someone must have done something right for you to still be involved, and as a prominent contributor too - though I expect you have much deeper insights now?

 

[DaveE]

@DaveE - Sorry to read that. Someone must have done something right for you to still be involved, and as a prominent contributor too - though I expect you have much deeper insights now?

Nope. I'm not involved in Chemistry at all. I understood it better when I was in HS. My undergrad experience is best described as triage. Chemistry was the first to get kicked to the curb. Also, only 1 year was required, and for freshman all classes were graded pass/fail. So I passed (barely) and moved on. Nothing in my subsequent career required me to know any chemistry.

 

[berkeman]

@pellis -- @DaveE only uses chemistry to fabricate frozen cylinders of fuel for chemical lasers. They have excited atomic states frozen in place so that when the laser couples a primer beam to those states, the fuel lases like a stick of dynamite...

(Dave is the dark-haired young undergrad standing next to his roommate Val Kilmer at Caltech)

 

[DaveE]

Hollywood has no idea how dull class IV lasers look in practice. No, sorry, you pretty much don't get to see the laser beam for real. Although there are stories from the old days, notable for their deviation from normalcy.

PS: Pretty much every time you see a picture of a laser beam, it's fake. Unless you are in a smoke filled room, there shouldn't be enough scattering to see it.

 

[berkeman]

No, sorry, you pretty much don't get to see the laser beam for real.

The video did not capture the labbies smoking in the lab before the full meeting. Let's remember that this was Caltech in the '70s...

 

[Borek]

you can still get some decent images with a bit of fog and a 5 mW laser pointer :)

 

[pellis]

Interesting history (my bad too, to a small degree), but I do hope some of you will pluck up the courage to answer on-topic. in the next few days, please...

 

[Borek]

TBH the idea is so vague I feel like my every attempt would yield just some trivial, useless truism.

 

[pellis]

@Borek As a mentor, how would you convey your enthusiasm for chemistry to an intelligent freshman physics or biology student, by trying to tell them how you think what chemistry is/does/involves/...., with a little imagination?

Perhaps try writing something for yourself without even intending to post it, and see what you come up with? As you probably know, the hardest thing about writing is making a start.

You'll probably all laugh at how simple but logical it appears when I finally post my own effort. But I'm now retired and have nothing to lose (except my remaining hair and teeth ).

 

[mjc123]

Maybe a bit of an over-simplification, but:

Chemistry is about the manipulation of electrons. A chemical transformation involves changing the bonding arrangement of atoms to each other by changing the arrangement of the electrons around and between the atoms, e.g. by ionisation or the formation of covalent bonds. Even weaker but chemically significant interactions such as H-bonding and vdW forces are related to the distribution of electrons around nuclei.

Transforming one element into another by nuclear reactions requires higher energies than are usual for what are considered chemical processes, and is not generally considered as "chemistry" (even when it adds new elements to the periodic table). Conversely, low-energy processes that do not alter the distribution of electrons in molecules are considered physical rather than chemical.

 

[pellis]

@mjc123 Congratulations - You've clearly understood the sort of answer I have been hoping for, and well within the suggested word count.

As it bears similarities to my own, I've just posted mine on an unrelated site to get a time stamp in order to avoid being accused of plagiarising the answer(s) posted here.

 

[mjc123]

In the immortal words of Basil Fawlty: "A satisfied customer! We should have him stuffed!"

 

[berkeman]

and well within the suggested word count.

Please avoid making a point of this, professor. It is a bit of an arbitrary constraint given your request, and IMO will not help your quest to get good responses. Thanks.

 

[pellis]

@berkeman Thank you for your advice. As you may appreciate, I was aiming to avoid long rambling accounts that might be thorough ["TL;DR"] but less likely to convey a sharp focus.

But at this point I will be pleased to see any more contributions.

Incidentally, the nearest I got to being appointed professor was as the British equivalent to visiting professor, but in management science rather than chemistry. When I post my own answer I will explain its origin, briefly, as an attempt to fill a conceptual gap while updating insights long past, having not been a practising research chemist in my later career.

 

[Mayhem]

Broadly, chemistry is the study of quantitative results through qualitative models.

Spectroscopy, thermodynamics, and kinetics are largely interpreted through very simple models but they work in day-to-day experimental research.

I find those who entertain the quantitative aspect rigorously for a sufficiently long time become indistinguishable from physicists specialized in the same areas.

 

[pellis]

I find those who entertain the quantitative aspect rigorously for a sufficiently long time become indistinguishable from physicists specialized in the same areas.

@Mayhem Yes - good point about becoming "indistinguishable from physicists..."

 

[Borek]

Broadly, chemistry is the study of quantitative results through qualitative models.

To some extent that's a definition of every science built around measurable properties.

Yes, physics tends to be more rigorous, but whenever spherical cow approximation is good enough it fits the same box. Thing as basic as Ohm's law is difficult to show experimentally as real resistance changes with temperature and current density, so simple experiments based on batteries/incandescent bulbs don't work.

 

[sbrothy]

@DaveE - Sorry to read that. Someone must have done something right for you to still be involved, and as a prominent contributor too - though I expect you have much deeper insights now?

Yeah, I also imagined some really horrendous teachers or bad sessions. Good to hear you're hanging in there.

 

[TensorCalculus]

OK I get the sort of idea you're going for.

Since you seem to want varied views, I'll give you mine. My chemistry knowledge is basically nothing so it's not going to be as well-informed of an opinion as some of the big brains here, half of it is probably incorrect, but hopefully you find something useful in it :)

In a way, to me (fundamental - though this word can have different meanings) Chemistry is sort of like a high-level programming language. Like python, but for the sciences.
That probably sounds quite weird, so let me explain:

The Chemistry I've learnt so far is mostly about how different types of atoms interact, how electrons behave and how this ends up in chemical bonds, chemical reactions... etc.
Chemists seem to establish sets of rules for all of these phenomena: rules for what elements fall into what classes, rules for how orbitals fill themselves with electrons, rules for what the reactions between elements look like. I can then use these rules to make deductions about other things. I might use the rules that Chemistry have given me to figure out how a certain biological system works, for example the science of amino acids... peptide bonds... that sort of stuff.
Now: I could have figured out the science of amino acids with physics too. Instead of drawing them as beautiful skeletal diagrams and use the laws of chemistry, I could have use the laws of physics to figure out what would happen. I could use calculations and quantum mechanics to figure out that $HCl+NaOH\rightarrow H_2O+NaCl$ but a chemist has already done the work for me and made a rule for that: acid + base $\rightarrow$ salt + water. In that way, chemistry is like a high-level programming language: instead of having to spend ages writing tons of machine code to print something into the terminal (doing lots of maths to figure out how 2 substances will react) I can just use the python function print() (use the rules chemistry has given us). Especially for people like biologists, chemistry is a way of analysing systems easily and quickly without having to worry too much about what's going on behind the scenes: someone's already done the work to figure that out for them (exactly how high level programming languages are! People who write python can write code to do things like print in just a few characters: but someone has done the work (write a lot of machine code etc) to make that the case. But the python writers don't have to worry about what's going on behind the scenes most of the time)

For those who are reading this and cringing: sorry . Please do correct any mistakes .

 

[pellis]

Chemistry is sort of like a high-level programming language. Like python, but for the sciences.

Sure - interesting way to put it.

... mostly about how different types of atoms interact, how electrons behave and how this ends up in chemical bonds, chemical reactions... etc.

Yep - precisely!

Chemists seem to establish sets of rules for all of these phenomena: rules for what elements fall into what classes, rules for how orbitals fill themselves with electrons, rules for what the reactions between elements look like. I can then use these rules to make deductions about other things.

At the research frontier some of the rules are still developing.

I could have use the laws of physics to figure out what would happen. I could use calculations and quantum mechanics to figure out that $HCl+NaOH\rightarrow H_2O+NaCl$ but a chemist has already done the work for me and made a rule for that: acid + base $\rightarrow$ salt + water.

At some points - like Pauli working out the exclusion principle - it's an interplay between physics, maths and chemistry - which really are almost arbitrary classifications at times like that, IMO.

Especially for people like biologists, chemistry is a way of analysing systems easily and quickly without having to worry too much about what's going on behind the scenes:

Sometimes - but on other occasions, like when Peter Mitchell was doing his Nobel Prize-winning work identifying how life captures energy - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemiosmosis - transforming the understanding of bioenergetics, I think he probably did need to to worry about what's going on "behind the scenes" in terms of the electron transport chain, proton pumps and electrochemical gradients, not just the chemical surface scenery of adenosine triphosphate (ATP) and its diphosphate (ADP).

For those who are reading this and cringing: sorry . Please do correct any mistakes .

No cringe; comments but nothing to quibble about; and pleased that you "got it" at some point. Thank you.

 

[sbrothy]

Also it feels a little like algebra the way you have to balance your chemical equations.

 

[pellis]

Also it feels a little like algebra the way you have to balance your chemical equations.

@sbrothy @TensorCalculus

Take a look at quantum chemistry, then - it's nothing but equations: from calculus and Lie algebra to group theory and beyond, eventually realised as computer programs - mainly FORTRAN, C AND C++ - and of interest to TensorCalculus - Python,: so you might consider Python at two levels in chemistry.

 

[sbrothy]

I admit it was a little tongue in cheek. Hence the smiley. I'm more of a assembler/c/c++ fan though. I kinda regard all these new languages, Tcl, python, what have we - heck even Perl - as glue to make "real" programs work together. Probably not a popular view, but then again, I am pretty old school.


EDIT: Also, I fear quantum chemistry is way beyond me. I'm not as smart and educated as I may look to the casual observer. Darn, even @TensorCalculus triggers my inferiority complex!

EDIT: And it just occurred to me that the word “even” in that sentence might be misconstrued as derogative, which was in no way my intention. I apologize for any misunderstanding.

 

[TensorCalculus]

At some points - like Pauli working out the exclusion principle - it's an interplay between physics, maths and chemistry - which really are almost arbitrary classifications at times like that, IMO.

Formulating the rules: of course this will require looking deeper, using physics and maths.
Just like developing functions in python: someone has had to write the code for it in a lower-level language or machine code at some point :)

On a slightly unrelated note: it's interesting how the Pauli exclusion principle is used/perceived differently by different subjects. My friend who is passionate about chemistry kept calling it the "bus filling principle". Took me a while to figure out what she was talking about.

Sometimes - but on other occasions, like when Peter Mitchell was doing his Nobel Prize-winning work identifying how life captures energy - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemiosmosis - transforming the understanding of bioenergetics, I think he probably did need to to worry about what's going on "behind the scenes" in terms of the electron transport chain, proton pumps and electrochemical gradients, not just the chemical surface scenery of adenosine triphosphate (ATP) and its diphosphate (ADP).

Ah yeah, sometimes they do need to look deeper. Hence the "too much" when talking about people not having to worry about what's going on behind the scenes :D

Take a look at quantum chemistry, then - it's nothing but equations: from calculus and Lie algebra to group theory and beyond, eventually realised as computer programs - mainly FORTRAN, C AND C++ - and of interest to TensorCalculus - Python,: so you might consider Python at two levels in chemistry.

Ooh I should: I'm curious as to how it differs form quantum physics!
The thing is, as someone who knows basically 0 chemistry, I don't consider Quantum in the fundamentals: if I did, my analogy would be different.

I admit it was a little tongue in cheek. Hence the smiley. I'm more of a assembler/c/c++ fan though. I kinda regard all these new languages, Tcl, python, what have we - heck even Perl - as glue to make "real" programs work together. Probably not a popular view, but then again, I am pretty old school.

Honestly fair enough: I don't use C/C++ because python and rust are more preferable OK I admit I don't have admin rights on my computer and in order to get C++ working on VSCode you need admin rights (there's probably an alternative way to do it but I never bothered to find it) so I just stick with python....

EDIT: Also, I fear quantum chemistry is way beyond me. I'm not as smart and educated as I may look to the casual observer. Darn, even @TensorCalculus triggers my inferiority complex!

Hmm so he says, but I beg to differ: he's a pretty big nerd: even if it's not the type of nerd most people on PF are :D. He wrote... thousands of lines of code... just to cheat on wordle... if that's not a nerd I don't know what is.

(I'll take the compliment - appreciated but it shouldn't be True!)

EDIT: And it just occurred to me that the word “even” in that sentence might be misconstrued as derogative, which was in no way my intention. I apologize for any misunderstanding.

Never occurred to me to think of it that way: it was one hell of a compliment considering my age!

 

[berkeman]

My friend who is passionate about chemistry kept calling it the "bus stop principle".

Can you elaborate? So far I'm not getting the analogy. Thanks.

 

[TensorCalculus]

Can you elaborate? So far I'm not getting the analogy. Thanks.

Whoops, typo. She called it the "bus filling principle" (which might make more sense... sort of. I don't really get the name either)

She was explaining something to me before the chemistry Olympiad: I think we were revising orbital bonding or something, I can't remember anymore... essentially she was explaining how something worked and kept referring to the Pauli exclusion principle as the "bus filling principle": when I asked her what it was she thought I was joking:

"You're a physics nerd: of course you know the bus filling principle, don't you?"
"No... what on Earth is that"
"<provides a description of the Pauli exclusion principle>"
"You mean... the Pauli Exclusion Principle?"
"Uh... I think so? I've rarely heard it called that though (pulls out textbook and shows me it being described as the 'bus filling principle')"
"Riiiight... chemists are weird sometimes"
"I could say that about physicists too"

That comment about Chemistry students vs Physics students perceiving the Pauli Exclusion principle differently was just a little slightly unrelated note of mine, don't really know why I included it but...

 

[berkeman]

Whoops, typo. She called it the "bus filling principle"

Oh, that could make more sense. Only one student per seat on the bus...

https://skagwaynews.com/2022/02/25/dog-bus-captures-hearts-attention-of-internet/

 

[pellis]

With thanks to all contributors so far, here is my own answer to the question, with an explanation after it, for anyone interested in how I reached it. Even though I would now make some small changes as I can see that it's not quite as clear as it seemed to me at first, I've left it as I first wrote it, with whatever faults you feel able to point out.

“THE ESSENCE OF CHEMISTRY resides in the dynamics of electrons interacting with the electro magnetic (em) field - primarily that provided by nuclei – while also being constrained by the Exclusion Principle. The influence of gravity can usually be ignored.

One can then visualise chemical activity as the rearrangement of nuclei within the em field of its accompanying electrons, subject to the thermodynamics of changing conformations and reactivities.

The thermodynamics of changing conformations and reactivities depends, in turn, on the affinities of atomic and molecular species that result from electronegativities - the net effect of the electronic structure enveloping the nuclei, providing the influences for the essential dynamics outlined above."

This summary is a shortened version of a minor epiphany that occurred to me, as an improvement in my own mental model of what chemistry is about, some time after being stimulated by reading https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25894-meet-the-electric-life-forms-that-live-on-pure-energy/

[The final year of my undergraduate degree specialised in physical and inorganic chemistry, omitting organic chemistry, and consequently I never developed any real sense of biochemistry.]

But as a former quantum chemist, I felt that the idea that life could “feed off electrons” was something that I should have some familiarity with. After nagging at me for a few years I recently got round to looking into this subject in sufficient detail.

At first, I couldn’t see beyond the biochemical explanation that “life runs on electron transfer” from the potential energy drop down the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_transport_chain Etc (pun intended) resulting in “cells using the free energy of ATP”.

[ I should mention that my way of understanding scientific ideas (and most other things) is generally based on being able to visualise something.]

So, it wasn’t until I could finally bridge my visual/conceptual gap by mentally seeing how the free energy from ATP enables key cellular tasks: by donating one of its phosphate groups in a way that “changes the shape or reactivity of biomolecules” e.g. by something as straight-forward as the mechanical work of muscle contraction via actin-myosin interactions www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK9961/

So, ATP can cause changes in the conformation of some biomolecules and by understanding that I finally felt (!) that I had achieved a satisfying understanding of how, ultimately, it can be said that life feeds off electrons.

I look forward to learning more from any points where you think I could improve it (using the remaining 41 words).

 

[erobz]

Chemistry as I took the required course ( just Chem 1 ) felt like organized chaos. "Here we are, but there is no clear record of where we've been, nor any logical indication of where we will go"...I felt like that at every section. Still have the textbook though.

 

[pellis]

Chemistry as I took the required course ( just Chem 1 ) felt like organized chaos. "Here we are, but there is no clear record of where we've been, nor any logical indication of where we will go"...I felt like that at every section. Still have the textbook though.

Sounds like poor lecturer/tutor support.

 

[pellis]

Ooh I should: I'm curious as to how it differs form quantum physics!
The thing is, as someone who knows basically 0 chemistry, I don't consider Quantum in the fundamentals: if I did, my analogy would be different.

@TensorCalculus As the name implies, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_chemistry is the application of quantum physics to chemical systems/problems.

In my day that often boiled down to using large computer programs to solve, by energy minimisation, approximations to Schrodinger's equation (from Hartree-Fock to a range of "semi-empirical" methods, most of which tried to avoid dealing with the complication of "overlap integals" to varying degrees, from "CNDO" (Complete Neglect of Differential Overlap) to "MINDO") together with approximate orbital models, such as Gaussian orbitals, all in order to find things like electron density distributions or to vary the angles of molecules to find the most stable conformations.

I haven't kept up with modern QC, except to note that it now takes account of relativistic effects in the motions of electrons in heavy elements, which among other things accounts for the colour of metallic gold.

 

[erobz]

Sounds like poor lecturer/tutor support.

I think it needed to be taught with more weaving of demos in like this:



Ours was lecture and 1 lab a week if I recall correctly, but there was a distinct lack of demos in the lab (none in the lecture). It was mostly "see if you can follow these steps" - the whole experience was very unmotivated/unmotivating. Also, you get what you pay for - and I didn't pay terribly much.

 

[TensorCalculus]

@TensorCalculus As the name implies, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_chemistry is the application of quantum physics to chemical systems/problems.

In my day that often boiled down to using large computer programs to solve, by energy minimisation, approximations to Schrodinger's equation (from Hartree-Fock to a range of "semi-empirical" methods, most of which tried to avoid dealing with the complication of "overlap integals" to varying degrees, from "CNDO" (Complete Neglect of Differential Overlap) to "MINDO") together with approximate orbital models, such as Gaussian orbitals, all in order to find things like electron density distributions or to vary the angles of molecules to find the most stable conformations.

I haven't kept up with modern QC, except to note that it now takes account of relativistic effects in the motions of electrons in heavy elements, which among other things accounts for the colour of metallic gold.

Aaaaaagh!


Still sounds fun, but sort of scary fun.

 

[sbrothy]

@sbrothy @TensorCalculus

Take a look at quantum chemistry, then - it's nothing but equations: from calculus and Lie algebra to group theory and beyond, eventually realised as computer programs - mainly FORTRAN, C AND C++ - and of interest to TensorCalculus - Python,: so you might consider Python at two levels in chemistry.

Wow. Lie algebra! The fact that you think I have any hope of understanding that, beyond admiring the shadows it casts into our world, feels me with a warm fuzzy feeling.

(And maybe an idea of using my bluff skills to play professional poker!)

 

[TensorCalculus]

Wow. Lie algebra! The fact that you think I have any hope of understanding that, beyond admiring the shadows it casts into our world, feels me with a warm fuzzy feeling.

(And maybe an idea of using my bluff skills to play professional poker!)

Hmmm... maybe... though I can confirm my poker face is abysmal (we were playing with fake money being kids, don't worry) and @pellis got the idea that I am also capable of something like lie algebra... for context someone or something mentioned it like a year ago or so, I searched it up, opened the Wikipedia, saw the diagram, and instantly closed the Wikipedia

 

[pellis]

Hmmm... maybe... though I can confirm my poker face is abysmal (we were playing with fake money being kids, don't worry) and @pellis got the idea that I am also capable of something like lie algebra... for context someone or something mentioned it like a year ago or so, I searched it up, opened the Wikipedia, saw the diagram, and instantly closed the Wikipedia

Unless you're a natural mathematician, which I am not, it takes a lot of study to get to the point of being able to make some sense of these topics, and I'm still learning - its the buzz of that moment when it finally clicks that makes it all worthwhile

 

[TensorCalculus]

Unless you're a natural mathematician, which I am not, it takes a lot of study to get to the point of being able to make some sense of these topics, and I'm still learning - its the buzz of that moment when it finally clicks that makes it all worthwhile

...very well said :)
EDIT: A handful on minutes ago I went back to the Wiki site and had the same reaction which does not bode well...

 

[sbrothy]

All this talk about Lie algebras reminds me of all the hype surrounding Garret Lisi’s paper An Explicit Embedding of Gravity and the Standard Model in E8. His idea had a certain beauty to it, as I understand is often the case with multidimensional Lie manifolds(?). I think though, that Jacques Distler, from Texas University, shot [sic] it down, dare I say, vehemently? Maybe some of his critique is still available at his blog “Musings”.

Apparently he suffers “fools” at least as badly as @Vanadium 50!

It’s not the same person is it?! Naaaah….

I’m just joking you guys. I hope I’m not being too personal!

EDIT: I actually mean this paper:

An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything

 

[pellis]

All this talk about Lie algebras reminds me of all the hype surrounding Garret Lisi’s paper An Explicit Embedding of Gravity and the Standard Model in E8. His idea had a certain beauty to it, as I understand is often the case with multidimensional Lie manifolds(?). I think though, that Jacques Distler, from Texas University, shot [sic] it down, dare I say, vehemently? Maybe some of his critique is still available at his blog “Musings”.

Apparently he suffers “fools” at least as badly as @Vanadium 50!

It’s not the same person is it?! Naaaah….

I’m just joking you guys. I hope I’m not being too personal!

EDIT: I actually mean this paper:

An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything

@sbrothy Thanks for the reminder - I was intrigued by the idea of E8 at the time but didn't follow it up till now.

Recent online evaluation, in summary (GPT):

"Lisi’s proposal attracted media attention as a refreshing departure from mainstream approaches—but the physics community judged it overwhelmingly speculative, with substantive mathematical and physical criticisms unresolved. Lisi remains undeterred, and the theory continues to inspire discussions, though it is not considered a viable unification model in its current form."

 

[renormalize]

Recent online evaluation, in summary (GPT):

AI answers are prohibited on Physics Forums. Please cite actual published references that evaluate and discuss Lisi's proposal.

 

[sbrothy]

This one: C, P, T, and Triality may in fact be a part of his defense to Jacques Distler's arguments (Mr. Distler seemed very adamant that it wouldn't fly, but scientists often express themselves using at least some hyperbole as discussions get heated.). I vividly remember the critique ran along something involving trialities, but then again I'm in way over my head here. It's just so interesting I can't help but read and take away what I can. I'm annoyingly dependent on the arguments from people with higher educations than myself.

 

[pellis]

AI answers are prohibited on Physics Forums. Please cite actual published references that evaluate and discuss Lisi's proposal.

AGAINST: Distler & Garibaldi (2009, peer-reviewed), SABINE HOSSENFELDER https://backreaction.blogspot.com/2007/11/theoretically-simple-exception-of.html
ATTEMPTS TO ENGAGE: “The Plebanski action extended to a unification of gravity and Yang–Mills theory” by Lee Smolin (Physical Review D, 2007). AND Unification of gravity, gauge fields,and Higgs bosons, A. Garrett Lisia, Lee Smolin, and Simone Speziale, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 2010. (ATTACHED)