>>12801155>just give a surface level explanation broNigger, what does surface level mean though?
In my opinion, the first explanation Feynman gave
>there is a force which makes them attractis already a simple, accurate, and extremely surface level answer if there ever was one.
>Well, that's not satisfying enough!When would a curious person become satisfied with your answer?
Like I said, to move from no understanding to some understanding you would have to introduce concepts which seem arbitrary in their own right but have fundamental justifications (which are outside the reach of layman).
Surely an explanation that relies on new and completely different concepts that would, at this level of understanding, seem arbitrary would be just as or even more unsatisfying then the first explanation right?
>Hund's rule? What!>Where did these arrows come from?>What's up with these boxes?>I don't get it, what's with these boxes? What are shells?>Magnetic fields?etc., etc.
If you're just some undergrad chem. fag who just accepts these concepts as they are fed to him by the prof then sure, your link might be convincing, but for an extremely curious person they will not.
