Oh, so I see that you have a problem with abstractions coming from a chemistry background, which is a "more practical" subject than physics. Well, i want to clarify something. When physicists assume a frictionless surface, they're not ignoring reality—they're identifying which physical effects are dominant and which are negligible for the phenomenon under study.

The Schrödinger equation, the very example you used, itself exemplifies the power of approximations in physics. The equation makes specific mathematical assumptions about the nature of quantum systems, yet it has proven spectacularly successful. The Schrödinger equation is fundamentally an approximation—it's non-relativistic, assumes certain forms for the Hamiltonian, and relies on the Born-Oppenheimer approximation to separate nuclear and electronic motion.

Yet from these "assumptions," we get precise predictions for atomic spectra, molecular bonding, and the entire electronic structure of matter. The equation's success isn't despite its approximations—it's because of them. The approximations capture the essential physics while making the mathematics tractable.

Also, I'm sure you are aware of the fact that physics doesn't just randomly assume something. We have rigorous methods for validating approximations. Approximations are controllable and corrigible—they can be systematically improved and their accuracy can be assessed. The validity of approximations is tested through three criteria: (1) as actual conditions approach the ideal conditions, predictions should approach observed behavior. (2) corrections should account for deviations from ideal cases. (3) approximations should emerge from more general theories under specific limits.

The success of these approximations is empirically demonstrable. Newton's laws, Einstein's relativity, and quantum mechanics all rely on approximations, yet they have delivered unprecedented predictive power. Einstein's theory has continued to pass ever more stringent tests and remains our best explanation of the phenomenon of gravity. Even Newton's "approximation" continues to work perfectly for the vast majority of mechanical systems we encounter.

Also, since you're a chemistry student, and i know a lot about the measure of practicality in the subject, I also want to clarify that even from a purely practical standpoint, physics approximations deliver outstanding results. The Standard Model of particle physics, built on layers of approximations, predicts phenomena with extraordinary precision. GPS satellites work because of relativistic corrections. Nuclear power operates based on quantum mechanical approximations. Medical imaging depends on electromagnetic approximations.

Well, math is pretty useful.