It's a rare person who can explain a specialist field to a lay crowd so effectively and with such passion. If I'd had a science teacher like you at any point in school, it would for sure have influenced my level of interest and potential future career path. Thank you for doing what you do and helping the rest of us understand chemistry a bit better.
OK, so this was THE test for me: I absolutely despised chemistry in high school and I'm not a fan now. But she really made the topics interesting with her fun analogies, her excited energy and her charm. Tech Support is a gem. I swear, every guest is wonderful.
@@duckymomo7935 yeah, but it'd be nice if the teachers weren't complete jerks. all of my chem teachers were utterly dispassionate when it came to teaching the subject in a way that high schoolers would understand. my grade 12 chem teacher was so condescending a bunch of people just dropped her class after like 2 weeks
I just graduated with my Bachelors in Chemistry, and she's much better at explaining general chemistry theories in an understandable way than most of my professors. 😅
This is the type of person that should be a professor or textbook author. People like this beautiful and intelligent woman makes us realize how unpassionate a lot of my schoolteachers were. A great teacher can make a huge difference in the future of our generations
Despite her passionate approach to teaching, a number of her answers have rather significant scientifically errors (her explanation as to why objects don't pass through each other and the mechanics of a typical lava lamp are entirely wrong). Regrettably, camps in education tend to boil down to passion "or" expertise (I use quotes as the camps present a false dichotomy). Many teachers and professors lean to the other side of that dichotomy, emphasizing accuracy without passion. Neither, on its own, is very effective, and I suspect the very existence of that dichotomy creates a sort of feedback loop. Those that focus on accuracy find themselves having to un-teach a lot of errors that had been taught by a "fun teacher," while those that focus on enthusiasm find themselves having to re-teach students how to enjoy learning. The truly great teachers are the ones who find harmony between both methods.
I honestly really didn't like chemistry in school, because I found it so hard to understand, but no one ever made the effort to explain it like this! The way you broke everything down, and added so much enthusiasm actually made all of these answers make sense!
OMG, her answer to "why can't I pass my hand through a solid object?" is absolutely wrong! Nucleus has absolutely nothing to do with it! It is all electro-static force: the electrons in the atoms zip so fast that they form a "cloud" around the nuclei. And since these clouds are made of electrons they have negative electric charge, and similar charges repel. Thus, the electron clouds around the atoms of your hand and a table start repelling each other when you get them close enough. Also your hand can't "exchange electrons" with the table - when atoms "exchange" electrons that is how molecules are formed. And you do not form new molecules each time you touch the table.
Omg I thought the same thing. Altough in reality electrons don't move around the nucleus, but have a superposition which we call orbitals, but still you're absolutely right it's not the nucleus its all just electric fields.
Ditto. I'm not even a scientist and even I knew it's the electromagnetic forces that keep atoms apart. Essentially the universe is more energy than mass, even though they're interchangeable-ish
you guys sound a lot smarter than me so correct me if I'm wrong but... mathematically speaking it is possible to go through solid objects... just that the odds are so small it will most likely never happen... or maybe i misunderstood kyle hill 😅😓
@@ElDuende402 You're right-ish. In solid objects the electron orbitals are packed so dense together there is (depending on the thickness) no free straight path through. That means there is no way to pass trough the object. However if you're a charged ion without electrons at all (eg alpha particle) and the solid material is sufficiently thin, than it's absolutely possible to pass right through (Rutherfords gold foil experiment showed that).
@@jp9707 Well those original dates are actually lucky to not end up with partners who are not right for them. Maybe they went on to meet someone more suitable for them
It's the Carbon Florine bonded chemicals in kitchen utensils, clothes and other places that are creating pollution for millenniums of years. They are already in the water. Plus air and soil too.
The term chemicals adds a subjectively negative meaning to substances so that people don't have to study chemistry to understand: that stuff is dangerous, unpredictable, and thus bad for me. Problem is in the age of misinformation, chemicals can be used instead to get people to agree with their opinion. Kind of the same as laws are good and we want those, but regulations are bad and we don't want those.
I thought lava lamps were filled with wax and some liquid, and the wax gets warmed up by the bulb at the bottom, it rises, cools down and falls, so it can melt and start the process again. No gas is involved.
Yeah, I don't know what she was talking about, and I'd hate to say she doesn't either. It sounded like she was making assumptions without actually knowing.
3:45 umm that explanation is just wrong? The nuclei are so small there's almost no chance of them colliding with each other. The reason you can't pass objects through each other is because their electron clouds are all negatively charged and thus repel each other. What she described with the nuclei smacking together would imply you've achieved a fusion reaction every time you touch something.
I think she was trying to explain why the amount of energy you could put on a solid object isn't enough to push through it like you can with liquids or gas. I'm gonna assume it's some editing cut of the explanation as it's sorely incomplete. It could be enough to get the concept through to the average viewer if explained more even if you can't actually touch a nuclei in most settings.
@@jwildan I can't really find a way to be charitable enough to salvage her answer. She only mentioned mass density of the nuclei which has literally nothing to do with it. She didn't even use the word "charge" or anything associated with the EM force in her explanation. I guess maybe it could have been lost in the edit, but it would have to be a pretty consciously malicious editor to mangle it that badly.
I know that the Pauli exclusion principle is physics and not chemistry, but fundamentally, it is the reason why solids are solid. If you want to dumb it down for a mass audience, she could have said the electrons repel each other, as it at least would kinda be close. The thing about nuclei being dense was so inaccurate. I learned a basic version of the exclusion principle in high school physics. For a chemist to be that wrong is rather sad.
Wait a second. The reason that you can't pass your hand through a solid object, is because the electrons in the atoms in your hand repel the electrons in the atoms in the object. Nuclei take up basically no space, they're not big, except in the really enormous lab-made elements, so what is this thing about smacking into nuclei?
Yeah completely blindsided by this as well, as soon as the question was asked I was expecting the electrostatic force as the response, needless to say I was very surprised at the explanation and I'm currently somewhat skeptical of it. Naturally most things in these explainers have to necessarily be over simplified, but I can't find a way to make the two compatible.
Exactly!!! I was pretty shocked hearing the answer she gave. Electromagnetism helloo? Not only brushing off the electron cloud, saying you can "bump into a nucleus"? Like what, you talking about nuclear fusion? Ahah Aaand you think the nucleus is big? it is 1/100.000 of the size of the atom ffs xD i know chemists are not quantum physicists but.....breh
It's a bit more complicated as the atom is still neutral. AFAIK the full answer lies in quantum mechanics as electrons can not be in the same place and same quantum state. So if you push the electron clouds of two atoms together, some of the electrons would need to jump to higher energy states.
better thought of as "smacking into the strong-nuclear force, which binds the neutrons and protons together." which happens to be so strong, and containing so much energy, that when we are actually able to break through the strong-nuclear force, we can wipe out cities with it and power millions of homes.
The "not being able to pass your hand through a solid object" I thought was more due to electromagnetic repulsion (more of a physics question at that point). Loved the electron passing as gloves analogy bit, though.
I don't want to rain on the parade for everyone who's enjoying the video, but that analogy for why objects don't pass through other solid objects didn't seem correct to me. I may be misunderstanding her explanation but I'm pretty sure the nucleus isn't coming in contact with other nuclei. They are not only incredibly small compared to the electron cloud surrounding it. But a positively charged nucleus would repel another positively charged nucleus, no contact possible there without an insane amount of energy. I could be wrong, and there could be a better way to explain it, I'm open to being corrected.
In terms of touching something, you would be able to get as close as you can to anything else. I think it would have been better if she explained how states of matter and energy relate. Like how it's easier to push your hand through air compared to water because of the speed a molecule is moving at. You could put your hand through a solid object if you gave it enough energy to move its dense mass but then it would probably no longer be a solid (and would also be a ton of energy). Her explanation makes sense but it feels very incomplete and may have just been cut down by the editing team.
the thing is that half of the questions weren't chemistry related at all... so she just kept talking with what amounts to pretty much the same amount of knowledge any person with a degree in any stem field could.
No you’re right her explanation is just wrong. If you’re at the point where 2 atomic nuclei are coming close to each other, this implies the electron densities of the atoms have overlapped, ie formed a chemical bond. Not what happens when you touch something. When you touch something ur feeling the Inter-electron repulsions. Nothing to do with the nuclei.
@@jwildan thats not why you cant put your hand through solid objects, you dont need more energy to move the atoms, you need more energy to deform the structure.
The reason why we can't pass through each other is not the "incredibly dense nucleus of atoms" it's the strength of the repulsion of the electromagnetic field of electrons, primarily.
@@9000leo yeah as a chemist myself i have to say that there were some "inaccuracies" and also a defintly false statements like this in this video. I get that its hard to simplify many concepts so that a non-science person understands, but still...
@@erikl1478 Watched the other chem support vid featuring Kate, got the same disappointment unfortunately. She's commenting the use of HF for dissolving flesh in Breaking Bad was not great because it's a weak acid... But I thought whether a substance is corrosive doesn't really have to do with its acidity...
These are not the same lava lamps of my childhood. These were just wax in some liquid that was right on the edge of wax's density, so that when it was molten, it rose, and when it began to cool, it sank. The light at the bottom heated and melted it.
4:00 bill nye said that the reason you can’t pass through solid objects is because like charges repel each other so we interpret them as solid. strange how she (a chemist) has a completely different response than a physicist
I was baffled by her explanation even though she's obviously dumbing it down for the laymen, AFAIK it's mostly the electrons which are repelling each other and maintaining bonds with other atoms, protons have barely anything to do with why solids can't pass through each other, but I'm no expert.
I mean you knew there was going to be some wrong stuff when she said everything around us is chemistry. Everything is physics; chemistry is just how elements interact with other elements
For the boiling and evaporation. The simple and generalized definition is : "Evaporation is the physical change where any substance in liquid phase enters into the gaseous phase after which a dynamic equilibrium is attained" "Boiling point is the temperature at which the external pressure is equal to the vapour pressure of the liquid " Anyways I am just a 12th grader and probably completely explained the questions she answered in layman's terms. Anyways great job.
So many weird explanations: - Energy is needed to break bonds, not some long winded Ryan and Blake analogy that doesn't even make sense - Electrostatic repulsion is responsible for things not passing (see rest of comments) - Humans have pheromones that play important roles in how people interact alongside verbal and visual communication
Yeah there's definitely controversy around pheromone stuff mainly because people were trying to claim basically it worked lIke in other animals as some ultimate determinant of attraction which it isn't, but pheromones definitely exist and can play a role in a larger story of what makes someone attracted to someone else
It does make sense. It’s simplified. She didn’t get into the details of how bonds are broken, just explaining what it means. You could get into the specifics of exactly what causes the breaks later. Chill.
Another way older lava lamps worked was with fluid and semi solid wax! When the wax was solid, it was denser than the fluid and would sink, but when the whole thing was heated by a lightbulb, the liquid wax could float and be moved around by the hot liquid. Different kinds of lava lamps!
@@edbangor9163 i mean kinda... pauli exclusion principle is why electrons dont all chill in the same spot/ form interior and valence shells, they can't be identical particles. it doesn't have much to do with why your hand can't pass through a table. You have to have quantum tunneling on a macroscopic scale to actually do that. The question is so absurd it doesn't really have a concrete answer at least without a butt ton of math
@@espanadorada7962 look up the repulsive term of interaction potentials like the lennard jones potential and you will see that it always has a much shorter range than r^-2. this shows that the repulsion is a quantum mechanic effect namely the pauli repulsion
Two of my very favorites: Kate the Chemist and astrobiologist Dr. David Grinspoon...both truly brilliant and enthusiastic, they just demonstrate it in different ways. Especially appreciate it when Dr. Grinspoon says how much he loves Wall-E.....the reaction of some of most brilliant people on the planet for a cartoon is truly endearing :-)
she explained in such a beautiful simplictic way that made sense, and her enthusiasm about answering the questions kept me engaged for the whole video... lovely
I love the passion that all of the guests show when they explain their answers. She seems so genuinely in love with what she does which is such a beautiful thing to see.
The passing your hand through question Was entered incorrectly. It's because of the electromagnetic force. The nucleus does not take up a lot of space in an atom it's very dense yes, but it takes up a very small amount in space
This is months old so I've no idea if anyone will see it, but the explanation of the lava lamp function isn't correct. Although it does contain oil and water, the process is thermal, not mechanical. The lamps have a fairly high voltage incandescent light in the base, this both serves to illuminate the lamp, and more importantly heat the heavier of the two liquids. It then floats to the top because it's density is reduced, until it cools off and drops back to the bottom. This is aided by the narrow top of the conical lamp, speeding the transfer of heat a bit. None of them that I've ever seen rely on carbonation.
I'm so happy with how excited she is while talking. I love so much watching people who love and know a lot about a subject, no matter if i understand or like the subject itself.
3:03 technically this answer is wrong. You can't pass through object because the atoms (electrons around) are repelling each other like magnets. You're never actually touching the solid nucleus (protons/neutrons). It's like having a wall of strong magnets trying to touch another wall of strong magnets, the closer you get the stronger the repulsion and you can't make them touch. If you try to push harder and harder, you need so much energy that the bonds between molecules breaks first and you "punch through" the object (or stab your hand or whatever)
Do a biochemist or cell biologist please! I think people would love to hear more about these lesser known area of science (relative to the general audience of course).
I hated, and I mean hated, chemistry in high school. These questions are so good and interesting to see answered, and this chemist is so good at answering them.
Alright let me clear up the proper sequence of development of Periodic table. 1. Dobernier's Triads. The middle element have a mean atomic mass of the other two. 2. Newland's Law of Octaves (Periodicity) 3. De Chancourtois' Tellurique Screw 4. Dimitri Mendeleev (Arranged on basis of Atomic mass and also predicted 4 elements for future discovery like Eka-Sillicon) 5. Mosley (Long form of Periodic Table) : Atomic number is the function of periodicity. Also gave an equation called Mosley's law.
3:45 Doesn't the nucleus take up almost no space at all and the reason you can't pass your hand through some other object is because of the electrons of the object repelling the electrons in your hand? Instead of some nuclei hitting each other
This lady is absolutely fantastic at teaching, she's so enthusiastic and pleasant about everything, her analogies are simple and easy to understand, and she's quite easy on the eyes.
I swear if she was my chemistry teacher back in high school, I would've been passing with flying colors and even pursued a degree in it and I HATE chemistry.
I love teachers that are excited about their material! It makes it much easier to learn, in my experience, because emotional engagement with the material stimulates the brain to retain more info!
1:18 yea but does it have anything to do with mint flavor? cause thats the only ive seen used. also, soooo its not a chemical reaction at all, is a physical reaction?
It's a rare person who can explain a specialist field to a lay crowd so effectively and with such passion. If I'd had a science teacher like you at any point in school, it would for sure have influenced my level of interest and potential future career path. Thank you for doing what you do and helping the rest of us understand chemistry a bit better.
I'll second that. Finally understand molecules.
th-cam.com/video/pWfr1u6JzDQ/w-d-xo.html.
.
.
.
.
.
I was so lucky to have a history teacher like this! Totally changes things
she was my chemistry professor this past year, she’s rlly amazing :)
you think people would stop giving excuses for everything they are too lazy to do
OK, so this was THE test for me: I absolutely despised chemistry in high school and I'm not a fan now. But she really made the topics interesting with her fun analogies, her excited energy and her charm.
Tech Support is a gem. I swear, every guest is wonderful.
Absolutely agree. I hated chemistry as well but I could listen to her forever, her enthusiasm is totally infectious!
to do real chemistry, you do need to do computations and theoretical stuff...
there's not other way around the boring parts
@@duckymomo7935 yeah, but it'd be nice if the teachers weren't complete jerks. all of my chem teachers were utterly dispassionate when it came to teaching the subject in a way that high schoolers would understand. my grade 12 chem teacher was so condescending a bunch of people just dropped her class after like 2 weeks
School chemistry doesnt do a good representation of the science at all
@@duckymomo7935wrong
She needs to rewrite all the textbooks, her analogies make sense
Its because she is making expressions too,when her words will be printed as cold letters,i bet for those don't understand chem will find it boring
and change our science teacher too
@@IsaoTakeuchi you want her to rewrite your teacher? 💀
@@sisakhoza4739 omg, no. I was typo
@@IsaoTakeuchi gave me a good laugh though 😂
She literally was my professor at UT Austin!! She’s the best!!!! It’s so cool to see her do this!!
We just started presenting one paper each week in organic chemistry literature; here is the link...
th-cam.com/video/SPPr5enWp_8/w-d-xo.html
That's so cool!!
Dammit I was supposed to go to UT. I should've went , she would've been worth it hahaha
BUT was she REALLY your professor?
@@infinitesimotel Obviously, lol
this is absolutely the first time kickthepj has ever been featured in a youtube video. congrats to kickthepj for making it onto youtube!!
his tweet was so funny, i hope he starts a youtube channel! i'm sure he would make a lot of creative content and would do very well
what a funny guy!! would probably be a great person for creating silly goofy content on youtube :D
And maybe stream on Twitch too, zamn
Good unig
th-cam.com/video/pWfr1u6JzDQ/w-d-xo.html.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Poor PJ just trying to have fun on Twitter and getting absolutely dragged lmao
Dr. Biberdorf is a fantastic explainer. I would love to hear her give a talk/lecture.
I’m sure you would.
She’s a chemistry professor at my school University of Texas at Austin !!
she can give me something else
I had a semester with her! it was incredible she's the nicest person and definitely the most passionate professor I've had at UT
I just graduated with my Bachelors in Chemistry, and she's much better at explaining general chemistry theories in an understandable way than most of my professors. 😅
Don't you learn this stuff in year 11-12 at school?
The problem is, she doesn't... Some of the responses are inaccurate or even flat out misleading
Yes PJ was joking, but you’d be surprised how many people don’t know what chemicals are and assume they’re always dangerous.
R-r-radiation?!
@Moebym Or even Dihydrogen Monoxide.
People think chemical is poison or toxic substances or bad material
@@StorymasterQlol or even Sodium Chloride
As a chemistry enjoyer, you'll end up finding that certain scary-sounding chemicals are actually very helpful for you
The fact that she actually answered Pjs' tweet plz
i can’t believe you dragged pj through the dirt like that 😭
POOR BOY WAS HAVING A JONK
Glad I’m not the only one who was stupidly excited to see PJ pop up
OMG poor PJ. First removing his checkmark and then actually answering his joke tweet?
This is the type of person that should be a professor or textbook author. People like this beautiful and intelligent woman makes us realize how unpassionate a lot of my schoolteachers were. A great teacher can make a huge difference in the future of our generations
She is both actually.
"Beautiful and..."
Despite her passionate approach to teaching, a number of her answers have rather significant scientifically errors (her explanation as to why objects don't pass through each other and the mechanics of a typical lava lamp are entirely wrong). Regrettably, camps in education tend to boil down to passion "or" expertise (I use quotes as the camps present a false dichotomy). Many teachers and professors lean to the other side of that dichotomy, emphasizing accuracy without passion. Neither, on its own, is very effective, and I suspect the very existence of that dichotomy creates a sort of feedback loop. Those that focus on accuracy find themselves having to un-teach a lot of errors that had been taught by a "fun teacher," while those that focus on enthusiasm find themselves having to re-teach students how to enjoy learning. The truly great teachers are the ones who find harmony between both methods.
Nah. She should only be a teacher. Leave textbooks to the brilliant minds.
Highschool textbooks, maybe, there are a lot of errors, shortcuts and nuances to her explanations.
Her excitement and energy is contagious. Glad she's been brought back!
I honestly really didn't like chemistry in school, because I found it so hard to understand, but no one ever made the effort to explain it like this! The way you broke everything down, and added so much enthusiasm actually made all of these answers make sense!
Pj is bringing so many people here you guys better give him his royalties
OMG, her answer to "why can't I pass my hand through a solid object?" is absolutely wrong! Nucleus has absolutely nothing to do with it! It is all electro-static force: the electrons in the atoms zip so fast that they form a "cloud" around the nuclei. And since these clouds are made of electrons they have negative electric charge, and similar charges repel. Thus, the electron clouds around the atoms of your hand and a table start repelling each other when you get them close enough.
Also your hand can't "exchange electrons" with the table - when atoms "exchange" electrons that is how molecules are formed. And you do not form new molecules each time you touch the table.
This is an important correction and needs to be pinned
Omg I thought the same thing.
Altough in reality electrons don't move around the nucleus, but have a superposition which we call orbitals, but still you're absolutely right it's not the nucleus its all just electric fields.
Ditto. I'm not even a scientist and even I knew it's the electromagnetic forces that keep atoms apart. Essentially the universe is more energy than mass, even though they're interchangeable-ish
you guys sound a lot smarter than me so correct me if I'm wrong but... mathematically speaking it is possible to go through solid objects... just that the odds are so small it will most likely never happen... or maybe i misunderstood kyle hill 😅😓
@@ElDuende402 You're right-ish. In solid objects the electron orbitals are packed so dense together there is (depending on the thickness) no free straight path through. That means there is no way to pass trough the object. However if you're a charged ion without electrons at all (eg alpha particle) and the solid material is sufficiently thin, than it's absolutely possible to pass right through (Rutherfords gold foil experiment showed that).
i love her enthusiasm. usually it’s incredibly boring for me to hear anyone talk about things like this.
The Ryan Blake analogy tho 🤣
What a creative way to explain double replacement reaction. LOL
I feel so sorry for their original dates 😔 Now I'm convinced that will happen to me, thanks for the anxiety TH-cam 😂
@@jp9707 Well those original dates are actually lucky to not end up with partners who are not right for them. Maybe they went on to meet someone more suitable for them
The word "chemicals" these days get a bad name in many fields but chemistry and chemicals as a whole is actually super interesting and useful.
Yup it's been overused like many buzz words and loses its actual meaning.
- Wait, you want me to drink this poison that will kill me?
- Don't worry, it's natural and organic.
- Oh okay, I'm relieved.
@@onkelpappkov2666 Lol
It's the Carbon Florine bonded chemicals in kitchen utensils, clothes and other places that are creating pollution for millenniums of years. They are already in the water. Plus air and soil too.
The term chemicals adds a subjectively negative meaning to substances so that people don't have to study chemistry to understand: that stuff is dangerous, unpredictable, and thus bad for me. Problem is in the age of misinformation, chemicals can be used instead to get people to agree with their opinion. Kind of the same as laws are good and we want those, but regulations are bad and we don't want those.
Can’t believe PJs tweet was in here 😭😭
I can't believe she's answering PJ's unhinged tweet 😂
Give pj his checkmark back, he worked so very hard for it
An absolute energizer bunny professor. The ideal chem professor for ALL ages 👏🏻
i’m here for kick the pj
The fact she answered him is killing me
aren't we all
she edited out his verified mark 😭
I HAVENT SEEN THAT NAME SINCE I WAS 15
Is he actually that stupid or is it a satire account
I thought lava lamps were filled with wax and some liquid, and the wax gets warmed up by the bulb at the bottom, it rises, cools down and falls, so it can melt and start the process again. No gas is involved.
That's how I understand it. Kerosene and paraffin was my understanding.
Yeah, I don't know what she was talking about, and I'd hate to say she doesn't either. It sounded like she was making assumptions without actually knowing.
It's usually wax and water
And here's a 3rd misinformed statement she's made - @wired pull this vid please. its inaccurate to say the least.
You are correct. Wax expands more with temperature than water does. She is wrong.
Her energy and enthusiasm are contagious.
You can tell she loves chemistry. Love her vibe❤
I love her. She answers questions with so much comprehensiveness and vivacity--like, I'm as excited about it as she is.
3:45 umm that explanation is just wrong? The nuclei are so small there's almost no chance of them colliding with each other. The reason you can't pass objects through each other is because their electron clouds are all negatively charged and thus repel each other. What she described with the nuclei smacking together would imply you've achieved a fusion reaction every time you touch something.
Indeed
I think she was trying to explain why the amount of energy you could put on a solid object isn't enough to push through it like you can with liquids or gas. I'm gonna assume it's some editing cut of the explanation as it's sorely incomplete.
It could be enough to get the concept through to the average viewer if explained more even if you can't actually touch a nuclei in most settings.
@@jwildan I can't really find a way to be charitable enough to salvage her answer. She only mentioned mass density of the nuclei which has literally nothing to do with it. She didn't even use the word "charge" or anything associated with the EM force in her explanation. I guess maybe it could have been lost in the edit, but it would have to be a pretty consciously malicious editor to mangle it that badly.
Exactly! was looking for this comment, thx
I know that the Pauli exclusion principle is physics and not chemistry, but fundamentally, it is the reason why solids are solid. If you want to dumb it down for a mass audience, she could have said the electrons repel each other, as it at least would kinda be close. The thing about nuclei being dense was so inaccurate. I learned a basic version of the exclusion principle in high school physics. For a chemist to be that wrong is rather sad.
She's all perky and fun, and explains everything quite well.
I like her.
I just love seeing people being excited to explain things
Wait a second. The reason that you can't pass your hand through a solid object, is because the electrons in the atoms in your hand repel the electrons in the atoms in the object. Nuclei take up basically no space, they're not big, except in the really enormous lab-made elements, so what is this thing about smacking into nuclei?
Yeah completely blindsided by this as well, as soon as the question was asked I was expecting the electrostatic force as the response, needless to say I was very surprised at the explanation and I'm currently somewhat skeptical of it. Naturally most things in these explainers have to necessarily be over simplified, but I can't find a way to make the two compatible.
Yeah that answers was straight up wrong 😅
Exactly!!! I was pretty shocked hearing the answer she gave. Electromagnetism helloo? Not only brushing off the electron cloud, saying you can "bump into a nucleus"? Like what, you talking about nuclear fusion? Ahah Aaand you think the nucleus is big? it is 1/100.000 of the size of the atom ffs xD i know chemists are not quantum physicists but.....breh
It's a bit more complicated as the atom is still neutral. AFAIK the full answer lies in quantum mechanics as electrons can not be in the same place and same quantum state. So if you push the electron clouds of two atoms together, some of the electrons would need to jump to higher energy states.
better thought of as "smacking into the strong-nuclear force, which binds the neutrons and protons together."
which happens to be so strong, and containing so much energy, that when we are actually able to break through the strong-nuclear force, we can wipe out cities with it and power millions of homes.
The "not being able to pass your hand through a solid object" I thought was more due to electromagnetic repulsion (more of a physics question at that point). Loved the electron passing as gloves analogy bit, though.
I love how visibly happy and excited Kate always gets when she's just made something with chemistry, so adorable!
I don't want to rain on the parade for everyone who's enjoying the video, but that analogy for why objects don't pass through other solid objects didn't seem correct to me. I may be misunderstanding her explanation but I'm pretty sure the nucleus isn't coming in contact with other nuclei. They are not only incredibly small compared to the electron cloud surrounding it. But a positively charged nucleus would repel another positively charged nucleus, no contact possible there without an insane amount of energy. I could be wrong, and there could be a better way to explain it, I'm open to being corrected.
In terms of touching something, you would be able to get as close as you can to anything else.
I think it would have been better if she explained how states of matter and energy relate. Like how it's easier to push your hand through air compared to water because of the speed a molecule is moving at. You could put your hand through a solid object if you gave it enough energy to move its dense mass but then it would probably no longer be a solid (and would also be a ton of energy).
Her explanation makes sense but it feels very incomplete and may have just been cut down by the editing team.
the visualization of electrons as accessories is so helpful though.
the thing is that half of the questions weren't chemistry related at all... so she just kept talking with what amounts to pretty much the same amount of knowledge any person with a degree in any stem field could.
No you’re right her explanation is just wrong. If you’re at the point where 2 atomic nuclei are coming close to each other, this implies the electron densities of the atoms have overlapped, ie formed a chemical bond. Not what happens when you touch something. When you touch something ur feeling the Inter-electron repulsions. Nothing to do with the nuclei.
@@jwildan thats not why you cant put your hand through solid objects, you dont need more energy to move the atoms, you need more energy to deform the structure.
Some people are born to be teachers. Kate is one of them.
Nah, many of her explanations are cutting corners or are plain wrong. But that might simply be because this is the setting of a youtube vid.
3:37 "I can't really give you my kidney or my liver" had me dying 💀😭
The 'double replacement reaction' analogy was BRILLIANT!!! Loved this video!!!
PJ's question is at 2:30 for those who want to see it 😌
thanks lol
The reason why we can't pass through each other is not the "incredibly dense nucleus of atoms" it's the strength of the repulsion of the electromagnetic field of electrons, primarily.
Thats right...
@@9000leo yeah as a chemist myself i have to say that there were some "inaccuracies" and also a defintly false statements like this in this video. I get that its hard to simplify many concepts so that a non-science person understands, but still...
@@erikl1478 Watched the other chem support vid featuring Kate, got the same disappointment unfortunately. She's commenting the use of HF for dissolving flesh in Breaking Bad was not great because it's a weak acid... But I thought whether a substance is corrosive doesn't really have to do with its acidity...
This is what i love about chemistry, the more you learn, the more you realized everything is a huge, huge, huge, chain of reactions.
These are not the same lava lamps of my childhood. These were just wax in some liquid that was right on the edge of wax's density, so that when it was molten, it rose, and when it began to cool, it sank. The light at the bottom heated and melted it.
it hasnt changed...she's actually just wrong.
What a creative way to explain double replacement reaction in a nutshell😂. I'm now a fan.
Her analogy isn't rigourous though. She doesn't explain chemical equilibrium in her analogy.
@@hammyliu1 i would find it weird for it to be rigorous when it's mean to be explained within a minute to a wide array of audience
@@hammyliu1 laypeople aren't going to understand that
I wish I had you as a teacher, you can explain chemistry like a genius! I will use your examples when I help kids with chemistry for sure! ♥
4:00 bill nye said that the reason you can’t pass through solid objects is because like charges repel each other so we interpret them as solid. strange how she (a chemist) has a completely different response than a physicist
I was baffled by her explanation even though she's obviously dumbing it down for the laymen, AFAIK it's mostly the electrons which are repelling each other and maintaining bonds with other atoms, protons have barely anything to do with why solids can't pass through each other, but I'm no expert.
It's pretty much just wrong unless this was cut in the most ungodly manner possible. Hard to really save the explanation.
I mean you knew there was going to be some wrong stuff when she said everything around us is chemistry. Everything is physics; chemistry is just how elements interact with other elements
For the boiling and evaporation. The simple and generalized definition is :
"Evaporation is the physical change where any substance in liquid phase enters into the gaseous phase after which a dynamic equilibrium is attained"
"Boiling point is the temperature at which the external pressure is equal to the vapour pressure of the liquid "
Anyways I am just a 12th grader and probably completely explained the questions she answered in layman's terms. Anyways great job.
So many weird explanations:
- Energy is needed to break bonds, not some long winded Ryan and Blake analogy that doesn't even make sense
- Electrostatic repulsion is responsible for things not passing (see rest of comments)
- Humans have pheromones that play important roles in how people interact alongside verbal and visual communication
Yeah, humans do have and use pheromones. It's one of the ways we have attraction for some and not for others.
Yeah there's definitely controversy around pheromone stuff mainly because people were trying to claim basically it worked lIke in other animals as some ultimate determinant of attraction which it isn't, but pheromones definitely exist and can play a role in a larger story of what makes someone attracted to someone else
It does make sense. It’s simplified. She didn’t get into the details of how bonds are broken, just explaining what it means. You could get into the specifics of exactly what causes the breaks later. Chill.
Another way older lava lamps worked was with fluid and semi solid wax! When the wax was solid, it was denser than the fluid and would sink, but when the whole thing was heated by a lightbulb, the liquid wax could float and be moved around by the hot liquid. Different kinds of lava lamps!
I think every lava lamp works like that
3:52 electrostatic repulsion between the electrons in your hand and the table causes you to not be able to put your hand through it, not the nucleus
Pauli exclusion principle, technically, but anything with electrons would be more accurate than the description she gave.
@@edbangor9163 i mean kinda... pauli exclusion principle is why electrons dont all chill in the same spot/ form interior and valence shells, they can't be identical particles. it doesn't have much to do with why your hand can't pass through a table. You have to have quantum tunneling on a macroscopic scale to actually do that. The question is so absurd it doesn't really have a concrete answer at least without a butt ton of math
@@edbangor9163 it’s not Pauli exclusion principle, it’s just electrostatic repulsion
@@espanadorada7962 look up the repulsive term of interaction potentials like the lennard jones potential and you will see that it always has a much shorter range than r^-2. this shows that the repulsion is a quantum mechanic effect namely the pauli repulsion
I absolutely adore her energy
Two of my very favorites: Kate the Chemist and astrobiologist Dr. David Grinspoon...both truly brilliant and enthusiastic, they just demonstrate it in different ways. Especially appreciate it when Dr. Grinspoon says how much he loves Wall-E.....the reaction of some of most brilliant people on the planet for a cartoon is truly endearing :-)
Her enthusiasm is infectious !
She's so passionate I love it
she explained in such a beautiful simplictic way that made sense, and her enthusiasm about answering the questions kept me engaged for the whole video... lovely
I love her enthusiasm and how she explains things in the simplistic form
never been more proud to have had dr. biberdorf as my chem 1 and 2 prof at UT Austin
Never seen such energetic teacher before
Just used Ryan and Blake as an analogy for chemistry, I’m impressed
can't believe kickthepj is famous now
She did a great job explaining everything. She is knowledgeable and entertaining.
they should've kept PJ's tweet in the thumbnail but give him back the verification mark lol
I love the passion that all of the guests show when they explain their answers. She seems so genuinely in love with what she does which is such a beautiful thing to see.
Love her energy and simple to understand metaphors
I love how passionate she is and how easy she explains those things.
The passing your hand through question Was entered incorrectly. It's because of the electromagnetic force. The nucleus does not take up a lot of space in an atom it's very dense yes, but it takes up a very small amount in space
This is months old so I've no idea if anyone will see it, but the explanation of the lava lamp function isn't correct.
Although it does contain oil and water, the process is thermal, not mechanical. The lamps have a fairly high voltage incandescent light in the base, this both serves to illuminate the lamp, and more importantly heat the heavier of the two liquids. It then floats to the top because it's density is reduced, until it cools off and drops back to the bottom. This is aided by the narrow top of the conical lamp, speeding the transfer of heat a bit. None of them that I've ever seen rely on carbonation.
Right! How in her explanation carbon dioxide is supposed to get back to the bottom to repeat the cycle?
Finally something up my ally. Chemist here, enjoying this. Also you can break a bond between atoms just by giving them enough energy.
Alley*
@@TremendousSax That was obviously just a typo, come on!
@@yevgeniyaleshchenko849 yes, it was obviously a typo
Please bring her back!!!! So passionate but so easy to understand
11:02 you know that she's a *Mad* Scientist judging by how she mixes that slime🤣
I love her. I hate chemistry, I failed at school, but she's perfectly explaining
rip PJ’s verification tick, also did you just happen across his tweet and decide to use it in the video??
I'm so happy with how excited she is while talking. I love so much watching people who love and know a lot about a subject, no matter if i understand or like the subject itself.
PJ sent me here
3:03 technically this answer is wrong. You can't pass through object because the atoms (electrons around) are repelling each other like magnets.
You're never actually touching the solid nucleus (protons/neutrons).
It's like having a wall of strong magnets trying to touch another wall of strong magnets, the closer you get the stronger the repulsion and you can't make them touch.
If you try to push harder and harder, you need so much energy that the bonds between molecules breaks first and you "punch through" the object (or stab your hand or whatever)
She seems so fun! Would listen to her explain anything lol
This is the first person who actually made science fun🎉
Do a biochemist or cell biologist please! I think people would love to hear more about these lesser known area of science (relative to the general audience of course).
a genius who can explain something so complicated in a very easy way, she is definitely one!! loved this episode
I hated, and I mean hated, chemistry in high school. These questions are so good and interesting to see answered, and this chemist is so good at answering them.
ok, we NEED a second part of this woman. 🙇♂️🙇♂️🙇♂️
This is BY FAR the best description of Chemistry I have ever seen.
ever heard*
Alright let me clear up the proper sequence of development of Periodic table.
1. Dobernier's Triads. The middle element have a mean atomic mass of the other two.
2. Newland's Law of Octaves (Periodicity)
3. De Chancourtois' Tellurique Screw
4. Dimitri Mendeleev (Arranged on basis of Atomic mass and also predicted 4 elements for future discovery like Eka-Sillicon)
5. Mosley (Long form of Periodic Table) : Atomic number is the function of periodicity. Also gave an equation called Mosley's law.
3:45 Doesn't the nucleus take up almost no space at all and the reason you can't pass your hand through some other object is because of the electrons of the object repelling the electrons in your hand? Instead of some nuclei hitting each other
Ive just been doing organic chemistry for 14 hours non stop(just ate a quick meal while studying) and this is the first video i get recommended
Have people actually tried the barley wheat seed thing today in modern era? That's kinda cool
Love her enthusiasm and I really like the way she explains everything
Great video! Gen Z TH-cam kid in me was most surprised by seeing KickthePJ here.
This lady is absolutely fantastic at teaching, she's so enthusiastic and pleasant about everything, her analogies are simple and easy to understand, and she's quite easy on the eyes.
I swear if she was my chemistry teacher back in high school, I would've been passing with flying colors and even pursued a degree in it and I HATE chemistry.
Of all the Wired Tech Support episodes, this is the best. The very best, no less. Brilliant.
8:28 unbelievably what?
I love the people in these videos, they are so passionate about their area of knowledgeable, and answer everything on a simple way.
PJ in the thumbnail 👀
And she answers him at 2:34!!!
@@TheScareLab no this person is laughing bc kickthepj is a famous youtuber lmao
@@shivb2950 I know, I was pointing out that she actually answered his off-the-rail tweet as well as putting him in the thumbnail.
but edited his verified checkmark out😶
@@thelogIady I know, right? The cheek of it.
The question about the empty space is more a physics question, and its about the electromagnetism more than the nucleous.
I really wish I knew about this video before chemistry class
I love teachers that are excited about their material! It makes it much easier to learn, in my experience, because emotional engagement with the material stimulates the brain to retain more info!
1:18 yea but does it have anything to do with mint flavor? cause thats the only ive seen used. also, soooo its not a chemical reaction at all, is a physical reaction?
OKAY, so her and Bill Nye the Science Guy make a series about science. I’d learn so much.