Many thanks to our sponsor for making this video possible: Go to ground.news/ArvinAsh to see through media bias and get all sides of every story. Subscribe through my link for 40% off unlimited access this month.
Can you cover the new JWST discoveries of large, mature galaxies in the early universe? Brian Green and others made some comments that suggest areas outside the observable universe might have banged and cooled sooner than our area. Are there galaxies speeding toward us faster than the speed of light or is everything moving away faster than the speed of light? What’s the deal with Andromeda moving toward us if the latter?
if oxygen always bonds with itself and is colorless through this process, shouldn't the same thing happen with flourine? isnt flourine gas also a molecule?
12:15 : sO MERCURY DOESN'T "WET" LIKE LIQUID GALLIUM BECAUSE OF THOSE TWO OUTER ELECTRONS BEING HELD CLOSER TO THE NUCLEUS, THEREFORE MAKING IT MORE "INERT"?
Mercury can wet and display capillary forces, just with a narrower group of metals. Mercury and gold get along just fine. Not like gallium or lead, though. Lead acts like it will wet anything. It's useful to break surface tension in soldering alloys, but that also makes it very persistent in biological tissues.
@@cvp5882 Mercury can't wet anything. Wetness is a property of Water, solely of water, and no other object other than water can make anything else wet. And some things can't become wet in the first place, like Talc. you might as well say that oxygen is wet, if you believe any metal is wet, oxygen can also display capillary forces, but that is not wetness. wetness is unique to the chemical compound of water. To be wet is to contain or retain water in some capacity. That Mercury or Gallium or Lead can infuse with other metals, doesn't make them water.
I'm a senior Doctor, and involved in teaching medical students and registrars. Teaching doesn't come natural to me but I have found your simplified method of explaining in short bits and pieces and your laid-back soft approach very useful, so thank you for not only educating me into subjects not familiar to me, but also educating me into how to educate!
@@halfsourlizard9319 you could've googled what a senior doctor is instead of being disrespectful. A senior doctor is someone who oversees the intern-doctors/assistant doctors and teaches them.
@@halfsourlizard9319 you could have done so with more respect. Also that sounds like a nitpick and as I said anybody reading can just google the definition if they are that interested.
I’m often disappointed with information content on TH-cam. Typically because the information is misleading/flat out wrong or it’s not explained well or over explained. This is my new favorite channel. Thank you for the work you put into these great videos.
One great thing about these videos is not AI narrated and the sound quality is excellent without having a huge enormous oversized microphone in the foreground covering over a third of the frame.
And about the color of Gold, I think this deserve more detailed explanation, because: 1. Copper is also of different color than other metals, but its 4s electron certainly does not have as high energy as Gold's 6s electron, then why does it also absorb lower energy light? 2. If Gold's 6s is closer to 5d so it can absorb lower energy light, then why not other elements of similar or heavier weight, e.g. atom order 78 (Pt) to 84 (Po)?
When thinking about copper, gold and silver we have to take into consideration that another effect takes place in the metallic lattice: the "cloud" of electrons has similar properties to a plasma, since it's a loosely connected group of electrons. Copper gold and silver, having all 3 a full d¹⁰ orbital and an half full s¹ orbital are uniquely positioned to absorb ultraviolet light in a way that causes imbalances in the distribution of electron, and the subsequent return to a stable condition causes a "shift" in the reflect light, giving us the same effect of reflecting visible light that other metals have, just with a yellow/red tint. Given the fact that copper's valence electrons are in a lower energy state than gold's it tends to absorb less red light compared to gold because it needs an higher energy wave to be excited. Since gold's electrons are farther from the nucleus a lower energy wave (in this case red light) is sufficent to excite them and so we see a reflected yellow tint. Hope i gave some more details, cause colour is a fascinating topic to study and in general reflection and absorpion are crucial properties to analyze molecules. Sorry for any spelling and phrasing errors, it's 1 am and I'm tired ahahahh
@@The_CommunistDoge Exactly. His explanations are simplistic and in some cases, wrong. I commented earlier that his explanation of the color of fluorine gas was wrong because Fluorine exists as a diatomic gas so we have to examine the sigma bond, or more specifically, the bond and antibond orbitals, not the number of valence electrons.
Fluorine gas exists as diatomic molecules so your simplistic explanation of single valence shell electrons absorbing photons is misleading. There is no unpaired electron to jump to a higher energy level, it is part of a covalent bond (sigma bond) and that is where we must look to understand the color of Fluorine gas as well as the colors of the rest of the Halogens.
And, Fluorine was misspelled (Flourine) the first time that slide was shown at around 1:32. When that slide appeared again much later in the video, it was the correct spelling. Your point is a good one. Studying the various energy levels for bonding and antibonding orbitals on a molecular orbital diagram for diatomics shows a clear difference between energy of the unpaired radical electrons for each fluorine and the energy of those same electrons after bonding. Despite the errors however, I do like Arvin's channel. He is not one of those typical grandiose science channels who only talks about black holes or what the Universe looked like after the first 3 minutes. His topics vary quite a bit and in my opinion, this "lower level stuff" is way more interesting anyway.
Precisely. The explanation is completely facile. The real reason has to do with the vibrational modes of the diatomic molecules coupling to the electronic excitation levels. It's so cringe seeing all these "this is the most amazing explanation of chemistry ever!" and "I wish my teacher would have taught chemistry like this when I was in school, maybe I would have learned something!" comments on bad videos like this.
Keep in mind two different ways of knowing, 1 technical 1 basic, stil accomplish the same thing. Here is a good example: an amazing home run hitter knows less about the aerodynamics and physics of the baseball bat design than the engineer but still remains the only one that can hit home runs l@@Muonium1
There's so much high-level information packed into such a concise video in a way that is both extremely understandable and entertaining to a layperson. And even though it's really fun to watch, you don't treat viewers like they can't handle information that is above what most other science videos get into. This video is a case in point, although you have done this again and again. Thanks for all of these fantastic videos!
Your videos are so amazing, you are able to explain complex topics in a very simple manner, and your voice doesnt let a person get bored. that's why i always look at your channel for complex quantum science videos
Imagine the reaction a medieval alchemist would have, if he could see us. Through a little rectangle, we see a bright, friendly fellow explaining to us in clear terms every mystery of the alchemist's work. For free. As we make lunch in our kitchen, or are carried along in ground craft or aircraft. Its a miracle. Its so valuable. Im so happy for this.
This actually makes so much sense, that I sent the link to my middle school chemistry and physics teachers. This one will be seen in classrooms. And it belongs there.
I always hated chemistry (thank you, Mrs. Chemistry Teacher in high school), but explained in an interesting and understandable way, like in this video, makes all these facts simply fascinating!
Those are some really nice and elegant explanation of some pretty complex topics that usually require months of explanation to grasp. And as many commenters pointed out, Fluorine exists in the diatomic form F2; but while being tecnically wrong in not showing the molecular orbital the explanation of light was beautifully conveyed and I think it still stands as a great way to imagine the interaction between waves and electrons. As for anyone curious about the complete explanation: All electrons exist in an orbital, a specific "shape" in 3D space in witch we usually consider most probable to find said electron. Every orbital has an associated wave, and it's interaction with the wave of the photon determines what frequency of light we get after reemission. When we form a bond the wave function of 2 *atomic* orbitals combine into a new *molecular* orbital, that has different proprieties and a different wave function. It now basically acts like an atomic orbital that absorbs and reflects light in it's own unique way. Since in different molecules we get interactions between different orbitals we get the whole range of possible colours.
I am certain that I have been presented all of this information over my years of schooling, but never laid out this succinctly. Absolutely fantastic descriptions!
so much wasted content in our modern world. this is actual information about the world around you. i understand why we serve our feline masters, but how knowledge is less viewed then entertainment worries me. i love to be entertained but i crave to be educated
@@seufimeaqui9034it is _directly_ profitable. The people who know how electricity works, how to generate it, and how to distribute it, and sell it. To everyone. The educated ones at car companies know what they need to make battaries, where to get it, how to package it, and put it in uncle's tesla. And sell it. Towards the top of many large companies are people who learned what things are, how they work, and apply that towards making products to sell on the markets. the entertainment industry finds it easier to sell something quick and easy to understand than to share something of substance.
Wonderfully satisfying to watch these videos... several aha moments as the explanations connects seemingly disparate facts that were studied, but never really understood! Thank you for providing delightfully educative videos!
Amazing video. If high school taught chemistry like this I’d have seriously considered chemistry as my professional calling! Amazing video as usual Mr. Ash. Thank-you!
This video is fantastic. I have wondered about this exact subject for a long time, and your explanation was clear and easy to follow. Whenever a new question popped into my mind, you answered it. Bravo!
This would make an outstanding book on chemistry going through each element one by one. The opening would also show the complete diagram of each individual atom with its electron orbital system explained. Following pages would explain how that configuration describes its properties in every manner. The first chapter would just explain or go over the basic chemistry laws like Pauli exclusion and others needed to grasp how the elements interact. Maybe it already exists and if so I will pick it up. A future video should explain why elements are so many times not in their standard configuration and remain that way. I have to label this video OUTSTANDING especially in its presentation.
The problem is it would be wrong, just as most of this video. Elements do not exist as isolated atoms. The gaseous elements exist as diatomic molecules so using valence electrons is wrong. Metals are bonded together by metallic bonds and that is what determines their properties. Many other elements exist as crystals so you have to examine the crystal lattice to understand their properties.
This video was very interesting, and satisfying. I vaguely remember my physics teacher talking about the colour of metals in high school, but he didn't really care that much to teach students, he had been teaching since just after WW2, 30 years before he got around to me.
The metal reflectivity was badly explained, which is kinda surprising since half of the explanation was said in the preceding part. Metals are reflective because of all of those free electrons that are free to whiz around the metal. Incoming light, which is made up of electromagnetic waves, hits the metal surface and since it is an electromagnetic force and the surface is full of electrons free to move around, the electrons move in response to the force. They move in such a way as to nearly perfectly reproduce and emit the electromagnetic forces that hits them (minus any wavelengths that perfectly correspond to an electron energy level) and those reproduced electromagnetic forces are light, and basically exactly the light that hit the surface. When doing a physics degree, I was having electromagnetism and solid state physics at the same time, and putting together the pieces from both courses, the effects of electric and magnetic forces on electrons, the structure of metals with their vast sea of freely moving electrons, and the nature of light being an electromagnetic wave, was truly a huge unifying eureka moment for me. It is like three things that are kinda hard to truly understand on their own, suddenly you could see what they all meant and how they all form the world around us. This isn't just abstract thought or how some black box machine works, but how our universe truly works and you can see it clearly with your eyes.
This is an incredible video. I would have loved to hear you go on and on for hours describing how the properties of various substances emerge from quantum mechanics (and relativistic effects! I hadn’t heard of that before!) Anyway, this was great. I’m glad to have found this channel.
I'm not a smart man...... I am however very curious and interested in your subjects......... you are patient and I can keep up with most of these concepts........in time I gain more and more understanding........very much like your videos... 16:16 😊
If you start with the basics and work your way up from there, most things are understandable. Make sure you understand the fundamentals before moving on.
Thanks Arvin, was hoping you'd do this sequel and as you promised you did, and it is awesome to see that a few basic principles make up all the properties, maybe a bit wilder with quantum effects but I really love the video. Thanks for your work!
Great video, but as always, good answers create new questions: If Mercury holds its electrons so tightly, which causes it to be in a liquid form in normal conditions, then why is it a good conductor? Doesn't electricity require the presence of free electrons, which can be easily detached from the atom?
The annoying thing with QM is that a particle like an electron can appear in multiple ways simultaneously, each uniquely fitting a particular context. Electrons and other leptons are fascinating to reconstruct from the field. They are real bicomplex surfaces without a real reference or real relationship with the field. Those qualities belong to hadrons who don't have a real surface separating these roles. All leptons have either inertial or non-inertial frames. They either have a rest state or they never have a rest state. The absence of real reference or field perspective means they will orient and shape relative to real values. This real surface is described as degeneracy pressure. When value is added into it, it contracts. This is why atoms in a period on the table get smaller as their outer shell fills with electrons. But then we add value into that shell. It has nowhere to contract, so it expands until that energy level is filled and is forced to be excluded by the electron as a photon. It's hard to appreciate your explanations here without first understanding why all the visualizations of electrons as points, clouds, etc. are both true and not true. They wear the hats fitting the available contexts. It's easy to fall in love with leptons. They are field dabbling in position.
I'm always spellbound watching stuff like this. When my youngest son was 10 years old I told that if I wasn't such an idiot in highschool and didn't smoke so much weed I might have gone on to higher education and become a nuclear physicist like I've always dreamed about. He immediately shot back with "if you didn't smoke all that weed you wouldn't have become an electrician, wouldn't have met Mom and I wouldn't be here!". Still brings a tear to my eyes. Kudo's to those like Arvin that still fill my mind with a keen wonder.
I hope you remind that kiddo that hearing this has made all it worth it - I know many people who never heard it when they should have and it clipped their wings too early. You may not yet be a physicist but aside from ludicrous cost of formal education - what's stopping you now? Kids are such wonderful vehicles for regaining sense of wonderment - although it seems you haven't lost yours - you better never loose it! Also - good on you for having early,honest conversation with your son about reality of drugs and addiction. Too many people lost to this horrible affliction partly because of lack of knowledge. You're a great dad, dude.
Thank you, Mr Arvin Ash for producing and publishing this video for us. Marvelous! You have answered many of my questions already. Yet, I have a few more for which I would greatly appreciate your comments: (1) By what is paramaterized the function of the force of attraction between an electron in its orbital and the atomic nucleus? (2) Can the force from (1) be used to calculate an effective radial distance from the nucleus of the electrons to their orbitals, perhaps given that the nucleus and elections are treated as points in spacetime at which their energy is converted purely to mass which warps the spacetime curvature? (3) when electrons are shared between atoms, can this be represented as two topological manifolds coming into contact and sewing together [some of their] (hyper-)faces/edges/vertices, so that objects embedded-within or projected-upon said manifolds can travel between them (I.e., an electron orbiting two atoms might become represented as a "geodesic" on an atom-local subspace).
@@fburton8 Remember that two ampules of a gas (fluorine) are not necessarily identical. One may appear "stronger" or more colorful than the other. Continuing pedantic mode... the "color strength" of a gas ampule depends on the gas' density (pressure) within its ampule. Dense gas would have more atoms per unit volume, so it would be more likely to experience photon-excitation causing more photons to be emitted (of its natural "color"). That will make its color "stronger". *_So summarizing, a gas' density directly affects its color "strength" (saturation)._* So, theoretically, even Helium (normally colorless) _should_ exhibit very faint color properties when at the highest density (whilst still a gas). This would be extremely rare, since He has only 2 electrons -- and for color to emerge, one/both of those electrons would need to bet temporarily excited to a higher orbital -- which is very very (did I say, _VERY_ much) difficult. This is theoretical, but still experimentally determinable.
I was taught way back that the reason metal conducts electricity is because their valence electrons were easily removed when bumped out of place by the atom next to it when current flows. Your explanation at the 11 minute mark saying that mercury's outer most electrons resist change, then why are there still things like mercury relays? They work using mercury as the conductive path to the load. Why is that?
There is a subtle but important point I made in the video, which is that while Mercury resists sharing (more than other metals), it's still shares more than other elements such as gases. So electrons are still floating around in the metal matrix, just as in all metals, but not are not tied to other atoms so much as to make the matrix immobile as in a solid.
I LOVE chemistry. No tricks needed. I think ALL kids should be taught chemistry, so they have a basic understand about how the world they live in works. It would also negate a lot of the stupid myths in the modern world.
I’m *really* glad you mentioned the relativistic effects and explained the in quantum mechanical and energy-mass terms. So tired of hearing people get the relativistic part right, but going all early-Bohr model about it. Also, air is about 78% nitrogen - not 99%. Fluorine is spelled with “uo”. Sorry to nitpick - I really value your content, and I love the accuracy of your info. Your channel is awesome - thank you!
Seriously 😮😮😮😮we need more of this on the same topic. I just started to unravel the misery behind all of this, and the video cut short. You'll give us like an hour version on this topic, please. 😊
Wow. I believe in your previous video on this subject I wrote a comment asking you to create another video explaining the colours of the elements, and this video is very close to what I wanted you to talk about. (Of course, I can't prove you saw my comment.) I was hoping for the exact numerical values of the differences between the energy levels for the different electron shells, but this was more of a qualitative discussion. Well, this is a big topic and maybe you can expand on this area in future videos. For example, I would like you to show that the differences between energy levels in differing shells are usually not in the visible light spectrum, but in this video you seemed to imply that the energy level differences were mostly in the visible light spectrum. (There are only a few energy level differences that correspond to the spectrum of visible light.) For another example, I would like you to explain whether the number of protons in the nucleus impact the exact numerical values of the energy levels in the different shells. For a third example, your animations implied that an electron would only jump up or down a single level, but I think that's completely wrong, they can (and will) jump multiple levels at once.
An exceptional video, because it clearly & succinctly explains these questions so many have wondered about. Its paired sister (predecessor) video is also great! Highly recommend both (in addition to your earlier one on atomic Quantum effects).
This was great! Could you please go one little step further and explain which atoms can form bonds (it's not only based on the valence electrons) and then how molecules are formed and how they behave or interact?
I have often wondered about all of these questions about elemental differences. Now the trick will be to try to remember all these answers. Interesting video!
Great video! I am a professor of biology, and do have some idea about chemistry, but I have learned a lot of new stuff in this video. Just one small note: it's "fluorine", not "flourine". The latter should be an element in bread making :-)
I wish I had known this stuff when I was studying chemistry. It would have been so much more interesting. Why don't chemistry classes make the material relatable to every day experiences, as Arvin does?
@@ArvinAsh "It's all quantum mechanics." Soooo true. We arise from interacting fluctuations among a few overlapping quantum fields. Is it 12+12+4 fields?
A lot more gets through the atmosphere than what we can see. The visual spectrum that we can see was shaped by our evolutionary need to see those colors that gave our ancestors a better chance to survive.
1. Is the universe electrically neutral? 2. How do we know the universe is or isn't electrically neutral? 3. If virtual particles pop in and out all the time, could some of those particles have an electric charge that temporarily makes the universe electrically un-neutral? 4. What fundamental law forbids the electrical non-neutrality of the universe from those charged virtual particles from lasting too long? 5. Could some of those virtual particles be quarks? 6. If the answer to 5 is yes, then same questions 1-4 but about color charge instead of electric charge.
![[#2024MAMA] G-DRAGON - 무제(Untitled, 2014)+POWER+HOME SWEET HOME+뱅뱅뱅+FANTASTIC BABY | Mnet 241123 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ox29z5Nf1Uk/mqdefault.jpg)
Many thanks to our sponsor for making this video possible: Go to ground.news/ArvinAsh to see through media bias and get all sides of every story. Subscribe through my link for 40% off unlimited access this month.
Can you cover the new JWST discoveries of large, mature galaxies in the early universe? Brian Green and others made some comments that suggest areas outside the observable universe might have banged and cooled sooner than our area.
Are there galaxies speeding toward us faster than the speed of light or is everything moving away faster than the speed of light? What’s the deal with Andromeda moving toward us if the latter?
if oxygen always bonds with itself and is colorless through this process, shouldn't the same thing happen with flourine? isnt flourine gas also a molecule?
Thank you for using comic sans
why zinc and Cadmium are not liquid then?
I teach undergraduate general chemistry. The visual descriptions are superb, I will show these to my students. Thank you
12:15 : sO MERCURY DOESN'T "WET" LIKE LIQUID GALLIUM BECAUSE OF THOSE TWO OUTER ELECTRONS BEING HELD CLOSER TO THE NUCLEUS, THEREFORE MAKING IT MORE "INERT"?
That's great to hear!
Mercury can wet and display capillary forces, just with a narrower group of metals. Mercury and gold get along just fine.
Not like gallium or lead, though. Lead acts like it will wet anything. It's useful to break surface tension in soldering alloys, but that also makes it very persistent in biological tissues.
Lucky students. I was just thinking, I wish I had seen these videos back when I was taking chem.
@@cvp5882 Mercury can't wet anything. Wetness is a property of Water, solely of water, and no other object other than water can make anything else wet.
And some things can't become wet in the first place, like Talc.
you might as well say that oxygen is wet, if you believe any metal is wet, oxygen can also display capillary forces, but that is not wetness. wetness is unique to the chemical compound of water. To be wet is to contain or retain water in some capacity. That Mercury or Gallium or Lead can infuse with other metals, doesn't make them water.
I'm a senior Doctor, and involved in teaching medical students and registrars. Teaching doesn't come natural to me but I have found your simplified method of explaining in short bits and pieces and your laid-back soft approach very useful, so thank you for not only educating me into subjects not familiar to me, but also educating me into how to educate!
Medical students are BRAINWASHED AND INDOCTRINATED nothing more nothing less .... look at "I am science" if you doubt it!
tf is a 'senior doctor'? Are you old or are you a geriatrician or what?
@@halfsourlizard9319 you could've googled what a senior doctor is instead of being disrespectful.
A senior doctor is someone who oversees the intern-doctors/assistant doctors and teaches them.
@@bottomtext251 Or, perhaps, I was pointing out that region-specific terminology might not be suitable for a global audience.
@@halfsourlizard9319 you could have done so with more respect. Also that sounds like a nitpick and as I said anybody reading can just google the definition if they are that interested.
I’m often disappointed with information content on TH-cam. Typically because the information is misleading/flat out wrong or it’s not explained well or over explained. This is my new favorite channel. Thank you for the work you put into these great videos.
One note: Liquid oxygen in a beautiful pale blue, liquid nitrogen is even more pale, but still bluish!!
@@zubenelgenubi and liquid ozone is a brilliant deep blue color
One great thing about these videos is not AI narrated and the sound quality is excellent without having a huge enormous oversized microphone in the foreground covering over a third of the frame.
And excellent animations❤❤
@@stefaniasmanio5857 Yes.
Anyone idea where & what makes them?
@@jagmarc Sinister aliens from the Delta Quadrant kindly donated their services.
this discussion is funny
Yes, AI narrations suck.
And about the color of Gold, I think this deserve more detailed explanation, because:
1. Copper is also of different color than other metals, but its 4s electron certainly does not have as high energy as Gold's 6s electron, then why does it also absorb lower energy light?
2. If Gold's 6s is closer to 5d so it can absorb lower energy light, then why not other elements of similar or heavier weight, e.g. atom order 78 (Pt) to 84 (Po)?
The guy who makes the videos is a sham.
When thinking about copper, gold and silver we have to take into consideration that another effect takes place in the metallic lattice: the "cloud" of electrons has similar properties to a plasma, since it's a loosely connected group of electrons. Copper gold and silver, having all 3 a full d¹⁰ orbital and an half full s¹ orbital are uniquely positioned to absorb ultraviolet light in a way that causes imbalances in the distribution of electron, and the subsequent return to a stable condition causes a "shift" in the reflect light, giving us the same effect of reflecting visible light that other metals have, just with a yellow/red tint.
Given the fact that copper's valence electrons are in a lower energy state than gold's it tends to absorb less red light compared to gold because it needs an higher energy wave to be excited. Since gold's electrons are farther from the nucleus a lower energy wave (in this case red light) is sufficent to excite them and so we see a reflected yellow tint.
Hope i gave some more details, cause colour is a fascinating topic to study and in general reflection and absorpion are crucial properties to analyze molecules. Sorry for any spelling and phrasing errors, it's 1 am and I'm tired ahahahh
@livedandletdie Literally, google why gold is gold colored. You'll find the same answer.
@@livedandletdie just bc you dont understand the explanation doesnt mean its not correct
@@The_CommunistDoge Exactly. His explanations are simplistic and in some cases, wrong. I commented earlier that his explanation of the color of fluorine gas was wrong because Fluorine exists as a diatomic gas so we have to examine the sigma bond, or more specifically, the bond and antibond orbitals, not the number of valence electrons.
This is a topic I've been curious about since I was a kid. I feel like chemistry teachers I've had missed this opportunity for an interesting lecture.
This is probably the best video I have ever seen explaining why the elements have their properties.
Except it is riddled with errors.
As a chem student these are the questions I ask every day, glad I found a video mentioning about this
Fluorine gas exists as diatomic molecules so your simplistic explanation of single valence shell electrons absorbing photons is misleading. There is no unpaired electron to jump to a higher energy level, it is part of a covalent bond (sigma bond) and that is where we must look to understand the color of Fluorine gas as well as the colors of the rest of the Halogens.
And, Fluorine was misspelled (Flourine) the first time that slide was shown at around 1:32. When that slide appeared again much later in the video, it was the correct spelling.
Your point is a good one. Studying the various energy levels for bonding and antibonding orbitals on a molecular orbital diagram for diatomics shows a clear difference between energy of the unpaired radical electrons for each fluorine and the energy of those same electrons after bonding.
Despite the errors however, I do like Arvin's channel. He is not one of those typical grandiose science channels who only talks about black holes or what the Universe looked like after the first 3 minutes. His topics vary quite a bit and in my opinion, this "lower level stuff" is way more interesting anyway.
Precisely. The explanation is completely facile. The real reason has to do with the vibrational modes of the diatomic molecules coupling to the electronic excitation levels. It's so cringe seeing all these "this is the most amazing explanation of chemistry ever!" and "I wish my teacher would have taught chemistry like this when I was in school, maybe I would have learned something!" comments on bad videos like this.
@@Muonium1 Your comment is far more cringe-worthy than Arvin's explanation.
@@naeem_bari an imbecilic comment from a content free channel 🥱
Keep in mind two different ways of knowing, 1 technical 1 basic, stil accomplish the same thing. Here is a good example: an amazing home run hitter knows less about the aerodynamics and physics of the baseball bat design than the engineer but still remains the only one that can hit home runs l@@Muonium1
Great video Arvin. Finally some good explanation as to why matter is the way it is. Thank you.
There's so much high-level information packed into such a concise video in a way that is both extremely understandable and entertaining to a layperson. And even though it's really fun to watch, you don't treat viewers like they can't handle information that is above what most other science videos get into. This video is a case in point, although you have done this again and again. Thanks for all of these fantastic videos!
Your videos are so amazing, you are able to explain complex topics in a very simple manner, and your voice doesnt let a person get bored. that's why i always look at your channel for complex quantum science videos
Wow, I now have a feeling I understand how it works... Thank you so much for that opportunity and your perfect explanations!
These videos should come in a set of five. The same video loops at least five times so I have a chance of remembering even half of it.
At least it’s not just me
0.75 x play speed 👍
Just pause, go back as you please or need, maybe play the whole video again.
Imagine the reaction a medieval alchemist would have, if he could see us. Through a little rectangle, we see a bright, friendly fellow explaining to us in clear terms every mystery of the alchemist's work. For free. As we make lunch in our kitchen, or are carried along in ground craft or aircraft. Its a miracle. Its so valuable. Im so happy for this.
This actually makes so much sense, that I sent the link to my middle school chemistry and physics teachers. This one will be seen in classrooms. And it belongs there.
The very specific topics of your recent videos have been by far my favorite. Thank you for creating these videos.
Learning Reality is so much more fulfilling than learning fantasy.
I always loved physics but I suddenly feel like I understand chemistry a whole lot better and want to learn more about it. 😃
I always hated chemistry (thank you, Mrs. Chemistry Teacher in high school), but explained in an interesting and understandable way, like in this video, makes all these facts simply fascinating!
My chemistry teacher hated me, but I loved chemistry so much it didn't matter. I'm fascinated with how the universe works.
Those are some really nice and elegant explanation of some pretty complex topics that usually require months of explanation to grasp.
And as many commenters pointed out, Fluorine exists in the diatomic form F2; but while being tecnically wrong in not showing the molecular orbital the explanation of light was beautifully conveyed and I think it still stands as a great way to imagine the interaction between waves and electrons.
As for anyone curious about the complete explanation:
All electrons exist in an orbital, a specific "shape" in 3D space in witch we usually consider most probable to find said electron. Every orbital has an associated wave, and it's interaction with the wave of the photon determines what frequency of light we get after reemission. When we form a bond the wave function of 2 *atomic* orbitals combine into a new *molecular* orbital, that has different proprieties and a different wave function. It now basically acts like an atomic orbital that absorbs and reflects light in it's own unique way. Since in different molecules we get interactions between different orbitals we get the whole range of possible colours.
I am certain that I have been presented all of this information over my years of schooling, but never laid out this succinctly. Absolutely fantastic descriptions!
so much wasted content in our modern world. this is actual information about the world around you. i understand why we serve our feline masters, but how knowledge is less viewed then entertainment worries me. i love to be entertained but i crave to be educated
Its not profitable so people don’t invest on it
Ok
@@seufimeaqui9034it is _directly_ profitable. The people who know how electricity works, how to generate it, and how to distribute it, and sell it. To everyone. The educated ones at car companies know what they need to make battaries, where to get it, how to package it, and put it in uncle's tesla. And sell it.
Towards the top of many large companies are people who learned what things are, how they work, and apply that towards making products to sell on the markets.
the entertainment industry finds it easier to sell something quick and easy to understand than to share something of substance.
Bruh how did you bring cats in?
Cringe take
Wonderfully satisfying to watch these videos... several aha moments as the explanations connects seemingly disparate facts that were studied, but never really understood! Thank you for providing delightfully educative videos!
I thought that we either didn't have an answer to this or it was extremely complex, which it still is, but this is such an amazing explanation.
Amazing video. If high school taught chemistry like this I’d have seriously considered chemistry as my professional calling! Amazing video as usual Mr. Ash. Thank-you!
This video is fantastic. I have wondered about this exact subject for a long time, and your explanation was clear and easy to follow. Whenever a new question popped into my mind, you answered it. Bravo!
This guy has explained 10 years of questions for me, well done
This would make an outstanding book on chemistry going through each element one by one. The opening would also show the complete diagram of each individual atom with its electron orbital system explained. Following pages would explain how that configuration describes its properties in every manner. The first chapter would just explain or go over the basic chemistry laws like Pauli exclusion and others needed to grasp how the elements interact. Maybe it already exists and if so I will pick it up. A future video should explain why elements are so many times not in their standard configuration and remain that way. I have to label this video OUTSTANDING especially in its presentation.
The problem is it would be wrong, just as most of this video. Elements do not exist as isolated atoms. The gaseous elements exist as diatomic molecules so using valence electrons is wrong. Metals are bonded together by metallic bonds and that is what determines their properties. Many other elements exist as crystals so you have to examine the crystal lattice to understand their properties.
Finally after 25 years I understand chemistry. Thank you.
i aaaaalways silently wondered about this but never remembered to actually research, and today, youtube recommended this to me AND I LOVE YOU 0_0
This is in the top ten off all videos on the tube. Deep stuff explained simple for all to learn. epic!
Arvin answering all the questions I had as a kid.
I am delighted, particularly with streamlining all the obscure topics in a really accurate way. Thanks
one of the best science explanation videos i have seen.
Excellent explanation. Chemistry for dummies taught at the perfect level, not to hard and not to easy.
This video was very interesting, and satisfying. I vaguely remember my physics teacher talking about the colour of metals in high school, but he didn't really care that much to teach students, he had been teaching since just after WW2, 30 years before he got around to me.
It's so hard to find answers like this. I especially appreciate showing the electron as excitations in a quantum field.
Exceptionally good video, with clear explanations of why the Elements appear and behave as they do. 👏
Loved this! It’s amazing how the electron configuration is key to properties of elements
Your videos give the need to continue investigating and learning ❤
The metal reflectivity was badly explained, which is kinda surprising since half of the explanation was said in the preceding part. Metals are reflective because of all of those free electrons that are free to whiz around the metal. Incoming light, which is made up of electromagnetic waves, hits the metal surface and since it is an electromagnetic force and the surface is full of electrons free to move around, the electrons move in response to the force. They move in such a way as to nearly perfectly reproduce and emit the electromagnetic forces that hits them (minus any wavelengths that perfectly correspond to an electron energy level) and those reproduced electromagnetic forces are light, and basically exactly the light that hit the surface.
When doing a physics degree, I was having electromagnetism and solid state physics at the same time, and putting together the pieces from both courses, the effects of electric and magnetic forces on electrons, the structure of metals with their vast sea of freely moving electrons, and the nature of light being an electromagnetic wave, was truly a huge unifying eureka moment for me. It is like three things that are kinda hard to truly understand on their own, suddenly you could see what they all meant and how they all form the world around us. This isn't just abstract thought or how some black box machine works, but how our universe truly works and you can see it clearly with your eyes.
This video is great! Thanks!
This is an incredible video. I would have loved to hear you go on and on for hours describing how the properties of various substances emerge from quantum mechanics (and relativistic effects! I hadn’t heard of that before!)
Anyway, this was great. I’m glad to have found this channel.
This is top notch content, I feel I just watched a real lesson
Thank you for fuiling my curiosity i always wanted to know how and why some atoms bond and others dont great work keep it up
I'm not a smart man...... I am however very curious and interested in your subjects......... you are patient and I can keep up with most of these concepts........in time I gain more and more understanding........very much like your videos... 16:16 😊
If you start with the basics and work your way up from there, most things are understandable. Make sure you understand the fundamentals before moving on.
I forgot how much I loved chemistry in school. Good video! I could sit through one of your lectures.
absolutely stunning and mind-blowing explanation 🙌
Isn’t fluorine gas a diatomic molecule like nitrogen and oxygen? The video shows a single fluorine atom going to an excited state, however.
Yes, it is.
Thanks Arvin, was hoping you'd do this sequel and as you promised you did, and it is awesome to see that a few basic principles make up all the properties, maybe a bit wilder with quantum effects but I really love the video. Thanks for your work!
Great video, but as always, good answers create new questions: If Mercury holds its electrons so tightly, which causes it to be in a liquid form in normal conditions, then why is it a good conductor? Doesn't electricity require the presence of free electrons, which can be easily detached from the atom?
It still has some electrons available. It is ok conductor but not a great conductor like iron or silver.
9:04 I subscribed after watching this part and understanding it with ease. I love it
This was an incredibly helpful video to understand the nature of electrons. Thank you a lot!
This could also probably be the reason why gold, mercury and lead have higher densities than other metals.
The annoying thing with QM is that a particle like an electron can appear in multiple ways simultaneously, each uniquely fitting a particular context. Electrons and other leptons are fascinating to reconstruct from the field. They are real bicomplex surfaces without a real reference or real relationship with the field. Those qualities belong to hadrons who don't have a real surface separating these roles.
All leptons have either inertial or non-inertial frames. They either have a rest state or they never have a rest state. The absence of real reference or field perspective means they will orient and shape relative to real values. This real surface is described as degeneracy pressure. When value is added into it, it contracts. This is why atoms in a period on the table get smaller as their outer shell fills with electrons. But then we add value into that shell. It has nowhere to contract, so it expands until that energy level is filled and is forced to be excluded by the electron as a photon.
It's hard to appreciate your explanations here without first understanding why all the visualizations of electrons as points, clouds, etc. are both true and not true. They wear the hats fitting the available contexts. It's easy to fall in love with leptons. They are field dabbling in position.
Passionnant comme toujours. Bravo
6:30 I must be a non-noble gas because I also prefer to only interact with myself to keep stable
I'm always spellbound watching stuff like this. When my youngest son was 10 years old I told that if I wasn't such an idiot in highschool and didn't smoke so much weed I might have gone on to higher education and become a nuclear physicist like I've always dreamed about. He immediately shot back with "if you didn't smoke all that weed you wouldn't have become an electrician, wouldn't have met Mom and I wouldn't be here!".
Still brings a tear to my eyes. Kudo's to those like Arvin that still fill my mind with a keen wonder.
I hope you remind that kiddo that hearing this has made all it worth it - I know many people who never heard it when they should have and it clipped their wings too early. You may not yet be a physicist but aside from ludicrous cost of formal education - what's stopping you now? Kids are such wonderful vehicles for regaining sense of wonderment - although it seems you haven't lost yours - you better never loose it!
Also - good on you for having early,honest conversation with your son about reality of drugs and addiction.
Too many people lost to this horrible affliction partly because of lack of knowledge. You're a great dad, dude.
Thank you, Mr Arvin Ash for producing and publishing this video for us. Marvelous! You have answered many of my questions already. Yet, I have a few more for which I would greatly appreciate your comments:
(1) By what is paramaterized the function of the force of attraction between an electron in its orbital and the atomic nucleus?
(2) Can the force from (1) be used to calculate an effective radial distance from the nucleus of the electrons to their orbitals, perhaps given that the nucleus and elections are treated as points in spacetime at which their energy is converted purely to mass which warps the spacetime curvature?
(3) when electrons are shared between atoms, can this be represented as two topological manifolds coming into contact and sewing together [some of their] (hyper-)faces/edges/vertices, so that objects embedded-within or projected-upon said manifolds can travel between them (I.e., an electron orbiting two atoms might become represented as a "geodesic" on an atom-local subspace).
Thanks for the rapid fire answers to curious questions!
*Fluorine* is added to water to prevent tooth decay. *Flourine* is added to water to make bread dough.
(Otherwise, a fine video.)
@voidoidbas With so much content in this brief video, and such high production quality, let's overlook minor typos.
While in pedantic mode… Would a small ampoule of fluorine have such a strong colour? My understanding is it is very pale, paler than chlorine gas.
@@fburton8 Remember that two ampules of a gas (fluorine) are not necessarily identical. One may appear "stronger" or more colorful than the other.
Continuing pedantic mode... the "color strength" of a gas ampule depends on the gas' density (pressure) within its ampule. Dense gas would have more atoms per unit volume, so it would be more likely to experience photon-excitation causing more photons to be emitted (of its natural "color"). That will make its color "stronger". *_So summarizing, a gas' density directly affects its color "strength" (saturation)._*
So, theoretically, even Helium (normally colorless) _should_ exhibit very faint color properties when at the highest density (whilst still a gas). This would be extremely rare, since He has only 2 electrons -- and for color to emerge, one/both of those electrons would need to bet temporarily excited to a higher orbital -- which is very very (did I say, _VERY_ much) difficult. This is theoretical, but still experimentally determinable.
@@keep-ukraine-free perfect depiction of that one einstein story.
Fluoride is added to water not fluorine… Fluorine gas disassociates and forms hydrofluoric acid on contact with water…
Sodium Silicofluoride doesn’t…
I was taught way back that the reason metal conducts electricity is because their valence electrons were easily removed when bumped out of place by the atom next to it when current flows. Your explanation at the 11 minute mark saying that mercury's outer most electrons resist change, then why are there still things like mercury relays? They work using mercury as the conductive path to the load. Why is that?
There is a subtle but important point I made in the video, which is that while Mercury resists sharing (more than other metals), it's still shares more than other elements such as gases. So electrons are still floating around in the metal matrix, just as in all metals, but not are not tied to other atoms so much as to make the matrix immobile as in a solid.
Are you trying to trick people into loving chemistry?!
It's a vast conspiracy of chemical engineers! lol.
Everything is chemistry. The whole world, all life is chemistry. So why not know a bit more about it...
I LOVE chemistry. No tricks needed. I think ALL kids should be taught chemistry, so they have a basic understand about how the world they live in works. It would also negate a lot of the stupid myths in the modern world.
@@paulpaulsen7777 It should be mandatory in schools.
I’m *really* glad you mentioned the relativistic effects and explained the in quantum mechanical and energy-mass terms. So tired of hearing people get the relativistic part right, but going all early-Bohr model about it.
Also, air is about 78% nitrogen - not 99%.
Fluorine is spelled with “uo”.
Sorry to nitpick - I really value your content, and I love the accuracy of your info.
Your channel is awesome - thank you!
Seriously 😮😮😮😮we need more of this on the same topic. I just started to unravel the misery behind all of this, and the video cut short. You'll give us like an hour version on this topic, please. 😊
There is a part 1 to this video here: th-cam.com/video/-cXzWjJCWTI/w-d-xo.html
7:24 error (Nitrogen does not have 5 "atoms" in its outer shell, it's 5 electrons.
Oh boy! I missed that. Mouth fart!
I was about to point that out too, so I checked the comments first.
A fantastic explanation: easy to understand and very clear.
Learned more from this video than from my physics 101 course.
Thank you for the extra explanation. Much appreciated.
I like this guy.
Marvellous conceptual explanation...the reason for state, colour and other physical properties
Wow. I believe in your previous video on this subject I wrote a comment asking you to create another video explaining the colours of the elements, and this video is very close to what I wanted you to talk about. (Of course, I can't prove you saw my comment.) I was hoping for the exact numerical values of the differences between the energy levels for the different electron shells, but this was more of a qualitative discussion. Well, this is a big topic and maybe you can expand on this area in future videos. For example, I would like you to show that the differences between energy levels in differing shells are usually not in the visible light spectrum, but in this video you seemed to imply that the energy level differences were mostly in the visible light spectrum. (There are only a few energy level differences that correspond to the spectrum of visible light.) For another example, I would like you to explain whether the number of protons in the nucleus impact the exact numerical values of the energy levels in the different shells. For a third example, your animations implied that an electron would only jump up or down a single level, but I think that's completely wrong, they can (and will) jump multiple levels at once.
An exceptional video, because it clearly & succinctly explains these questions so many have wondered about. Its paired sister (predecessor) video is also great! Highly recommend both (in addition to your earlier one on atomic Quantum effects).
tremendous video. a great service to students
7:25 nitrogen has 5 atoms in its outermost shell...... correction **electrons**........ by the way your videos make me love science
Thanks for coming back to the elementary !
Thanks very much for creating, editing and posting this video; it was just what I was looking for. 👍🏼
I’ve been wondering about this for 20 years. Thank you
I love chemistry so much, it's an aweome field!
So THAT’S what determines what color something is! I knew about absorbing certain wavelengths but never WHY that happened!
This was great! Could you please go one little step further and explain which atoms can form bonds (it's not only based on the valence electrons) and then how molecules are formed and how they behave or interact?
Yes, see the first video in the series here which I think will help with that: th-cam.com/video/-cXzWjJCWTI/w-d-xo.html
@@ArvinAsh I rewatched it and I think it helped. Thank you.
I have often wondered about all of these questions about elemental differences. Now the trick will be to try to remember all these answers. Interesting video!
What a great explanation!! Thanks for this.
Great video! I am a professor of biology, and do have some idea about chemistry, but I have learned a lot of new stuff in this video. Just one small note: it's "fluorine", not "flourine". The latter should be an element in bread making :-)
yep, we missed that in editing. Thanks for watching.
The wonders of the universe are appreciated so much more when you see how intricate the details are. Thankyou for sharing the knowledge 🙏 👏👏👏👏
I wish I had known this stuff when I was studying chemistry. It would have been so much more interesting. Why don't chemistry classes make the material relatable to every day experiences, as Arvin does?
Let me check if i understood it correctly: colours are tied to electrons (it's the lightwave frenquency they don't absorb).
12:17 I was waiting when you whould say something about quatum mechanics and QFT , also everything in the video was awesome great work Arvin.
Not this time, my friend. It was not really needed to explain this particular concept. But as you know, it's all quantum mechanics.
@@ArvinAsh "It's all quantum mechanics."
Soooo true. We arise from interacting fluctuations among a few overlapping quantum fields. Is it 12+12+4 fields?
This educational resource is invaluable thank you! And for free !!
It's mind boggling that we see in the visual spectrum because that's the part of the electromagnetic spectrum that gets through our atmosphere.
A lot more gets through the atmosphere than what we can see. The visual spectrum that we can see was shaped by our evolutionary need to see those colors that gave our ancestors a better chance to survive.
Thank you very much. Well explained. Please keep it up 👍
@ArvinAsh Sometimes the text 'Fluorine' is written as 'Flourine'. I thought I had drunk too much at first. 😄
Very nice you understand the importance of sound, that’s semi-rare
1. Is the universe electrically neutral?
2. How do we know the universe is or isn't electrically neutral?
3. If virtual particles pop in and out all the time, could some of those particles have an electric charge that temporarily makes the universe electrically un-neutral?
4. What fundamental law forbids the electrical non-neutrality of the universe from those charged virtual particles
from lasting too long?
5. Could some of those virtual particles be quarks?
6. If the answer to 5 is yes, then same questions 1-4 but about color charge instead of electric charge.
The answer to (2) is that there is no evidence to say it is not neutral, apart from very local effects like thunderclouds, lunar soils etc.
Every virtual particle comes with the corresponding virtual anti-particle, thus both total electric and color charge are not changed
Hi this is pure art of teaching. A masterpiece. Thank you so much ❤❤❤❤
Some great explanations here. Thank you.
loved it.. waiting for more parts
Arvin always asks the interesting questions!