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.
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
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.
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.
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
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!
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 😊
I do not agree with Arvin stating that halogens have an unpaired electron in the gas phase, as they are diatomic. That cannot be the explanation why they have color.
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 additional to fluorine and other halogena elements, nitrogen and oxygen atoms also have unpaired electrons, so they are not colored. Why? Maybe they also absorb but not in the visile part of the spectrum?
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.
Your sponsor is a great concept but I don't think the majority would like it. Why? Well I don't know how to explain but look at the FlatEarthers and you get the idea that if a person believes on this something that they fell inloved with, they would never accept the truth no matter what
@@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?
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!
@@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.
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!
Very nice video, but I think it would be worth noting about emergent properties that are irreducable, meaning we obviously know them but because we already had knowledge on the macro level. In other words strong emergence. Like viscosity maybe, superconductivity, bose einstein's condensate, spin glasses maybe, quantum hall effect, glass transitions etc. Color and state is more reducable. I think this happens possibly because in larger scales theres a bigger opportunity for true emergence. And to those reductionalists who say im talking nonsense, and that those results aren't 100% for sure examples of strong emergence, take Quantum Decoherence as a concrete undenyable example. Without it you wouldn't have your classical Newtonian and relatively deterministic rules. From superposition to an indeterministic result to locality certainly is a fundumental jump, not illusion of emergence. As the waveparticle duality has shown us that things can truly integrate and be 1 big thing, it proves our world is not billiard balls. And if you take reductionalism to its extreme, then why stop there? What determines the properties of quantum fields. If you delibarete about it for long enough you see it leads us, nothing exist but "the thing", or strings, but strings uncapable of emerging new entities. Of course things like consciousness and abiogenesis dont have to violate the law of conservation of energy to be as we observe them, but they have to violate determinism and reductionalism, and be causaly open. Note causaly open doesnt violate causality, like say retrocausality which is absolutely impossible and paradoxical. Openness just allows some informational independence. And all those values certainly dont fit into a computer, logic gate simulation. Not completely relative with this video but I think its worth a consideration.
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"?
Something can be messy and "wetting" like gallium, but be solid. Like warm wax or warm clay. And be solid generally means more closer nucleus, but wetting as you suggested the opposite, both are possible. Its also emergent properties. Beyond bottom up explanations. A kid can comprehend how clay works without knowing qm. Because sometimes the higher level knowledge is better and even exclusive on the macro scale.
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.
This is a treat, so interesting and useful ! But still lots of wonders, eg. Hg is right next to Au, why are they so different just by one more e? And the common metals Fe, Co, Ni, Cu,... all have a full s orbital at the outer shell just like Hg, then why aren't they liquid? Bcz their larger atomic size thus weaker attraction by the nucleus? But wouldn't this make them softer instead of harder as they are?
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!
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!
Elements get their properties due to the structure of their atoms and the interactions between those atoms. This includes factors such as electron configurations, the types of bonds they form, and how they interact with light. Here’s an explanation for each of the properties you mentioned: ### Mercury (Hg) - Liquid at Room Temperature Mercury is a liquid at room temperature due to its unique electronic configuration and weak bonding between atoms. Here's why: 1. **Electron Configuration**: Mercury's electron configuration ends in a filled \(4f^{14} 5d^{10} 6s^2\) subshell. The filled d-subshell contributes to weak metallic bonding. 2. **Relativistic Effects**: For heavy elements like mercury, relativistic effects (due to high atomic number) cause the s-electrons to move faster and be more tightly bound to the nucleus, reducing overlap with other mercury atoms. 3. **Weak Interatomic Forces**: The weak overlap of mercury atoms leads to weaker metallic bonds, resulting in lower melting points, thus making mercury a liquid at room temperature. ### Gold (Au) - Yellow Color Gold appears yellow due to the way its electrons interact with light: 1. **Electron Transitions**: Gold has a partially filled d-band. The energy required to promote an electron from the filled d-band to the conduction band falls within the visible spectrum. 2. **Relativistic Effects**: These effects lower the energy levels of the 6s orbital and raise the energy levels of the 5d orbital. This causes gold to absorb blue light, and the reflected light is predominantly in the red and yellow part of the spectrum, making gold appear yellow. ### Oxygen (O₂) - Colorless Oxygen is colorless because of its molecular structure and electronic transitions: 1. **Molecular Orbitals**: In its most stable form (O₂), the electron transitions that absorb light occur at wavelengths in the ultraviolet region, which are not visible to the human eye. 2. **Diatomic Molecule**: O₂ molecules do not absorb visible light significantly, thus they appear colorless. ### General Principles Behind Elemental Properties The properties of elements are fundamentally determined by: 1. **Atomic Number and Electron Configuration**: Determines the chemical behavior, type of bonding, and reactivity. 2. **Interatomic Forces**: Van der Waals forces, covalent bonds, ionic bonds, and metallic bonds affect the state of matter and structural properties. 3. **Relativistic Effects**: For heavier elements, relativistic effects can alter energy levels and bonding properties. 4. **Crystal Structure**: The arrangement of atoms in a solid affects its mechanical and optical properties. 5. **Quantum Mechanical Effects**: The behavior of electrons as both particles and waves influences chemical and physical properties. In summary, the distinct properties of elements arise from their atomic structure and the principles of quantum mechanics, which govern how electrons are arranged and how they interact with other atoms and with electromagnetic radiation.
He gave those explanations in the video. Saying "here's an explanation for each of the properties you mentioned" makes it sound like this is your original work.
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.
Why is it that if I take two solid objects, for example iron objects, and put them close to each other, why don't they fuse into one larger object like liquids and gases do? Why do they remain as two solid objects?
Correction at 3:43 to 3:49..... not determined by Pauli principle and Shrodinger equation but modeled by! (edits: it did not like that I underlined 'modeled')
The grey solid "iron" is grey becuase it's ~4% by weigh graphite, ~12% by volume. At much lower carbon content, like steel, the iron is very bright silvery colored.
@@karhukivi Well, yes the surface will rust be it grey cast iron, grey ductile iron or bright silvery steel, but per video, he was talking about pure iron, not color of surface corrosion compounds, and I pointed out grey iron is a composite of iron and graphite and that purer iron, aka steel, is silvery colored, not grey. This becomes a real world problem when someone pulls a steel blasting preparation spec to white or near white metal before applying protective coatings to cast or ductile iron, both of which are grey. Someone not understanding the steel spec doesn't apply to those grey irons will keep blasting away to point of destroying the iron object before figuring out it will never turn white or near white because it isn't steel.
@@stevec8861 In alloys, the lattice defects and substitutions create what are known as "colour centres" and these have different probertites of photon absorption to the main metal itself, possibly causing a less than perfect reflection of all wavelengths and giving a grey colour, like lead. The higher the electrical conductivity (e.g. Ag, Au, Cu) the more "shiny" the metal is, whereas the less conductive manganese, lead and iron look more grey. Mercury as always, is an anomaly.
@@karhukivi Again, purer iron isn't grey, it's bright and silvery. Grey iron is grey because of high graphite content. The ~4% carbon content was alloyed with the iron in molten state, but upon freezing and slow cooling, the iron and carbon segregate into an iron / graphite composite, with graphite flakes in case of cast iron or graphite nodules in case of ductile iron. But whether cast iron or ductile iron, it's grey because of graphite content. With common steel, the carbon content is low enough the tiny amount of carbon remains alloyed with the solid iron, and clean steel is bright and silvery, not grey like cast iron or ductile iron.
@@stevec8861 There are several factors behind colour, carbon in iron is yet another factor as you say. Silver steel and stainless steel also contain carbon as well as other elements like chromium, nickel, silicon, etc. The colours of tempered steel are due to a thin oxide layer which acts like an interference film, much like oil on water or anti-reflection coatings on lenses.
Chemistry has always been a mystery to me. I've never been able to quite grok the relationship between electrons in an atom. Finally, due to very visual aids like these, I'm starting to get. It's one hell of a complex, 3D puzzle. I think visually, not abstractly (hens why the math has always eluded me, I can't construct a picture in my mind from mathamatical algorithms, it just does not translate for me. So, thank you for helping me understand this just a little bit better.
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.
It's VERY funny that these well-made, highly detailed animations, made by professionals, call Fluorine "flourine" - because.... I guess........it's gaseous flour?
Hi Arvin, In the section on why iron is a solid, you talk about the delocalised electrons lowering the energy of the iron atoms bound into a lattice. If we were looking at this through the lens of quantum fields, would it be valid to say that the average energy of the electron field over all the bound iron atoms is lower than the average energy over each iron atom would be, were they free? I'm not sure if I'm phrasing the question clearly, I hope that it makes enough sense to be answerable.
I disagree. It's not correct to say that Oxygen and Nitrogen are colorless. Okay, okay. I know what you're thinking, but hear me out. Oxygen and Nitrogen are transparent to _visible_ light, not because of some special property of those elements, but because we evolved on a planet where the atmosphere was mostly composed of Oxygen and Nitrogen, so it was beneficial for us to have eyes that could see through that atmosphere. Visible light for our eyes is conveniently 'between' the colors of the elements of our atmosphere, so they appear colorless. If an alien race evolved on a planet with an atmosphere of, say Fluorine and Iodine gas, they would say that Fluorine and Iodine are colorless but Oxygen and Nitrogen have colors, because that's how their eyes would perceive the world.
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 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.
The colour explanation is not fully correct for these gases, is it? As Fluorine for example is the F2 molecule, it bonds two Fluorine atoms. They do form hybridized orbitals (instead of shells) and then collectively locate their electrons in these orbitals. When light hits them, their electrons chan relocate and then emit and absorb light in these wavelenghts.
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?
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 :-)
Mercury shares delocalized electrons like every other metal, but the inter-atomic bonds are not strong enough to keep the atoms from moving around within the matrix.
Hello and cheers from Greece. Although the visuals are great I have the next question; I can understand the Schroediger cloud model of hydrogen, but what about elements with a plethora of electrons? How can we disinguish them in the lab (in terms of Quantum Physics) and find out all you mentioned (changes of energy levels, bonds, absorption and emittion of photons etc) Thank you in advance!
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.
Thank you so much for sharing this great knowledge! 🌟 Understand more about why mercury is a liquid or why gold has a truly attractive yellow color. If someone is as fascinated by science and natural phenomena as I am, don't hesitate.
Not intrinsically, but you can change the surface affects or put coatings (of other compounds) that would visually change the way the material appears.
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, 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).
Just one question. When talking about colours of gasses you mentioned that flourine and iodine have color in the gasseous state because of their unpaired electrons. But both of these gasses are in a molecular state (F2 and I2). How do you explain it then?
These are covalent bonds, which means the valence electrons in each atom are being shared by another atom in the molecule. Those electrons are still subject to absorbing photons in the visible spectrum.
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).
Great explanations! I was wondering why the colors absorbed by objects are not also visible because the electron will soon return to its ground state? Isn't this how light bulbs work? I know there must be some flaw in this thinking because everything would emit all colors. 🌈
![[Live] ศึกมหึมันส์มวยไทยสังเวียนเดือด เวทีมวยชั่วคราวสวนสยาม | จันทร์ 30 กันยายน 2567](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/pM1k6f7JXUc/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
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.
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
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
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
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.
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.
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!!
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
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...
Great video Arvin. Finally some good explanation as to why matter is the way it is. Thank you.
As a chem student these are the questions I ask every day, glad I found a video mentioning about this
This is probably the best video I have ever seen explaining why the elements have their properties.
Learning Reality is so much more fulfilling than learning fantasy.
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
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!
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.
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 😊
6:30 I must be a non-noble gas because I also prefer to only interact with myself to keep stable
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.
Wow, I now have a feeling I understand how it works... Thank you so much for that opportunity and your perfect explanations!
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.
I do not agree with Arvin stating that halogens have an unpaired electron in the gas phase, as they are diatomic. That cannot be the explanation why they have color.
What's your explanation?
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.
@ArvinAsh Sometimes the text 'Fluorine' is written as 'Flourine'. I thought I had drunk too much at first. 😄
I additional to fluorine and other halogena elements, nitrogen and oxygen atoms also have unpaired electrons, so they are not colored. Why? Maybe they also absorb but not in the visile part of the spectrum?
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.
Your sponsor is a great concept but I don't think the majority would like it. Why? Well I don't know how to explain but look at the FlatEarthers and you get the idea that if a person believes on this something that they fell inloved with, they would never accept the truth no matter what
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?
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!
*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…
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!
Very nice video, but I think it would be worth noting about emergent properties that are irreducable, meaning we obviously know them but because we already had knowledge on the macro level. In other words strong emergence. Like viscosity maybe, superconductivity, bose einstein's condensate, spin glasses maybe, quantum hall effect, glass transitions etc. Color and state is more reducable. I think this happens possibly because in larger scales theres a bigger opportunity for true emergence. And to those reductionalists who say im talking nonsense, and that those results aren't 100% for sure examples of strong emergence, take Quantum Decoherence as a concrete undenyable example. Without it you wouldn't have your classical Newtonian and relatively deterministic rules. From superposition to an indeterministic result to locality certainly is a fundumental jump, not illusion of emergence. As the waveparticle duality has shown us that things can truly integrate and be 1 big thing, it proves our world is not billiard balls. And if you take reductionalism to its extreme, then why stop there? What determines the properties of quantum fields. If you delibarete about it for long enough you see it leads us, nothing exist but "the thing", or strings, but strings uncapable of emerging new entities. Of course things like consciousness and abiogenesis dont have to violate the law of conservation of energy to be as we observe them, but they have to violate determinism and reductionalism, and be causaly open. Note causaly open doesnt violate causality, like say retrocausality which is absolutely impossible and paradoxical. Openness just allows some informational independence. And all those values certainly dont fit into a computer, logic gate simulation. Not completely relative with this video but I think its worth a consideration.
The very specific topics of your recent videos have been by far my favorite. Thank you for creating these videos.
Look, we need to be skeptical of things right? So what about "ground news" - where is the fact checker for that fact checker eh?
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"?
Something can be messy and "wetting" like gallium, but be solid. Like warm wax or warm clay. And be solid generally means more closer nucleus, but wetting as you suggested the opposite, both are possible. Its also emergent properties. Beyond bottom up explanations. A kid can comprehend how clay works without knowing qm. Because sometimes the higher level knowledge is better and even exclusive on the macro scale.
Excellent point!
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.
This is a treat, so interesting and useful !
But still lots of wonders, eg. Hg is right next to Au, why are they so different just by one more e? And the common metals Fe, Co, Ni, Cu,... all have a full s orbital at the outer shell just like Hg, then why aren't they liquid? Bcz their larger atomic size thus weaker attraction by the nucleus? But wouldn't this make them softer instead of harder as they are?
Please make a video about van der waals force
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 could also probably be the reason why gold, mercury and lead have higher densities than other metals.
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.
7:25 nitrogen has 5 atoms in its outermost shell...... correction **electrons**........ by the way your videos make me love science
Guys, check your subscriptions. I would never unsubscribe from this channel, and just saw that I was...and there's videos I missed.
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!
Elements get their properties due to the structure of their atoms and the interactions between those atoms. This includes factors such as electron configurations, the types of bonds they form, and how they interact with light. Here’s an explanation for each of the properties you mentioned:
### Mercury (Hg) - Liquid at Room Temperature
Mercury is a liquid at room temperature due to its unique electronic configuration and weak bonding between atoms. Here's why:
1. **Electron Configuration**: Mercury's electron configuration ends in a filled \(4f^{14} 5d^{10} 6s^2\) subshell. The filled d-subshell contributes to weak metallic bonding.
2. **Relativistic Effects**: For heavy elements like mercury, relativistic effects (due to high atomic number) cause the s-electrons to move faster and be more tightly bound to the nucleus, reducing overlap with other mercury atoms.
3. **Weak Interatomic Forces**: The weak overlap of mercury atoms leads to weaker metallic bonds, resulting in lower melting points, thus making mercury a liquid at room temperature.
### Gold (Au) - Yellow Color
Gold appears yellow due to the way its electrons interact with light:
1. **Electron Transitions**: Gold has a partially filled d-band. The energy required to promote an electron from the filled d-band to the conduction band falls within the visible spectrum.
2. **Relativistic Effects**: These effects lower the energy levels of the 6s orbital and raise the energy levels of the 5d orbital. This causes gold to absorb blue light, and the reflected light is predominantly in the red and yellow part of the spectrum, making gold appear yellow.
### Oxygen (O₂) - Colorless
Oxygen is colorless because of its molecular structure and electronic transitions:
1. **Molecular Orbitals**: In its most stable form (O₂), the electron transitions that absorb light occur at wavelengths in the ultraviolet region, which are not visible to the human eye.
2. **Diatomic Molecule**: O₂ molecules do not absorb visible light significantly, thus they appear colorless.
### General Principles Behind Elemental Properties
The properties of elements are fundamentally determined by:
1. **Atomic Number and Electron Configuration**: Determines the chemical behavior, type of bonding, and reactivity.
2. **Interatomic Forces**: Van der Waals forces, covalent bonds, ionic bonds, and metallic bonds affect the state of matter and structural properties.
3. **Relativistic Effects**: For heavier elements, relativistic effects can alter energy levels and bonding properties.
4. **Crystal Structure**: The arrangement of atoms in a solid affects its mechanical and optical properties.
5. **Quantum Mechanical Effects**: The behavior of electrons as both particles and waves influences chemical and physical properties.
In summary, the distinct properties of elements arise from their atomic structure and the principles of quantum mechanics, which govern how electrons are arranged and how they interact with other atoms and with electromagnetic radiation.
He gave those explanations in the video. Saying "here's an explanation for each of the properties you mentioned" makes it sound like this is your original work.
@@backwashjoe7864sounds like generative A.I. to me
@@wmpx34Ofc it is!
Let me check if i understood it correctly: colours are tied to electrons (it's the lightwave frenquency they don't absorb).
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.
If that "relativistic mass" is real, it should be weighable. AFAIK, it isn't.
Why is it that if I take two solid objects, for example iron objects, and put them close to each other, why don't they fuse into one larger object like liquids and gases do? Why do they remain as two solid objects?
Correction at 3:43 to 3:49..... not determined by Pauli principle and Shrodinger equation but modeled by! (edits: it did not like that I underlined 'modeled')
The grey solid "iron" is grey becuase it's ~4% by weigh graphite, ~12% by volume. At much lower carbon content, like steel, the iron is very bright silvery colored.
Until it oxidises.
@@karhukivi Well, yes the surface will rust be it grey cast iron, grey ductile iron or bright silvery steel, but per video, he was talking about pure iron, not color of surface corrosion compounds, and I pointed out grey iron is a composite of iron and graphite and that purer iron, aka steel, is silvery colored, not grey. This becomes a real world problem when someone pulls a steel blasting preparation spec to white or near white metal before applying protective coatings to cast or ductile iron, both of which are grey. Someone not understanding the steel spec doesn't apply to those grey irons will keep blasting away to point of destroying the iron object before figuring out it will never turn white or near white because it isn't steel.
@@stevec8861 In alloys, the lattice defects and substitutions create what are known as "colour centres" and these have different probertites of photon absorption to the main metal itself, possibly causing a less than perfect reflection of all wavelengths and giving a grey colour, like lead. The higher the electrical conductivity (e.g. Ag, Au, Cu) the more "shiny" the metal is, whereas the less conductive manganese, lead and iron look more grey. Mercury as always, is an anomaly.
@@karhukivi Again, purer iron isn't grey, it's bright and silvery. Grey iron is grey because of high graphite content. The ~4% carbon content was alloyed with the iron in molten state, but upon freezing and slow cooling, the iron and carbon segregate into an iron / graphite composite, with graphite flakes in case of cast iron or graphite nodules in case of ductile iron. But whether cast iron or ductile iron, it's grey because of graphite content. With common steel, the carbon content is low enough the tiny amount of carbon remains alloyed with the solid iron, and clean steel is bright and silvery, not grey like cast iron or ductile iron.
@@stevec8861 There are several factors behind colour, carbon in iron is yet another factor as you say. Silver steel and stainless steel also contain carbon as well as other elements like chromium, nickel, silicon, etc. The colours of tempered steel are due to a thin oxide layer which acts like an interference film, much like oil on water or anti-reflection coatings on lenses.
Chemistry has always been a mystery to me. I've never been able to quite grok the relationship between electrons in an atom. Finally, due to very visual aids like these, I'm starting to get. It's one hell of a complex, 3D puzzle. I think visually, not abstractly (hens why the math has always eluded me, I can't construct a picture in my mind from mathamatical algorithms, it just does not translate for me. So, thank you for helping me understand this just a little bit better.
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.
*So... why do we don't know the last elements' properties?*
Pls answer I'm too curious, and sorry for my english.
Most of them are radioactive, those elements haver short half-lifes, so If tou try to examine them, part of It Will be other stuff
Brasil here, Sorry f my english...
It's VERY funny that these well-made, highly detailed animations, made by professionals, call Fluorine "flourine" - because.... I guess........it's gaseous flour?
Yep, lots of bread-eaters on the staff!
Hi Arvin,
In the section on why iron is a solid, you talk about the delocalised electrons lowering the energy of the iron atoms bound into a lattice. If we were looking at this through the lens of quantum fields, would it be valid to say that the average energy of the electron field over all the bound iron atoms is lower than the average energy over each iron atom would be, were they free? I'm not sure if I'm phrasing the question clearly, I hope that it makes enough sense to be answerable.
I disagree. It's not correct to say that Oxygen and Nitrogen are colorless.
Okay, okay. I know what you're thinking, but hear me out.
Oxygen and Nitrogen are transparent to _visible_ light, not because of some special property of those elements, but because we evolved on a planet where the atmosphere was mostly composed of Oxygen and Nitrogen, so it was beneficial for us to have eyes that could see through that atmosphere. Visible light for our eyes is conveniently 'between' the colors of the elements of our atmosphere, so they appear colorless.
If an alien race evolved on a planet with an atmosphere of, say Fluorine and Iodine gas, they would say that Fluorine and Iodine are colorless but Oxygen and Nitrogen have colors, because that's how their eyes would perceive the world.
Your point is valid.
This is interisting
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 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.
wow! that was fun! and, surprisingly, I think I actually understood some of it😂
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
Exceptionally good video, with clear explanations of why the Elements appear and behave as they do. 👏
I forget which physicist said it, but protons give atoms their identity and electrons give atoms their personality.
Thank youuuu for your great work on this project 🫶 I really like your style of art 🍀 keep it coming my friend ♾️
The colour explanation is not fully correct for these gases, is it?
As Fluorine for example is the F2 molecule, it bonds two Fluorine atoms. They do form hybridized orbitals (instead of shells) and then collectively locate their electrons in these orbitals. When light hits them, their electrons chan relocate and then emit and absorb light in these wavelenghts.
And Gold is more flexible, because it generally cristalizes in a less dense crystal, making it easier to move the atoms around
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.
Free electron cloud of metallic bond is also responsible for great heat conductivity of metals...
Loved this! It’s amazing how the electron configuration is key to properties of elements
Excellent explanation. Chemistry for dummies taught at the perfect level, not to hard and not to easy.
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.
If being metallic is sharing delocalised electron and being liquid is is not sharing electron, how come that mercury is both ?
Mercury shares delocalized electrons like every other metal, but the inter-atomic bonds are not strong enough to keep the atoms from moving around within the matrix.
I love chemistry so much, it's an aweome field!
Hello and cheers from Greece. Although the visuals are great I have the next question; I can understand the Schroediger cloud model of hydrogen, but what about elements with a plethora of electrons? How can we disinguish them in the lab (in terms of Quantum Physics) and find out all you mentioned (changes of energy levels, bonds, absorption and emittion of photons etc) Thank you in advance!
The model gets exponentially complicated with more electrons, but approximate orbital clouds can be drawn.
if mercury does forms a weaker bond and has no free electron, why does it conduct electricity?
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.
This video is great! Thanks!
I have been wondering this for ever. I recently got AI to explain it. It did ok…you did much better. Humans 1 v 0 AI
Ajajajajaj I see it as Humans 10/10 vs AI 5/10
So when atoms lose all their electrons the remaining would all act the same? They would still have different mass. Or would they fall apart.
The nucleus would not fall apart.
Thank you so much for sharing this great knowledge! 🌟 Understand more about why mercury is a liquid or why gold has a truly attractive yellow color. If someone is as fascinated by science and natural phenomena as I am, don't hesitate.
I may just see the world in a different light (intended), speaking of that. Is is possible to artificially change the light absorbsion of materials?
Not intrinsically, but you can change the surface affects or put coatings (of other compounds) that would visually change the way the material appears.
Awesome video! Thank you for yur great videos!
This educational resource is invaluable thank you! And for free !!
Why Carbon a gas ,forms solid living structures
So glad I found this channel by fluke today, this is some seriously interesting material. Liked and subbed
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 for the extra explanation. Much appreciated.
Your videos give the need to continue investigating and learning ❤
loved it.. waiting for more parts
Say Arvin Ash 5 times really fast. Betcha can not do it.
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).
i hope you get 1 milion subs soon
Just one question. When talking about colours of gasses you mentioned that flourine and iodine have color in the gasseous state because of their unpaired electrons. But both of these gasses are in a molecular state (F2 and I2). How do you explain it then?
These are covalent bonds, which means the valence electrons in each atom are being shared by another atom in the molecule. Those electrons are still subject to absorbing photons in the visible spectrum.
@@ArvinAsh thanks!
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
Great explanations! I was wondering why the colors absorbed by objects are not also visible because the electron will soon return to its ground state? Isn't this how light bulbs work? I know there must be some flaw in this thinking because everything would emit all colors. 🌈
LETS GOOOOOOOOO
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