Why Does Changing Just One Proton Change an Element?

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 2 тра 2024
  • The first 500 people to use this link and code ARVIN25 will get 25% off their first subscription with Soylent: bit.ly/3U51qdK
    *NOTE - Erwin Schrodinger was Austrian-Irish, not Australian-Irish. We goofed in editing. Apologies to our proud Austrian viewers! And to our Australian audience, as much as you'd like to claim him, I'm afraid he belongs to a different continent.
    TALK TO ME on Patreon
    / arvinash
    REFERENCES
    Origin of all elements: • The Surprising Origin ...
    How Quantum Mechanics predicts electron structure: • The Surprising Origin ...
    How entropy drives all events: • The Startling Reason E...
    WHY IS SODIUM A METAL BUT ARGON IS A GAS?
    Electron configuration determines this. Sodium atoms can form metallic bond because the positively charge cation K+ forms an electrostatic attraction with the delocalized electrons from the outer shell. Argon cannot form such bonds because there is no delocalized electron nor cation formed, since the electron structure of the atom is already stable.
    CHAPTERS
    0:00 Adding or subtracting one proton: drastic change
    1:58 The simple answer
    3:00 Soylent is best tasting
    4:07 Why are elements not classified by electrons?
    5:35 Number of protons can change, but not in chemistry
    6:07 Why proton count is used to classify elements
    6:50 Why are there orbitals and electron shells in atoms?
    9:01 How chemistry works: all about energy
    12:24 Why aren't all elements Noble elements?
    SUMMARY
    Why does changing just one proton in the nucleus of an atom make a different element? How can a single proton make such a huge difference in an element’s properties?
    The simple answer is: The number of protons determines the number of electrons the atom needs in order to be neutral. The number and configuration of the electrons of an atom determines its chemical properties. So since the number of electrons is determined by the number of protons, changing even just proton will change an element's chemical properties.
    If so, why don’t we classify elements based on their number of electrons instead of protons? The reason is because electron numbers for most atoms, can be changed by taking on or giving away electrons to and from other atoms. This is the basis of chemistry. But the change in electrons does not affect the element's essential nature. It still retains its atomic properties.
    But the number of protons never changes for most elements. It remains the same because protons cannot be exchanged with other atoms like electrons can in chemical reactions. So the proton count of an element does not change in chemical reactions. This proton number, in turn, determines the number of electrons the atom needs to be neutral. And that in turn, determines the behavior of the atom when it interacts with other atoms chemically, i.e., the bonds it can form. And this determines both its chemical and physical properties.
    The proton number determines the propensity of that element to keep, give away, or share its outermost electrons with other atoms.
    Electrons in the outermost shell of an atom determine its chemical properties. Why are there different electron shells? Atoms and molecules tend to favor the state with the lowest potential energy, because of the second law of thermodynamics - the law of entropy.
    Solving the Schrodinger equation shows how the energies of the electrons in any given atom will be distributed in its ground state. When we solve it, we find that electrons are distributed in orbitals and shells around the nucleus.
    An orbital can contain only a maximum two electrons due to the Pauli exclusion principle. The Schrodinger equation shows that as the number of electrons increases in an atom, they occupy different energy levels or shells around its nucleus. These shells can only accommodate a maximum of a fixed number of electrons. These numbers are 2, 10, 18, 36, 54, 86.
    So for the few elements that have exactly these protons numbers, they will have the precise number of electrons that make their atomic structure energetically stable. Consequently, they will not have the propensity to take on or lose any of their electrons to other atoms. These are the Noble elements.
    Chemistry works by elements trading electrons to form neutrally charged systems that are more energetically favorable, than the elements on their own. Proton number is key because it is the main factor in determining what number of electrons an element would prefer. It boils down to energy and charge conservation.
    #protons
    #elements
    One could ask, why aren’t all elements noble elements. Why didn’t nature make all elements stable? The reason is that elements were formed in fusion reactions within the cores of stars or star processes. The fusion process results in nuclei with all kinds of different numbers of protons, not just the noble elements. Fusion is a nuclear process that just makes stable nucle, not a chemical process that optimizes electron shell stability.
  • Наука та технологія

КОМЕНТАРІ • 954

  • @ArvinAsh
    @ArvinAsh  14 днів тому +55

    Many thanks to our sponsor, Soylent. IMO, it's the best tasting! The first 500 people to use this link and code ARVIN25 will get 25% off their first subscription with Soylent: bit.ly/3U51qdK

  • @ImmortalLemon
    @ImmortalLemon 8 днів тому +62

    I think what I like most about your channel is that you assume we know the basic concepts of what you’re talking about, so you only mention them to give context and then move on to the actual information. It’s so nice to hear from a science educator that knows the level of knowledge their audience has

  • @nunyabitnezz2802
    @nunyabitnezz2802 13 днів тому +177

    “Soylent green is made of people!”

    • @gyrofrank
      @gyrofrank 10 днів тому +14

      with just one proton change

    • @vinayk7
      @vinayk7 9 днів тому +3

      Haha was searching for this comment 😆

    • @ronvosick8253
      @ronvosick8253 9 днів тому

      Laboratory food on steroids 😅

    • @etsequentia6765
      @etsequentia6765 8 днів тому +2

      And shockingly, people taste just like chicken.

    • @HarryHeck2020
      @HarryHeck2020 8 днів тому +1

      I really hope that they're oblivious. "It has soy, you can drink it on lent." Then they're like "Why do people keep screaming at us that Soylent Green is people!?"

  • @kerrynewman1221
    @kerrynewman1221 13 днів тому +71

    Absolutely great video. At 64 years old this engineer never gets tired of learning new science.

    • @Beerbatter1962
      @Beerbatter1962 13 днів тому +2

      Same here. Mechanical engineer in the process of retiring. I learned the fundamentals in chemistry in college, as we all did, but there were always some things I didn't quite grasp . This video helped clarify a few things. Very helpful.

    • @asdfasdfasdf1218
      @asdfasdfasdf1218 10 днів тому

      I dunno, shouldn't everyone pretty much already learn this in high school or even middle school chemistry?

    • @benj1008
      @benj1008 9 днів тому

      ​@@asdfasdfasdf1218 Not the quantum mechanics part, I don't think.

    • @asdfasdfasdf1218
      @asdfasdfasdf1218 8 днів тому

      @@benj1008 they wouldn't show the equations for the hydrogen atom electron orbitals that's for sure, but they would at least say the same "qm explains it... as for exactly how, ask that another time" kind of thing probably.

    • @Mike_Greene
      @Mike_Greene 8 днів тому

      Then you guys should search for Peter and Pete and"water is not h20"

  • @dermotthompson2115
    @dermotthompson2115 13 днів тому +562

    Has nobody seen the classic old movie Soylent Green???

    • @aMartianSpy
      @aMartianSpy 13 днів тому +103

      It's people!!!

    • @alexandretorres5087
      @alexandretorres5087 13 днів тому +38

      Canibal fast food

    • @jimmyzhao2673
      @jimmyzhao2673 13 днів тому +30

      @@aMartianSpy Spoiler Alert !

    • @Commenter_42
      @Commenter_42 13 днів тому +16

      Isn't that the movie about the uncle of our fearless leader?

    • @richardfrenette6648
      @richardfrenette6648 13 днів тому +67

      Was wondering the same thing. Strange choice of name from this company.

  • @vitovittucci9801
    @vitovittucci9801 10 днів тому +46

    When I was a young chemistry student there was a simple rule to predict the tendency of an atom to acquire or give electrons : the rule of the "8 electrons outer shell ". Every element tends to complete this shell of 8 electrons: a) acquiring the missing electrons . b) giving the exceeding electrons. c) sharing electons with other atoms. Later I understood that at the basis for this there were reasons concerning energy and stabiity. However this rule works pretty well and I always wandered why it was sufficient considering just 8 electons instead of the entire electronic configuration.

    • @zouinahadjsabri
      @zouinahadjsabri 8 днів тому +7

      isnt that a high school thing ?

    • @vitovittucci9801
      @vitovittucci9801 8 днів тому +5

      @@zouinahadjsabri High school and 1° year of university

    • @ivoryas1696
      @ivoryas1696 8 днів тому

      ​@@zouinahadjsabri
      Kind of? 😅

    • @zaneenaz4962
      @zaneenaz4962 8 днів тому +1

      note that orbitals form shells. the first shell has 2x e-, the next shell has 8x e-......then it goes something like 8, 18, 32....

    • @adinalineplays9327
      @adinalineplays9327 8 днів тому +2

      That's called Octet configuration..

  • @N3Cr0Ph0b1A
    @N3Cr0Ph0b1A 10 днів тому +14

    OK, but you didn't explain what you said you would. You explained what causes them to react; that's highschool chemistry.
    Why exactly is potassium a soft metal and argon a gas... Why do they have such drastically different forms? Is it's propensity to bond with itself in clumps? How? Crystals? Cohesion? Electromagnetism? Nuclear forces? Why the difference there. Why does light interact with one not the other?
    Reactions due to valence shells is easy to understand and describe, mate...

    • @markb3786
      @markb3786 10 днів тому +4

      Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! I like Arvin, but as a retired Chem E, this has puzzled me for years. Why are such similar elements from a configuration standpoint so different as I interact with them? What exactly makes this difference? This video was a good chemistry video but failed on the question asked.

    • @Leonarco333
      @Leonarco333 9 днів тому +5

      I’ve been asking this for years and spent a lot of time in the library and I can’t even find a record of some asking that question. It’s kept me up at night a few times. It seems that nobody knows why and it bothers me that it appears nobody is even trying to figure it out.

    • @Therealpro2
      @Therealpro2 8 днів тому +3

      Exactly. Pretty clickbait video.

    • @karhukivi
      @karhukivi 7 днів тому +5

      @@markb3786 Quantum stability and bond energy explain 90% of the differences observed. E.g. iodine has a weak covalent bond and melts (evaporates) at a low temperature. Silicon and carbon (diamond) have strong network covalent bonds and are hard and have high melting points. The noble gases are stable electron configurations and don't form bonds under normal conditions, hence are gases. Might be an idea to invest in a new chemistry book!

    • @dreammaker9642
      @dreammaker9642 7 днів тому

      None of what you describe technically have to do with the title 😂 they all different trends with their own explanations, don’t confuse a short explanation of the periodic table with 3 years of high school chemistry 😂 I mean while you at it ask why he didn’t explain radioactive elements and beta alpha decay 😂 can’t cram everything in one spot, it’s inefficient

  • @55north17
    @55north17 13 днів тому +55

    One of the best videos Arvin has produced. Helped by the background, irrelevant, music being less obtrusive. Thank you.

    • @notverycalm
      @notverycalm 12 днів тому

      How does arvin make these animation like at 4:43.what software does he use?

    • @ivoryas1696
      @ivoryas1696 8 днів тому

      ​@@notverycalm
      Maybe blender? 😅

  • @anothersquid
    @anothersquid 13 днів тому +43

    Soylent... i get it as a brand name, but they shouldn't make green. seriously.

    • @ArvinAsh
      @ArvinAsh  13 днів тому +1

      It's mint chocolate!

    • @wbreslin951
      @wbreslin951 11 днів тому +3

      ​@@ArvinAshSOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE

    • @noliejrjr2922
      @noliejrjr2922 10 днів тому +1

      I thought it was an interesting name choice myself.

    • @lillyanneserrelio2187
      @lillyanneserrelio2187 9 днів тому +6

      Soylent Green is vegan friendly cuz its 100% animal* free.
      *The FDA does not classify Humans as animal products

  • @_j_j
    @_j_j 13 днів тому +109

    "Crikey mate! I can't bloody well tell if that flamin' cat is alive or dead, struth" - Australian Schrodinger, probably. 😁

    • @patricklaenen3468
      @patricklaenen3468 13 днів тому +1

      😂 just noticed it myself as well

    • @Tom_Quixote
      @Tom_Quixote 13 днів тому +13

      You call that a cat? THIS is a cat

    • @Whatisthisstupidfinghandle
      @Whatisthisstupidfinghandle 13 днів тому +4

      @@Tom_Quixoteyes. Australian cat is 20 feet long, swims, flys, and is highly venomous 😂

    • @McPilch
      @McPilch 13 днів тому +1

      I was gonna comment on this error, but whatever I would've come up with wouldn't top this! 😂

    • @Eztoez
      @Eztoez 13 днів тому +2

      Have you seen that clip from Futurama when Shroedinger gets pulled over for speeding ? Very funny

  • @Oktokolo
    @Oktokolo 13 днів тому +63

    Soylent Green is people.

  • @jamesedward9306
    @jamesedward9306 11 днів тому +14

    Closing in on a million subscribers. Arvin deserves about 100X that many. Every time I think the internet is a pox on humanity, I remind myself that there are individuals like him making videos like these. Whether you're a serious student of science and math struggling to understand a concept or just someone who is a hobbyist/casually curious about these topics Arvin is your guy. I know it's a cliche now but this youtube channel "is a treasure".

  • @louieuow
    @louieuow 13 днів тому +50

    Australia needs more Noble Prize winners, we will take Erwin as one of ours!

    • @SmogandBlack
      @SmogandBlack 13 днів тому +1

      🤣🤣🤣🤣

    • @paulmarynissen
      @paulmarynissen 13 днів тому +6

      The Australia/Austria curse strikes again 😂

    • @christopherrubicam4474
      @christopherrubicam4474 12 днів тому +2

      Amazing physicist, less amazing human being.

    • @peterskier7574
      @peterskier7574 12 днів тому +2

      As the T-shirt says "There are no kangaroos in Austria".

    • @markzambelli
      @markzambelli 11 днів тому

      I don't think Oz would want him as soon as you looked past his phenomenal science contributions (although had he been living in the UK around 250 years ago you'd've gotten him by default and he'd've had to make his own hammock while he was building Sydney😉)

  • @bhm19
    @bhm19 13 днів тому +9

    Brilliantly explained. However, this only partially answers the question. The "why" goes much deeper for me, where lies the code that dictates the behavior of the element when changing its configuration? Why is it what it is? I guess we have to accept the old saying: because it is what it is. At least for now.
    Let's suppose there is an island of stability for superheavy elements. Could we predict their behavior, or would we need to wait for nature to show us how they behave? We don't even know if this island exists, let alone make such predictions. To me, this just demonstrates how precarious our illusory knowledge of everything is.
    Don't get me wrong, we have come a long way and made sensational discoveries, but our progress is small compared to the grand scheme of the universe. At least, that's how it seems to me, or maybe my "whys" aren't good questions. I hope I have been clear. Excellent content, as always.

    • @edus9636
      @edus9636 9 днів тому +3

      Exactly and well noticed. Science has not an answer (yet) for the question why an element changes its behavior, else one could predict the behavior of ANY chemical reaction without having to resort to experiments. With such a knowledge one could predict and explain i.e. why mercury is fluid at room temperature even if this element would be still unknown.

  • @CrashCourse2024
    @CrashCourse2024 13 днів тому +5

    I love this question, but i love that a video on it was made. We need more videos with these types of questions answered. There are so many seemingly simple questions with profound answers that many of us wish were answered. Thank you!

  • @MercuriusORG
    @MercuriusORG 13 днів тому +37

    Hi. Great episode.
    One thing I spotted is that Erwin Schrodinger was not Australian, but Austrian.

    • @ralf-peterberg1083
      @ralf-peterberg1083 12 днів тому +2

      Let’s not get too picky here! The error is only approximately 1,6 x 10^7 m (or 10’000mi, in Imperial units). So not exactly Heisenberg’s uncertainty, but fairly within the range of measurement errors…
      But apart from this, Arvin, your videos are great. They help to make people think about physics. And “Physics is everything” (Don Lincoln, Fermilab).

    • @nickcunningham6344
      @nickcunningham6344 12 днів тому +2

      @@ralf-peterberg1083 When taking into account the entire scale of the universe, this error is practically nothing!

    • @johnedwardhills4529
      @johnedwardhills4529 11 днів тому

      I had no idea he was also Irish or a serial sexual abuser. Check out his Wikipedia entry. I only went to look up the Irish part. There's a lot about this guy no one discusses, much like his Australian roots

    • @michaelmoorrees3585
      @michaelmoorrees3585 11 днів тому +2

      He's Australian now. Its on the Internet. And that's always reliable !

    • @ralf-peterberg1083
      @ralf-peterberg1083 11 днів тому

      @@nickcunningham6344 yes you’re absolutely right!

  • @windfoil1000
    @windfoil1000 13 днів тому +4

    Well explained. I've seen and read about the periodic table and sharing electrons but not the proton distinction before. This was pretty easy to follow and remember. Thanks.

  • @1024det
    @1024det 13 днів тому +3

    Arvin, you always ask the best questions! This one I never thought of and its so basic.

  • @DanteGabriel-lx9bq
    @DanteGabriel-lx9bq 13 днів тому +9

    I've been waiting for such a video a long time.

  • @vivekpatel3752
    @vivekpatel3752 13 днів тому +2

    Hey Avi, just came here to thank you for your standard model video.. I just defended my thesis and now a PhD. Thank you for making it easy to understand, it was very helpful.

  • @marcelma
    @marcelma 9 днів тому

    Brilliant! Story line, visuals, speed, selection of what stays in and what is omitted - everything optimized to help you grasp the topic! Arvin has developed his presentations into a performance of art. If I hadn't subscribed already, I would do so instantly. This makes for very well invested viewing time.

  • @ryanbaker7404
    @ryanbaker7404 13 днів тому +4

    Fabulously explained, Arvin! I wish I had the understanding of QM and QFT that I have now back in high school, lol. This video also explains why I prefer to sit in the recliner watching QM videos than mowing 4 acres of yard...I'm in my ideal, low energy state!

  • @oTiSm786
    @oTiSm786 13 днів тому +26

    Hey Arvin,
    I wish you had also mentioned the “cloud model” of the atom in your video because this solar system model is now outdated and I would have loved to accurately imagine what the atoms look like and what electron position means from the cloud model perspective.
    Thanks for your amazing videos!

    • @samsonau8205
      @samsonau8205 13 днів тому +11

      Like most educational videos, complex ideas start off simple for the beginner. There is nothing in this video for intermediate/advanced students, so the "planet/solar system" model is appropriate. Students need to visualize scientific concepts before they'll remember the basics. Then, you can throw the next level of detail at them.

    • @mcbaggins12
      @mcbaggins12 13 днів тому +7

      You always teach Gen Chem students the bohr model first. It's the most basic way that still helps describe what's going on. It's best to learn it chronilogically just as scientists did.
      13:51

    • @vaclavkrpec2879
      @vaclavkrpec2879 12 днів тому

      @@samsonau8205 An educational concept known as "lie-to-children", as Cohen and Stewart put it and popularised together with Pratchett. The idea being: you teach the student something that's not, strictly speaking, correct. However, it gives the student enough understanding to think about it and eventually realise that it isn't correct. Then, when they start to ask the right questions, you can tell them... Well, another "lie"; a better one (a less wrong one), but one they can digest and really understand, not just memorize.

    • @nickcunningham6344
      @nickcunningham6344 12 днів тому +4

      Models are never entirely accurate, but some models are better at getting certain concepts across than others. When talking about electrons and electron shells, I would argue that the solar system model is more preferred. Helps keep things simple.

    • @mryellow6918
      @mryellow6918 8 днів тому

      Learning it with the Bohr model set my learning back a solid year. ​@@mcbaggins12

  • @MartinHabovstiak
    @MartinHabovstiak 13 днів тому +2

    Oh, I've always wondered about this, thanks a lot for the explanation!

  • @ReDMooNTVV
    @ReDMooNTVV 13 днів тому +1

    the way you put it is just beautiful and simple. Thanks

  • @Raphael3032
    @Raphael3032 5 днів тому +7

    I love how it doesn't give the answer lol

  • @patricklaenen3468
    @patricklaenen3468 13 днів тому +33

    LOL at 7:53 we find out that Erwin Schroedinger is an AUSTRALIAN physicist 😂

    • @Tom_Quixote
      @Tom_Quixote 13 днів тому +13

      Author of the famous Schrödinger's cangaroo thought experiment

    • @MindfieIds
      @MindfieIds 13 днів тому +1

      Yeah! That caught my eye too! LOL
      Probably some autofill typing error.

    • @ArvinAsh
      @ArvinAsh  13 днів тому +24

      Sorry, missed it editing. Should, of course, be AUSTRIAN.

    • @olafborkner
      @olafborkner 13 днів тому +2

      And a bit of an irishman. 😂

    • @johnedwardhills4529
      @johnedwardhills4529 11 днів тому

      Austrish is the technical term 😜

  • @Antuan2911
    @Antuan2911 11 днів тому +1

    Professor, you are explaining all these complex questions to us so nice!
    Many Thanks!

  • @yieldtochristian
    @yieldtochristian 13 днів тому +2

    I just learned so much. Thank you for this awesome video and explanation. It all snapped together in my head for me. Yes

  • @marin4311
    @marin4311 12 днів тому +7

    You really have some talent in in presenting complex subjects in a condensed, understandable way. Thank you, Arvin.

    • @MrDino1953
      @MrDino1953 12 днів тому

      This one is not so complex. It’s just 1st year chemistry, or maybe even high school level.

  • @TimTim-gm9pj
    @TimTim-gm9pj 13 днів тому +19

    What a nice video for us students that are starting with college chemistry and want to understand (and not memorise) all the stuff we learn.
    And btw, I do not want to be that guy, but wanna point out that at 7:57 it says that Schrödinger Australian-Irish was. If I’m not wrong, I think he was Austrian-Irish.
    Thanks for the video!

    • @Freddisred
      @Freddisred 12 днів тому +3

      Allegedly he's from both until you take the measurement.

    • @patrickjordan2233
      @patrickjordan2233 12 днів тому

      ​@Freddisred ROTFL...

    • @dreammaker9642
      @dreammaker9642 7 днів тому

      Wait y’all learn this in college?? Wtf? I learned this in 9th grade or 8th bit of both

    • @TimTim-gm9pj
      @TimTim-gm9pj 6 днів тому

      I mean, I also learned some more basic stuff related to chemistry in HS, but we never got in too deep with Binding Energy, Mass Defect, Strong/ Weak nuclear force, etc. it just was swept under the rug. In college we are being asked for sightly more complex stuff (1st semester), given that first they try to level all the student‘s knowledge so that they all can take lessons together, but still, a lot of topics more related to physics are being skipped because most people will not need that

    • @dreammaker9642
      @dreammaker9642 6 днів тому

      @@TimTim-gm9pj in South Africa we learned the basics of chemistry from 8th grade so essentially all this video is saying. Then by 10th grade we learned them further as in the trends and how they work, intramolecular and intermolecular forces. All models of the atom from the raisin pudding to Heisenberg and by 12th grade we finished electro chemistry and organic chemistry and also a butt ton of stoichiometry 😭. In addition to physics cause it was the same subject and two 3 hr exams for finals but we had them every second term basically.
      The result was I practically learned nothing in Chem I when I got to college in the US and basically only in the end of Chem II did I learn some new stuff mostly just different types of orbitals and pi/sigma bonds which we did cover but not in detail in high school. All this to get to organic Chem I and the fun stopped after chapter 4 😭 my high school teacher did warn me ngl cause Ochem was easy in high school since we only had to do IUPAC naming both ways, as well as knowing all functional groups and if I remember correctly eesterificstion was the only mechanism we learned.
      Once I started learning proper mechanisms, sterioisomers, chiral centers and naming them properly that was the moment I sat in a lecture hall and wondered where I went wrong cause I was a marine bio major and had no need to learn organic chemistry in that much detail 😭 and that was Ochem I by the end of it I was like wtf more could there possibly be in Ochem II 😭 so to any chem majors out there who hurt you 😭 like talk to me

  • @michaelvanburen6010
    @michaelvanburen6010 13 днів тому

    Excellent video, as always. I hope to show these videos to my kids when they get older. You make physics and chemistry fun to learn about. There's a lot of young people in America who probably would know more about chemistry and physics from watching one or two of your videos than they would get from 12 years in the public school system.

  • @Nope-w3c
    @Nope-w3c 9 днів тому +1

    Just stumbled on this channel. I'm actually quite impressed with the production value. This was great :)

  • @sirdiealot53
    @sirdiealot53 13 днів тому +2

    Love your videos Arvin thanks for the quality :)

  • @R-ok3cl
    @R-ok3cl 13 днів тому +16

    At 0:28 what is silicon doing under calcium? Was this generated by ChatGPT? 😂

    • @MAD-SKILLZ
      @MAD-SKILLZ 13 днів тому +4

      Lol what the heck

    • @jimmyzhao2673
      @jimmyzhao2673 13 днів тому +1

      Omigosh, good catch. They also have *Sc* listed twice.

    • @iantullie
      @iantullie 13 днів тому +4

      Not only that, but caesium is down as Sc instead of Cs, but it's also a few years out of date as all the elements from 110 to 118 now have actual names, not just the placeholder "Unun.." ones.

  • @nihil_._sum
    @nihil_._sum 13 днів тому +2

    the best easy and also complex enought to graphically explain chemistry, thanks.

  • @khsolo
    @khsolo 12 днів тому +2

    As always a fabulous explanation for complicated things

  • @christophermullins7163
    @christophermullins7163 13 днів тому +22

    There are a LOT of concepts of music, frequencies, balance and resonance that can be applied to the atoms properties. If you change a note by 1%.. it does not sound like the original song.. it sounds horrible. But if you change it by 0.5x or 2x it sounds perfect. The notes of music are like the energy levels of electrons where you cannot just go anywhere.. they must have harmony and resonance. If I am not mistaken... This same concept is where color comes from. Because the electrons wave must resonate(in a matter of speaking) with the rest of the electrons.. there are discrete energy levels or the atom will fly apart. When a photon hits an atom..the electron changes energy levelz and when the electron falls back down to the lower energy level, because the electrons levels are discrete... The wavelengths of photos emitted are consistent. This reminds me of pinch harmonics on a guitar. No matter where you create the harmonic it will always be in tune.. it will just have a different frequency still create a stable and harmonized tone that matches the music. It is because the atom or song requires balance of the frequencies that dictate that very minor changes can result in a massively different effect. you can easily change the frequency(number of electrons) greatly but retain a similar effect. This is why atoms with very different amounts of electrons(protons) can have similar properties(same columns of periodic table) while atoms with slightly different number of electrons(protons) have vastly different properties. Music and physics are my favorite.

    • @paulomartins1008
      @paulomartins1008 13 днів тому +1

      What an elegant metaphor.

    • @ronch550
      @ronch550 13 днів тому +1

      This reminds me of string theory. Lol.

    • @ONEYEDPiRAT
      @ONEYEDPiRAT 13 днів тому +1

      Thank you for that comparison That's really cool The math doesn't lie lol

    • @lexinwonderland5741
      @lexinwonderland5741 13 днів тому +1

      it's an awesome connection, you can tell why so many scientists like Einstein were hobby musicians!

    • @christophermullins7163
      @christophermullins7163 13 днів тому

      @@lexinwonderland5741 🙏🙏

  • @Soylent
    @Soylent 10 днів тому +2

    Great video as always, glad to help support the channel!

    • @ArvinAsh
      @ArvinAsh  10 днів тому

      Much appreciated! Thanks for sponsoring.

  • @prototropo
    @prototropo 8 днів тому +1

    The best presentation on the functions and logic of atomic structure I've ever watched!

  • @Nightscape_
    @Nightscape_ 13 днів тому +7

    Just like Dr. Don Lincoln says, "physics is everything".

  • @UnyieldingDrive4849
    @UnyieldingDrive4849 13 днів тому +11

    hell i like this dudes intro music

    • @kunalk6014
      @kunalk6014 13 днів тому

      Absolutely, so retro.. feels like transported into early 90's..

  • @willarn1
    @willarn1 13 днів тому

    Woohoo! Another Arvin Ash video!!!! Thanks Arvin.

  • @R-ok3cl
    @R-ok3cl 13 днів тому +26

    LOL this periodic table at 0:54 is just full of errors. Si for strontium under calcium??? Sc shows a second time but is now caesium😂

    • @ArvinAsh
      @ArvinAsh  13 днів тому +28

      Thanks for that catch. The table is a stock image. We will refrain from using it in the future. Funny enough, nearly all stock images of the periodic table have errors for some reason.

    • @markstyles1246
      @markstyles1246 13 днів тому +4

      At a quick guess, in an older stock image, you're probably looking at a "paper town" scenario. In a newer one, laziness or AI.

    • @DoctorFungus
      @DoctorFungus 13 днів тому +9

      @@ArvinAsh it's probably intentional errors to catch people using their stock imagery without permission. "you used a version with errors, and it's clearly ours!"

    • @DrDeuteron
      @DrDeuteron 13 днів тому

      Cesium doesn't look right either.

    • @DrDeuteron
      @DrDeuteron 13 днів тому +3

      also 110-118 have names now, afaik.

  • @TsMunch
    @TsMunch 13 днів тому +3

    I see they have green version of soylent, good

  • @elephantheart9988
    @elephantheart9988 12 днів тому +2

    Best and clearest explanation that helps bridge the physics-chemistry gap. Thank you so much!

  • @yores
    @yores 12 днів тому

    Thank you so much for answering a question i have been thinking about for a very long time

  • @istvansipos9940
    @istvansipos9940 13 днів тому +7

    - Greetings, Dr Schrödinger! Sir, you drove too fast AND in the wrong lane.
    - Come on, Officer. Which claim are you sure of?

    • @jumbopopcorn8979
      @jumbopopcorn8979 13 днів тому +2

      Should be Heisenberg

    • @istvansipos9940
      @istvansipos9940 13 днів тому +2

      @@jumbopopcorn8979 :- ) Never write pre-coffee jokes about science. Yes, Heisenberg. Uhm... Let's say that Herr Schrödinger was riding shotgun in that car.
      nice save from me L0L.

    • @jumbopopcorn8979
      @jumbopopcorn8979 13 днів тому +2

      @@istvansipos9940 do you think the cat in the trunk is alive?

    • @istvansipos9940
      @istvansipos9940 13 днів тому

      @@jumbopopcorn8979 the kitty has 8 remaining lives. 7 on extremely cold / hot days

    • @MarshallTheArtist
      @MarshallTheArtist 12 днів тому

      @@jumbopopcorn8979"Officer, the body is the trunk is both alive and dead until you open it."

  • @maxanimator9547
    @maxanimator9547 10 днів тому +20

    That wasn't a very satisfying answer.

    • @neotronextrem
      @neotronextrem 10 днів тому +1

      Agreed. Like of course it comes down to Valence Electrons, we all knew that already, and for that, the elements with similar amounts only behave "drastically different" from eachother, because you're comparing their reactions with different elements. Compare elements with just one proton difference to the same position on the table, the reaction isn't that special. The "complexity" is fully emergent

    • @TrevoltIV
      @TrevoltIV 8 днів тому +1

      That’s because scientists simply don’t know why anything does anything. At the end of the day the universe is just designed to do things in a certain way

    • @maxanimator9547
      @maxanimator9547 8 днів тому

      @@TrevoltIV I too wish we had a theory of everything but having simple non scalable models as to locally approximate reality in simpler ways is neat too

    • @TrevoltIV
      @TrevoltIV 8 днів тому

      @@maxanimator9547 We cannot have a theory of everything because the theory of everything would need to be explained itself. At some point or another you hit a blank wall where the only answer is God

    • @amethyst5619
      @amethyst5619 6 днів тому

      Yep it isn't a satisfactory answer.

  • @deepghetto8968
    @deepghetto8968 10 днів тому +1

    Some of the best videos to show your kids if you wish for them to have a profound understanding of reality. Thank you Arvin.

  • @tomrawlins8214
    @tomrawlins8214 11 днів тому +1

    Excellent video, one of the best on this channel

  • @lexinexi-hj7zo
    @lexinexi-hj7zo 12 днів тому +5

    SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE!!!!!

  • @Breakfast_of_Champions
    @Breakfast_of_Champions 13 днів тому +4

    Could you use the modern names of the elements? "Potassium" is actually Kalium, "Sodium" is actually Natrium etc.

  • @Raven319s
    @Raven319s 7 днів тому +1

    Excelent video. I just always just accepted it was the how atoms and molecules bond. But it always tripped me out with the exact example you gave. The fact that a gas goes to a metal with one proton is wild.

  • @manuelmaturana4573
    @manuelmaturana4573 13 днів тому +2

    you're amazing. the way you deliver the knowledge we all know

  • @wesleywashington1251
    @wesleywashington1251 10 днів тому +1

    The question posed in the title of this video immediately caught my attention. Fascinating subject.

  • @TKN21
    @TKN21 12 днів тому

    An excellent video. I've been looking for an explanation like this for a while.

  • @yaelbj
    @yaelbj 9 днів тому +1

    Excellent video, it gave me a better understanding on this subject!

  • @extremeweirdness1528
    @extremeweirdness1528 8 днів тому +1

    I learned this 8-9 years ago forgot most of it but you made me remember a lot.

  • @jeffpearce8748
    @jeffpearce8748 12 днів тому +1

    Beautiful explanation, thankyou 🙌

  • @berylman
    @berylman 11 днів тому +1

    Great video! I find this so fascinating

  • @namitakalita6837
    @namitakalita6837 11 днів тому +1

    I literally searched this same question in quora yesterday, word by word. I am feeling 😱

  • @filipenicoli_
    @filipenicoli_ 13 днів тому

    It was such an incredible experience watching this video. I wish such high quality material was available in other languages.

  • @finbeats
    @finbeats 11 днів тому +1

    Great video Arvin

  • @lukedowneslukedownes5900
    @lukedowneslukedownes5900 13 днів тому +1

    Amazing well explained video

  • @johnmolenaar3810
    @johnmolenaar3810 13 днів тому +2

    When, during novae and super novae, heavier atoms were formed they would be ranbdomly scattered across space. The question I have - and perhaps someone can provide an answer - HOW, why and in what phase of the process they clumped together to finally 'look like ores' that we find across earth.
    I suppose this could have been during the accretion disk phase, but still remains the why and how? What mechanism?

    • @iamamazingist
      @iamamazingist 13 днів тому

      I also have the same question
      What i concluded is that, the particles in a protoplanetary gas disc need not be evenly distributed or homogenously mixed. Similar to how the salinity of various parts of Earth's ocean is different even after being a single water body.. so considering the huge size of the star, its possible to get kilometre sized clumps that form the mineral deposits on Earth or any other planet or moon or asteroid

  • @MEGAMIGA
    @MEGAMIGA 13 днів тому

    Wow! That was a brilliant explanation! Thank you, I am going to subscribe to your channel!

  • @hanks.9833
    @hanks.9833 13 днів тому

    Thanks for this very informative video!

  • @misterlau5246
    @misterlau5246 12 днів тому

    Excellent take professor Ash!

  • @Ritziey
    @Ritziey 10 днів тому +1

    this is such an interesting video.. totally loved this.. besides many others ofcourse)

  • @AircraftFTW
    @AircraftFTW 8 днів тому +1

    This video is incredibly informative.

  • @PATRIK67KALLBACK
    @PATRIK67KALLBACK 11 днів тому +1

    Great video Arvin! As a chemist (this don't affect the content of the video) I saw that an old periodic table was shown since we now have named atoms up to element 118 Og

  • @Wilfoe
    @Wilfoe 8 днів тому +1

    I've been wondering about this for so long! I already knew most of this info, but I've never seen it presented this way before. :)

    • @ArvinAsh
      @ArvinAsh  8 днів тому +1

      Glad it was helpful!

  • @ShaneH42
    @ShaneH42 13 днів тому

    I’m amazed at how much you packed into a short video

  • @JohannY3
    @JohannY3 12 днів тому +1

    Another great explanation!

  • @Emma-ol3ed
    @Emma-ol3ed 9 днів тому

    As a chemist, nothing here was really new to me, but it was still interesting to see it beeing explained by a physicist. Great video and explanation! :D

  • @brunorhagalcus6132
    @brunorhagalcus6132 10 днів тому +1

    Great explanation!

  • @jlynec
    @jlynec 10 днів тому +1

    Thank you, thank you, thank you Arvin! ❤ I've asked this question since highschool. Even throughout college, profs wouldn't give a straight answer.

    • @ArvinAsh
      @ArvinAsh  9 днів тому

      I hear you. In high school, i always got circular answers too.

  • @zdenekvalek1538
    @zdenekvalek1538 10 днів тому +1

    This is the best explanation that I have ever received. Thanks a lot. Now I am also a chemist

  • @emiledestructeur
    @emiledestructeur 11 днів тому +2

    the animations are rly good!

  • @dougieh9676
    @dougieh9676 10 днів тому +1

    Ah yes.. A new Arvin Ash. 😊 Real science vids that I can understand and trust. No clickbait. 😁

  • @Craznar
    @Craznar 13 днів тому +1

    Can you do a follow up that focuses on the physical properties and why are they so different with one proton (e.g. melting point, vapor point, colour etc) ?

  • @SmogandBlack
    @SmogandBlack 12 днів тому +2

    Very good and enjoyable, as always... 😊😊😊

  • @m.senthilkumar2585
    @m.senthilkumar2585 6 днів тому +1

    Thank you so much, because I have been thinking of this same question for a long time. But now I understood clearly why the elements are so different. UA-cam channels like this help me to understand and study science better! 🙂👍

  • @shatterthemirror8563
    @shatterthemirror8563 13 днів тому

    The thing that links this to chemistry is that if your molecule needs more elections in it's exchanging atoms then it's often on the acidic side, while the molecule that is needing to lend them instead tends to be more basic. Either of them tend to be more polarized than the molecules that have no ions.

  • @sunshadow2048
    @sunshadow2048 11 днів тому +1

    Thankyou Ash

  • @HbloooIsHere
    @HbloooIsHere 13 днів тому +1

    This is such a strange coincidence but I was thinking about this same question yesterday

  • @_lod
    @_lod 8 днів тому

    I just had a chemistry test a few days ago and it’s nice to confirm what I learned through this video

  • @nerdmelon3406
    @nerdmelon3406 13 днів тому +1

    Dude thank you for always making such awesome science videos. You, Sabine and Matt at PBS Spacetime make the science trifecta! This topic in particular was always something I was curious about and you've explained it so clearly that now I can go teach my son and pretend that I knew it all along lol

    • @ArvinAsh
      @ArvinAsh  13 днів тому

      Nice! He's going to be amazed at you!

    • @wesleywashington1251
      @wesleywashington1251 10 днів тому

      What's the problem with just learning about it?

    • @nerdmelon3406
      @nerdmelon3406 9 днів тому

      @@wesleywashington1251 I didn’t say that I couldn’t but thanks for the helpful suggestion

  • @2945antonio
    @2945antonio 12 днів тому

    A master's presentation! Thank you.

  • @ronch550
    @ronch550 13 днів тому

    I've been thinking about this for years. Thank you for addressing this topic. Too bad the alchemists never knew what really makes up everything.

  • @cassiuscramos
    @cassiuscramos 12 днів тому

    "Chemistry is very complicated physics".
    What a great video!

  • @_abdul
    @_abdul 13 днів тому

    Getting a Notification from Arvin Charges me with Positivity.

  • @ruellerz
    @ruellerz 4 години тому +1

    This video sums up why I subscribed so long ago. ty ty great vid

  • @caseyleedom6771
    @caseyleedom6771 13 днів тому

    This is a great video. It will help any beginning Chemistry Student understand what's going on. [[ It would be nice to distinguished between Ionic and Covalent bonds. ]]

    • @starventure
      @starventure 13 днів тому +1

      Ionic: Gimme all you got, You complete me
      Covalent: Sharing is caring. Share once, share twice, share three times!

  • @ericgraham7026
    @ericgraham7026 13 днів тому +1

    Hi Alvin,
    You say that only two electrons can occupy each electron shell but the diagrams show more than two electrons in the shells other than the inner. What am I not understanding?
    Thanks - always great videos, by the way.

  • @alexanderhomoky1140
    @alexanderhomoky1140 13 днів тому

    I watch your videos just for those few seconds of awesome 80s intro beats

  • @amitsharmaasg
    @amitsharmaasg 10 днів тому

    One of my biggest curiosity since I learned about the periodic table back in my school days

  • @jeffreymartin8448
    @jeffreymartin8448 13 днів тому +1

    Arvin, if you only knew how many minds you turn on with these. People you'll never meet. Who knows, perhaps the next Einstein ! You have this cool ability to present concepts that are completely graspable. Can't turn on a mind unless it can see ! Way cool, really dig these.

  • @arcobrunner1979
    @arcobrunner1979 13 днів тому

    Plz more on the schrödinger equation and why/how it predicts the number of electrons for the different shells. And maybe also something about how the equation predicts the shape of the orbitals 🙏