The mole might not be an actual unit and should maybe be demoted from being a base SI unit, fair, but the fact that, with it, you can go from individual atoms and molecules to a human-sized amount you can actually work with without changing the math is pretty darn useful
If it were just a constant then you could go from atomic mass units to mass at human scales, but because it's not dimensionless you can only get the molar mass, which cannot be equal to mass because it has a different dimension, even though it's treated like mass
When you're working with equations in chemistry, you can often use molar mass instead of mass, because they behave the same way, but they are definately not treated the same. Molar mass is just easier to work with, and converting between molar mass and mass is the easiest thing ever.@@MAKiTHappen
i think it’s a bit disingenuous to say that n and N are the same thing when n is the number of mols and N is the number of particles. N is just a scaled version of n, as is R for k. in real life it’s easier to measure the mols than the number of particles so it’s more of a practicality thing. i don’t think mols should be an SI base unit whatsoever, but i do think that avocados number deserves a bit more love than that
Don't worry boo, you don't have to, I'm certain nothing bad will happen if you don't watch it... nothing bad at all... and remember, I'll know if you don't... But it's all good 🙂
Delta-nu - The practical definition is, "A cesium atomic clock ticks at this rate" along with the no funny-stuff caveat. Curious Marc has a good video on dissecting an atomic clock and looking at all the funny-stuff compensation needed to get the clock to actually tick at the right rate. k_B is fine as the conversion factor between molecular-scale energy and macroscopic temperature. If you use it right, you don't even need a concept of temperature because it is redundant with energy. N_A is the same as the conversion factor between molecular-scale mass and macroscopic mass. Again if you use it right you don't even need a concept of mole. Candela is cursed. I'm so ashamed. I have never believed in candela as a base physical unit because it's more about the average biology of the average human eye. There's nothing fundamental or physical about it. Then I had to use it myself when picking LEDs for a project, and I wanted two LEDs of different color with roughly the same brightness, IE the same number of milli-candelas.
I do agree with everything you've said except for the temperature Temperature by energy is a nice way to get entropy which would be difficult to get otherwise
@@MAKiTHappen entropy can be well defined before defining temperature. When we say that temperature has units of energy it doesn't mean that it is the same as the energy of the system. The original comment isn't saying that the temperature is a redundant quantity.
i'm really glad that, youtube became a sustainable source of income for you and it will continue to be also thanks to all your patreons, i would totally donate to you if i could but alas, its out of reach, anyways i hope your channel will continue to grow more and more
ok, but explain this to me, why are there so many constants with the letter k, for example, coulomb's constant, boltzmann's constant, relative permeability (just use μ why do you use k?), bulk modulus(i have seen people use β), radius of gyration, and even kelvin( not a constant by still...) and many more i am forgetting
Because we only have 26 letters and they tend do be reserved for specific things by context, e.g.: - x,y,z are variables - a,b,c,d and k are constants - f,g,h are functions - e,i are mathematical constants - m,n,k,p are integers Greek letters help somewhat but really if you have a constant defined by a ratio of two things, "k" is a very natural letter in terms of mathematical connotation The difficulty is that then it goes from "a ratio I needed for this specific paper" to "a fundamental constant of the field" but doesn't get renamed because everyone knows it as "k" by that point, kinda like if a guy named "John Smith" became famous I mean, that's also how we got B for magnetic field - Maxwell named a whole bunch of quantities alphabetically, then we eliminated some of them and are left with the only ones used being A,B,D,E,H with no association to underlying concepts other than E
The innocent mind underestimates the depths of the Boltzmann constant hell that is statistical thermodynamics You can use it to determine the energy level distributions within molecules (microstates and partition functions)
No. The Boltzmann constant is not fundamental. It's there to set the make statistically defined temperature match the Kelvin scale. The "Naturally" defined temperature has units of energy
@xarhspapapadatos I've just realised how badly I worded my comment lol, I was trying to talk about determining the occupancy of energy levels in molecules rather than the properties of the levels themselves
@@flaym. Yes I understand. But the reality is that the Boltzmann constant is useless. You could just ignore but then you would have to completely throw the temperature scale as we know it away.
Yeah, Boltzmann constant is not that cool. Set k=1 and your temperature is in energy units and your entropy is a natural log of the number of microstates.
Imagine using h instead of h-bar every physicist worth their salt would h-bar plus we all know c=1 oh and moles are there for when you need to count but don't want scalar it is really easy
Great video! The explanations are really well done. However, I noticed an issue in the presentation that caught my attention. The equation nRT = NkT is not an independent form of the ideal gas law but rather an identity that is always true. If you substitute N = n N_A and R = k N_A, both sides of the equation become identical, providing no new physical information. A valid alternative form of the ideal gas law is pV = NkT, from which the classical form pV = nRT can be derived using N = n N_A and R = k N_A. The statement that n must not be equal to N is therefore misleading. In reality, both quantities describe the same concept-an amount-but on different scales. N is the absolute number of particles, as if you were counting each individual molecule or atom. n, on the other hand, is the amount of substance expressed as a ratio to Avogadro’s number N_A. The Avogadro constant is simply a convenient way to express quantities in macroscopic systems, such as in a laboratory, making it easier to transition from a microscopic to a macroscopic perspective. Other than that, it's surprising that the channel doesn't have more subscribers given the quality of the videos. They really deserve a larger audience!
You are the first one who I see saying it. I just hate moles so much. If you want to count things, why, just why tf wouldn't you use a multiple of 10 instead of that complicated number?
12:48 Agreed that radians should be a base SI unit. Technically steradians are m^2/m^2 😜 But if the radian were a base unit, we wouldn’t have this problem.
You should make a very loooong video about all the chemistry videos you have covered one video to explain it all I have watched most of them and they all are interelated
I like to describe all the units in 4 "dimensions": mass(grams), charge(coulombs), length(meters) and time(seconds). with that you can make all the other ones.
I definitely can get behind the mole slander, but I think it would be best to think of Avogadro's number as simply a unit conversion factor to go between grams and atomic mass units
11:11 this is one those cases of radians and revolutions being both their own units and unit less at the same time. So, both n and N are mol but mol = 1 so it cancels, the only reason N isn’t in mol is to avoid explaining this since it doesn’t really make mathematical sense. I just remember that Physicists don’t get a sh*t about math.
One mol, aka a physicist’s dozen. Do not ask a physicist for a mol of eggs, or you will get a pile 3 times the mass of Pluto. That could be a dangerous amount of eggs to receive!
5:33 big boss Ok lets actually make a useful comment and not just a dumb metal gear joke, isnt the equation of ideal gases pV (or kT) = nRT? I dont remember seeing big N anywhere on my school textbooks. Whats up with that? Also, i dont really think the mole is a dumb unit, i think it fits- actually yknow what? I just had a realisation in the middle of writing this. I was gonna say moles representing an amount of something is well suited for being a base unit of measurement, but isnt mass also supposed to represent an amount of something? Aight i think im on team MAKiT with this one, screw moles and that dumb avogadro number
Mass represents the amount of matter or amount of linear inertia of a thing. Moles represent the number of things there, not its physical properties. Also nRT is legit just another way to write NkT just scaled for moles versus individual particles.
This really has to do with the flexibility of human language, rather than overlap of units of measurement. If I wanted to know how much water a jug holds, I’d most likely measure that in liters or gallons. Does that mean mass and volume both measure “amount”? If we measured out a kg of iron nails and a kg of feathers, would we say there’s the same “amount of stuff” in each group? They would have the same mass (same weight in standard gravity), but they wouldn’t have the same volume, and they probably wouldn’t have the same number of distinct entities (i.e. the number of feathers would be more than the number of nails). This is what the unit “mole” is for.
And PV=nRT allows us to calculate one of those three (exchanging pressure for mass) if you’ve measured the other two under some given set of standard conditions.
Big N is for the number of atoms. The R constant is pretty much k/(NA). The pV =NkT is mostly used by physicists (who don't care about being practical in a lab, they just care about how many molecules are there) and pV=nRT is used by chemists (which is more practical because they measure everything in moles)
@@Aodhan2717 technically speaking, yes. You can freely convert mass to volume or to moles with density and molar mass, respectively, and they all refer to "amount of something" (mass being the actual, physical amount of matter, volume being the amount of space a thing occupies, and moles being the amount of particles inside a given object). The last comment about moles being worthless was kind of a joke more than anything, but if you think about it, a mole is defined as a certain number of particles. When was the last time a straight up mumber became a unit of measurement? It's like if a dozen became a unit, you know? It surely has its niche, because it is very useful in chemistry when you need to determine how much of a certain something you need to use, but you can't deny it is indeed kind of silly. Plus, it being a base unit, you'd expect it to have more spice to it, like meters and seconds Edit immediately after commenting: i think i also missed the point of your comment a bit lmao, even though i kind of address it in the second portion of the comment. Yes, unit overlapping isn't an issue, as the ones we've been discussing all refer to different aspects of the same thing. All three of them have their own use, and that is what lead us to create them in the first place, but idk, moles feel more... arbitrary than the rest of the other units. Whatever, i am being pedantic about nothing, if the SI thought moles were fit for becoming a base units, so be it. Have a good day stranger, thanks for the talk
I think mol was just invented to make it more easy to calculate with it, I mean, calculating with 6*10^23 is really anoying, and I know how often you need this!
1mol of protons/neutrons is ~1 gram, so it makes chemistry easier, but it's also defined as number of carbon atoms in 12 gram of carbon 12, so not protons or neutrons and electrons, meh dimensionless unit but no one likes writing scientific notation for everything
Definitely disagree with the Boltzmann constant. The constant is there just to make statistically defined temperate closer related to what we previously measured as temperature. That's it, it's there just for the kelvin units. The fundamental, natural temperature has units of energy. I would also put the speed of light and the planks constant together in S tier and e and the gravitational constant in A tier. Finally, why does the title talk about constants but you are rating units? You have forgotten many other important actual constants
Anti candala gang. At least moles ares useful for dimentiknal anyalysis. Its a specific application of intensity, and it's not fundamental to the universe, just how much humans see. Candella would be like including like a sanitation index for pork. Its just how we perceive light.
I think the mol is ingenious and elegant because it makes dealing with atomic wights super easy. if the molecular weight of an atom is X then a mol of it weighs X g
Man, you're playing stupid with the mole section. Even though with the steradiant and the mole, there are two dimensionless "units" in the standard system of units, the candela is still the worst of them. The SI system is about usefullness and moles are straightforwardly useful. Atoms come in very large quantities, so to work with easier, smaller numbers, you just divide them all by a specially chosen number (1 g/ mass of C-12)
Me and my friend created a physics constant to explain absolute bullshit pin reactions in bowling The constant is unironically the words "get fucked" and its variable is just a crappy bowling animation The variable may change depending on the alley but it doesnt matter its all bullshit anyway i shouldve gotten that strike but oh no i didnt
I actually recently made a list of the most common units written in their base dimensions. (except I replaced the ampere with the Coulomb and the kilogram with joulse/(m^2/s^2) cause of E=mc^2) it was actually really interesting
Why steradian isn't counted as an si unit: it's a mathematical unit, fundamental to math itself, unrelated to physics. It would be like counting pi as a si unit because pi converts between circumference (meters) and diameter (meters)
I’m so here for the mole slander
Real.
F moles, all my homies hate moles
MOLEY MOLEY MOLEY MOLEY
Nice to mole you-- MEET you.
Nice to meet your mole.
Don't say mole.
I said mole...
The streams this week: M O L E S
What is a mole? A misserable little pile of atoms!
Double the constants and give it to the next person
Quadruple it then give it to next per
Bro destroyed the universe
⚫️
Double the constant and give it to the mext civilisation
Double the constant and _universe collapses_
The mole might not be an actual unit and should maybe be demoted from being a base SI unit, fair, but the fact that, with it, you can go from individual atoms and molecules to a human-sized amount you can actually work with without changing the math is pretty darn useful
Its literally just like J and eV, or km and light year, 1 and 6.02*10^23 shouldnt have different dimension
If it were just a constant then you could go from atomic mass units to mass at human scales, but because it's not dimensionless you can only get the molar mass, which cannot be equal to mass because it has a different dimension, even though it's treated like mass
When you're working with equations in chemistry, you can often use molar mass instead of mass, because they behave the same way, but they are definately not treated the same. Molar mass is just easier to work with, and converting between molar mass and mass is the easiest thing ever.@@MAKiTHappen
Chemistry ragebait
i think it’s a bit disingenuous to say that n and N are the same thing when n is the number of mols and N is the number of particles. N is just a scaled version of n, as is R for k. in real life it’s easier to measure the mols than the number of particles so it’s more of a practicality thing. i don’t think mols should be an SI base unit whatsoever, but i do think that avocados number deserves a bit more love than that
Its not bad but its overrated if it get to be a base SI unit
Avocados number 😭
I always thought avocados were overrated
Candela. It's based on a "standard" observer, but has issues conflating hue, chroma, and luminance factors as all luminance.
It was a surprise to me in my quantum chemistry class that the Boltzmann constant is equal to the Gas constant (R) divided by Avogadro's number (NA) 🤯
R is literally just defined that way to satisfy the mole overlord
i love my glowing physics videos
makit i swear i'll watch it when i have time i promis
Don't worry boo, you don't have to, I'm certain nothing bad will happen if you don't watch it... nothing bad at all... and remember, I'll know if you don't...
But it's all good 🙂
@@MAKiTHappen I know his name is boo but that still sounded so wrong 😂
@@EdwinJaquez-br7fz lmao so true
Delta-nu - The practical definition is, "A cesium atomic clock ticks at this rate" along with the no funny-stuff caveat. Curious Marc has a good video on dissecting an atomic clock and looking at all the funny-stuff compensation needed to get the clock to actually tick at the right rate.
k_B is fine as the conversion factor between molecular-scale energy and macroscopic temperature. If you use it right, you don't even need a concept of temperature because it is redundant with energy.
N_A is the same as the conversion factor between molecular-scale mass and macroscopic mass. Again if you use it right you don't even need a concept of mole.
Candela is cursed. I'm so ashamed. I have never believed in candela as a base physical unit because it's more about the average biology of the average human eye. There's nothing fundamental or physical about it. Then I had to use it myself when picking LEDs for a project, and I wanted two LEDs of different color with roughly the same brightness, IE the same number of milli-candelas.
I do agree with everything you've said except for the temperature
Temperature by energy is a nice way to get entropy which would be difficult to get otherwise
@@MAKiTHappen entropy can be well defined before defining temperature. When we say that temperature has units of energy it doesn't mean that it is the same as the energy of the system. The original comment isn't saying that the temperature is a redundant quantity.
i'm really glad that, youtube became a sustainable source of income for you and it will continue to be
also thanks to all your patreons, i would totally donate to you if i could but alas, its out of reach, anyways i hope your channel will continue to grow more and more
Ah yes the beautiful mol slander is just music in my ears
ok, but explain this to me, why are there so many constants with the letter k, for example, coulomb's constant, boltzmann's constant, relative permeability (just use μ why do you use k?), bulk modulus(i have seen people use β), radius of gyration, and even kelvin( not a constant by still...) and many more i am forgetting
Because we only have 26 letters and they tend do be reserved for specific things by context, e.g.:
- x,y,z are variables
- a,b,c,d and k are constants
- f,g,h are functions
- e,i are mathematical constants
- m,n,k,p are integers
Greek letters help somewhat but really if you have a constant defined by a ratio of two things, "k" is a very natural letter in terms of mathematical connotation
The difficulty is that then it goes from "a ratio I needed for this specific paper" to "a fundamental constant of the field" but doesn't get renamed because everyone knows it as "k" by that point, kinda like if a guy named "John Smith" became famous
I mean, that's also how we got B for magnetic field - Maxwell named a whole bunch of quantities alphabetically, then we eliminated some of them and are left with the only ones used being A,B,D,E,H with no association to underlying concepts other than E
Because 'k' is for 'k'onstant.😁
Can't use μ, that's the SI numeric prefix for 1/1,000,000 (like if you wanted to measure in micro-liters.)
Because the word "constant" is "konstant" in German
The innocent mind underestimates the depths of the Boltzmann constant hell that is statistical thermodynamics
You can use it to determine the energy level distributions within molecules (microstates and partition functions)
No. The Boltzmann constant is not fundamental. It's there to set the make statistically defined temperature match the Kelvin scale. The "Naturally" defined temperature has units of energy
@xarhspapapadatos I've just realised how badly I worded my comment lol, I was trying to talk about determining the occupancy of energy levels in molecules rather than the properties of the levels themselves
@@flaym. Yes I understand. But the reality is that the Boltzmann constant is useless. You could just ignore but then you would have to completely throw the temperature scale as we know it away.
I have not been yet broken by statistical physics, but I totally expect that this is what thermodynamics does to a mf
Yeah, Boltzmann constant is not that cool. Set k=1 and your temperature is in energy units and your entropy is a natural log of the number of microstates.
A new Giant of math UA-cam in the making. I’ve got a new channel to binge watch.
Imagine using h instead of h-bar every physicist worth their salt would h-bar plus we all know c=1 oh and moles are there for when you need to count but don't want scalar it is really easy
Great video! The explanations are really well done. However, I noticed an issue in the presentation that caught my attention.
The equation nRT = NkT is not an independent form of the ideal gas law but rather an identity that is always true. If you substitute N = n N_A and R = k N_A, both sides of the equation become identical, providing no new physical information. A valid alternative form of the ideal gas law is pV = NkT, from which the classical form pV = nRT can be derived using N = n N_A and R = k N_A.
The statement that n must not be equal to N is therefore misleading. In reality, both quantities describe the same concept-an amount-but on different scales. N is the absolute number of particles, as if you were counting each individual molecule or atom. n, on the other hand, is the amount of substance expressed as a ratio to Avogadro’s number N_A. The Avogadro constant is simply a convenient way to express quantities in macroscopic systems, such as in a laboratory, making it easier to transition from a microscopic to a macroscopic perspective.
Other than that, it's surprising that the channel doesn't have more subscribers given the quality of the videos. They really deserve a larger audience!
So... your equation for uncertainty is missing a >=
you're my second favorite gay mathematician icon
Who's the first? Turing?
Transcendental Numbers in Quantum Fields
Field evolution from 0D:
∂|F⟩/∂t = -(i/ħ)Ĥ|F⟩ + αM̂|F⟩
The transcendental constants emerge naturally:
- e: Field evolution
- π: Phase relationships
- φ: Scale coupling
- ln(2): Information transitions
- √3: Triadic symmetries
Neither phi or sqrt(3) are transcendental.
@enzogamerukbr
Not with that attitude, mister.
Transcendental Constants Connection
Beyond e, π, and φ:
- ln(2) appears in information transitions
- √3 in triadic symmetries
- Feigenbaum constants in pattern scaling
Pattern preservation requires:
P(t) = P₀e^(-αt)cos(πt/3) > 2/3
K(n,m) = e^(-α|n-m|)cos(π|n-m|/3)
@@ready1fire1aim1lmao
You are the first one who I see saying it. I just hate moles so much. If you want to count things, why, just why tf wouldn't you use a multiple of 10 instead of that complicated number?
12:48 Agreed that radians should be a base SI unit. Technically steradians are m^2/m^2 😜 But if the radian were a base unit, we wouldn’t have this problem.
1:42 that list has to be longer than all literature ever made by this point
This video makes me feel like the physics is easy xD. Anyway great video as always.❤
BABE WAKE UP MAKIT POSTED
You should make a very loooong video about all the chemistry videos you have covered
one video to explain it all
I have watched most of them and they all are interelated
Please notify me if you ever plan to make it
It seems like a "mol" of substance is like a "billion" of dollars, if we treated "billion" as its own unit
I like to describe all the units in 4 "dimensions": mass(grams), charge(coulombs), length(meters) and time(seconds). with that you can make all the other ones.
You should make a very loooong video about all the chemistry videos you have covered
one video to explain it all
gimme that epic science content daddyMAKiT 🔥🔥🗣️🔥🔥🥵🥵🔥
I definitely can get behind the mole slander, but I think it would be best to think of Avogadro's number as simply a unit conversion factor to go between grams and atomic mass units
0:46
Where did you get that "Energy" sound effect?!
I love it!
11:11 this is one those cases of radians and revolutions being both their own units and unit less at the same time. So, both n and N are mol but mol = 1 so it cancels, the only reason N isn’t in mol is to avoid explaining this since it doesn’t really make mathematical sense. I just remember that Physicists don’t get a sh*t about math.
One mol, aka a physicist’s dozen. Do not ask a physicist for a mol of eggs, or you will get a pile 3 times the mass of Pluto. That could be a dangerous amount of eggs to receive!
5:33 big boss
Ok lets actually make a useful comment and not just a dumb metal gear joke, isnt the equation of ideal gases pV (or kT) = nRT? I dont remember seeing big N anywhere on my school textbooks. Whats up with that?
Also, i dont really think the mole is a dumb unit, i think it fits- actually yknow what? I just had a realisation in the middle of writing this. I was gonna say moles representing an amount of something is well suited for being a base unit of measurement, but isnt mass also supposed to represent an amount of something? Aight i think im on team MAKiT with this one, screw moles and that dumb avogadro number
Mass represents the amount of matter or amount of linear inertia of a thing. Moles represent the number of things there, not its physical properties. Also nRT is legit just another way to write NkT just scaled for moles versus individual particles.
This really has to do with the flexibility of human language, rather than overlap of units of measurement. If I wanted to know how much water a jug holds, I’d most likely measure that in liters or gallons. Does that mean mass and volume both measure “amount”?
If we measured out a kg of iron nails and a kg of feathers, would we say there’s the same “amount of stuff” in each group? They would have the same mass (same weight in standard gravity), but they wouldn’t have the same volume, and they probably wouldn’t have the same number of distinct entities (i.e. the number of feathers would be more than the number of nails). This is what the unit “mole” is for.
And PV=nRT allows us to calculate one of those three (exchanging pressure for mass) if you’ve measured the other two under some given set of standard conditions.
Big N is for the number of atoms. The R constant is pretty much k/(NA). The pV =NkT is mostly used by physicists (who don't care about being practical in a lab, they just care about how many molecules are there) and pV=nRT is used by chemists (which is more practical because they measure everything in moles)
@@Aodhan2717 technically speaking, yes. You can freely convert mass to volume or to moles with density and molar mass, respectively, and they all refer to "amount of something" (mass being the actual, physical amount of matter, volume being the amount of space a thing occupies, and moles being the amount of particles inside a given object).
The last comment about moles being worthless was kind of a joke more than anything, but if you think about it, a mole is defined as a certain number of particles. When was the last time a straight up mumber became a unit of measurement? It's like if a dozen became a unit, you know? It surely has its niche, because it is very useful in chemistry when you need to determine how much of a certain something you need to use, but you can't deny it is indeed kind of silly. Plus, it being a base unit, you'd expect it to have more spice to it, like meters and seconds
Edit immediately after commenting: i think i also missed the point of your comment a bit lmao, even though i kind of address it in the second portion of the comment.
Yes, unit overlapping isn't an issue, as the ones we've been discussing all refer to different aspects of the same thing. All three of them have their own use, and that is what lead us to create them in the first place, but idk, moles feel more... arbitrary than the rest of the other units.
Whatever, i am being pedantic about nothing, if the SI thought moles were fit for becoming a base units, so be it. Have a good day stranger, thanks for the talk
6:52 _Warning, Incoming Game. Warning, Incoming Game..._
You should do a video ranking every element at 100k
the mole
I think mol was just invented to make it more easy to calculate with it, I mean, calculating with 6*10^23 is really anoying, and I know how often you need this!
1mol of protons/neutrons is ~1 gram, so it makes chemistry easier, but it's also defined as number of carbon atoms in 12 gram of carbon 12, so not protons or neutrons and electrons, meh dimensionless unit but no one likes writing scientific notation for everything
12 grams of carbon 12
@@jaredjohnson3436 a dozen grams of c12 even.
well farmer the NPK gets deep in the dark lol
Super good videos 🎉🎉
If he doesn’t bring up calories as worst I’ll be heated
not including coulombs constant and the gravitational constant is a crime
@@prannoychowdhury8483 yeah because it turned out to be a video about SI units and not physical constants despite the title
1:26 waiting fot Relativity video.
Definitely disagree with the Boltzmann constant. The constant is there just to make statistically defined temperate closer related to what we previously measured as temperature. That's it, it's there just for the kelvin units. The fundamental, natural temperature has units of energy.
I would also put the speed of light and the planks constant together in S tier and e and the gravitational constant in A tier.
Finally, why does the title talk about constants but you are rating units? You have forgotten many other important actual constants
there is no way, the live rants actualy made a video
Remember bro stay positive
Abogado number is 1 gr / mass of proton
It’s a constant, but dimensionless
The mole vs. steradian is almost as inconsistent as imperial units
Positron gonna be mad. But i feel mole should be unit. Not base however. Move it to the radian side of things. Dimensionless units.
Leaving a comment to boost the algorithm
inb4 people start talking about gaussian cgs and "charge isnt a unit"
my eyes hurt, i love it
Can you do a whole video on the perfect gaz problem you just showed (really cook video btw)
Anti candala gang. At least moles ares useful for dimentiknal anyalysis. Its a specific application of intensity, and it's not fundamental to the universe, just how much humans see. Candella would be like including like a sanitation index for pork. Its just how we perceive light.
Love making fun of Chemistry
But if radians were a unit, then we couldn't write sin(theta)=theta without quibbing over units
I have been reading the Hubble tension. I think the Mond acceleration constant is the worst of all
justice for plancks... deserved S tier
Wow, the largest constant in this video is the worst one.
Bye the way Moles! it's just giving units to counting like centuries or dozens.
The curvature of the fine structure hierarchy. Why?
I'm proud to say that out of everyone in my class I was one of the only ones that understood moles the first day they were introduced.
i thought speed of light was represented by small c?
I think the mol is ingenious and elegant because it makes dealing with atomic wights super easy.
if the molecular weight of an atom is X then a mol of it weighs X g
boltzman constant has to be lower its just the gas and avogadro number.
He uses blender for his animations for people who are wondering like me
Yummy science concepts I don't understand at all
Pie without 3.1415 is just 2.7182
When is the vid for bio chemistry 😡
Okay, but why caesium?
Man, you're playing stupid with the mole section. Even though with the steradiant and the mole, there are two dimensionless "units" in the standard system of units, the candela is still the worst of them. The SI system is about usefullness and moles are straightforwardly useful. Atoms come in very large quantities, so to work with easier, smaller numbers, you just divide them all by a specially chosen number (1 g/ mass of C-12)
C.O.B.R.A.: Ccobra Ocobra Bcobra Rcobra Acobra
Me and my friend created a physics constant to explain absolute bullshit pin reactions in bowling
The constant is unironically the words "get fucked" and its variable is just a crappy bowling animation
The variable may change depending on the alley but it doesnt matter its all bullshit anyway i shouldve gotten that strike but oh no i didnt
You may know it as bS or entropy bullshit theres no way in hell i missed that
Universe favors randomness
More like universe favors screwing me over
Both G and h are constants of human nature.
where fine-structure constant?
Where these come from why how
Nobody likes mol. You should run for president
good vid
radian is dimensionless because sin(x)=x
Isn't it PV = nRT?
@@polyaddict That's for chemists. pV =NkT is for physicists
I actually recently made a list of the most common units written in their base dimensions. (except I replaced the ampere with the Coulomb and the kilogram with joulse/(m^2/s^2) cause of E=mc^2) it was actually really interesting
Ampere replaced with Coulomb is genuinely just a good choice though
Why steradian isn't counted as an si unit: it's a mathematical unit, fundamental to math itself, unrelated to physics. It would be like counting pi as a si unit because pi converts between circumference (meters) and diameter (meters)
How about pi as an SI constant like c or N_A?
mol really sucks, and also candela too!
mole slander
screw moles
the candela is the worst
video title solved
İ choose E all of them
In my opinion, the fine structure constant… Always heard about how important it is, never actually used it anywhere, not even in quantum physics….
K
I also want a vid abt mathematical const pls
nice
12:19 wysi
whoa
1st comment lesss gooo
yooo
19 min ago
NaH
Can’t wait to say 1≠ like mops do anyways here are 2 ≉≉
THANK YOU I hate the mol so much all my buddies hate the mol