What I love so much about this channel is that you aren't satisfied with incomplete explanatory models as the end point of understanding, which is how almost everyone understands everything. It's refreshing.
At the risk of doing exactly that type of summary statement just for a joke...that just means you have higher-quality subscribers. Maybe petition YT to give some of us more weight ... or... did I just describe the Electoral College?
@@ScienceAsylum That comment makes me think of 3blue1browns video about trying to maximize the area under the curve of value-per-viewer vs #ofViews rather than just #ofViews etc. Of course, that's just a vague idea and only makes sense from a perfectly charitable perspective.
You have a way of explaining this stuff in more precise detail than what I am used to seeing on You Tube. But your delivery is enough to keep me interested, while many teachers are rather long winded. Thanks for the help in my trying to understand how the universe works.
Yay, Nick!! You were mentioned in the latest and greatest video on the SpaceTime channel from PBS (as of august 27, 2015)!!! The cheers for Nick!! Hip hip hurrah! Hip hip hurrah! Hip hip hurrah!
One of my favorite clarifications. Plus it gets into the link between physics, chemistry, and biology. And the ways those all connect in abiogenesis research friggin blows my friggin miiiinnndddd!!!
I came here because of your really interesting comments on pbs space time videos. I browsed your channel and saw the title of this video and it reminded me about a scishow video talking about energy and bonds, and what a coincidence, all those events in the universe guided me to this video answering my doubts. And now I know something new and discovered your channel, chances are pretty awesome!
Bonds are abstract just as atoms and subatomic particles are. They're virtual. But we have to use models and abstract concepts to simplify things so we can work with them. Very well explained
Thank you for this one. When I watched that episode I was literally yelling at my computer screen "it doesn't matter you two are just choosing different zeros!" I'm glad I wasn't the only one who found that exchange very frustrating.
Hello. It is actually amazing how many really important insights you mention in this video that are not even the topic of the video. I wonder how many people realize that you later on made full videos about some of those things, all of them longer than this video.
Btw u r the best science channel I have ever seen and u have made videos about the topics I had doubt since last year abot 5 years ago.... Thanks to youtube's algorithm to recommend ur channel to me and thank u too...
My brain used up so much ATP trying to understand this that I need to replenish my supply now with a piece of cake 🍰. Thanks for the insight regarding chemical bonds and energy.
+The Science Asylum The example of cellular respiration and the concept of energy which you gave was awesome. Apart from that, you had mentioned at 1:15 that zero potential energy is at the ends of the universe. Isn't that a little misleading, since we actually live in a multiverse?
+Brinda Sahithi 1) We don't actually know if we live in a multiverse because we've never detected any universes other than our own. 2) The word "multiverse" isn't very well defined yet. We can only see out to our cosmic horizon which is the edge of our (finite) *observable* universe. When some people say "other universes," they only mean "other *observable* universes." When other people say "other universes," they actually mean completely separate universes. 3) When I say "zero potential energy is at the ends of the universe," I mean at the edge of our possibly infinite universe way WAY beyond our finite observable one. Things get weird when you talk about the whole universe. I'm planning on doing a video on it this summer.
+The Science Asylum And I have another question, 'Is space really one dimensional, or is it that, we don't really know since we can only see 3 dimensions'?
He is definitely a LITTLE bit crazy. Really awsome and substantial content. Hopefully the channel would emerge into more of how to apply science and especially math. To me bridging theory and being able to apply it is the most awsome thing. We need more experience in this. Just think of SpaceX, Boring company, Tesla et al. this is what application can led to. Thanks for a great channel Nick :-)
+leonardo Echavarria tamayo When an atomic nucleus (like Uranium or Plutonium) breaks apart, the resulting pieces have less energy. The energy that is lost goes into high speed photons, electrons, and helium nuclei... and, from there, I think we all know the result.
In electrical engineering we like to put the zero in the center so the signal can travel through a transistor circuit without getting cut off--unless you like your waves square.
Molecule A has some number of atoms and some number of bonds. Molecule B has the very same atoms but arranged differently, with different bonds. If molecule A can transform to molecule B (which is at a lower energy state) energy will be released. That energy was in the bonds.
I think this may be misinterpreting what Derek was saying. He wasn't referring to a particular choice of zero potential energy. He was referring to the *difference* in energy. When atoms bind together, they release or lose energy, even if you define their total energy to be positive.
My question about this is related to specific and latent heat. Latent heat is that energy which doesn't increase the temperature of the body but that one required to change the physical state of the matter (hence, the bonds). If bonds doesn't have energy, what does latent heat exactly decrease? If the energy goes to the mollecules, why doesn't the overall temperature of the body rise? I mean, if bonds doesn't have any energy since it's an abstract concept, latent heat can't affect in something that's not even a separate element in the mollecule.
State of matter is not determined by chemical bonds, it is determined by IMFs. Ice for example is made of water molecules arranged in a rigid hexagonal lattice. When heat is applied, its temperature rises initially until reaching above 0 Celsius. At this point, additional heat energy will not increase the temperature of the ice cube, but will melt it instead. At the molecular level, the heat energy is causing the water molecules to move and wiggle stronger as the temperature increases. But at the phase transition, additional heat energy doesn't go into vibrational motion, but uniform motion that causes the molecules to break away from each other, turning the rigid lattice into a soup. This kind of motion [or rather change in motion] is not the same kind of chaotic kinetic energy that results in temperature. To imagine this, you could picture the water molecules as bar magnets. Rubbing them together while they're still attached increases their motion and generates heat. Pulling them apart also gives them motion but not heat. No chemical bonds were broken or formed in this process, it's still just water. What changed is how each molecule is interacting with its neighbors.
@@snowthemegaabsol6819 OOOH So, it's like the heat is still affecting the molecules but these are just changing their "distance" and the strength between each molecule
holy guacamole. I've been taking general chemistry at college for a whole semester and only now have I learned that bonds are a completely abstract concept and they don't actually exist.
"The universe doesn't care how you label things" -- but Nick Lucid does, apparently. Seems like an argument about semantics. A chemical "bond" may not have physical existence, but it is a very useful model. This model allows chemists to describe things like "bond energy", "bond length", "bond angles", "single bonds", "double bonds", etc. These are very important concepts which would be hard to describe in any other way.
At 2:57 you mentioned that 60-70% of the energy from cellular respiration goes to kinetic energy of molecules (basically to increasing the heat of the body). Is it true that part of this kinetic energy is used to overcome the activation energy barrier in some of the internal chemical reactions? And what is activation energy anyway? Is it correct to say that chemical reactions require the molecules to: 1) collide to each other; 2) to be correctly oriented in space relative to each other; and 3) have at least X amount of kinetic energy for reaction to occur? I guess that has to be true since for example regular wood doesn’t react (much) with oxygen in the air at the room temperature; I need to increase the kinetic energy of its molecules by putting it on fire to start the reaction. Does this also mean that for example in endothermic chemical reactions the molecules become slower after the reaction, so creating bond takes more energy to overcome activation energy barrier comparing to the amount of energy released as a result of reaction? And if all of this is true why activation energy exists in the first place? Is it because of repulsion force of electrons between different atoms or is it something else? And can we predict what activation energy would be for a given reaction? I mean what affects it? Is it total amount of electrons in the atoms or it’s just the amount of electrons in the outer electron layer, or number of protons, or something else?
Sorry for such a long question :) I don’t want to waste your time (I can see how much time and effort you spend to edit the videos), so if you can just recommend some textbook on this topic, I would also greatly appreciate that!
1) Yes, they have to get really close to each other, which can be difficult sometimes if the electrons repel each other well enough. 2) Orientation isn't so important. Usually, electrical forces can turn them so they'll face the right way. Kind of like how magnets will re-orient themselves to stick together. 3a) Any reaction that has an activation energy, yes, the particles need a certain about of kinetic energy (on average)... but not all reactions have an activation energy. Some reaction will just happen no matter how fast the molecules are moving. 3b) Yes, if their average kinetic energy is lower after the reaction, then the substance would be colder. That's because the kinetic energy got used for something else. Yes, we can predict activation energy for chemical reactions using physics. It's just difficult sometimes because there a lot of factors at play (especially if there are more than 2 reactants). Usually, it's only the outer electrons that are involved in the reaction, but the inner ones can affect how big or small the activation energy is because they (effectively) make the atomic nucleus weaker.
leonardo Echavarria tamayo If I had the answer to that, I think I'd win a Noble prize. Since no particle ever really "touches" another, the concept of them exchanging something is very inconsistent with our experience.
But isn't that basically what happens in Pascal's law? Liquid's or gas' atoms "collide" with each other transferring kinetic energy in the process until it evens out in a closed system. I mean, when an atom approaches another atom it transfers kinetic energy to it since those atoms' electrons repel each other. Or have I misunderstood something?
I really like your videos. They force me to think about inaccuracies and improper simplification. And it's just fun to see you arguing with your clone;)
If atoms havent been seen yet ...how did we see bonds like double and triple bonds ...and how do we know about ring structure of benzene if we cannot see it
Originally, they were just predicted... but, recently, we've been able to _make_ images of them. I put "make" in quotes because they're not actual optical images. They're made using very detailed position data.
One question I've been wondering about: Is there a continuum between covalent and ionic bonds? Discussions about crystals, polar bonds, coordination bonds, and some things like that have made me wonder this. I also wonder whether or not quantum superpositions are necessary for this to make sense or not.
Bonds are an abstract term used to represent the potential energy between two particles of mass. Therefore, bonds do not exist but in fact represent energy which is why scientists, chemists, and physicists say bonds have energy. The info in this video was slightly misleading.
I might be wrong but i think i remember reading that when 2 atoms form a bond they lose energy as they get more and more closer (but not too close as that would greatly increase the energy in the atom in the form of KE) , this happens due to attraction of the nucleus of one atom to the electron of the other . Is this right ?? ps amazing content !!!!
Well, you can say "they lose energy." You could also say "they gain negative energy." But _both_ of those statements are technically physically correct (because they're really the same statement).
If you talk about potential energy you could have explained the bonding potential energy curve for people, maybe that would have been easier to understand how the interatomic distances, the so called bonds form. Yes we label the equilibrium distance of atoms as bondlength, but it's a result of how the anharmonic potential energy curve looks. There's one thing I have to ask you @The Science Asylum ... people say that by heating a material it's vibrational frequency gets larger. I don't think that's really what's going on. I think the "amplitude" of the vibrations gets larger while the vibration frequency stays the same (around 10^13 Hz) of a solid material for example. Otherwise it's resonance frequencies would change enormously thus making infrared spectroscopy extremely temperature dependant, which it isn't. Of course there will be a slight vibrational frequency shift in a material because almost all materials expand when heated (which can be explained by how the potential energy curve looks), changing the elastic modulus and therefore changing the frequency. For example: when I heat Iron until it glows yellow hot... the frequency of yellow light does not come from the vibration frequency of the atoms, but from their larger amplitude, because they carry more momentum (kinetic energy) which is a result of energy exitation. The frequency of light matches the energy gap between two quantum numbers on the potential energy curve. Am I right? Thanks
I though derek said what he said not because of a negative sign on absolute energy of the bond. But because energy is released when bonds are made. (system moves towards a lower energy state) Hence the word "loss"
@@ScienceAsylum Oh. :( I guess we just have to jump sharply from one topic to another, desperately fumbling to find some fiber connecting them ourselves... All because nerd clone wants us to be alone in the universe.
If specific values for energy depends on lables then dosent change in energy depends on lables. So that might mean we cannot measure how much energy a system has because it is relative to where we put zero. That means we can only be certain about increase in energy or decrease in it . And we cannot be sure about particular change value or any other value of energy. Am i right or i messed up???? 🤔🤔
What do we exactly mean when we say "bond enthalpy" or "bond energy" used to calculate the enthalpy a chemical process or a chemical reaction especially while studying chemical thermodynamics
Hey, was really thinking about it and I've realized that the PE between a falling rock and the earth is in both the rock and the earth (or neither? the bond?) When the rock falls you could say that it has PE at the beginning and then gradually transforms its PE into KE. But you could also say that the earth has the PE and that does work in the rock, therefore consuming it and transforming it into KE for the rock. (I'm assuming that the acceleration of the earth because of the gravity of the rock is negligible)
The PE is in both the rock and the Earth. Both of them transform that energy into KE when they "fall" toward each other. It's just the the rock has a lot _less mass_ so that same KE gives it a lot _more speed_ than the Earth.
Then sir how can we relate this with Latent heat as Latent heat exist between particles but is it true altogether??? Please guide me. Tell me about it please 🙏 Thank you
isn't it easyer to simply say its like a rubber band of lets say a bow that hold the energy untill you release it (funny that in computers re-lease is giving it a new lease) and that way the energy goes to the arrow, so just like that ATP is a lot of bows primed to shoot
I have a doubt concerning with mass defect. When we combine protons and neutrons in the nucleus, the energy is released but when we try to get free protons and neutrons we need to put more energy there. So we get less mass of the bound system then of the free particles. Does that concept tell that potential energy is negative thats why it decreases total energy of bound system? Why doesnt that potential energy adds up to the mass of the bound system? Why does it decrease it? Also is that the same case inside the proton? Is mass of 3 quarks greater than mass of a proton?
1) Yes, energy is released upon bonding and must be added to undo the bond. I'm not arguing that. I'm just saying that the number we assign to it is arbitrary. It could be negative or positive. It doesn't matter. 2) No, the mass of the 3 quarks is only about 1% the mass of the proton. Quarks don't work the same way.
Thank you for your reply. But there are reactions that are endothermic, they take energy during bonding. Does it also applies to endothermic reactions? How?
F*** yeah. i have been in biochem major for 2 years and no one has really explained a bond... its always its "chemical energy" cop out and heaven help you if u ask them to define that... thanks for this vid. actually makes some sense now. any suggested reading? only thing i know of is pauling nature of chemical bond and that book rocked me way above my league
the energy (spark symbol) is used in Myocin. How does it causes "work" to "reactivate" the Myocin? I am imagining it like combustion in rockets, does pushing the rocket up in the sky. Am I imagining it relatively closer? (in the case of reactivation of myocin)?
What I love so much about this channel is that you aren't satisfied with incomplete explanatory models as the end point of understanding, which is how almost everyone understands everything. It's refreshing.
Glad you appreciate it... unfortunately, it's probably part of the reason my subscriber count is still low.
At the risk of doing exactly that type of summary statement just for a joke...that just means you have higher-quality subscribers. Maybe petition YT to give some of us more weight ... or... did I just describe the Electoral College?
@@ScienceAsylum That comment makes me think of 3blue1browns video about trying to maximize the area under the curve of value-per-viewer vs #ofViews rather than just #ofViews etc. Of course, that's just a vague idea and only makes sense from a perfectly charitable perspective.
WTF!? The things I find on youtube, man. How come this guy does not have more subs? His content is excelent.
+Artur_Cunha
Thanks!
Thanks
Juss subscribed based on that comment...been watching these for awhile...don't know why i didnt do it sooner!!
Still thinking the same after 3 years
I click on linked video so fast, always forgetting to upvote. That might be the reason
I just got out of a bond with negative energy last year. I thought things were kinetic but there was no potential so I had to dissociate
Alex, you're taunton us.
Such a sad story. 😳😳😳
good 1
Well, i just found my new favorite channel.
Welcome!
Same here
same
@@EstudanteAnormal same 5 years later
You just did in 5 minutes what many professors took upwards of 20 years explaining. Bridging layman with erudite is very tricky. Well done.
You have a way of explaining this stuff in more precise detail than what I am used to seeing on You Tube. But your delivery is enough to keep me interested, while many teachers are rather long winded. Thanks for the help in my trying to understand how the universe works.
You're welcome :-)
3:18 "It doesn't do any math - it just works!" That would be my favorite physics theory :D
You can't have physics without maths
@@Familyproud-e9h , I agree - not accurate physics at least.
I was just joking - found it funny exactly because it would be impossible :)
5 years later, and your videos are still bringing incredible value. Thank you!
Wow man, you're mad amazing!
You’re my favorite channel ever! Thank you so much for your efforts on this platform.
You are so deep man ✌️.
So deep .
You explain toughest things in easiest way ✊.
Yay, Nick!! You were mentioned in the latest and greatest video on the SpaceTime channel from PBS (as of august 27, 2015)!!! The cheers for Nick!! Hip hip hurrah! Hip hip hurrah! Hip hip hurrah!
+Javier Alegria Thanks!
One of my favorite clarifications. Plus it gets into the link between physics, chemistry, and biology. And the ways those all connect in abiogenesis research friggin blows my friggin miiiinnndddd!!!
I came here because of your really interesting comments on pbs space time videos. I browsed your channel and saw the title of this video and it reminded me about a scishow video talking about energy and bonds, and what a coincidence, all those events in the universe guided me to this video answering my doubts. And now I know something new and discovered your channel, chances are pretty awesome!
José Ricardo Tábora Thanks! Glad you like it.
finally a science channel that explains scientific topics the way they are meant to be understood.thank u for not dumbing down the topics.
My favourite channel ever..!
Thanks for these wonderful stuff man✨
You deserve a medal..:)
Thanks! 😀
You do good job popularising science in the same time explaining very concise!
Bonds are abstract just as atoms and subatomic particles are. They're virtual. But we have to use models and abstract concepts to simplify things so we can work with them.
Very well explained
You’re awesome Nick. Thank you for the clarity.
Thank you for this one. When I watched that episode I was literally yelling at my computer screen "it doesn't matter you two are just choosing different zeros!"
I'm glad I wasn't the only one who found that exchange very frustrating.
+YouCanScienceIt You're welcome :-) I meant to make this video earlier, but thing rarely work out how you plan.
@Youcanscienceit Where you choose your zero is irrelevant when referring to the change in energy, which is always negative when forming bonds.
Loved your explanation on potential energy! Really cleared up some of my confusions about it!
+MacDeth Glad it helped!
What there is to learn here can be summed up in a great quote:
"The universe doesn't have problems... we do" - Nick Lucid
Steve Moulds and Science Asylum are one of the most underrated science channels on YT and I really feel bad for it.
Hello. It is actually amazing how many really important insights you mention in this video that are not even the topic of the video. I wonder how many people realize that you later on made full videos about some of those things, all of them longer than this video.
This guy is the next big UA-cam Channel!
I pictured Nick standing at the mic going "WOW" for that sound effect. 04:00
Best sentence: The universe does not care how we label it, things happen when there is a change in energy...
Wth!! U r liking videos after 5 years also u r really great man.
Btw u r the best science channel I have ever seen and u have made videos about the topics I had doubt since last year abot 5 years ago.... Thanks to youtube's algorithm to recommend ur channel to me and thank u too...
When I watched SciShow Talk show I was confused! Thanks for taking up this topic.
+Sundarapandian A You're welcome!
You are great man! I'm a physics teacher and I love your videos. As soon as I can I'll support you on patreon. Thanks!
Thanks. I don't want anyone to financially hurt supporting my work, so take care of yourself first.
Keep up the great Work Nick.
You are a fantastic teacher.
Thanks, will do! 🤓
I have a BSc(Hons) in Chemistry, and no one ever explained this so clearly during my entire undergraduate degree!
Another great video man!
Hope to see more soon.
+Benjamin Sharef Thanks! Just filmed some stuff today for my next one.
First video from you I'm watching and immediately subscribed , awesome work
Oh wow, this is an old one!
❤❤❤❤
The idea of negative potential energy and energy wells is a great visualisation. Students absorb that well.
REALLY OUTSTANDING presentation and insight
Thanks!
bring more subs to him. he's telling the truth y'all..
2:43 Except some special case, for example, gravitational wave is possessed by spacetime.
Bonds with some ex's have negative energy
My brain used up so much ATP trying to understand this that I need to replenish my supply now with a piece of cake 🍰. Thanks for the insight regarding chemical bonds and energy.
0:55 BART for the win! San Francisco's BART is America's best subway/metro.
this is a very helpful video, thanks so much
Glad I could help! 🤓
+The Science Asylum The example of cellular respiration and the concept of energy which you gave was awesome. Apart from that, you had mentioned at 1:15 that zero potential energy is at the ends of the universe. Isn't that a little misleading, since we actually live in a multiverse?
+Brinda Sahithi
1) We don't actually know if we live in a multiverse because we've never detected any universes other than our own.
2) The word "multiverse" isn't very well defined yet. We can only see out to our cosmic horizon which is the edge of our (finite) *observable* universe. When some people say "other universes," they only mean "other *observable* universes." When other people say "other universes," they actually mean completely separate universes.
3) When I say "zero potential energy is at the ends of the universe," I mean at the edge of our possibly infinite universe way WAY beyond our finite observable one. Things get weird when you talk about the whole universe. I'm planning on doing a video on it this summer.
+The Science Asylum Yeah, I agree with you on all the three points that you had made. Thanks a lot, and I shall wait for your video on the universe.
+The Science Asylum And I have another question, 'Is space really one dimensional, or is it that, we don't really know since we can only see 3 dimensions'?
+Brinda Sahithi
Space is 3-dimensional and time is 1-dimensional, which makes our universe 4-dimensional.
He is definitely a LITTLE bit crazy. Really awsome and substantial content. Hopefully the channel would emerge into more of how to apply science and especially math. To me bridging theory and being able to apply it is the most awsome thing. We need more experience in this. Just think of SpaceX, Boring company, Tesla et al. this is what application can led to. Thanks for a great channel Nick :-)
Just awesome!!! never stop doing this videos thanks !!!!
leonardo Echavarria tamayo I don't plan on stopping anytime soon.
+The Science Asylum can you explain where the atomic bomb energie come from ?
+leonardo Echavarria tamayo
When an atomic nucleus (like Uranium or Plutonium) breaks apart, the resulting pieces have less energy. The energy that is lost goes into high speed photons, electrons, and helium nuclei... and, from there, I think we all know the result.
+The Science Asylum but derek(veritasium) said break things apart releases energy
+leonardo Echavarria tamayo he said put things together
This makes a surprising amount of sense. It *sounds* counterintuitive at first. But if you think about it it almost becomes obvious.
You can call a photon a particle if you want, but with zero rest mass it’s as close to “stand alone” pure energy as you are going to get.
In electrical engineering we like to put the zero in the center so the signal can travel through a transistor circuit without getting cut off--unless you like your waves square.
2:44 GHOST PARTICLE !!!
Everytime he says " it's okay to be a lil crazy.." he reminds me of it's okay to be smart
thank you for explaining this
Molecule A has some number of atoms and some number of bonds.
Molecule B has the very same atoms but arranged differently, with different bonds.
If molecule A can transform to molecule B (which is at a lower energy state) energy will be released.
That energy was in the bonds.
Awesome video Nick... too good.
I think this may be misinterpreting what Derek was saying. He wasn't referring to a particular choice of zero potential energy. He was referring to the *difference* in energy. When atoms bind together, they release or lose energy, even if you define their total energy to be positive.
You an expert in this 🔥🔥🔥
My question about this is related to specific and latent heat.
Latent heat is that energy which doesn't increase the temperature of the body but that one required to change the physical state of the matter (hence, the bonds).
If bonds doesn't have energy, what does latent heat exactly decrease? If the energy goes to the mollecules, why doesn't the overall temperature of the body rise?
I mean, if bonds doesn't have any energy since it's an abstract concept, latent heat can't affect in something that's not even a separate element in the mollecule.
State of matter is not determined by chemical bonds, it is determined by IMFs. Ice for example is made of water molecules arranged in a rigid hexagonal lattice. When heat is applied, its temperature rises initially until reaching above 0 Celsius. At this point, additional heat energy will not increase the temperature of the ice cube, but will melt it instead.
At the molecular level, the heat energy is causing the water molecules to move and wiggle stronger as the temperature increases.
But at the phase transition, additional heat energy doesn't go into vibrational motion, but uniform motion that causes the molecules to break away from each other, turning the rigid lattice into a soup. This kind of motion [or rather change in motion] is not the same kind of chaotic kinetic energy that results in temperature. To imagine this, you could picture the water molecules as bar magnets. Rubbing them together while they're still attached increases their motion and generates heat. Pulling them apart also gives them motion but not heat.
No chemical bonds were broken or formed in this process, it's still just water. What changed is how each molecule is interacting with its neighbors.
@@snowthemegaabsol6819 OOOH
So, it's like the heat is still affecting the molecules but these are just changing their "distance" and the strength between each molecule
This channel is awesome why am I just finding it now
holy guacamole. I've been taking general chemistry at college for a whole semester and only now have I learned that bonds are a completely abstract concept and they don't actually exist.
Prisoner 1: So tell me, what did you do to end up here?
Prisoner 2: Ah just the usual that everyone else does,I transformed energy in a Newtonian way.
“Has one of your bonds ever turned out to be negative energy?” Hahaha that question got extra clever after this video😂
"The universe doesn't care how you label things" -- but Nick Lucid does, apparently. Seems like an argument about semantics. A chemical "bond" may not have physical existence, but it is a very useful model. This model allows chemists to describe things like "bond energy", "bond length", "bond angles", "single bonds", "double bonds", etc. These are very important concepts which would be hard to describe in any other way.
I'm not saying bonds don't exist. I'm saying that don't work the way some people like to think they do: ua-cam.com/video/mFKCW_D2oE4/v-deo.html
At 2:57 you mentioned that 60-70% of the energy from cellular respiration goes to kinetic energy of molecules (basically to increasing the heat of the body). Is it true that part of this kinetic energy is used to overcome the activation energy barrier in some of the internal chemical reactions? And what is activation energy anyway? Is it correct to say that chemical reactions require the molecules to: 1) collide to each other; 2) to be correctly oriented in space relative to each other; and 3) have at least X amount of kinetic energy for reaction to occur? I guess that has to be true since for example regular wood doesn’t react (much) with oxygen in the air at the room temperature; I need to increase the kinetic energy of its molecules by putting it on fire to start the reaction. Does this also mean that for example in endothermic chemical reactions the molecules become slower after the reaction, so creating bond takes more energy to overcome activation energy barrier comparing to the amount of energy released as a result of reaction?
And if all of this is true why activation energy exists in the first place? Is it because of repulsion force of electrons between different atoms or is it something else? And can we predict what activation energy would be for a given reaction? I mean what affects it? Is it total amount of electrons in the atoms or it’s just the amount of electrons in the outer electron layer, or number of protons, or something else?
Sorry for such a long question :)
I don’t want to waste your time (I can see how much time and effort you spend to edit the videos), so if you can just recommend some textbook on this topic, I would also greatly appreciate that!
1) Yes, they have to get really close to each other, which can be difficult sometimes if the electrons repel each other well enough.
2) Orientation isn't so important. Usually, electrical forces can turn them so they'll face the right way. Kind of like how magnets will re-orient themselves to stick together.
3a) Any reaction that has an activation energy, yes, the particles need a certain about of kinetic energy (on average)... but not all reactions have an activation energy. Some reaction will just happen no matter how fast the molecules are moving.
3b) Yes, if their average kinetic energy is lower after the reaction, then the substance would be colder. That's because the kinetic energy got used for something else.
Yes, we can predict activation energy for chemical reactions using physics. It's just difficult sometimes because there a lot of factors at play (especially if there are more than 2 reactants). Usually, it's only the outer electrons that are involved in the reaction, but the inner ones can affect how big or small the activation energy is because they (effectively) make the atomic nucleus weaker.
I don’t think anyone’s hating on the duct tape brotha haha. But good explanation
What does that little jingle say? The one you do when you oversimplify things for convenience (I think)?
...at 1:31
PHYSICS-LAAAAAAAAAND!
...and I think "when you oversimplify things for convenience" perfectly describes when the jingle happens.
I have a better question, how is transfer the energy between two separate molecules?
leonardo Echavarria tamayo If I had the answer to that, I think I'd win a Noble prize. Since no particle ever really "touches" another, the concept of them exchanging something is very inconsistent with our experience.
But isn't that basically what happens in Pascal's law? Liquid's or gas' atoms "collide" with each other transferring kinetic energy in the process until it evens out in a closed system. I mean, when an atom approaches another atom it transfers kinetic energy to it since those atoms' electrons repel each other.
Or have I misunderstood something?
@@HSJ90 same question ...
@@ScienceAsylum but dont force carrying particles?
I really like your videos. They force me to think about inaccuracies and improper simplification. And it's just fun to see you arguing with your clone;)
Love the physics land jingle
Thanks Nick!
You're welcome :-)
Ok, I really loved this video but your pace is so fast at around 1:00 that it was a bit hard to understand that.
If atoms havent been seen yet ...how did we see bonds like double and triple bonds ...and how do we know about ring structure of benzene if we cannot see it
Originally, they were just predicted... but, recently, we've been able to _make_ images of them. I put "make" in quotes because they're not actual optical images. They're made using very detailed position data.
Great video!!
+Eirik Lade
Thanks!
Thank you!
You're welcome!
do you think there is some matter-energy transformation in chemical bonding?
There is no such thing as mass/energy transformation. That's a misconception: ua-cam.com/video/XkPudRiWspc/v-deo.html
@@ScienceAsylum should be i guess, but can't know nor prove, my dear precious friend
exactly......that's the idea even i had about bonds.......
4:25 Yes, but I'm not their friend anymore.
Good, cast away unwanted negativity and you become more thermodynamically stable.
@@snowthemegaabsol6819 Facts xD
One question I've been wondering about: Is there a continuum between covalent and ionic bonds? Discussions about crystals, polar bonds, coordination bonds, and some things like that have made me wonder this. I also wonder whether or not quantum superpositions are necessary for this to make sense or not.
This video is amazing!
From Ted ed i found that if you want to explain entropy you need to define quanta and well it sits on bond not if i am assuming something wrong
Bonds are an abstract term used to represent the potential energy between two particles of mass. Therefore, bonds do not exist but in fact represent energy which is why scientists, chemists, and physicists say bonds have energy. The info in this video was slightly misleading.
I, too have had bonds turn negative. Whenever I'm asked if I need a bag at the store, I tell them, "Oh, no, thanks. I divorced one years ago."
I might be wrong but i think i remember reading that when 2 atoms form a bond they lose energy as they get more and more closer (but not too close as that would greatly increase the energy in the atom in the form of KE) , this happens due to attraction of the nucleus of one atom to the electron of the other .
Is this right ??
ps amazing content !!!!
Well, you can say "they lose energy." You could also say "they gain negative energy." But _both_ of those statements are technically physically correct (because they're really the same statement).
@@ScienceAsylum thx for clearing my doubt 😀
Are there photons involved in the biochemical reaction at 2:51 ?
Not that I know of. It should just be all chemical reactions and ions moving around.
If you talk about potential energy you could have explained the bonding potential energy curve for people, maybe that would have been easier to understand how the interatomic distances, the so called bonds form. Yes we label the equilibrium distance of atoms as bondlength, but it's a result of how the anharmonic potential energy curve looks. There's one thing I have to ask you @The Science Asylum ... people say that by heating a material it's vibrational frequency gets larger. I don't think that's really what's going on. I think the "amplitude" of the vibrations gets larger while the vibration frequency stays the same (around 10^13 Hz) of a solid material for example. Otherwise it's resonance frequencies would change enormously thus making infrared spectroscopy extremely temperature dependant, which it isn't. Of course there will be a slight vibrational frequency shift in a material because almost all materials expand when heated (which can be explained by how the potential energy curve looks), changing the elastic modulus and therefore changing the frequency. For example: when I heat Iron until it glows yellow hot... the frequency of yellow light does not come from the vibration frequency of the atoms, but from their larger amplitude, because they carry more momentum (kinetic energy) which is a result of energy exitation. The frequency of light matches the energy gap between two quantum numbers on the potential energy curve. Am I right? Thanks
I though derek said what he said not because of a negative sign on absolute energy of the bond.
But because energy is released when bonds are made.
(system moves towards a lower energy state)
Hence the word "loss"
Great video
Hahahaha! Transition clone. He is the hero we need.
Unfortunately, he's not around anymore thanks to Nerd Clone: ua-cam.com/video/35K-nF2U4WI/v-deo.html
@@ScienceAsylum Oh. :( I guess we just have to jump sharply from one topic to another, desperately fumbling to find some fiber connecting them ourselves... All because nerd clone wants us to be alone in the universe.
Wonderfull...!!!!!! loved it man.
If specific values for energy depends on lables then dosent change in energy depends on lables. So that might mean we cannot measure how much energy a system has because it is relative to where we put zero. That means we can only be certain about increase in energy or decrease in it . And we cannot be sure about particular change value or any other value of energy. Am i right or i messed up???? 🤔🤔
Yes! Exactly! ...and that increase or decrease in energy is called work: ua-cam.com/video/snj1wBtn6I8/v-deo.html
"... whether you're a molecule, a person or a planet." I'm neither. I'm Entropy itself. Welcome to my room looking like Godzilla's been there.
What do we exactly mean when we say "bond enthalpy" or "bond energy" used to calculate the enthalpy a chemical process or a chemical reaction especially while studying chemical thermodynamics
Hey, was really thinking about it and I've realized that the PE between a falling rock and the earth is in both the rock and the earth (or neither? the bond?)
When the rock falls you could say that it has PE at the beginning and then gradually transforms its PE into KE. But you could also say that the earth has the PE and that does work in the rock, therefore consuming it and transforming it into KE for the rock. (I'm assuming that the acceleration of the earth because of the gravity of the rock is negligible)
The PE is in both the rock and the Earth. Both of them transform that energy into KE when they "fall" toward each other. It's just the the rock has a lot _less mass_ so that same KE gives it a lot _more speed_ than the Earth.
Then sir how can we relate this with Latent heat as Latent heat exist between particles but is it true altogether???
Please guide me. Tell me about it please 🙏
Thank you
isn't it easyer to simply say its like a rubber band of lets say a bow that hold the energy untill you release it (funny that in computers re-lease is giving it a new lease) and that way the energy goes to the arrow, so just like that ATP is a lot of bows primed to shoot
It's easier to say that yes, but it's also technically _wrong_ to say that.
By the way excellent channel though I know some the way u present it leads to better understanding. Say hi to ur clones for me
The clones say hi back :-)
2:48 . Hold on there bud, energy IS standalone, it excites the fields which manifest as "particles" which are vibrating energy nodules. No?
Whatching this after 3 years but now got a doubt.
2:44 aren't phontons just energy floating around
Not photons are not themselves energy (though that's a common misconception). Photons are a particle like an electron. Particles _have_ energy.
@@ScienceAsylum ooooooook
And that reply was *FAST FAST*
1:15 what is an "ends of the universe"?
(effectively) infinity
Newly molded concrete is warm, i.e. exothermic,
because the cement molecules are bonding together throughout the cast's volume.
I have a doubt concerning with mass defect.
When we combine protons and neutrons in the nucleus, the energy is released but when we try to get free protons and neutrons we need to put more energy there. So we get less mass of the bound system then of the free particles.
Does that concept tell that potential energy is negative thats why it decreases total energy of bound system?
Why doesnt that potential energy adds up to the mass of the bound system? Why does it decrease it?
Also is that the same case inside the proton?
Is mass of 3 quarks greater than mass of a proton?
1) Yes, energy is released upon bonding and must be added to undo the bond. I'm not arguing that. I'm just saying that the number we assign to it is arbitrary. It could be negative or positive. It doesn't matter.
2) No, the mass of the 3 quarks is only about 1% the mass of the proton. Quarks don't work the same way.
Thank you for your reply.
But there are reactions that are endothermic, they take energy during bonding.
Does it also applies to endothermic reactions? How?
F*** yeah. i have been in biochem major for 2 years and no one has really explained a bond... its always its "chemical energy" cop out and heaven help you if u ask them to define that... thanks for this vid. actually makes some sense now. any suggested reading? only thing i know of is pauling nature of chemical bond and that book rocked me way above my league
the energy (spark symbol) is used in Myocin.
How does it causes "work" to "reactivate" the Myocin?
I am imagining it like combustion in rockets, does pushing the rocket up in the sky.
Am I imagining it relatively closer? (in the case of reactivation of myocin)?