Probably the best explanation of basic chemistry and it was given 60-odd years ago. Returning to organic chemistry, it was refreshing to review the basics taught by a master.
Extraordinary. I just loved how while filling up the 3p atomic shell with electrons and naming the corresponding elements he mistakenly mentions scandium in place of aluminium but then when he went on to fill the 4th shell where scandium actually should appear he suddenly remembers the mistake and went back and admitted he should have said aluminium. Such an actively beautiful mind. One cannot but be in awe of someone with this level of intellect.
As a philosophy Ph.D. with a BS in physics, I agree. I am reading Pauling's book "General Chemistry" and am blown away by the clarity and depth of understanding that he conveys. There is NOTHING LIKE learning from a true genius and pioneer of the field, a principle that probably applies across many if not all disciplines. (This is why Bertrand Russell, a brilliant philosopher AND mathematician/logician, told students new to philosophy that they would get more out of reading passages from the historic "greats" (Plato, Kant, etc.) than they would from introductory philosophy texts - an approach I tried to follow when I was teaching. Of course Russell's own texts are excepted, since he IS one of the historic greats...)
Being a current student at Oregon State it is great to get a chance to learn from a well know OSU alumni and a Noble Prize winning chemist. Great video!
How does this video doesn't have more likes?! This is amazing, thank you so much for sharing. I had various * mindblown * moments in less than half of the video. He explains things in such a way that you just understand it, it just clicks. Love it! 😊
Thanks for the upload! At my university they discourage me from my dreams of learning science. On RUclips I can learn from the wonderful masters who make me feel like I can learn and do anything.
I can really tell the difference of other teachers and Linus Pauling, his teachings are intriguing and easy to understand. What an amazing professor, his foundations are as solid as diamond.
I have relatives who worked bare handed with asbestos and lived well in to their 90s fully functional. Mesothelioma is a myth, the people who got it were smokers who worked with asbestos, asbestos wasnt the cause.
The L. Pauling's resonance theory analyzed using principle of quantum superposition, that is the principle of superposition "wave function", which is the main positive principle of quantum mechanics. The principle of quantum superposition is essentially a basic property of the wave function. By example of benzene molecule is shown that the principle of quantum superposition, and hence the quantum mechanics in general is in insurmountable conflict with the resonance theory. Quantum-mechanical aspects of the L. Pauling's resonance theory: vixra.org/pdf/1702.0333v2.pdf Bezverkhniy Volodymyr (viXra): vixra.org/author/bezverkhniy_volodymyr_dmytrovych Bezverkhniy Volodymyr (Archive.org): archive.org/details/@threeelectronbond
@aligborat oh and while we're at it...where the heck did I say quarks were discovered in 1987?...and you're point is invalid anyways, because if you'd taken a second to read the description of the video...they were produced in the 1950's !!!!...almost 18 years before quarks or partons were discovered. Dr. Pauling is talking about them...sure they later discovered that it's only neutrons and protons, not electrons. But this is before that size of matter was even considered possible.
Are there other lectures of Pauling besides this one? (I mean other subjects, not other "parts" of the same lecture) Because it seems that he refers to some previous lecture, but I cannot find it :/
6:05 Asbestos. It's a shame that materials are not as readily available as they were in the past. Regulating materials is something I never understood.
You said Columbia U "reversed" their findings, it didn't take anyone 10 years to refute cold fusion, it took a few months. The first quarks were discovered in 1968 which would be let's see would be 11 years after this film was made, not " 30 years before the first quark was observed" Noticed that, I quoted that one exactly.
Linus Pauling was unbelievable. He held 48 PhDs! He received two uncontested noble prizes. If you listen at around 1:50, he's talking about quarks. This video is 7 years before quarks were proposed and about 30 years before the first quark was observed. My MSE teacher got to meet him at a conference once. He said a person asked him about the "cold fusion" work being done at Columbia U and Dr. Pauling immediately explained the errors. 10 years later, Columbia U reversed their findings.
Dude, you need to fact check before you post, first off the "cold fusion work" was done at the University of Utah, not Columbia U, and it was proposed and refuted by scientists within about a 6 month period back in 1989, not over 10 yrs. He isn't proposing quarks in the lecture because he mentions electrons being made of smaller particles and they are not, like quarks they have no substructure. It was just speculation on his part, and lastly the first 3 quarks were discovered in 1968, not 1987.
How did I pull 1987 out of my butt? You said they weren't discovered until 30 yrs. after this film which was in 1957. They were observed in 1968, it's just that no one knew what they were at the time. They were belatedly recognized as such later, but the evidence was there. I'm not trolling, just correcting the historical record, because of the comment about cold fusion, which I see what you were trying to say, but the comment wasn't exactly clear and that 10 year comment made the meaning muddy.
Paul Kangas , Ortho Molecular Epidemiologist, PhD, teaches courses at the Kangas School of Ortho Molecular Science, 15 Boardman Pl, 2nd fl, SF, Ca 94103
The reason of the formation of the chemical bond. The reason for the formation of the chemical bond is still not clear, in fact, there is no physical justification, as it was at the time of Bohr, since the formation of a chemical bond does not follow from the four fundamental interactions. Just imagine, a chemical bond "does not understand" that it can not be explained normally and quietly exists :). A full explanation of the chemical bond can only be provided by quantum mechanics (in the future), classical approaches simply do not work. To understand this, it is necessary not to forget what L. Pauling did (L. Pauling, "The nature of the chemical bond", and the work of L. Pauling: Chem. Rev. 5, 173 (1928)), namely Pauling analyzed the interaction of the hydrogen atom and the proton in the entire range of lengths (he admitted that the hydrogen atom and H + on the approach are preserved and showed that the bond is not formed in this case (since there is no exchange interaction or resonance by Pauling)). Only one of the above-mentioned facts actually destroys the classical approach (attraction and repulsion by Coulomb) to explaining the chemical bond. There inevitably follows that the chemical bond is a quantum-mechanical effect and no other. Imagine a system with two protons and one electron, but if it is treated as a hydrogen atom and a proton, then the bond can not form over the whole range of lengths. But, as Burrau showed, the bond in H2 + is formed (if we consider the system as two protons and one electron), and no one particularly doubts this, since H2 + exists. I particularly emphasize that there is only one electron (there is no inter-electronic repulsion, etc.). After this fact, further discussions can not be continued, they do not make sense (especially to apply this to the explanation of two-electron bond or aromatic, this is a slightly different level of complexity). But nevertheless, it should be noted that quantum mechanics introduced the concept of "exchange interaction", which had no physical justification (since no fundamental interactions are altered in the interchange of electrons, but should, if a bond is formed) explained the chemical bond (more accurately, "disguised" chemical bond into the quantum-mechanical effect of the "exchange interaction"), by this, confirming that the chemical bond is indeed a quantum-mechanical effect. The science of chemical bonding is only at the beginning of it's journey, and it is for today's students to make the most significant contribution to the theory of chemical bonding. And this will lead to fundamental changes in understanding both chemistry and physics. On the basis of modern concepts of quantum mechanics, chemical bonding can not be explained, fundamental assumptions are needed in quantum mechanics itself ... vixra.org/author/bezverkhniy_volodymyr_dmytrovych
@cuthwulf Now quit "trolling". We all see that you want to be smart badly. You're missing the whole point and you have found yourself arguing that Pauling was not amazing...this alone proves that you haven't opened a science textbook in your life but rather thought it would be fun to google some answers and try and sound like you know something. Pauling's work literally is found in almost every branch of science. Arguing that he is not amazing only proves how little you know.
I never said he wasn't a great scientist, just that he didn't predict quarks. Lord Kelvin didn't invent aerodynamics but it doesn't mean I don't think he was a great scientist. You sound like one of those fanatics who has to believe their heroes had a hand in everything important developed during their lives. Pauling was still great, just like Mendeleev was great, although Mendeleev didn't invent atomic physics anymore than Pauling invented quarks. Sorry I touched a raw nerve, buddy.
Probably the best explanation of basic chemistry and it was given 60-odd years ago. Returning to organic chemistry, it was refreshing to review the basics taught by a master.
I agree, it really is nice to see such a storied scientist in action! I am posting the next two parts right now!
Extraordinary. I just loved how while filling up the 3p atomic shell with electrons and naming the corresponding elements he mistakenly mentions scandium in place of aluminium but then when he went on to fill the 4th shell where scandium actually should appear he suddenly remembers the mistake and went back and admitted he should have said aluminium. Such an actively beautiful mind. One cannot but be in awe of someone with this level of intellect.
as a Biochemist Ph D - Pauling is my greatest hero and inspiration I can think of!
As a philosophy Ph.D. with a BS in physics, I agree. I am reading Pauling's book "General Chemistry" and am blown away by the clarity and depth of understanding that he conveys. There is NOTHING LIKE learning from a true genius and pioneer of the field, a principle that probably applies across many if not all disciplines. (This is why Bertrand Russell, a brilliant philosopher AND mathematician/logician, told students new to philosophy that they would get more out of reading passages from the historic "greats" (Plato, Kant, etc.) than they would from introductory philosophy texts - an approach I tried to follow when I was teaching. Of course Russell's own texts are excepted, since he IS one of the historic greats...)
Thanks for the invention of the video! This is what the LECTURE really should be.
Being a current student at Oregon State it is great to get a chance to learn from a well know OSU alumni and a Noble Prize winning chemist. Great video!
This is great! I wish I had Linus as prof in my chem program! So CLEAR and understandable. Thnx Linus!
What a brilliant, compassionate man. Deserviate Nobel Laureate.
How does this video doesn't have more likes?! This is amazing, thank you so much for sharing. I had various * mindblown * moments in less than half of the video. He explains things in such a way that you just understand it, it just clicks. Love it! 😊
Thanks for the upload! At my university they discourage me from my dreams of learning science. On RUclips I can learn from the wonderful masters who make me feel like I can learn and do anything.
Which university.
@@shyamtripathi6817 Indian?
@@vladimirjosh6575 Yes. Why?
@@shyamtripathi6817 I'm Indian too!!
@@vladimirjosh6575 That is not a very big coincidence.
Physics from Feynman & Chemistry from LINUS PAULING.am i lucky or what?
You were luckier than me, finding this vid 8 years ago!!!!
And today we get to learn Mathematics from Terence Tao!
Delightful. A Classical Class. Thanks for sharing.
Gracias por el comentario!
Imagine. A chemistry class where the teacher actually shows the chemicals
A genius, in my opinion.
Thanks for posting. This is what makes RUclips great.
I can really tell the difference of other teachers and Linus Pauling, his teachings are intriguing and easy to understand. What an amazing professor, his foundations are as solid as diamond.
I am 13 years old and i wish to take the Noble prize in future like him and be a chemist scientist
@Matthew Hargis yah thx, i have goals and I'm following them
Congratulações do Brasil!
I don't think they pull apart asbestos fibres in lectures anymore..
Mesothelioma would like to know your location.
They knew about Asbestos way back then, took Governments half a Century to act and pull big Business into line.
I have relatives who worked bare handed with asbestos and lived well in to their 90s fully functional.
Mesothelioma is a myth, the people who got it were smokers who worked with asbestos, asbestos wasnt the cause.
Wouldn't doubt he was taking vitamin C even then.😀😁😁😆
Nobel Prize lecture..
very good, like Linus is Carl Sagan of chemistry.
The L. Pauling's resonance theory analyzed using principle of quantum
superposition, that is the principle of superposition "wave function", which is the main positive
principle of quantum mechanics. The principle of quantum superposition is essentially a basic
property of the wave function. By example of benzene molecule is shown that the principle of
quantum superposition, and hence the quantum mechanics in general is in insurmountable conflict
with the resonance theory.
Quantum-mechanical aspects of the L. Pauling's resonance theory:
vixra.org/pdf/1702.0333v2.pdf
Bezverkhniy Volodymyr (viXra): vixra.org/author/bezverkhniy_volodymyr_dmytrovych
Bezverkhniy Volodymyr (Archive.org):
archive.org/details/@threeelectronbond
I’m just finally understanding the video.
Exelente ! ; gracias ,desde argentina.
@aligborat oh and while we're at it...where the heck did I say quarks were discovered in 1987?...and you're point is invalid anyways, because if you'd taken a second to read the description of the video...they were produced in the 1950's !!!!...almost 18 years before quarks or partons were discovered. Dr. Pauling is talking about them...sure they later discovered that it's only neutrons and protons, not electrons. But this is before that size of matter was even considered possible.
linus the genius
Are there other lectures of Pauling besides this one? (I mean other subjects, not other "parts" of the same lecture) Because it seems that he refers to some previous lecture, but I cannot find it :/
Probably not a recorded one. Should have been there 60 years ago i guess XD
@@LilP6588 Welp, at least there are books. I already have read some of them since then.
6:05 Asbestos. It's a shame that materials are not as readily available as they were in the past. Regulating materials is something I never understood.
With the magic of internet , thanks Linus Pauling wassup
alum or alumn*, under the description of the video
You said Columbia U "reversed" their findings, it didn't take anyone 10 years to refute cold fusion, it took a few months. The first quarks were discovered in 1968 which would be let's see would be 11 years after this film was made, not " 30 years before the first quark was observed" Noticed that, I quoted that one exactly.
luvpauling nd luv u guys at oregon :)
Oh wow this is so cool
Linus Pauling was unbelievable. He held 48 PhDs! He received two uncontested noble prizes. If you listen at around 1:50, he's talking about quarks. This video is 7 years before quarks were proposed and about 30 years before the first quark was observed. My MSE teacher got to meet him at a conference once. He said a person asked him about the "cold fusion" work being done at Columbia U and Dr. Pauling immediately explained the errors. 10 years later, Columbia U reversed their findings.
Not 48 papers?
yes dude
Para determinar a posição do elétron eh só olhar onde ele não está. Pois não irá incidir energia nele.
Probalidade obsoleta
Igual aquela fala do pinóquio quando perguntam se ele viu o shrek
Dude, you need to fact check before you post, first off the "cold fusion work" was done at the University of Utah, not Columbia U, and it was proposed and refuted by scientists within about a 6 month period back in 1989, not over 10 yrs. He isn't proposing quarks in the lecture because he mentions electrons being made of smaller particles and they are not, like quarks they have no substructure. It was just speculation on his part, and lastly the first 3 quarks were discovered in 1968, not 1987.
How did I pull 1987 out of my butt? You said they weren't discovered until 30 yrs. after this film which was in 1957. They were observed in 1968, it's just that no one knew what they were at the time. They were belatedly recognized as such later, but the evidence was there. I'm not trolling, just correcting the historical record, because of the comment about cold fusion, which I see what you were trying to say, but the comment wasn't exactly clear and that 10 year comment made the meaning muddy.
GOAT
🐐
Long live eugenics
Paul Kangas , Ortho Molecular Epidemiologist, PhD, teaches courses at the Kangas School of Ortho Molecular Science, 15 Boardman Pl, 2nd fl, SF, Ca 94103
Awakening Blog google has 14 movies about cancer
The reason of the formation of the chemical bond.
The reason for the formation of the chemical bond is still not clear, in fact, there is no physical justification, as it was at the time of Bohr, since the formation of a chemical bond does not follow from the four fundamental interactions. Just imagine, a chemical bond "does not understand" that it can not be explained normally and quietly exists :). A full explanation of the chemical bond can only be provided by quantum mechanics (in the future), classical approaches simply do not work.
To understand this, it is necessary not to forget what L. Pauling did (L. Pauling, "The nature of the chemical bond", and the work of L. Pauling: Chem. Rev. 5, 173 (1928)), namely Pauling analyzed the interaction of the hydrogen atom and the proton in the entire range of lengths (he admitted that the hydrogen atom and H + on the approach are preserved and showed that the bond is not formed in this case (since there is no exchange interaction or resonance by Pauling)).
Only one of the above-mentioned facts actually destroys the classical approach (attraction and repulsion by Coulomb) to explaining the chemical bond. There inevitably follows that the chemical bond is a quantum-mechanical effect and no other.
Imagine a system with two protons and one electron, but if it is treated as a hydrogen atom and a proton, then the bond can not form over the whole range of lengths. But, as Burrau showed, the bond in H2 + is formed (if we consider the system as two protons and one electron), and no one particularly doubts this, since H2 + exists. I particularly emphasize that there is only one electron (there is no inter-electronic repulsion, etc.).
After this fact, further discussions can not be continued, they do not make sense (especially to apply this to the explanation of two-electron bond or aromatic, this is a slightly different level of complexity). But nevertheless, it should be noted that quantum mechanics introduced the concept of "exchange interaction", which had no physical justification (since no fundamental interactions are altered in the interchange of electrons, but should, if a bond is formed) explained the chemical bond (more accurately, "disguised" chemical bond into the quantum-mechanical effect of the "exchange interaction"), by this, confirming that the chemical bond is indeed a quantum-mechanical effect.
The science of chemical bonding is only at the beginning of it's journey, and it is for today's students to make the most significant contribution to the theory of chemical bonding. And this will lead to fundamental changes in understanding both chemistry and physics.
On the basis of modern concepts of quantum mechanics, chemical bonding can not be explained, fundamental assumptions are needed in quantum mechanics itself ...
vixra.org/author/bezverkhniy_volodymyr_dmytrovych
delusional crank alert
Don't quit the day job at McDonalds
@cuthwulf Now quit "trolling". We all see that you want to be smart badly. You're missing the whole point and you have found yourself arguing that Pauling was not amazing...this alone proves that you haven't opened a science textbook in your life but rather thought it would be fun to google some answers and try and sound like you know something. Pauling's work literally is found in almost every branch of science. Arguing that he is not amazing only proves how little you know.
I never said he wasn't a great scientist, just that he didn't predict quarks. Lord Kelvin didn't invent aerodynamics but it doesn't mean I don't think he was a great scientist. You sound like one of those fanatics who has to believe their heroes had a hand in everything important developed during their lives. Pauling was still great, just like Mendeleev was great, although Mendeleev didn't invent atomic physics anymore than Pauling invented quarks. Sorry I touched a raw nerve, buddy.
yo man this the shit
yo man this the shit
but looks very old looks like the missus of batman
does anyone else think he looks like and sounds a lot like richard feynman?
no