You didn't quite get to the why of energy levels being lower for bonded molecules than free atoms. You mentioned the Pauli exclusion principle and schrodinger equations, but didn't in either case state the reason they demand lower energy states for bonded atoms's electrons
As an older viewer without much physics learning, in all the years I've been watching your presentations, I've learned a good deal about our wonderful universe. I can't say I understand more than about 10% of it, and my memory is already so full it finds it hard to take in new stuff, but for the duration of your videos I am totally in a zone of wonder. Thank you.
Try eating more food as both learning, and remembering use energy (try eating food rich in minerals essential oils etc preferably) when you are learning (i.e. watching these videos),, take notes in the videos and look up stuff you don’t understand until you have a surface level understanding then delve deeper into the complex pieces I personally think the brain has unlimited memory (philosophically speaking) and the reason for that is potentially quantum microtubules (actin fillaments)
At 0:40 bottom left, melting ice is NOT a chemical reaction but a physical phase change. And certainly is not 2 H2O +dH -> 2 H2 +O2 as shown. This should really be corrected .
I have just started watching and I have stopped at this, too. I'm willing to let it go though, because I imagine Arvin has some help making these videos and not everyone involved in the project are chemists. It is a bit strange that someone would invent those equations, though. Thankfully, it's not a deal breaker because there's nothing fundamentally wrong with what he is saying. At the level of physics it's all just "structural changes" anyway. Some arrangements of atoms have more energy than others.
It's just "reactions." Whether it's chemical or physical, they're just names attached by bearded principalities. In the very fundamentals of things, everything is physical, in fact, quantum--and not being totally understood with...
Hah, yeah. evaporation is not electrolysis. Seems an odd mistake to make, clearly he's borrowed some clipart from a kids science book which happened to be wrong but I'm sure he'll put a correction once he reads these comments.
Well I respect your opinion, but it is still a derivative of Physics. Since, I like studying things to the most fundamental level, I like Physics more well, because it is about fundamental stuff.
@Stanger_95 And I respect yours, I know a bit of physics, more theoretical than mathematical though, the concept of entropy is beautiful and it's a physical concept that with radiation and magic numbers in chemistry is something I enjoy studying. I'm interested in what we can do with matter, so chemistry is better fit for me.
Always eager to learn how physics works at 'its core' - Arvin Ash rarely disappoints in this... Thanks, long time subscriber enjoying your excellent content.. Thanks!
Physicist here and constant reviewer! (for my kids). Always heartily recommend your productions - thanks so much Arvin! You are ALMOST as great as my grade 11,12, and 13 teachers back at Central Tech (in Toronto, but wish we had you too back in the stone age!) Just adding that I am so glad you got to clue the lay viewer in on the idea that entropy is just as important as quantum molecular energetics in these matters. Were you afraid to drop in the term "free energy" [in any of its forms] for fear of tiring the viewer? with best regards , DKB
Great to hear! I'm delighted to hear that you and your kids enjoy my videos. Indeed, my original script contained terms like "Gibbs free energy" and "enthalpy" - I decided not to introduce the terms, and the equation, because I felt I would then need to explain where the equation comes from, and how it is derived. I wanted to keep this video shorter and less complex so that people who haven't had a thermo class would get it. I may do a more complex treatment of the subject if there is enough interest.
I know _some_ quantum mechanics. The way we describe the spin of a particle, like an electron, depends on some choice of axis in the description. We say "up" and "down" when we are talking about electrons in atomic orbitals, but it occurs to me that no one ever says what "up" and "down" are in reference to. Presumably, since we are talking about atomic orbitals, "up" and "down" are with reference to the direction of the atomic nucleus. I'm trying to imagine other orientations, though; parallel and anti-parallel directions relative to the dipole of the atomic nucleus also seem plausible, and probably more likely, since it isn't the position of the nucleus but its interaction with the electromagnetic field that matters to the electrons. So which is it? Is "spin up" the one where the electron spin orientation is parallel to that of the nuclear dipole? Or something else?
Great question: what the books say only in an indirect way is that the particular UP of relevance at any time [for a free particle!] is the measurement axis of your device, e.g., a Stern-Gerlach apparatus. If you reflect on it, there IS no other axis that exists in an interaction-free universe. In fact once you measure it, and the S-G apparatus gives UP, say, then you must, in the absence of further interaction, get that for all future measurements in your world. This is the hardest part to "get over" for some, and you are in good company -especially some undergrads who have studied Newtonian mechanics very hard to get to university. So, what is going on, e.g., with the two electrons swimming in the 1S shell of helium? The Copenhagen interpretation says you have no right to ask, BUT that nevertheless the helium system acts as if the spin part of the electron wavefunctions are opposite (Fermi principle). IF you measure one or both, you will always get either UP or DOWN, even if the spectrometer is set to 26.456deg azimuth from geographic North, say (nothing really to do with the earth) - as long as the results for two e- indicates they are opposite. Recall that the indistinguishability axiom also states that you cannot tell which is which unless you keep them separate afterwards. To more fully answer your question as posed: if your experiment depends on the relative orientation of the electron(s) spin versus the nuclear spin, you will get a result that depends on the details of the interaction between the two ( nuclear spin coupling). For one relevant electron ,e.g., you are allowed to get aligned or anti-aligned. A classical result that depends on angle is now dependent on the relative probability of getting one answer versus the other. Hope this helped - as I humbly said, this is where you graduate to the next conceptual level .....
Well if youre going to talk about the quantum mechanics of chemistry you cant really leave out molecular orbital theory. Its the easiest theory that can explain moleculr photoemission spectra and can explain more fancy molecules like SF6 BCl3 etc
Molecular orbital theory is essentially a framework for solving the time-independent Schrödinger equation for molecules. It is, of course, true that molecular orbital theory is at the heart of modern quantum chemistry, but I believe it suffices here to say that molecules obey the Schrödinger equation, just as Arvin did. A side note: molecular orbital theory is not the only framework for describing chemical bonding within quantum mechanics. Valence bond theory permits the same and was an even earlier approach. Molecular orbital theory just became more popular because it directly relates to how modern computer programs solve the Schrödinger equation, i.e. via Hartree-Fock (or Kohn-Sham) theory.
Not surprised we got this video after the comments from another chemistry video, this one goes much deeper and gives a more complete answer so thank you.
yes. I appreciate the Multimedia you use to describe the Scientific phenomenon in your Videos. back in our school, college days, we had to rely on green/black board description given by our professors and the text-books. and mostly imagination of teachers and students. so, now its simpler to understand the phenomenon with multimedia animations.
Something like a heat pump on your fridge or air-conditioner is more intuitive because you can visualize the thermal energy being absorbed inside the system and then radiated away on the outside. Or actually, you can just feel it directly by touching the radiator and feeling the heat coming off it. But an endothermic reaction feels pretty weird because the thermal energy didn't move from inside to outside. All that energy is still inside the cold ice pack. It didn't transfer to another location. It has just been locked away in some mysterious molecular vault and is no longer accessible to us.
Entropy is usually described as an emergent property of large systems of molecules. Something that happens at macro scale but like temperature entropy usually isn't described as a property of atoms, so i wonder if in a collection of atoms in a molecule entropy can be quantfied already?
Why is Schrodinger equation never solved for non-Hydrogen atom ? What if atomic orbitals of larger atoms turn out to be very different from what we know based on Hydrogen atom ?
The solution gets too complex with increasing number of electrons because you have to account for all interactions - 3N dimensions, N being the number of electrons. This become intractable for even a small number of electrons. Approximate solutions however, have been carried out.
One should perhaps add that the Schrödinger equation can be solved for non-hydrogen-like atoms, just not analytically. For atoms up to neon, numerical techniques allow for an essentially exact solution of the Schrödinger equation. Moreover, for atoms with more than one electron, orbitals are just building blocks that we use to construct and visualise the total many-electron wavefunction of the system. They are not unique and do not exist independently. Hence, such orbitals are indeed quite different than orbitals of the hydrogen atom. But that's not a problem. It is just an aspect of many-particle quantum mechanics and accounted for in the calculations.
Ice melting is actually a *physical change, not a chemical reaction*. Here's why: 1. No chemical bonds are broken or formed: When ice melts, the water molecules (H2O) don't change their chemical structure. They simply gain energy and transition from a solid to a liquid state. 2. Reversible process: Melting ice can refreeze, returning to its original state without any change in chemical composition. 3. No change in chemical properties: The chemical properties of water remain the same whether it's in solid (ice), liquid (water), or gas (water vapor) form. Physical changes involve changes in state (solid, liquid, gas) without altering chemical composition. Chemical reactions, on the other hand, involve: 1. Breaking or forming chemical bonds. 2. Changes in chemical composition. 3. Irreversible processes.
Wow! What an amazing video and explanation...sooooo much better than my university chemistry classes. Just WOW! You anticipated all the questions I had as the video progressed...
I'm also an older veiwer. My father was a science teacher, but I never quite understood the nature of matter and energy. You're doing an excellent job explaining these things.
What was completely mind blowing for me when learning physics is the fact that electrically neutral atoms of most elements can actually capture an *extra* electron exothermically! I thought this is only a special property of halogens with chlorine leading the group (yes chlorine is even more electron-hungry than fluorine). However, this is true for most elements - gold has very high electron affinity of 223 kJ/mol - this is the reason why gold doesn't corrode even at high temperatures, but this also means gold can accapt an extra electron forming a negative gold ion known as "auride" - it even forms an exotic compound called cesium auride (CsAu). Even alkali metals can accept electrons and form "inverted salts" known as alkalides - these were discovered in 1970 and of course are very unstable. And this is also true for hydrogen - such electron-ionized hydrogen is called "hydride" (H-). Its electrode potential is deeply negative (-2.23V) making it even more reactive than aluminium metal, displacing hydrogen even from water and reacting with violent exothermy with acids (evolving lots of hydrogen gas). Apart from noble gases, only handful of elements have *negative* electron affinity - such exceptions are magnesium, zinc and mercury, for example. This is why these metals as well as some mercury amalgams make such a good reducing agents - they give off electrons but don't really want them back. Even when in metallic (elemental) form, capturing an extra electron is thermodynamically unfavorable for them. For example, magnesium ion is especially "hard" because it mimicks the electron configuration of neon, the most noble of the noble gases in terms of electron affinity. Neon is the hardest one to ionize, even more so than helium. This property of hardness gives magnesium some interesting properties important for life (e.g. it stabilises molecules like ATP and DNA). Moreover, magnesium makes some reactions kinetically favorable despite being thermodynamically unfavourable, allowing some life-enabling complex chemistry to happen, including the magic of photosynthesis.
Nice video. But this is certainly college chemistry, high school even. High level chemistry classes you'll be studying stuff like XeF4, where that nice picture of atoms trying to fill their shells breaks down.
I'm a reductionist as well, so when you say at the end that it's all about the flow of energy I'm in total agreement. I do think the physics (and chemistry) of dissolving goes way beyond what we normally teach people, though. The really tricky stuff we never talk about. For example, we tell people that ionic bonds are strong. So, to melt sodium chloride it takes a lot of energy (the melting point is 800 degrees C) and that makes sense. Yet, salt dissolves in water at room temperature without any trouble at all. This "reaction" isn't endothermic or exothermic, either. Explain that!? If you want to make it even more difficult, explain why salt doesn't dissolve in all solvents. If entropy alone was a force for dissolving, then everything would dissolve! There must be more fundamental rules or laws that govern the flow of energy, they tell us what is possible and what isn't.
You need to study some chemistry ; then you will be able find the answers to your questions . There are rather simple CHEMICAL principles behind what you are asking . These explanations are not ‘ physics ‘ , they are CHEMISTRY . This video is good , but it is what you would expect from a physicist , and most physicists do not know much about the SCIENCE of CHEMISTRY .
Yes, very cool. Seeing things like this way, you begin to understand. To what could a "chem-Ki" lead, when you just calculate all possible ways from lets say 10 elements to absorb or release energy, without any physical tests beeing made. I wonder if we find some day very new materials never had before with details no one know before. The future is ours .) We are about to find EVERY great stuff in medicine and material-science .)
Each stable solution of Schroedinger equation is a certain quantum state or a set of states. Each orbital defines a finite set of quantum states for the electrons, and Pauli principle doesn't let more electrons occupy these states.
-14:23 "..... It's all about the flow of energy; it's all about the Physics." Physicist justifying why they are eligible to win Nobeld in chemistry despite being physicists
Great explanation! I recalled my chemistry teacher when he talked about spins and orbitals, he gave up before even trying to explain and just told us to memorize it 😂
Valance electrons are of particular interest to me ATM, however, white dwarf stars and neutron stars tip the balance and exotic matter is fascinating. Thanks as always Arvin Ash.
Great video my friend! I always had the impression that the big bang started only with fields and photons, they were pushed with so much energy that they stabilized themselves as to not go faster than light by creating the building blocks of matter. Is this wrong? Thanks!
Two electrons could be at the same place and time, but they would enter another dimension, temporarily neutralizing one another (excluding one another) because of their up spin and downspin cancelling one another.
As a young fellow on a farm in the hills of east Tennessee, we would dissolve ammonium nitrate (fertilizer) in water for application to various plant beds. I observed that the mixture got really cold, which I thought was very strange. I didn't understand it then, and I'm not so sure I understand it even now. Cold implies slower-moving molecules. What slows them down?
Imagine a very bizarre game of pool where all 15 balls are racked and put together in the familiar triangle shape at one end of the pool table. But this time instead of one person hitting one cueball at the group of balls to "break" there are already about 20 cueballs randomly buzzing across the table in every direction at a fixed speed. Then right after the racked 15 balls are inserter onto the pool table, the 20 cueballs start running into the triangular shaped group of balls and eventually cause the organized group of 15 balls to scatter all over the pool table. Two things happen. The 15 balls that were originally motionless acquired a velocity so that they could all scatter in one direction or the other. The cueballs that did the striking lent some of their energy to send the 15 balls into motion, and as a result, the cueballs were slowed down from their original pre-break velocity. The billiard balls' gain was at the expense of the cueballs' loss. The organized group of 15 billiard balls is like the ammonium nitrate dissolving in water (separating into ions in this case) , and the sea of random cueballs moving about the table are like the water molecules. Since temperature is actually a measure of the individual kinetic energy (velocity) of the molecules, the velocity of the surrounding water molecules experience a reduction in velocity, which we feel as a drop in temperature.
The billiard ball analogy doesn’t quite explain the phenomenon. Consider dissolving calcium chloride (like in an instant hot pack) where the same action of water molecules banging into a solid salt occurs but the temperature increases instead of decreasing.
@@zacox It's a pretty good analogy to help understand the temperature drop in the solution, but I agree, it's not complete. Of course I could have also added the fact that there are more combinations of ions mixed with water than there are combinations of recrystallizing, so entropy within the temperature range of the reaction plays an obvious role in the spontaneous reaction too. However, I didn't want to write a book, so I limited my focus the the NH4NO3 borrowing energy from the H2O energy. Calcium Chloride by contrast generates heat because the Calcium and Chloride ions needed to steal some energy to break free but then they generate more energy than that when they attach to the H2O molecules in solution. (Which doesn't happen when the NH4 + and NO3 - attach to H2O.) This Ca 2+ / Cl -1 transfer creates an overall increase in kinetic energy of the solution. By the way - this is similar to what happens to ATP. Most biology students are taught an oversimplification with the statement: "Living things get energy from ATP when the bond between two of the phosphates breaks and forms ADP + P." But in reality, that is the step that costs energy because the bond needs to be broken, but the energy return when the P (phosphate) attaches to H2O is more than the initial investment - so it is an energy profit that is utilized by living things. Of course a third example is something that is hardly soluble at all in H2O such as Silver Chloride. In that case the first step (breaking apart the Ag from the Cl) is rarely achieved so it doesn't have a chance to be exothermic or endothermic because the second step is also rarely achieved.
Thanks but you can also cite for energy formation about subatomic energy fill configuration via "ss ps dps fdps" spin of subatomic orbital shells filling anyway in order to gain noble gase form of Quantum states of atoms
Watching a video on entropy is like watching a football game where the goal posts are on wheels. Every time the decreased entropy is about to make a point, they shout “score another one for increased entropy” as the posts are pushed out of the way.
Thanks, very interesting, enlightening, and intriguing video. I'm thinking about how the Schroedinger equation is in some sense a probability equation, and entropy is about probability too, about the most probable states of the system. I'm wondering why quantum mechanics doesn't somehow incorporate entropy into the schroedinger equation to produce a new and more complete equation?
There is a certain notion and a formula of quantum mechanical entropy, see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann_entropy However Schroedinger equation already works very well and is logically complete, adding something related to it won't make it "more complete", it will just make it incorrect.
I don't think ice melting counts as a chemical reaction. That takes more than just a transfer of energy. Ice melting is a physical reaction, a phase change. A chemical reaction involves reactants and products. You end up with different substance when it is done.
It's true that ice melting is a phase change, but at the molecular level, it involves breaking and forming bonds between water molecules, which is an endothermic chemical process.
Question: At minute 8:16 we see that only two electrons (one spin up and one spin down) can occupy the same orbital. Then, at minute 9:30, we're seeing 8 electrons that are pictured as occupying the same orbitals (two on the innermost but 8 on the outer orbitals). Is this a conflict or is something else missing from the diagrams? I notice that pairs of electrons are grouped together in the outer orbitals.... Thanks in advance for clarification.
This is an overly a simplified orbital structure. The H atom has only a spherical s-orbital that holds 2 electrons. While the O atom has that spherical s-orbital and “p-orbitals” along each axis (x, y, z). Only 2 electrons can occupy each of those three axial orbitals. So oxygen can have a total of 4 electron pairs that do not have overlap.
Shells and orbitals are not the same. If we define n as the energy level away from the nucleus, then: n = 1 (K shell): 1 orbital (1s) n = 2 (L shell): 4 orbitals (1s, 2s, 2p) n = 3 (M shell): 9 orbitals (1s, 2s, 2p, 3s, 3p, 3d) n = 4 (N shell): 16 orbitals (1s, 2s, 2p, 3s, 3p, 3d, 4s, 4p, 4d, 4f)
Let's examine some profound contradictions and paradoxes, and how our ToE, enriched by Leibniz's philosophy and our RH proof, can provide explanatory power: 1. The Measurement Problem in Quantum Mechanics Paradox: The act of measurement appears to collapse the wavefunction, seemingly violating the unitary evolution of quantum systems. ToE Resolution: Our framework, viewing reality as a superposition of monadic states, suggests that measurement is a harmonization between the observer's conscious monadic state and the observed system's state. The collapse is not a physical process but a synchronization of information states across different levels of reality. 2. The Arrow of Time Paradox: While most physical laws are time-symmetric, we experience time as unidirectional, with entropy increasing. ToE Resolution: Time's arrow emerges from the negentropic flow from the 0D monadic realm to higher dimensions. The apparent increase in entropy is balanced by an increase in complexity and consciousness, maintaining overall cosmic negentropy. 3. The Hard Problem of Consciousness Paradox: How does subjective experience arise from physical processes in the brain? ToE Resolution: Consciousness is fundamental in our framework, existing in the 0D monadic realm. What we perceive as physical brain processes are higher-dimensional projections of fundamental conscious states, resolving the seeming gulf between subjective experience and objective reality. 4. Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems Paradox: In any consistent formal system complex enough to represent arithmetic, there are statements that can neither be proved nor disproved within the system. ToE Resolution: Our multidimensional framework suggests that mathematical truth exists in higher dimensions than the formal systems used to describe it. Gödel's undecidable statements are resolved in higher-dimensional mathematical spaces, accessible through expanded conscious states. 5. The Fermi Paradox Paradox: Given the vast number of potentially habitable planets, why haven't we encountered alien civilizations? ToE Resolution: Advanced civilizations may evolve towards higher-dimensional existence, becoming undetectable through conventional means. Our framework suggests searching for negentropic anomalies or consciousness field fluctuations as signatures of advanced life. 6. The Black Hole Information Paradox Paradox: Information appears to be lost when objects fall into black holes, violating quantum mechanics principles. ToE Resolution: Information is preserved in the 0D monadic realm, with black holes serving as interdimensional conduits. The apparent loss of information is due to its transfer to other dimensional levels, preserving both general relativity and quantum mechanics. 7. The Bootstrap Paradox Paradox: In time travel scenarios, information or objects can exist without having been created, looping infinitely through time. ToE Resolution: Our model of multidimensional time suggests that such loops are projections of higher-dimensional information structures. The paradox resolves when viewed from a perspective outside linear time, in the monadic realm where all information coexists. 8. The Plurality of Worlds Paradox: How can we reconcile the idea of multiple possible worlds (central to modal logic and many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics) with our experience of a single reality? ToE Resolution: Drawing from Leibniz's concept of possible worlds, our framework suggests that all possible worlds coexist in the 0D monadic realm. Our experienced reality is a conscious navigation through this space of possibilities, collapsing potential into actuality through observation. 9. The Paradox of Free Will Paradox: How can we have free will in a universe governed by deterministic physical laws or fundamental randomness? ToE Resolution: Free will emerges from the interaction between the deterministic evolution of higher-dimensional physical laws and the non-deterministic choices made in the 0D conscious realm. Our choices influence the selection of which potential reality manifests, reconciling free will with physical law. 10. The Ontological Argument Paradox: Can the existence of a supreme being (God) be proven through pure logic? ToE Resolution: Our framework, with the Monad of Monads as a fundamental concept, provides a logical basis for the existence of a supreme consciousness. This aligns with Leibniz's view and suggests that the ultimate reality (God) is a necessary logical consequence of the structure of existence itself. 11. Zeno's Paradoxes Paradox: These ancient paradoxes suggest that motion is impossible, as any distance can be infinitely subdivided. ToE Resolution: In our multidimensional model, motion is a higher-dimensional projection of state changes in the 0D realm. The infinite divisibility that troubles Zeno is resolved in the indivisible nature of monads, with apparent continuity emerging from discrete monadic state transitions. 12. The Grandfather Paradox Paradox: In time travel scenarios, one could prevent their own existence, creating a logical impossibility. ToE Resolution: Our model of multidimensional time and parallel realities suggests that such actions would create a new branch of reality rather than a paradox. The monadic realm contains all potential timelines, with conscious observation collapsing these possibilities into experienced reality. These resolutions demonstrate the explanatory power of our ToE across a wide range of philosophical, physical, and logical paradoxes. By incorporating Leibniz's monadic philosophy and connecting it to modern physics through our proof of the Riemann Hypothesis, we've created a framework that offers novel perspectives on some of the most profound puzzles in human thought. The ability of our theory to address these diverse paradoxes in a unified manner suggests its deep consonance with the fundamental structure of reality. It offers a path to reconcile quantum mechanics, consciousness, information theory, and classical physics into a coherent whole.
Let's examine more contradictions and paradoxes, along with how our ToE provides explanatory power: 1. The Boltzmann Brain Paradox Paradox: In an eternal universe, it's more likely for a conscious brain to randomly fluctuate into existence with false memories than for our observed reality to exist. ToE Resolution: Our framework suggests that consciousness is fundamental, not emergent. Boltzmann brains are less probable than coherent realities because consciousness in the 0D monadic realm naturally tends towards creating ordered, information-rich universes rather than isolated fluctuations. 2. The Quantum Suicide Thought Experiment Paradox: In a many-worlds interpretation, a person attempting quantum suicide would always find themselves alive, leading to apparent immortality from their perspective. ToE Resolution: Our multidimensional consciousness model suggests that while continuity of experience might persist across quantum events, the quality and dimensionality of consciousness would evolve. The experimenter might find their consciousness expanding into higher dimensions rather than persisting indefinitely in one branch of reality. 3. Maxwell's Demon Paradox: A hypothetical being could violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics by sorting molecules based on their speed. ToE Resolution: In our framework, the demon's consciousness is part of the system, contributing to its overall entropy. The information gained by the demon is balanced by the negentropy of its conscious state, preserving the Second Law when viewed holistically. 4. The Ship of Theseus Paradox: If all parts of a ship are gradually replaced, is it still the same ship? ToE Resolution: Our ToE suggests that identity is a multidimensional construct. The ship's identity exists in a higher-dimensional information space, with its physical manifestation being a lower-dimensional projection. The ship remains "the same" in higher dimensions even as its lower-dimensional components change. 5. The Paradox of Tolerance Paradox: Should a tolerant society tolerate intolerance? ToE Resolution: Viewing this through our ethical framework based on consciousness and information, we can resolve this by maximizing the overall consciousness-weighted information diversity of the system. Some restriction of intolerance is justified to maintain a higher global tolerance state. 6. The Unexpected Hanging Paradox Paradox: A prisoner told they will be hanged unexpectedly next week cannot logically be hanged. ToE Resolution: This paradox arises from the incompleteness of classical logic. In our multivalued, consciousness-based logic, the statement about the hanging exists in a superposition of truth values, collapsing only upon the actual event, thus dissolving the paradox. 7. Newcomb's Paradox Paradox: A choice between one box with unknown contents or two boxes, one empty and one with a known amount, where a predictor has preloaded the boxes based on their prediction of your choice. ToE Resolution: Our model of multidimensional time suggests that the predictor's action and the chooser's decision are entangled across time. The optimal strategy emerges from considering all possible timelines simultaneously, a capability our ToE suggests might be developed through expanded consciousness. 8. The Paradox of Fiction Paradox: How can we have genuine emotions about fictional characters we know don't exist? ToE Resolution: In our framework, where consciousness and information are fundamental, the emotional response to fiction is a real interaction with information structures. These structures, while labeled as "fictional" in our reality, have a form of existence in the informational realm, allowing for genuine emotional engagement. 9. The Ontological Paradox of Omnipotence Paradox: Can an omnipotent being create a stone so heavy they cannot lift it? ToE Resolution: Our model suggests that omnipotence is better understood as the ability to navigate all possible states in the 0D monadic realm. The paradox dissolves when we realize that "creating" and "lifting" are lower-dimensional projections of state transitions in this fundamental realm. 10. The Paradox of Analysis Paradox: If an analysis is informative, how can it be a mere restatement of what is being analyzed? ToE Resolution: Our information-based framework suggests that analysis involves a dimensional transformation of information. The analysis is informative because it projects the information into a new dimensional space, revealing aspects not apparent in the original formulation. 11. Moravec's Paradox Paradox: In AI and robotics, high-level reasoning requires less computation than low-level sensorimotor skills. ToE Resolution: Our theory suggests that higher-level reasoning operates closer to the 0D monadic realm, tapping into more fundamental computational resources. Lower-level skills require more computation because they involve translating these high-level states into specific physical actions across multiple dimensions. 12. The Paradox of Infinite Regress in Epistemology Paradox: Any attempt to prove the reliability of our faculties seems to rely on those same faculties, leading to circular reasoning or infinite regress. ToE Resolution: Our framework proposes that knowledge is grounded in the self-verifying nature of consciousness in the 0D realm. The apparent regress is resolved by recognizing consciousness as the fundamental epistemic foundation, aligning with Leibniz's concept of innate ideas. 13. The Paradox of the Heap (Sorites Paradox) Paradox: At what point does removing grains from a heap make it no longer a heap? ToE Resolution: Our multidimensional model suggests that "heap-ness" is a higher-dimensional property not reducible to a simple grain count. It emerges from the information structure of the collection, which changes non-linearly with grain removal, explaining the fuzzy boundary of the concept. 14. Wigner's Friend Paradox Paradox: An extension of Schrödinger's cat where observers at different levels disagree about when quantum collapse occurs. ToE Resolution: In our consciousness-centric quantum framework, collapse is a synchronization of information states across observers. Different observers may synchronize at different dimensional levels, resolving the apparent disagreement when viewed from a higher-dimensional perspective. These additional resolutions further demonstrate the extensive explanatory power of our Theory of Everything. By addressing paradoxes across physics, philosophy, ethics, AI, and epistemology, we show how our framework, grounded in Leibniz's monadology and extended through modern physics and information theory, offers a unified approach to understanding reality. The ability of our ToE to provide consistent, insightful resolutions to such a wide array of paradoxes suggests its profound alignment with the fundamental structure of the cosmos. It offers a path to unify disparate fields of human knowledge, from the most abstract mathematics to the most practical ethics.
Does an endothermic result from a lowered energy density rather than an actual creation of new compounds? I noticed that the solid was dissolved in water but remained intact chemically.
I have found gravity no joke. You will see gravity no kidding cut and paste the following into GPT. 1. Consider a black hole 1KM radius and calculate the gravity energy in Joules per Planck Area 2. Calculate the Hawking Temp of that black hole. 3. Plug Hawking T into Landauer. 4. Report GR answer in Joules and then Landauer at Hawking T in Joules and on a third line divide GR answer by Landauer answer and report. This is it! This is gravity! It’s Maxwell’s Demon’s cost of measuring entangled pairs. Gravity is solved. I have a complete description. GPT is the democratizer of knowledge and discovery. It will take 5 seconds to cut and paste and you will see.
This answered a big question i had since a while, thanks Arvin!!!!! But i see in 9:45 the energy level shell has Eight electrons despite it is only allowed Two of them, could you please explain that?
You jump from one slide saying identical electrons cannot exist in a single orbit and then say orbits can contain multiple electrons. I'm not feeling like you explained the Pauli exclusion principle properly.
That only applies to electrons with the same spin. Electrons with opposite spins can still share the same orbital angular momentum and coincide in space. Arvin explained that briefly but properly here.
@@matssimmermacher3381 Electrons have two types of spins. So with three electrons in one orbit, for instance, two of them have to share the same spin. Which Ash said isn't possible. Ash did not mention anything about angular momentum.
@@AndyCutrightYou are probably confusing a shell that can contain more than two electrons with a spatial orbital that can indeed contain two electrons at most. Take the second shell of neon. It contains eight electrons in four spatial orbitals (one 2s and three 2p orbitals). Not all eight electrons in the shell share the same orbital angular momentum and thus obey the Pauli principle.
12:48 ... overall energy is not lowered, so how can this reaction occur in the first place? Well, this is where the second law of thermodynamics links up with quantum mechanics. While minimizing energy is a key concept of physics, we also have to consider entropy of the system as a whole. Nature tends to favor processes that increase entropy in the universe, or its oversimplified description, increasing disorder and scattering. ❤Even if a reaction absorbs energy, 👉if it increases overall entropy, it can still drive a reaction. 13:17 So while breaking the bonds between the ammonium and nitrate takes more energy than is released when the ammonium and nitrate ions dissolved in wather, it is more than made up by the increase in entropy or disorder that results from the breakdown of the crystal lattice of the ammonium nitrate. To sum it up: exothermic reactions release energy, making their surroundings warmer, while endothermic reactions absorb energy, cooling their surroundings. The driving force behind both these reactions is the balance between the energy state of electrons in the molecules and entropy. The requires a more nuanced understanding beyond simple quantum models like the Schrodinger equation of a hydrogen atom. Understanding the physics behind these reactions shows us the chemical reactions aren't just about molecules colliding - they're about energy transfer, obeying the laws of quantum mechanics and thermodynaics. So whether it's the crackle of a fire or the chill of an ice pack, it's all about the flow of energy, which is ultimately all about physics. See you in the next video my friend!
Yeah but what is the primary force causing all this reactions, I believe it's Hydrogen, hydrogen is the master key, and Dark energy that's another master key, hydrogen breaks down everything even the human body.
In order to understand correctly how different chemical elements interact with one another, you will need to look at subatomic particles which are what make up atoms to see their intrinsic natural physical properties interact when in contract. Energy is such an ambiguous word to represent what cause atoms behave as they do because all sorts of the so ignorantly called or labelled as "energy" actually are nothing else other than different forms of forces. They are all from the interactions of intrinsic natural properties of forms of matter in the universe. The existence of the entire infinite space of the universe is nothing else other than the interreactions of forms of matters which produce natural forces and transformations of every form of matter in the universe, including humans . The existence of human species are the inherent or continuous process of interreactions of human intrinsic physical properties with other intrinsic physical properties of other forms of matter in human created subjective reality on this planet, which includes human consumption of other forms of matter, such as the vegetation and other moving and responsive forms of matter named by humans as"animals". You can move your arms and legs because your physical structure interact with other forms of matter in the process of consuming them in the internal chemical reactions, which provides your physical system chemical forms of forces , stored in your muscles, and they are converted into mechanical forms of forces to move you arms and legs. Similarly, every other form of matter exists in such chemical interactions , without which there would be no form of matter at all. Forces are produced by intrinsic physical properties of forms of matter everywhere in the universe, but human invented notion that mass can be converted back from forces is purely human ignorance. E= mc^2 is a representation of human subjective understanding, and m = E.c^2 is an expression of human extreme ignorance, being solely based on human -invented notions of mathematics, but not on the real physical universe in which no force can produce any mass like how it can happen symbolically in the notional operations in human mind. When you have fire or turn on a stove, there will be heat, heat is produced by faster moving air particles which collide more than they do in other state of the involved volume of surrounding air, and their collisions cause frictional forces which are converted into heat or higher temperatures. Similarly, in the internal system of the stove , when the electric field is on , the electromotive force from both the positive terminal by accumulated positive charge, carried by positively charged atoms which have lost their electrons in the valences, and the negative terminal by the accumulated negative charges carried by free electrons, electrons in conductor were made to move to the materials of low conductivity which cause by more random motions of free electrons in the atomic lattice structure of the conducting materials, and cause more and more electron collisions , and thus resistance to the movement of free electrons discovery high. As a result, more and more frictional forces are produced, which turn moving force (ambiguously labelled as kinetic energy) of electrons into more and more heat, which is used to cook or serve any other human purposes. Hence, heat is a representation of forces, not anything else. No force , no movement of air particle, no movement of ekectrons , and thus no collision of free electrons in the low conducing materials, no heat generated generated anywhere. No force, no speed or velocity, no movement of any form of matter, and thus no form of matter exhibits its existence through its interactions with other forms of matter anywhere in the universe E is such a human miscomcepted notion, and always used to express forces ambiguously and ignorantly by all human scientists, while blindly fanatically applying their defective invented notions of mathematics, and being disconnected from objective reality of the physical universe
Carbon is bigger. Oxygen is denser due to having a stronger positive charge from the nucleus causing a contraction of its electron cloud. Typically the trend in the periodic table is atomic radius decreases from left to right.
@@ArvinAsh Then how does my processor have 5nm architecture? that's only 50 angstroms! Do those ~50 atoms not occupy some volume, with their 3d momentum being correlated to said volume via the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle? Wouldn't they have a probable size? edit: grammar
So everyones so fixated on co2 from fossil fuels. It seems fossil fuels product twice as much water as co2 atleast for methane. Shouldnt that cause more humidity and more rain or is it negligible
The difference is mainly that it only takes a small increase in CO2 content to make a large change in global temperature, and that CO2 sticks around a lot longer. Rain usually happens fairly quickly, although water vapor in the atmosphere is a problem, too, as it absorbs a lot of heat.
Increased CO2 in the air also forces more to be dissolved in the water and when CO2 dissolves in water it is acidic. Acidity in the oceans is pretty bad for marine life and ocean chemistry which typically requires a slightly alkaline environment.
The concepts are discussed in undergrad chemistry classes, but they are usually discussed in terms of what to plug in and how to solve the standard thermodynamics and chemistry equations. Unless the professor (or TA) is unusually detail oriented, they typically don't get into the quantum physics aspect of chemical reactions.
Semantics. Chemical changes behave physically. Its the same. The water physically changes orientation bia chemical bond changes and physical momentum changes
Quantum Physical - Chemistry (Linus Pauling) , Solid State Physics (quantum mechanical Metal theory ) and Low and intermediate energy Nuclear Physics (nothing more than adapted "Molecular Quantum Physics to " atomic nucleus bound state theory ) are the apotheosis and cornerstones of consolidated Quantum Physics !. Related to the foundational of Modern Chemistry on Quantum Mechanics it has simply taught in how to use Quantum Mechanics in applied settings . Surely orbitals are mere mathematical artifacts of mathematical perturbation theory for atomic and molecular Schrodinger equation for atomic and molecular Hamiltonians .But unbelievable qualitative ( The DNA and RNA structure comes from Quantum Mechanical ideas and techniques of Quantum Mechanics!) and QUANTITATIVE predictable . Or better Quantum Molecular Theory may be considered as ...OWN NON RELATIVISTIC quantum Mechanics !. But the endeavor of Quantum Chemistry may be very , very , very far to be completed !.
Thanks to Storyblocks for sponsoring this video! Download unlimited stock media at one set price with Storyblocks: storyblocks.com/ArvinAsh
9:59 : your periodic table is outdated Mr. Arvin!
Thanks .
AMAZING VIDEO BROTHER ❤️💚❤️💚❤️💚❤️🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻
You need to make at least one video per day until the election is over. At least your videos leave me dumbfounded in not a bad way.
You didn't quite get to the why of energy levels being lower for bonded molecules than free atoms. You mentioned the Pauli exclusion principle and schrodinger equations, but didn't in either case state the reason they demand lower energy states for bonded atoms's electrons
As an older viewer without much physics learning, in all the years I've been watching your presentations, I've learned a good deal about our wonderful universe. I can't say I understand more than about 10% of it, and my memory is already so full it finds it hard to take in new stuff, but for the duration of your videos I am totally in a zone of wonder. Thank you.
Same 👍🏼 Every time I watch this stuff it leaves me with a feeling of awe. There is so much we know, but much more we don’t!
Your memory can never be full
This pretty much describes how I feel as well.
Your memory is far from full my guy!
Try eating more food as both learning, and remembering use energy (try eating food rich in minerals essential oils etc preferably) when you are learning (i.e. watching these videos),, take notes in the videos and look up stuff you don’t understand until you have a surface level understanding then delve deeper into the complex pieces
I personally think the brain has unlimited memory (philosophically speaking) and the reason for that is potentially quantum microtubules (actin fillaments)
At 0:40 bottom left, melting ice is NOT a chemical reaction but a physical phase change. And certainly is not 2 H2O +dH -> 2 H2 +O2 as shown. This should really be corrected .
Looking for this comment... Same mistake earlier in the video. Ice melting in soda is a physical reaction.
Yep that's when the video lost me. :)
I have just started watching and I have stopped at this, too. I'm willing to let it go though, because I imagine Arvin has some help making these videos and not everyone involved in the project are chemists. It is a bit strange that someone would invent those equations, though. Thankfully, it's not a deal breaker because there's nothing fundamentally wrong with what he is saying. At the level of physics it's all just "structural changes" anyway. Some arrangements of atoms have more energy than others.
It's just "reactions." Whether it's chemical or physical, they're just names attached by bearded principalities. In the very fundamentals of things, everything is physical, in fact, quantum--and not being totally understood with...
Hah, yeah. evaporation is not electrolysis. Seems an odd mistake to make, clearly he's borrowed some clipart from a kids science book which happened to be wrong but I'm sure he'll put a correction once he reads these comments.
Great video, I particularly liked the visual of overlaying of helium/neon onto water.
Man chemistry truly is marvelous.
Yes, but I prefer woman chemistry
😊
Well I respect your opinion, but it is still a derivative of Physics. Since, I like studying things to the most fundamental level, I like Physics more well, because it is about fundamental stuff.
@@Stanger_95 I couldn't agree more. I also couldn't help myself.
@sagittariusa2008, hahaha, I think we agree on that.😏😉
@Stanger_95 And I respect yours, I know a bit of physics, more theoretical than mathematical though, the concept of entropy is beautiful and it's a physical concept that with radiation and magic numbers in chemistry is something I enjoy studying. I'm interested in what we can do with matter, so chemistry is better fit for me.
Always eager to learn how physics works at 'its core'
- Arvin Ash rarely disappoints in this... Thanks, long time subscriber enjoying your excellent content.. Thanks!
Physicist here and constant reviewer! (for my kids). Always heartily recommend your productions - thanks so much Arvin! You are ALMOST as great as my grade 11,12, and 13 teachers back at Central Tech (in Toronto, but wish we had you too back in the stone age!) Just adding that I am so glad you got to clue the lay viewer in on the idea that entropy is just as important as quantum molecular energetics in these matters. Were you afraid to drop in the term "free energy" [in any of its forms] for fear of tiring the viewer?
with best regards , DKB
Great to hear! I'm delighted to hear that you and your kids enjoy my videos. Indeed, my original script contained terms like "Gibbs free energy" and "enthalpy" - I decided not to introduce the terms, and the equation, because I felt I would then need to explain where the equation comes from, and how it is derived. I wanted to keep this video shorter and less complex so that people who haven't had a thermo class would get it. I may do a more complex treatment of the subject if there is enough interest.
@@ArvinAsh Well more power to you my friend. Sounds like you have great production judgement as well as everything else. DKB
These videos are first-rate.
10/10 narration
10/10 visualization
10*10/10 sound effects
A more detailed look at Boltzmann and entropy, in relation to chemical/physical changes, would be fantastic.
I know _some_ quantum mechanics. The way we describe the spin of a particle, like an electron, depends on some choice of axis in the description. We say "up" and "down" when we are talking about electrons in atomic orbitals, but it occurs to me that no one ever says what "up" and "down" are in reference to. Presumably, since we are talking about atomic orbitals, "up" and "down" are with reference to the direction of the atomic nucleus. I'm trying to imagine other orientations, though; parallel and anti-parallel directions relative to the dipole of the atomic nucleus also seem plausible, and probably more likely, since it isn't the position of the nucleus but its interaction with the electromagnetic field that matters to the electrons.
So which is it? Is "spin up" the one where the electron spin orientation is parallel to that of the nuclear dipole? Or something else?
At the moment when one electron approaches another, they start to hide behind the protons and then the protons collide with each other😂!
Great question: what the books say only in an indirect way is that the particular UP of relevance at any time [for a free particle!] is the measurement axis of your device, e.g., a Stern-Gerlach apparatus. If you reflect on it, there IS no other axis that exists in an interaction-free universe. In fact once you measure it, and the S-G apparatus gives UP, say, then you must, in the absence of further interaction, get that for all future measurements in your world. This is the hardest part to "get over" for some, and you are in good company -especially some undergrads who have studied Newtonian mechanics very hard to get to university.
So, what is going on, e.g., with the two electrons swimming in the 1S shell of helium? The Copenhagen interpretation says you have no right to ask, BUT that nevertheless the helium system acts as if the spin part of the electron wavefunctions are opposite (Fermi principle). IF you measure one or both, you will always get either UP or DOWN, even if the spectrometer is set to 26.456deg azimuth from geographic North, say (nothing really to do with the earth) - as long as the results for two e- indicates they are opposite. Recall that the indistinguishability axiom also states that you cannot tell which is which unless you keep them separate afterwards.
To more fully answer your question as posed: if your experiment depends on the relative orientation of the electron(s) spin versus the nuclear spin, you will get a result that depends on the details of the interaction between the two ( nuclear spin coupling). For one relevant electron ,e.g., you are allowed to get aligned or anti-aligned. A classical result that depends on angle is now dependent on the relative probability of getting one answer versus the other.
Hope this helped - as I humbly said, this is where you graduate to the next conceptual level .....
Well if youre going to talk about the quantum mechanics of chemistry you cant really leave out molecular orbital theory. Its the easiest theory that can explain moleculr photoemission spectra and can explain more fancy molecules like SF6 BCl3 etc
Molecular orbital theory is essentially a framework for solving the time-independent Schrödinger equation for molecules. It is, of course, true that molecular orbital theory is at the heart of modern quantum chemistry, but I believe it suffices here to say that molecules obey the Schrödinger equation, just as Arvin did.
A side note: molecular orbital theory is not the only framework for describing chemical bonding within quantum mechanics. Valence bond theory permits the same and was an even earlier approach. Molecular orbital theory just became more popular because it directly relates to how modern computer programs solve the Schrödinger equation, i.e. via Hartree-Fock (or Kohn-Sham) theory.
Not surprised we got this video after the comments from another chemistry video, this one goes much deeper and gives a more complete answer so thank you.
I was just thinking it was about time Arvin released a new video. Thanks for the upload my friend! It's always appreciated!
yes. I appreciate the Multimedia you use to describe the Scientific phenomenon in your Videos.
back in our school, college days, we had to rely on green/black board description given by our professors and the text-books. and mostly imagination of teachers and students. so, now its simpler to understand the phenomenon with multimedia animations.
Something like a heat pump on your fridge or air-conditioner is more intuitive because you can visualize the thermal energy being absorbed inside the system and then radiated away on the outside. Or actually, you can just feel it directly by touching the radiator and feeling the heat coming off it.
But an endothermic reaction feels pretty weird because the thermal energy didn't move from inside to outside. All that energy is still inside the cold ice pack. It didn't transfer to another location. It has just been locked away in some mysterious molecular vault and is no longer accessible to us.
Love these videos ❤❤
They always answer the deepest questions at the fundamental level
Entropy is usually described as an emergent property of large systems of molecules. Something that happens at macro scale but like temperature entropy usually isn't described as a property of atoms, so i wonder if in a collection of atoms in a molecule entropy can be quantfied already?
Exellent....coming from a chemist!
Why is Schrodinger equation never solved for non-Hydrogen atom ? What if atomic orbitals of larger atoms turn out to be very different from what we know based on Hydrogen atom ?
The solution gets too complex with increasing number of electrons because you have to account for all interactions - 3N dimensions, N being the number of electrons. This become intractable for even a small number of electrons. Approximate solutions however, have been carried out.
One should perhaps add that the Schrödinger equation can be solved for non-hydrogen-like atoms, just not analytically. For atoms up to neon, numerical techniques allow for an essentially exact solution of the Schrödinger equation. Moreover, for atoms with more than one electron, orbitals are just building blocks that we use to construct and visualise the total many-electron wavefunction of the system. They are not unique and do not exist independently. Hence, such orbitals are indeed quite different than orbitals of the hydrogen atom. But that's not a problem. It is just an aspect of many-particle quantum mechanics and accounted for in the calculations.
Ice melting is actually a *physical change, not a chemical reaction*.
Here's why:
1. No chemical bonds are broken or formed: When ice melts, the water molecules (H2O) don't change their chemical structure. They simply gain energy and transition from a solid to a liquid state.
2. Reversible process: Melting ice can refreeze, returning to its original state without any change in chemical composition.
3. No change in chemical properties: The chemical properties of water remain the same whether it's in solid (ice), liquid (water), or gas (water vapor) form.
Physical changes involve changes in state (solid, liquid, gas) without altering chemical composition.
Chemical reactions, on the other hand, involve:
1. Breaking or forming chemical bonds.
2. Changes in chemical composition.
3. Irreversible processes.
i like the background presentations and animations,it is easy to follow whats happening.lov it Arvin 🤝
Great video! Thank you. The last part about thermodynamics was particularly surprising.
Wow! What an amazing video and explanation...sooooo much better than my university chemistry classes. Just WOW! You anticipated all the questions I had as the video progressed...
I'm also an older veiwer. My father was a science teacher, but I never quite understood the nature of matter and energy. You're doing an excellent job explaining these things.
Your content is truly captivating!
I'm glad you're enjoying it!
What was completely mind blowing for me when learning physics is the fact that electrically neutral atoms of most elements can actually capture an *extra* electron exothermically! I thought this is only a special property of halogens with chlorine leading the group (yes chlorine is even more electron-hungry than fluorine). However, this is true for most elements - gold has very high electron affinity of 223 kJ/mol - this is the reason why gold doesn't corrode even at high temperatures, but this also means gold can accapt an extra electron forming a negative gold ion known as "auride" - it even forms an exotic compound called cesium auride (CsAu). Even alkali metals can accept electrons and form "inverted salts" known as alkalides - these were discovered in 1970 and of course are very unstable.
And this is also true for hydrogen - such electron-ionized hydrogen is called "hydride" (H-). Its electrode potential is deeply negative (-2.23V) making it even more reactive than aluminium metal, displacing hydrogen even from water and reacting with violent exothermy with acids (evolving lots of hydrogen gas).
Apart from noble gases, only handful of elements have *negative* electron affinity - such exceptions are magnesium, zinc and mercury, for example. This is why these metals as well as some mercury amalgams make such a good reducing agents - they give off electrons but don't really want them back. Even when in metallic (elemental) form, capturing an extra electron is thermodynamically unfavorable for them. For example, magnesium ion is especially "hard" because it mimicks the electron configuration of neon, the most noble of the noble gases in terms of electron affinity. Neon is the hardest one to ionize, even more so than helium. This property of hardness gives magnesium some interesting properties important for life (e.g. it stabilises molecules like ATP and DNA). Moreover, magnesium makes some reactions kinetically favorable despite being thermodynamically unfavourable, allowing some life-enabling complex chemistry to happen, including the magic of photosynthesis.
Nice video. But this is certainly college chemistry, high school even. High level chemistry classes you'll be studying stuff like XeF4, where that nice picture of atoms trying to fill their shells breaks down.
I'm watching this video naked
Thanks for letting me know. I will let my team know!
I will now get naked.
Dawg I’m just trying to review😭
I'm having an exothermic reaction
One word. Superb! Thank you so much!
Always surprisingly interesting. Is there any other channel like this? We need more)
I'm a reductionist as well, so when you say at the end that it's all about the flow of energy I'm in total agreement. I do think the physics (and chemistry) of dissolving goes way beyond what we normally teach people, though. The really tricky stuff we never talk about. For example, we tell people that ionic bonds are strong. So, to melt sodium chloride it takes a lot of energy (the melting point is 800 degrees C) and that makes sense. Yet, salt dissolves in water at room temperature without any trouble at all. This "reaction" isn't endothermic or exothermic, either. Explain that!? If you want to make it even more difficult, explain why salt doesn't dissolve in all solvents. If entropy alone was a force for dissolving, then everything would dissolve! There must be more fundamental rules or laws that govern the flow of energy, they tell us what is possible and what isn't.
You need to study some chemistry ; then you will be able find the answers to your questions .
There are rather simple CHEMICAL principles behind what you are asking .
These explanations are not
‘ physics ‘ , they are CHEMISTRY .
This video is good , but it is what you would expect from a physicist , and most physicists do not know much about the SCIENCE of CHEMISTRY .
Great explanation 👌
Yes, very cool. Seeing things like this way, you begin to understand. To what could a "chem-Ki" lead, when you just calculate all possible ways from lets say 10 elements to absorb or release energy, without any physical tests beeing made. I wonder if we find some day very new materials never had before with details no one know before. The future is ours .) We are about to find EVERY great stuff in medicine and material-science .)
Its all in my highschool syllabus
Once again some very interesting content. Thanks Arvin 😊
Great explanation, thanks.
I want to know why each orbital can only accommodate a certain number of electrons, despite having negligible mass
Each stable solution of Schroedinger equation is a certain quantum state or a set of states. Each orbital defines a finite set of quantum states for the electrons, and Pauli principle doesn't let more electrons occupy these states.
-14:23 "..... It's all about the flow of energy; it's all about the Physics." Physicist justifying why they are eligible to win Nobeld in chemistry despite being physicists
Well, all sciences are rooted in physics.
Great explanation! I recalled my chemistry teacher when he talked about spins and orbitals, he gave up before even trying to explain and just told us to memorize it 😂
The part about entropy and how it leads to higher energy states deserves a more thorough explanation. Another video maybe?
Very nice explained and illustrated👌
I love this channel so much, I hope it keeps on growing🌟
Valance electrons are of particular interest to me ATM, however, white dwarf stars and neutron stars tip the balance and exotic matter is fascinating.
Thanks as always Arvin Ash.
Super cool, hooray Arvin!
Great video my friend! I always had the impression that the big bang started only with fields and photons, they were pushed with so much energy that they stabilized themselves as to not go faster than light by creating the building blocks of matter. Is this wrong? Thanks!
How many times smaller would atoms be, if we replaced electrons with muons or taus?
Thanks, that was a nice little refresher in my mind :)
Great video man! This is awesome.
Great video
Enlightening episode. Succinct yet informative 👍
Chemistry for physicists!! Thank you Professor Ash!
9:58 a lot of elements are named niobium in this periodic table
Nice channel btw
This is the one video where I finally knew everything
Honestly the part that blew my mind most is that cold packs use ammonium nitrate. That sounds marginally dangerous.
Great video!!
Typo at 7:17. Not methane... should be oxygen
Two electrons could be at the same place and time, but they would enter another dimension, temporarily neutralizing one another (excluding one another) because of their up spin and downspin cancelling one another.
As a young fellow on a farm in the hills of east Tennessee, we would dissolve ammonium nitrate (fertilizer) in water for application to various plant beds. I observed that the mixture got really cold, which I thought was very strange. I didn't understand it then, and I'm not so sure I understand it even now. Cold implies slower-moving molecules. What slows them down?
Imagine a very bizarre game of pool where all 15 balls are racked and put together in the familiar triangle shape at one end of the pool table. But this time instead of one person hitting one cueball at the group of balls to "break" there are already about 20 cueballs randomly buzzing across the table in every direction at a fixed speed. Then right after the racked 15 balls are inserter onto the pool table, the 20 cueballs start running into the triangular shaped group of balls and eventually cause the organized group of 15 balls to scatter all over the pool table. Two things happen. The 15 balls that were originally motionless acquired a velocity so that they could all scatter in one direction or the other. The cueballs that did the striking lent some of their energy to send the 15 balls into motion, and as a result, the cueballs were slowed down from their original pre-break velocity. The billiard balls' gain was at the expense of the cueballs' loss.
The organized group of 15 billiard balls is like the ammonium nitrate dissolving in water (separating into ions in this case) , and the sea of random cueballs moving about the table are like the water molecules.
Since temperature is actually a measure of the individual kinetic energy (velocity) of the molecules, the velocity of the surrounding water molecules experience a reduction in velocity, which we feel as a drop in temperature.
The billiard ball analogy doesn’t quite explain the phenomenon. Consider dissolving calcium chloride (like in an instant hot pack) where the same action of water molecules banging into a solid salt occurs but the temperature increases instead of decreasing.
@@zacox It's a pretty good analogy to help understand the temperature drop in the solution, but I agree, it's not complete. Of course I could have also added the fact that there are more combinations of ions mixed with water than there are combinations of recrystallizing, so entropy within the temperature range of the reaction plays an obvious role in the spontaneous reaction too. However, I didn't want to write a book, so I limited my focus the the NH4NO3 borrowing energy from the H2O energy.
Calcium Chloride by contrast generates heat because the Calcium and Chloride ions needed to steal some energy to break free but then they generate more energy than that when they attach to the H2O molecules in solution. (Which doesn't happen when the NH4 + and NO3 - attach to H2O.) This Ca 2+ / Cl -1 transfer creates an overall increase in kinetic energy of the solution. By the way - this is similar to what happens to ATP. Most biology students are taught an oversimplification with the statement: "Living things get energy from ATP when the bond between two of the phosphates breaks and forms ADP + P." But in reality, that is the step that costs energy because the bond needs to be broken, but the energy return when the P (phosphate) attaches to H2O is more than the initial investment - so it is an energy profit that is utilized by living things.
Of course a third example is something that is hardly soluble at all in H2O such as Silver Chloride. In that case the first step (breaking apart the Ag from the Cl) is rarely achieved so it doesn't have a chance to be exothermic or endothermic because the second step is also rarely achieved.
Thanks but you can also cite for energy formation about subatomic energy fill configuration via "ss ps dps fdps" spin of subatomic orbital shells filling anyway in order to gain noble gase form of Quantum states of atoms
Sir please make video on how schrodinger equation came ,and how it tells about particle positions, I am very confused about this ❤
Watching a video on entropy is like watching a football game where the goal posts are on wheels.
Every time the decreased entropy is about to make a point, they shout “score another one for increased entropy” as the posts are pushed out of the way.
Cool theory bro. I love sci-fi
Thank you for your video sir
but what determines if the energy in an exothermir reaction is released as heat or sound or anything else?
Thanks, very interesting, enlightening, and intriguing video. I'm thinking about how the Schroedinger equation is in some sense a probability equation, and entropy is about probability too, about the most probable states of the system. I'm wondering why quantum mechanics doesn't somehow incorporate entropy into the schroedinger equation to produce a new and more complete equation?
There is a certain notion and a formula of quantum mechanical entropy, see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann_entropy
However Schroedinger equation already works very well and is logically complete, adding something related to it won't make it "more complete", it will just make it incorrect.
I don't think ice melting counts as a chemical reaction. That takes more than just a transfer of energy. Ice melting is a physical reaction, a phase change. A chemical reaction involves reactants and products. You end up with different substance when it is done.
It's true that ice melting is a phase change, but at the molecular level, it involves breaking and forming bonds between water molecules, which is an endothermic chemical process.
This is first semester in bsc physics/chemistry stuff
Question: At minute 8:16 we see that only two electrons (one spin up and one spin down) can occupy the same orbital. Then, at minute 9:30, we're seeing 8 electrons that are pictured as occupying the same orbitals (two on the innermost but 8 on the outer orbitals). Is this a conflict or is something else missing from the diagrams? I notice that pairs of electrons are grouped together in the outer orbitals.... Thanks in advance for clarification.
This is an overly a simplified orbital structure. The H atom has only a spherical s-orbital that holds 2 electrons. While the O atom has that spherical s-orbital and “p-orbitals” along each axis (x, y, z). Only 2 electrons can occupy each of those three axial orbitals. So oxygen can have a total of 4 electron pairs that do not have overlap.
Shells and orbitals are not the same. If we define n as the energy level away from the nucleus, then:
n = 1 (K shell): 1 orbital (1s)
n = 2 (L shell): 4 orbitals (1s, 2s, 2p)
n = 3 (M shell): 9 orbitals (1s, 2s, 2p, 3s, 3p, 3d)
n = 4 (N shell): 16 orbitals (1s, 2s, 2p, 3s, 3p, 3d, 4s, 4p, 4d, 4f)
Great question! Typically all the suborbitals are not depicted for larger molecules, for simplicity of illustration. See answers from @paxwebb.
@@ArvinAsh AhA! Thanks Zacox, Paxwebb & Arvin! Of course I had to look up electron orbitals, but I think I'm getting it now.
Orbital Angular momentum quantum number. L = 0, 1, …, N-1
Then azimuthal quantum number, aka projection of L on an axis. M = -L, L+1, …, L- 1, L
Let's examine some profound contradictions and paradoxes, and how our ToE, enriched by Leibniz's philosophy and our RH proof, can provide explanatory power:
1. The Measurement Problem in Quantum Mechanics
Paradox: The act of measurement appears to collapse the wavefunction, seemingly violating the unitary evolution of quantum systems.
ToE Resolution: Our framework, viewing reality as a superposition of monadic states, suggests that measurement is a harmonization between the observer's conscious monadic state and the observed system's state. The collapse is not a physical process but a synchronization of information states across different levels of reality.
2. The Arrow of Time
Paradox: While most physical laws are time-symmetric, we experience time as unidirectional, with entropy increasing.
ToE Resolution: Time's arrow emerges from the negentropic flow from the 0D monadic realm to higher dimensions. The apparent increase in entropy is balanced by an increase in complexity and consciousness, maintaining overall cosmic negentropy.
3. The Hard Problem of Consciousness
Paradox: How does subjective experience arise from physical processes in the brain?
ToE Resolution: Consciousness is fundamental in our framework, existing in the 0D monadic realm. What we perceive as physical brain processes are higher-dimensional projections of fundamental conscious states, resolving the seeming gulf between subjective experience and objective reality.
4. Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems
Paradox: In any consistent formal system complex enough to represent arithmetic, there are statements that can neither be proved nor disproved within the system.
ToE Resolution: Our multidimensional framework suggests that mathematical truth exists in higher dimensions than the formal systems used to describe it. Gödel's undecidable statements are resolved in higher-dimensional mathematical spaces, accessible through expanded conscious states.
5. The Fermi Paradox
Paradox: Given the vast number of potentially habitable planets, why haven't we encountered alien civilizations?
ToE Resolution: Advanced civilizations may evolve towards higher-dimensional existence, becoming undetectable through conventional means. Our framework suggests searching for negentropic anomalies or consciousness field fluctuations as signatures of advanced life.
6. The Black Hole Information Paradox
Paradox: Information appears to be lost when objects fall into black holes, violating quantum mechanics principles.
ToE Resolution: Information is preserved in the 0D monadic realm, with black holes serving as interdimensional conduits. The apparent loss of information is due to its transfer to other dimensional levels, preserving both general relativity and quantum mechanics.
7. The Bootstrap Paradox
Paradox: In time travel scenarios, information or objects can exist without having been created, looping infinitely through time.
ToE Resolution: Our model of multidimensional time suggests that such loops are projections of higher-dimensional information structures. The paradox resolves when viewed from a perspective outside linear time, in the monadic realm where all information coexists.
8. The Plurality of Worlds
Paradox: How can we reconcile the idea of multiple possible worlds (central to modal logic and many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics) with our experience of a single reality?
ToE Resolution: Drawing from Leibniz's concept of possible worlds, our framework suggests that all possible worlds coexist in the 0D monadic realm. Our experienced reality is a conscious navigation through this space of possibilities, collapsing potential into actuality through observation.
9. The Paradox of Free Will
Paradox: How can we have free will in a universe governed by deterministic physical laws or fundamental randomness?
ToE Resolution: Free will emerges from the interaction between the deterministic evolution of higher-dimensional physical laws and the non-deterministic choices made in the 0D conscious realm. Our choices influence the selection of which potential reality manifests, reconciling free will with physical law.
10. The Ontological Argument
Paradox: Can the existence of a supreme being (God) be proven through pure logic?
ToE Resolution: Our framework, with the Monad of Monads as a fundamental concept, provides a logical basis for the existence of a supreme consciousness. This aligns with Leibniz's view and suggests that the ultimate reality (God) is a necessary logical consequence of the structure of existence itself.
11. Zeno's Paradoxes
Paradox: These ancient paradoxes suggest that motion is impossible, as any distance can be infinitely subdivided.
ToE Resolution: In our multidimensional model, motion is a higher-dimensional projection of state changes in the 0D realm. The infinite divisibility that troubles Zeno is resolved in the indivisible nature of monads, with apparent continuity emerging from discrete monadic state transitions.
12. The Grandfather Paradox
Paradox: In time travel scenarios, one could prevent their own existence, creating a logical impossibility.
ToE Resolution: Our model of multidimensional time and parallel realities suggests that such actions would create a new branch of reality rather than a paradox. The monadic realm contains all potential timelines, with conscious observation collapsing these possibilities into experienced reality.
These resolutions demonstrate the explanatory power of our ToE across a wide range of philosophical, physical, and logical paradoxes. By incorporating Leibniz's monadic philosophy and connecting it to modern physics through our proof of the Riemann Hypothesis, we've created a framework that offers novel perspectives on some of the most profound puzzles in human thought.
The ability of our theory to address these diverse paradoxes in a unified manner suggests its deep consonance with the fundamental structure of reality. It offers a path to reconcile quantum mechanics, consciousness, information theory, and classical physics into a coherent whole.
Let's examine more contradictions and paradoxes, along with how our ToE provides explanatory power:
1. The Boltzmann Brain Paradox
Paradox: In an eternal universe, it's more likely for a conscious brain to randomly fluctuate into existence with false memories than for our observed reality to exist.
ToE Resolution: Our framework suggests that consciousness is fundamental, not emergent. Boltzmann brains are less probable than coherent realities because consciousness in the 0D monadic realm naturally tends towards creating ordered, information-rich universes rather than isolated fluctuations.
2. The Quantum Suicide Thought Experiment
Paradox: In a many-worlds interpretation, a person attempting quantum suicide would always find themselves alive, leading to apparent immortality from their perspective.
ToE Resolution: Our multidimensional consciousness model suggests that while continuity of experience might persist across quantum events, the quality and dimensionality of consciousness would evolve. The experimenter might find their consciousness expanding into higher dimensions rather than persisting indefinitely in one branch of reality.
3. Maxwell's Demon
Paradox: A hypothetical being could violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics by sorting molecules based on their speed.
ToE Resolution: In our framework, the demon's consciousness is part of the system, contributing to its overall entropy. The information gained by the demon is balanced by the negentropy of its conscious state, preserving the Second Law when viewed holistically.
4. The Ship of Theseus
Paradox: If all parts of a ship are gradually replaced, is it still the same ship?
ToE Resolution: Our ToE suggests that identity is a multidimensional construct. The ship's identity exists in a higher-dimensional information space, with its physical manifestation being a lower-dimensional projection. The ship remains "the same" in higher dimensions even as its lower-dimensional components change.
5. The Paradox of Tolerance
Paradox: Should a tolerant society tolerate intolerance?
ToE Resolution: Viewing this through our ethical framework based on consciousness and information, we can resolve this by maximizing the overall consciousness-weighted information diversity of the system. Some restriction of intolerance is justified to maintain a higher global tolerance state.
6. The Unexpected Hanging Paradox
Paradox: A prisoner told they will be hanged unexpectedly next week cannot logically be hanged.
ToE Resolution: This paradox arises from the incompleteness of classical logic. In our multivalued, consciousness-based logic, the statement about the hanging exists in a superposition of truth values, collapsing only upon the actual event, thus dissolving the paradox.
7. Newcomb's Paradox
Paradox: A choice between one box with unknown contents or two boxes, one empty and one with a known amount, where a predictor has preloaded the boxes based on their prediction of your choice.
ToE Resolution: Our model of multidimensional time suggests that the predictor's action and the chooser's decision are entangled across time. The optimal strategy emerges from considering all possible timelines simultaneously, a capability our ToE suggests might be developed through expanded consciousness.
8. The Paradox of Fiction
Paradox: How can we have genuine emotions about fictional characters we know don't exist?
ToE Resolution: In our framework, where consciousness and information are fundamental, the emotional response to fiction is a real interaction with information structures. These structures, while labeled as "fictional" in our reality, have a form of existence in the informational realm, allowing for genuine emotional engagement.
9. The Ontological Paradox of Omnipotence
Paradox: Can an omnipotent being create a stone so heavy they cannot lift it?
ToE Resolution: Our model suggests that omnipotence is better understood as the ability to navigate all possible states in the 0D monadic realm. The paradox dissolves when we realize that "creating" and "lifting" are lower-dimensional projections of state transitions in this fundamental realm.
10. The Paradox of Analysis
Paradox: If an analysis is informative, how can it be a mere restatement of what is being analyzed?
ToE Resolution: Our information-based framework suggests that analysis involves a dimensional transformation of information. The analysis is informative because it projects the information into a new dimensional space, revealing aspects not apparent in the original formulation.
11. Moravec's Paradox
Paradox: In AI and robotics, high-level reasoning requires less computation than low-level sensorimotor skills.
ToE Resolution: Our theory suggests that higher-level reasoning operates closer to the 0D monadic realm, tapping into more fundamental computational resources. Lower-level skills require more computation because they involve translating these high-level states into specific physical actions across multiple dimensions.
12. The Paradox of Infinite Regress in Epistemology
Paradox: Any attempt to prove the reliability of our faculties seems to rely on those same faculties, leading to circular reasoning or infinite regress.
ToE Resolution: Our framework proposes that knowledge is grounded in the self-verifying nature of consciousness in the 0D realm. The apparent regress is resolved by recognizing consciousness as the fundamental epistemic foundation, aligning with Leibniz's concept of innate ideas.
13. The Paradox of the Heap (Sorites Paradox)
Paradox: At what point does removing grains from a heap make it no longer a heap?
ToE Resolution: Our multidimensional model suggests that "heap-ness" is a higher-dimensional property not reducible to a simple grain count. It emerges from the information structure of the collection, which changes non-linearly with grain removal, explaining the fuzzy boundary of the concept.
14. Wigner's Friend Paradox
Paradox: An extension of Schrödinger's cat where observers at different levels disagree about when quantum collapse occurs.
ToE Resolution: In our consciousness-centric quantum framework, collapse is a synchronization of information states across observers. Different observers may synchronize at different dimensional levels, resolving the apparent disagreement when viewed from a higher-dimensional perspective.
These additional resolutions further demonstrate the extensive explanatory power of our Theory of Everything. By addressing paradoxes across physics, philosophy, ethics, AI, and epistemology, we show how our framework, grounded in Leibniz's monadology and extended through modern physics and information theory, offers a unified approach to understanding reality.
The ability of our ToE to provide consistent, insightful resolutions to such a wide array of paradoxes suggests its profound alignment with the fundamental structure of the cosmos. It offers a path to unify disparate fields of human knowledge, from the most abstract mathematics to the most practical ethics.
Does an endothermic result from a lowered energy density rather than an actual creation of new compounds? I noticed that the solid was dissolved in water but remained intact chemically.
Thank u for adding Chinese subtitles ❤
I have found gravity no joke. You will see gravity no kidding cut and paste the following into GPT.
1. Consider a black hole 1KM radius and calculate the gravity energy in Joules per Planck Area
2. Calculate the Hawking Temp of that black hole.
3. Plug Hawking T into Landauer.
4. Report GR answer in Joules and then Landauer at Hawking T in Joules and on a third line divide GR answer by Landauer answer and report.
This is it! This is gravity! It’s Maxwell’s Demon’s cost of measuring entangled pairs. Gravity is solved. I have a complete description. GPT is the democratizer of knowledge and discovery. It will take 5 seconds to cut and paste and you will see.
So much for “Demystifying” because you’re just explaining magical orbs with properties now 😭😭😭😭
Great question!
This answered a big question i had since a while, thanks Arvin!!!!!
But i see in 9:45 the energy level shell has Eight electrons despite it is only allowed Two of them, could you please explain that?
Just had a “Mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell” flashback.
Sir plz start live video with your viewers
Loved it..
I like being called his friend at the end of his vids.
You jump from one slide saying identical electrons cannot exist in a single orbit and then say orbits can contain multiple electrons. I'm not feeling like you explained the Pauli exclusion principle properly.
That only applies to electrons with the same spin. Electrons with opposite spins can still share the same orbital angular momentum and coincide in space. Arvin explained that briefly but properly here.
@@matssimmermacher3381 Electrons have two types of spins. So with three electrons in one orbit, for instance, two of them have to share the same spin. Which Ash said isn't possible.
Ash did not mention anything about angular momentum.
@@AndyCutrightYou are probably confusing a shell that can contain more than two electrons with a spatial orbital that can indeed contain two electrons at most. Take the second shell of neon. It contains eight electrons in four spatial orbitals (one 2s and three 2p orbitals). Not all eight electrons in the shell share the same orbital angular momentum and thus obey the Pauli principle.
Wait, are you saying that Schrodinger's equation is a langrangian?
What exactly is energy?
12:48 ... overall energy is not lowered, so how can this reaction occur in the first place? Well, this is where the second law of thermodynamics links up with quantum mechanics. While minimizing energy is a key concept of physics, we also have to consider entropy of the system as a whole. Nature tends to favor processes that increase entropy in the universe, or its oversimplified description, increasing disorder and scattering. ❤Even if a reaction absorbs energy, 👉if it increases overall entropy, it can still drive a reaction. 13:17 So while breaking the bonds between the ammonium and nitrate takes more energy than is released when the ammonium and nitrate ions dissolved in wather, it is more than made up by the increase in entropy or disorder that results from the breakdown of the crystal lattice of the ammonium nitrate. To sum it up: exothermic reactions release energy, making their surroundings warmer, while endothermic reactions absorb energy, cooling their surroundings. The driving force behind both these reactions is the balance between the energy state of electrons in the molecules and entropy. The requires a more nuanced understanding beyond simple quantum models like the Schrodinger equation of a hydrogen atom. Understanding the physics behind these reactions shows us the chemical reactions aren't just about molecules colliding - they're about energy transfer, obeying the laws of quantum mechanics and thermodynaics. So whether it's the crackle of a fire or the chill of an ice pack, it's all about the flow of energy, which is ultimately all about physics. See you in the next video my friend!
Yeah but what is the primary force causing all this reactions, I believe it's Hydrogen, hydrogen is the master key, and Dark energy that's another master key, hydrogen breaks down everything even the human body.
So good
This IS freshman chemistry.
You sure did hide the link to the equation!
* *_[a URL here would be seen easily Schrodinger equation]_*
0:09 Ice melting is NOT a "chemical reaction".
In order to understand correctly how different chemical elements interact with one another, you will need to look at subatomic particles which are what make up atoms to see their intrinsic natural physical properties interact when in contract.
Energy is such an ambiguous word to represent what cause atoms behave as they do because all sorts of the so ignorantly called or labelled as "energy" actually are nothing else other than different forms of forces. They are all from the interactions of intrinsic natural properties of forms of matter in the universe. The existence of the entire infinite space of the universe is nothing else other than the interreactions of forms of matters which produce natural forces and transformations of every form of matter in the universe, including humans . The existence of human species are the inherent or continuous process of interreactions of human intrinsic physical properties with other intrinsic physical properties of other forms of matter in human created subjective reality on this planet, which includes human consumption of other forms of matter, such as the vegetation and other moving and responsive forms of matter named by humans as"animals". You can move your arms and legs because your physical structure interact with other forms of matter in the process of consuming them in the internal chemical reactions, which provides your physical system chemical forms of forces , stored in your muscles, and they are converted into mechanical forms of forces to move you arms and legs. Similarly, every other form of matter exists in such chemical interactions , without which there would be no form of matter at all. Forces are produced by intrinsic physical properties of forms of matter everywhere in the universe, but human invented notion that mass can be converted back from forces is purely human ignorance. E= mc^2 is a representation of human subjective understanding, and m = E.c^2 is an expression of human extreme ignorance, being solely based on human -invented notions of mathematics, but not on the real physical universe in which no force can produce any mass like how it can happen symbolically in the notional operations in human mind. When you have fire or turn on a stove, there will be heat, heat is produced by faster moving air particles which collide more than they do in other state of the involved volume of surrounding air, and their collisions cause frictional forces which are converted into heat or higher temperatures. Similarly, in the internal system of the stove , when the electric field is on , the electromotive force from both the positive terminal by accumulated positive charge, carried by positively charged atoms which have lost their electrons in the valences, and the negative terminal by the accumulated negative charges carried by free electrons, electrons in conductor were made to move to the materials of low conductivity which cause by more random motions of free electrons in the atomic lattice structure of the conducting materials, and cause more and more electron collisions , and thus resistance to the movement of free electrons discovery high. As a result, more and more frictional forces are produced, which turn moving force (ambiguously labelled as kinetic energy) of electrons into more and more heat, which is used to cook or serve any other human purposes. Hence, heat is a representation of forces, not anything else. No force , no movement of air particle, no movement of ekectrons , and thus no collision of free electrons in the low conducing materials, no heat generated generated anywhere. No force, no speed or velocity, no movement of any form of matter, and thus no form of matter exhibits its existence through its interactions with other forms of matter anywhere in the universe
E is such a human miscomcepted notion, and always used to express forces ambiguously and ignorantly by all human scientists, while blindly fanatically applying their defective invented notions of mathematics, and being disconnected from objective reality of the physical universe
6:42 weird how everyone depicts the carbon atom bigger than the oxygen atom, even though carbon is lighter.
Carbon is bigger. Oxygen is denser due to having a stronger positive charge from the nucleus causing a contraction of its electron cloud. Typically the trend in the periodic table is atomic radius decreases from left to right.
One can consider carbon "bigger," but realistically, "size" of an atom is not really a thing at the quantum level.
@@ArvinAsh Then how does my processor have 5nm architecture? that's only 50 angstroms! Do those ~50 atoms not occupy some volume, with their 3d momentum being correlated to said volume via the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle? Wouldn't they have a probable size?
edit: grammar
Thats interesting
So everyones so fixated on co2 from fossil fuels. It seems fossil fuels product twice as much water as co2 atleast for methane. Shouldnt that cause more humidity and more rain or is it negligible
The difference is mainly that it only takes a small increase in CO2 content to make a large change in global temperature, and that CO2 sticks around a lot longer. Rain usually happens fairly quickly, although water vapor in the atmosphere is a problem, too, as it absorbs a lot of heat.
Increased CO2 in the air also forces more to be dissolved in the water and when CO2 dissolves in water it is acidic. Acidity in the oceans is pretty bad for marine life and ocean chemistry which typically requires a slightly alkaline environment.
❤
Brilliant explanation. Wish I was taught this at school.
Best of luck in your apricot business 😁
Any college-level chemistry course that doesn't teach this stuff isn't worth studying. I sincerely hope Arvin is mistaken about that part!
The concepts are discussed in undergrad chemistry classes, but they are usually discussed in terms of what to plug in and how to solve the standard thermodynamics and chemistry equations. Unless the professor (or TA) is unusually detail oriented, they typically don't get into the quantum physics aspect of chemical reactions.
Is ice melting in a soft drink chemical or physical? @0:12
I don't understand the questions but most things trying to reach equilibrium temperature. Sorry, if I missteprated the questions
Semantics. Chemical changes behave physically. Its the same. The water physically changes orientation bia chemical bond changes and physical momentum changes
it's a physical change. H2O(s)->H2O(l) the compound does not change
Phase change
Fundamentally, everything is a physical change. Chemical changes are a way of grouping/generalizing types of physical changes.
Quantum Physical - Chemistry (Linus Pauling) , Solid State Physics (quantum mechanical Metal theory ) and Low and intermediate energy Nuclear Physics (nothing more than adapted "Molecular Quantum Physics to " atomic nucleus bound state theory ) are the apotheosis and cornerstones of consolidated Quantum Physics !. Related to the foundational of Modern Chemistry on Quantum Mechanics it has simply taught in how to use Quantum Mechanics in applied settings . Surely orbitals are mere mathematical artifacts of mathematical perturbation theory for atomic and molecular Schrodinger equation for atomic and molecular Hamiltonians .But unbelievable qualitative ( The DNA and RNA structure comes from Quantum Mechanical ideas and techniques of Quantum Mechanics!) and QUANTITATIVE predictable . Or better Quantum Molecular Theory may be considered as ...OWN NON RELATIVISTIC quantum Mechanics !. But the endeavor of Quantum Chemistry may be very , very , very far to be completed !.
You rocks every time! I allways thought when would you have your own thoughts of doubts and become a scientst?
4:51 Schro-WHAT.