Why is All Life Carbon Based, Not Silicon? Three Startling Reasons!

[@OscarTheScrapper]

Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you also took their shoes.

[@DrewishAF]

Instructions unclear: arrested for robbery wearing a homeless man's tattered shoes. Currently awaiting processing and treatment for Hepatitis C and ringworm.

[@theunluckycharm9637]

​@@DrewishAFHow did the cops catch you?

[@rwarren58]

@@theunluckycharm9637 He was too busy criticizing his shoes.

[@MaloPiloto]

Truly an excellent presentation, Arvin! I had heard that C was overall the best element for life to form. Now I really know why!

[@StefBelgium]

What are you talking about??

[@prettypuff1]

Biochemist here 😊 I think most people are afraid of chemistry because of the overwhelming amount of information and poor quality explanations filled with jargon. This video illustrates this concept so well. I am so impressed by your explanation of this concept. Ive had organic chemistry students steuggle to explain this concept and this is s great resource. If we had more instructiors like you, we could get much more done.

[@ArvinAsh]

That's great to hear from an educator. Thank you for what you do!

[@prettypuff1]

@@ArvinAsh thank you for this information

[@VonJay]

I agree. If it weren’t for the love of science and stubborn curiosity I wouldn’t have done well in any of the sciences. I’ve learned to simplify what I’m learning in as few words as possible within the first few weeks of class. I challenge my idea with the teachers to confirm if the simplification has enough merit for me to follow through with the “learning” theme. Organic chemistry for instance, is just one giant recipe book or cook book. You have to wrap your head around some pretty convoluted concepts in the first few chapters, and if you do the rest of the book is just memorizing recipes. This theme worked for both orgo 1 and 2. The students that found it hard on my experience were the ones who didn’t know the stable and unstable (cations and anions) structures of carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, the halides, which is the first concept you have to wrap your head around to learn all the others. So if you don’t know that I don’t know how you’d pass without cheating.

[@tonyduncan9852]

Wait till AI gets its oar in. Comprehension and consciousness are contingent.

[@bighands69]

Chemistry like mathematics requires a good foundation to be able to take on more advanced topics and methods of analysis. The main failing in the field of mathematics at school is the lack of algebra foundation and an obsession with trying to cover far to many subjects within the field of mathematics. It would create a far better outcome if students were just focused on algebra for their duration of school.

[@powerchimp]

As a Carbon life form, I can conform that I'm truly based.

[@gabrielgabi543]

Lol

[@motherisape]

Hydrogen is still superior

[@garyvte]

hahahahahaha smartest utube comment

[@reizinhodojogo3956]

@Ggnkrsfkoqxbk bro atomically insulted someone

[@JohnAndersonLDN]

It's all about the base

[@Matthew-ut6ed]

As an informed layman with a scientific background I've often wondered about the question "why carbon?" You just explained it clearly and succinctly, thanks.

[@AlexanderSwan-f2d]

I mean isn’t it fair to say: “Because carbon is easy”? Relatively speaking

[@Matthew-ut6ed]

@@AlexanderSwan-f2d Well, yes, but that just begs the question of WHY carbon is "easy" as opposed to another element.

[@Bluebloods7]

Unfortunately, as succinct and informative as this video is, it is horribly flawed and narrow in scope, because it's attempting to drive a narrative that carbon based life forms as we know them are the only reasonable way for consciousness to be "housed," as it were. I mean, this gentleman didn't even bother to define what he or most laypersons consider to be "life" or "living organisms." If you don't bother to define "life" to begin with, you can't even make an argument about what "it" is.

[@jonaswox]

@@Matthew-ut6ed the why follows from very basic chemistry. Important to remember , carbon is very reactionary is dependant on our environment, pressure, temperature, volume ... Somewhere else it is likely to be some other element who takes center stage.

[@phil2082]

​@Bluebloods7 This video said why carbon is the easiest, but pointed out that there may be other environments where other elements would work better. It did not need to define life to define that the chemical processes required for life would more easily be able to use an element like carbon.

[@prschuster]

To recap, both C & Si have these two properties in common: * they can both form 4 bonds for making complex molecules * they are both relatively abundant on Earth. C trumps Si by being able to form stronger bonds with itself because its valence electrons are closer to the + nucleus. Thanks for the tutorial on basic chemistry based on the periodic table. This makes it clear for viewers with different backgrounds in chemistry.

[@pfcrow]

Even more important, as pointed out at the end of the video, is that carbon is plentiful in water where life began. CO2 from the atmosphere is absorbed into water. It doesn't matter how much silicon is on the planet, it matters how much is in the water. And it sure helps life to have carbon in the atmosphere for life on land. Without carbon in the atmosphere, plants wouldn't exist, and animals would have to get food from the water.

[@papaschlumpf5894]

As Preston Crow already stated, the main advantage of C over Si here on earth(!) is that C is (under the pressures and temperatures we have here) available in solid, gaseous and liquid (dissolved) form what makes metabolism easy as you can absorb, transport and discard it very comfortably. Biologist speaking ;)

[@prschuster]

@klaunfuhrer That makes a 4th important point. thanks.

[@simonmarcu01]

​@klaunführer ZAGREB imagine a planet with weird plants that absorb silicone under the light of a white star and some weird solvent :)) I want to live long enough until another lifeform gets discovered.

[@prtasanthkumar]

Why not with Si-C bond the bond strength of Si-C bonds is stronger than that of C-C bonds.

[@babyboomer9560]

My old organic chemistry teacher at Berkeley , Melvin Calvin used to go on national TV shows and talk about how other life forms based on Silicon could be on other planets . Star trek even had an episode called the Rock People. With silicon being so much heavier these silicon beings would have to be in an environment with lower gravity. BTW Calvin got a Nobel prize for discovering the path of carbon in photosynthesis.

[@yaldabaoth2]

Even nobel prize winners can be a bit silly sometimes when they want to be on tv. Why would they need lower gravity, they have silicon muscles. They don't even have to have muscles come to think of it or legs or heads or arms or anything. "They" could be single-cellular lifeforms. Sorry to tell you this but there is no silicon based life in the universe. Silicon-silicon bonds are inherently unstable when coming into contact with any of the universe's most common materials (well, except helium). It just doesn't stand a chance.

[@julioalberto2794]

@@yaldabaoth2dude, you’re fucking smart 🎉

[@roba.8907]

@@yaldabaoth2Your statement regarding no silicon-based life forms existing anywhere in the universe is not incorrect. We know silicon can form a triple helix DNA structure and they are likely conditions in other planetary systems that would actually favor silicon chemistry over carbon. One such planet might have extremely high temperatures and carbon bonding of any type breaks down under those conditions, making carbon-based life impossible. Silicon-oxygen and silicon-aluminum bonds are stable to ~ 600 K and 900 K respectively. While it’s true that silicon-based life would be less flexible and adaptable and carbon-based life is inherently more stable under most conditions, it doesn’t preclude primitive silicon-based life forms from residing on alien worlds ✌️

[@yaldabaoth2]

@@roba.8907 And what kind of metabolism would you suggest at those temperatures based on silicon? Just having Silicon oxygen bonds is worthless. That's just sand.

[@dropoutdrivez2667]

@@roba.8907look up the Arecibo message and Arecibo answer. It describes a silicon based alien life form that uses a triple helix dna structure. Crazy stuff

[@DarrenGedye]

Very good introduction. You mention that life on Titan may use liquid methane or ethane as a solvent. However just as Carbon has unique properties, water is also a special case. It can disolve more substances than any other solvent known. It is polar, has a high heat capacity and high heat of vapourisation. It also has unusual surface tension and its solid form is less dense than its liquid form. So just as carbon is the most plausible element for life, water seems to be the most plausible solvent!

[@Chris-hx3om]

The other very important property of water is that it gets less dense as it cools (down to 4C). All other liquids get more dense as they cool (It's why life can continue in 'frozen' lakes')...

[@Nevyn515]

But in areas where water, liquid or otherwise, is non-existent but there is plentiful hydrogen lakes why wouldn’t life be able to form in those lakes based on very different principles? Admittedly we probably wouldn’t recognise them as living things except by noticing movement that couldn’t be explained by other processes. Same thing for planets with methane rain and seas, why couldn’t there be life evolving that use that environment as the driving force of its development? We look for carbon life because we know it exists and how to recognise because it’s all we’ve ever known and know our environment produces life on a world with carbon-based life that evolved in liquid water oceans. What would we look like if the water we evolved in was liquid mercury or whatever instead? Would we just be silvery or more dense mercury worms feeding on nutrient-dense other mercury worms, and bottom-feeders just dissolving metallic rocks? Would it just look to other carbon life like a river of mercury where osmosis of particulates was occurring?

[@Chris-hx3om]

@@Nevyn515 Did you read my reply?

[@DarrenGedye]

@@Nevyn515 I was very careful in using the word "plausible" in my post as I did not want to rule out the *possibility* of other forms of life. However I'm not sure what you mean by "different principles". If you mean that on different planets chemistry and physics would be completely different then I would find that very difficult to believe. Take water expanding when it freezes for example. When a lake gets cold enough to start freezing the solid ice floats to the top. This creates a layer that stops the rest of the lake from contacting the cold air, and so the life in the lake is protected from freezing. *No other liquid that we know of would do this!* (Correction: no other non-metal liquid would do this). The solid form would sink to the bottom and the process would continue until the lake was frozen solid from bottom to top. There is no question that not being frozen solid is very *convenient* for earth life. But is it *essential* for all life anywhere? I really don't know. But I am very sure that no other (non-metal) liquid on any other planet would be able to perform this feat. So if being protected from freezing solid turns out to be *essential* then water is the only option. The same applies for every other unique feature of water. So I consider water based life most *plausible.*

[@Nevyn515]

Yeah I understood, but thanks for assuming I didn’t.

[@codiserville593]

Thank you for finally giving me the answer . The elimination you do around 9:30 just makes it so clear

[@neilrichardson7454]

Thank you for saving me a few minutes of viewing.😊

[@yingle6027]

There have been carbon/silicone hybrid lifeforms living in Beverly Hills for many years now. Did you not know about these?

[@ArvinAsh]

lol. I must have been living under a rock!

[@brianbeale1908]

I have seen some information on aliens that are silicone based.

[@simplysimple2622]

🤣🤣🤣

[@aldunlop4622]

Yes, but they aren’t natural life forms.

[@dorothyn.7500]

LOL! I dunno if artificial build-ins really count as hybrids, though...

[@The_Ragequit_Cannon]

It's always great when someone like you explains complex topics in such a way that basically everyone can understand

[@raven4k998]

why not silicon or sulfur who knows🤣

[@mikesamovarov4054]

Title is WRONG. We don't have a clue if ALL life is carbon based! We only know ONE planet with life and no other. Nobody from Earth knows how many life forms exist in this universe (and possibly other universes). We can't know what those life forms are made of, could be different compounds or energy, or something else we didn't discover yet. So, NO! You DON'T know what ALL life forms are made of. It's selfish and stuрid to assume we're the only one planet with life.

[@thekinarbo]

@@mikesamovarov4054 Why so butt hurt?

[@syntheticant8172]

@@mikesamovarov4054 "It's selfish and stupid" calm down please, literally no-one is going to talk to you when you try to shut down discussion like that. We have literally 0, that's right 0 reason to believe that there is life out there. There's a reason scientists don't even bother talking with people like you because you will never change your mind no matter what evidence you're shown.

[@levanane2413]

@@mikesamovarov4054 Nobody said that anywhere in the comments, nor in the title, nor in the video :l He explicitely says at the end what you just saidf. Have you actually watched it ?

[@robbierobinson8819]

As an ecologist and general biologist, my organic chemistry course has served me very well in spite of only managing a B. Had your video and others as good as it been available, I would have done better and not felt at the time that chemistry was a grind to be endured.

[@bobbylal5747]

It happens my fellow carbon bases organism. Sometimes in the face of duty we make everything seem bleak, when in reality the most simple answer is to do what you want. I truly believe what you wanted was to just explore the content and mesmerise within the knowledge, but the fear you placed in yourself made it a chore. I hope from this, and anyone reading can understand my final quote at the end, which is 'things to endure can only be things that we actually enjoy. What we don't enjoy will not be endured'. I hope that little nugget of thought sparked a curiosity or a question or an epiphany in the observer. I also want to hear your opinions guys on whether my words communicated the right thing, or whether I can articulate it better, or whether my argument can be improved overall.

[@chrisfreebairn870]

​@@bobbylal5747sorry, no; not clear, concise or captivating enough to endure .. I barely could get to the end of your short screed. Here's a hint, simpler instead of more simple; look: far farther farthest, slow slower slowest, simple simpler simples etc See how that works? Simple more simple, more simpler? Nonsense follows from the elevation of the inferior & inadequate more simple; it doesn't scale. It's so easy to think modern is best, but often it isn't. Bc your English is vague, your concept is too; language & conceptual acuity tend to cohabit - improve one & you improve the other. I hope my honesty is of value to you; more time as a student before aspiring to teach is my advice. The problem with chemistry is that too much content obscures the principles; this idea scales for all teaching. Students don't need to know it all. They need to know enough to understand the relevance of the elements of knowledge, to be inspired by the connections between them, such that they can pursue their own education. This is why elementary knowledge is foundational - reading writing & arithmetic, then physics, biology & sociology.

[@kevincaruthers5412]

You can blame Medical School. Organic chemistry is a washout course. At the time it is taught, students do NOT have the background to truly understand organic chemistry. Thus, you end up having to memorize everything without a true understanding of 'why' things work. Finish a Masters in organic chemistry or a PhD in gen chem and that undergrad organic chem course will make a lot more sense. :)

[@randymeyers3746]

😊

[@Bluebloods7]

@@kevincaruthers5412 Seriously? Org chem is laughably simplistic in nature. I've found throughout the decades that those who found it to be difficult were those who bought into the narrative that it was difficult to begin with, and created their own self-fulfilling prophecy of its perceived difficulty, instead of just paying attention to the material and learning the "why" alongside the "how."

[@johnfrompeconiccounty4274]

Wow, that was an awesome, super clear, explanation of carbon based life. So much fun to learn when explained so clearly.

[@ArvinAsh]

Thank you. Glad it was helpful.

[@prayerjoseph9776]

@@ArvinAsh The real question is; why do they have the right number of protons to have the right number of electrons to fill their shell fully?

[@gracemember101]

Secular science may describe "what" happened. But they cannot explain the "why" it happened.

[@capitalistball2924]

@@gracemember101 There is no need for a "why".

[@CandideSchmyles]

​@@capitalistball2924There may be "no need" but there is a simple answer to "why ?". Because it could.

[@cihanbuyukbas7333]

Arvin just wanted to say thanks for all the videos you do. You are one of the best at explaining things in a way that makes it easier to digest. Im sure a lot of people who watch your videos agree with my sentiments. Your content is much appreciated.

[@ArvinAsh]

I appreciate that! Glad you like them.

[@cihanbuyukbas7333]

@@ArvinAsh Thank you. Keep doing what you're doing and best of luck. I hope a lot more people become aware of this channel and its content. It truly is one of the best out there.

[@AfricanLionBat]

​@@ArvinAsh I always wondered this question and here's the answer, thank you. I was wondering if you were considering updating the quantum eraser video. Sabine's video actually made me more thrown off.

[@bgreen6]

Yes! I always to come this guys page if I need help understanding a concept

[@anthonycarbone3826]

I think what makes Arvin so good at explaining is the preparation in making the graphic presentations along with putting it all together into a concise package. Pure genius and tons of hard tedious and meticulous work to make what is extremely hard look easy.

[@4ndr3c3s4r1n0]

The existence of carbon-based lifeforms implies the existence of the carbon-cringe lifeforms.

[@ArvinAsh]

I can think of many politicians that would fit that latter life form description!

[@damonedrington3453]

That’s just redditors

[@geraldserra]

😂😂😂😂😂

[@trappy1724]

You remind me of my chemistry teacher in your ability to make things easily understandable dispite the complexity! The knowledge you're sharing and effort you put in to this is very much appreciated 😊

[@ArvinAsh]

Many thanks my friend!

[@haroldnecmann7040]

Chemistry teacher?

[@naturebeauty.327]

I wish he could become my chemistry teacher .If he becomes I will always get A+

[@AshrafTheStubborn]

I never did physics in school but I've always been curious about pretty much everything and you literally answered so many questions in the most comprehensive fashion just like you said you would... wow 😅

[@ArvinAsh]

Oh lord, I seem to have touched a nerve with the militant wing of the mycologists of the world! Yes, that red mushroom I showed at 0:10 is only MILDLY poisonous, not the MOST poisonous. This variety, known as Amanita muscaria is more hallucinogenic than poisonous. The internet mycologists are absolutely right to point out this grave mistake. I will be turning myself in to the Mycology police immediately, and will ask to be force-fed these "poisonous" Amanita as punishment!

[@siguardvolsung]

May you rot in hell for offending marginalized mushrooms and mycologists named Karen everywhere.

[@bas7905]

What a funny way to react when you make a mistake! You should go in to comedy!

[@Juncboks]

I'm glad you made a post. Was just about to mention... 😂

[@KrystofDreamJourney]

Ha, ha ! Love your self-correction on a “mistake” that only few of us can detect 😅 (NOT everybody is into mycology 😊).

[@nankerphelge3771]

I wasn't going to nitpick but... the title of this video is very misleading. It infers that there are three reasons why silicon-based life is not feasible. However, your explanation states that of the three reasons why we are carbon based: complexity, availability, and stability. Only the last, stability, is a strike against silicon-based life forms.

[@ram3422]

Can't thank enough to make it so simple, decomposed and easy to digest bits-by-bits. Simply put, you are one of our Carbon bondings on which we build our learning foundation. So thank you from the bottom of heart, Arvin. God bless you more abundantly!!

[@trueindian887]

I am 55 year old.I was introduced to organic chemistry when I was 18 years old But only today ,I could understand the importance of the elements in each column of periodic table.Thanks a lot.

[@mgames3209]

We were introduced when we were 12

[@mgames3209]

@A.m.a.r.a ⟵(o_O) I misclicked, meant 13

[@chrisfreebairn870]

Introduced at 12, sure, but did you understand the relevance? Fundamental problem of education - what to teach, when & how.

[@sierbig]

​@a.m.a.r.a_PSin Brazil it's 13/14 on private schools and 15 on public schools.

[@tamaz88]

Life isn’t carbon based, but carbon life is truly based

[@Narvalo_Lastar]

I normally am fascinated by all kinds of science but my teacher makes physics and chemistry the most painful chores I've had to go through in my life, but THIS video is so incredible I can't describe how much I love it. Thank you so much for your explanation

[@lunam7249]

yep buddy, shit teachers are a curse on the world...why dont you tell your teacher you can watch some youtube vids while he can leave the room and smoke a bowl somewhere...😂😂😂

[@connergalles7106]

My chemistry class was fun to learn. I did earth science and that's my favorite class ever but they got rid of it and made people do physics after our year.

[@mikesamovarov4054]

Title is WRONG. We don't have a clue if ALL life is carbon based! We only know ONE planet with life and no other. Nobody from Earth knows how many life forms exist in this universe (and possibly other universes). We can't know what those life forms are made of, could be different compounds or energy, or something else we didn't discover yet. So, NO! You DON'T know what ALL life forms are made of. It's selfish and stuрid to assume we're the only one planet with life.

[@Narvalo_Lastar]

@@mikesamovarov4054 I don't think this is the point of this video, it id probably meant to show carbon's properties but it's true that the title is misleading

[@digitalnomad9985]

@@mikesamovarov4054 "selfish" It is difficult to see how belief in carbon's biological exclusivity confers an unfair advantage on us. (And unfair to whom?) Perhaps you mean "self-absorbed", but it is really pointless to spend the time and concern we should spend mastering what we do know spinning our mental wheels about what we don't know. Adding "as far as we know" to every generalization would be idiotic and pointless, it is implied by the nature of scholarship, unless otherwise specified. And he didn't assume we are the only planet with life, HE BROUGHT UP THE SUBJECT HIMSELF, properly, as a afterthought and a qualification of the legitimate generalization. How much trivial information (or more properly speculation, because we're talking about information that nobody available knows) do you expect to include in a title?

[@kirkwagner461]

Thanks for this. In particular, the part about silicon's outer shell being further away from its nucleus, thus making its bonds less stable than carbons bonds.

[@RM-pr4cw]

My pre med major was honors biochemistry, and I never had a professor as good as Arvin!

[@ArvinAsh]

That's very high praise. I appreciate that, though I'm not worthy.

[@RM-pr4cw]

@@ArvinAsh yes, you definitely are!

[@jewulo]

@@ArvinAsh I beg to differ. Please sir. No need for the modesty. We all subscribe for your brilliance. We are all grateful.

[@anthonyhernandez3546]

I'm literally starting my undergrad in Biochemistry this summer! I'm so excited and one day hope to work in the field of neurochemistry. These videos have been flooding my timeline lately, and I cant stop watching them!

[@puttigandhireddy]

​@@ArvinAsh Being humble and down to earth is traits of noble men like you

[@cantileveredapotheosis]

One of the conversations I've gotten into with some of my friends about the possibility of silicon-based life, Is the temperature issue. Because of the way silicon bonds are formed, you need much higher temperatures on average to make silicon life functional. I can't remember the exact range, but it's something like 200 degrees Celsius is about right for silicon life. This brings us into some interesting statistical problems. Because of the way heat transfer is bound by inverse square... This shrinks the habitable zone for silicon-based life to a smaller area around the average size stars compared to Earth's general life requirements. I don't remember all the specifics. This was a conversation I've had many years ago, but I always found that fascinating thought. Oh, I think another issue was since Silicon Life required so much heat in order to function, it sort of meant all the other chemistry we're used to gets thrown out because the planet must be extremely hot. Everything decomposes at that temperatures.

[@Lizzybaby30500]

Carbon is the only one that can form 4 way bonds and make complex life. Silicon life could never be like us. It would be like blobs its just not possible. Carbon is abundant in the universe so any life out there would be similar to life on earth.. whether it's at the microbe stage or like us now and animals

[@cantileveredapotheosis]

@@Lizzybaby30500 Si and Ge can make 4-way bonds, but there's just not enough compounds that are available. The reason seems to go on and on, but Si and Ge are larger atoms which will change molecular geometry. (I wonder if this affect chirality) Electronegativity is different, which will affect bonds. I think carbon allows for pi bonds and ge/si 's pi bonds are weaker. I wasn't clear in my first comment, but I really feel that Life is probably inherently carbon based, I leave it in the realm of "scientifically possible", just highly improbable that something like Si based life could exist, and like Lizzy said, I doubt it would ever be complex due to just so many issues.

[@toruno7710]

I know pretty much nothing about chemistry and physics and this was cristal. The breakdown into the 3 main points, the examples and illustrations. Top tier vulgarisation.

[@mjgII]

believe the term you're looking for is articulation

[@toruno7710]

@@mjgII i don't think vulgarisation is written with a s tho. Fixed that

[@vutranoannguyen885]

This is the best explain video about chemistry that i have ever seen in my life, just makes me think school is too boring. Thanks Arvin!

[@Badbentham]

Maybe roughly half a year of Chemistry school knowledge, comprised to less than 15 minutes, - and highly digestible. ;)

[@tonyduncan9852]

"Explanatory" was the word you searched for . . . it's a pity you were bored that much . . . perhaps it was your attitude at that time.

[@nielsvanhoudt6151]

Nah im in highschool and ive learned all things applied here.​@@Badbentham

[@professorchimp1]

What I absolutely love about this channel is that I will have a question about physics or other science and then Arvin will upload the exact answer with awesome visuals almost right after I thought of it

[@elisolomon8741]

I listened to this clip while sweeping my garden. Even without seeing the graphics, I was able to follow and understand the facts put forward. It is a credit to your ability to impart your knowledge to others. I'll now play it a second time, and this time also watch. So I can enjoy the concepts now firmly squared away. Thank you, professor.

[@bunnybreaker]

I'm so glad you mentioned the possibility of non-carbon based life forms. You also beautifully explained why we haven't seen it though. Amazing as always.

[@the_expidition427]

This is important as not all things are able to be explained away by logic

[@HamguyBacon]

earth had Silicon based life around 20,000 years ago, they were destroyed.

[@mikesamovarov4054]

Title is WRONG. We don't have a clue if ALL life is carbon based! We only know ONE planet with life and no other. Nobody from Earth knows how many life forms exist in this universe (and possibly other universes). We can't know what those life forms are made of, could be different compounds or energy, or something else we didn't discover yet. So, NO! You DON'T know what ALL life forms are made of. It's selfish and stuрid to assume we're the only one planet with life.

[@capt5656]

@@mikesamovarov4054 you obviously didn't watch the video

[@josephjohnson6849]

​@Mike Samovarov yea like sapient and replicating AI, ghosts, silicon or phosphorus based life, life that feeds in electricity, etc

[@jamesfarrell8339]

There is nobody better than Arvin explaining complex subject matter It is a gift Thank you for putting in all the hard work so that regular people can understand subjects that only universities students would learn Have a wonderful day today

[@SenioRpomIddor]

University students? I was taught all this in 6 grade of ordinary soviet school. What happened to the world..

[@enriquemartinez7453]

Sh callese

[@protoword10]

I know this for long time since chemistry in my vocational high school! But, very interesting: My teacher didn’t explained this not even close as Arvin did! He’s one of amazing and persuasive teachers I ever know!

[@JohnDuzzi]

I am a retired nurse. I took chemistry and biology courses in college. I did well in them because I thought they were interesting. But they were very difficult. 40 years later I’m discovering all the wonderful information available on line that makes learning so much easier and enjoyable. I’m taking advantage of as much as possible.

[@jacecha2210]

Arvin, thank you so much for these videos- you’re answering questions that younger version of me asked others and forgot about! I appreciate your explanations and animations, it’s such a treat to watch. I hope you’re doing well, take care brother!

[@mikesamovarov4054]

Title is WRONG. We don't have a clue if ALL life is carbon based! We only know ONE planet with life and no other. Nobody from Earth knows how many life forms exist in this universe (and possibly other universes). We can't know what those life forms are made of, could be different compounds or energy, or something else we didn't discover yet. So, NO! You DON'T know what ALL life forms are made of. It's selfish and stuрid to assume we're the only one planet with life.

[@jacecha2210]

@@mikesamovarov4054 it’s the only life we know of? Contextually speaking, he never said we’re the only planet with life

[@Ludra64]

This video explained chemistry better to me than school ever could. I finally understand 😭

[@self-proclaimedanimator]

Cringe +unfunny Hating school is not cool anymore Grow up

[@BoogiePraisingTheGoodLord]

​@@self-proclaimedanimator The fellow is clearly stating that he has learnt something and is not trying to be funny, as I thought was apparent. Clearly there are less perceptive and well mannered individuals than I.

[@ezekielnow425]

Because school's priority is indoctrination.

[@stefanomartinelli7344]

​@@BoogiePraisingTheGoodLord There are a lot of people in recent times that like to dog pile on hating Scholl, like me the other guy dislikes that. Apparently they hate scholl becouse they understood a concept Better in a video. Becouse a 10 minute video (not this One specifically) meant as entratainment surely has all the necessary information to explain something, and Scholl Is clearly failing with multiple hours. As some of them would Say, "Scholl bad LUL". Teachers are also clearly egomaniac control freaks because some of them behave poorly once and get caught on camera. Is not like the concept Is harder in Scholl becouse there Is a lot more information and discourse meant to prove something, giving background concepts, and because you have to memorize things to pass an exam as to earn certifications so that you can work. Totally not. Surely those Who study for their job as teachers are incompetent Power hungry brain washing assholes. Logic. Some guys with this opinion often do know partial points to an argument, which are correct, but the Moment they are asked some specifics fails spectacularly. Is not like most videos are doing a schematized version of the concept (often present in scholl's books) that the people seeing the videos have already studied in Scholl and so It sounds more understandable, with way less information to confirm what the video says, and so It result simpler than when they studied It. I hate scholl haters. They are illogical and pretend so much from teachers, they call necessary decisions to have a functioning society as dumb or brainwashing becouse Scholl frustated them. Sorry for the Wall text.

[@Ludra64]

@@BoogiePraisingTheGoodLord Thank you. At least someone gets it.

[@Hossak]

Fantastic video again! Interesting that PBS space time also did a series on this - both are brilliant. I have done high school and university chemistry and this has been the most beautiful presentation and distillation of reasons why carbon is the backbone I have ever seen. Bravo!!!!

[@jhonatanfelipeferrileite7521]

I never understood so well the connections between atoms as you made me understand today! The diagram you used and your explanation was so clear! Thank you so much!

[@GururajBN]

You have been a Guru to me in this video. As a person with no in-depth education in science, I knew very little about the basis of organic chemistry, though I have often wondered about Carbon being the foundational element in organic chemistry. Your explanation based on Quantum Mechanics has been very illuminating. Many thanks.

[@argh100100]

Love your videos. I have a background in science/engineering, but there are so many interesting realizations about physics and everyday life I have never wondered about. You do an excellent job at finding interesting subjects and explaining them in a simple and exciting manner.

[@ididyermom3273]

Ya know I had 2 years of Chemistry in High School and a year of it in College and NO ONE explained it better than you just did in 14 minutes! Wow!! Mind-plosion!!

[@ejc636]

As a physics teacher. This explanation of this question is simple to follow. Thank you so much . My understanding of chemistry has been enriched

[@viiiivivii306]

I feel like I learned more form this video than from a whole year organic chemistry classes in high school! I only passed that class due to good behavior and always trying really hard, but I never learned anything significant. Thank you so much for this great video! Greeting from Argentina

[@realdragon]

Then maybe you should learn

[@ellemarr7234]

@@realdragon You should learn how to socialize first

[@Fenderstratosphere98]

Kiss up comment

[@jonharrison3114]

Maybe it’s cause you were really interested in this and chose to watch this video and not forced to learn thing day in and day out

[@davidhess6593]

You took organic chemistry classes in HIGH SCHOOL???

[@maesmattias]

To me, no one can explain (complex) physics better than Arvin Ash. He explains it in the way I like to reason. Thanks, Arvin. 🙂

[@crazyjay5822]

I have been out of high school now officially for 13 years and not even halfway through this video this is helping re-simplify old knowledge and make me understand it better. Where was this guy when I needed a chemistry teacher? I almost picked up a notepad and started taking notes. Idea for merch store if you have one. "You can't build a castle if you don't have enough Lego bricks" You should frame that and put that in your office.

[@ivankrushensky]

This video should be shown to high school students- to give them a basic crash course of chemistry while also highlighting the importance of learning it

[@eyeofthetiger7]

One of the best teachers in the world!!! Thank you for making your fantastic educational videos!

[@mlv3999]

I once asked this very question to one of my Organic Chemistry professors: “could you substitute any and all carbon with silicon?” Their answer was: “probably, but I think you’ll find more similarities between Phosphorous and carbon.”

[@anuskakeshri5344]

applied diagonal relationship i guess

[@kabirraval1316]

@@anuskakeshri5344 Carbon and Phosphorus do not exhibit a diagonal connection.

[@anuskakeshri5344]

@@kabirraval1316 well we know that maybe he didn't

[@Anonymous-df8it]

???

[@josephjohnson6849]

Could life be phosphorus based?

[@shankarh6915]

Thank you for these wonderful videos! I have hated chemistry (especially inorganic) all through my school years as I could not get a feel for the underlying structure, as I could for physics and math. Suddenly, with your videos, I think I can fill those gaps to orient myself better. What a fantastic story teller you are!

[@edgarLV]

It's amaizing that I just understood chemistry by one video that my teacher fail to do. Before that it was just adding numbers and follow the path that you have learned in your head without understanding why.

[@robertfeldman2417]

I learned a great deal too. Teachers have a different sort of job these days. Videos explain better and computers mark and assess better

[@KrystofDreamJourney]

I agree - a great way of explaining “obvious”, especially for a musician like myself, ha, ha ! 😅

[@ramachandran8666]

You have presented a very cogent case for why "Carbon" is the central element of life as we know it. One of my favorite Elements in the entire periodic table. As a Ph.D., material scientist, had a special affinity for Carbon even from high school although I had very little knowledge of physics and mechanistic details. It was in college I just fell in love with chemistry once I was exposed to atomic physics, bonding theories and mechanistic principles of reactivity, etc. Graduate school for advanced learning was just the icing on the STEM-cake.

[@yawn9327]

What's the element you have the less affinity towards ?

[@w01dnick]

I'll add, that it's not only self bond is important but ratio of bonding to other elements to self bonding. For silicon bonding to oxygen much higher then self bonding that leads to more probable scenario of silicon locked in some "simple" forms than "complex".

[@ArvinAsh]

Indeed. Great comment!

[@sheikhs7563]

Yes, great point. Silicon based life forms won’t have the complexity/strength as carbon based and can’t form, for example, tall structures. Instead they could be life forms similar to snakes/worms

[@SerunaXI]

Well, there's a sci-fi idea. A random planet where lead based life evolved.

[@ArvinAsh]

Hard to imagine, since there would not be a wide variety of complex chemistry.

[@Pinak1264]

As a Rock Human, I'm offended by this video

[@internet-works1992]

is THAT A JOJO REFERENCE????

[@rickysanowara8254]

You are plausible Because 1. Silicate minerals are abundant 2. Silicon has 4 valent electrons 3. Silicon is stable

[@Yagami_9000Editz]

EVERYWHERE IS F****IN JOJO!!!!

[@cnaizhen]

​@@rickysanowara8254but (3) he is not that stable. His bond is weak af :p

[@rickysanowara8254]

@@cnaizhen so don't go breaking his heart, he's a delicate person

[@Dreamscape195]

As someone who never enjoyed general chemistry classes at all (like, I cried because of Chem classes lol), Orgo is actually quite fun and a lot of the concepts are pretty intuitive imo - my professor says people who are into art tend to ‘get’ Orgo

[@t13fox67]

This explains alot to me on stability of molecules etc. The video is well laid out. It really helped me grasp some of the points I couldn't understand in chemistry class years back. Thank you so much. Excellent.

[@ryryhc]

As someone who studies biochemistry in college i take carbon for granted because its literally in everything i do. Every concept, every problem, pretty much every course i deal with carbon. I just forget how amazing it really is because of howoften i see it

[@Larry000]

Your great videos keep getting better, Arvin! I often wondered that about Carbon. Nicely summarized at 9:29.

[@bwhog]

Seems to me that another factor in stability is the propensity of an atom to form double and triple bonds, which I think would come from the fact that this would mean that the overall size of the subsequent molecule is smaller. Acetylene (C2H2) is probably the best example of this, four atoms in a straight line, about as close together as you can get.

[@MickHealey]

This is a really superb video. I'm not a chemist or physicist, so have often wondered why we are, to quote Star Trek "carbon based units". Thanks to your clear explanations and graphics, it is now obvious. One of my long standing mysteries solved in 14 minutes. Thank you.

[@tonyduncan9852]

Nothing's _that_ obvious in science right now. There is still _the_ fundamental mystery . . . which means _everything_ REMAINS a mystery.

[@katdat1399]

A not often thought of question,, explained in a simple and easy to understand way for people with little scientific knowledge. Thank you for the excellent video 😊

[@conradgarcia6874]

Thank you. Your channel has helped me a lot through the years when it comes to my own research. This video shows how chemical elements behave like a language system same as any type of system in the world.

[@Rationalific]

You explain things that most other science educators don't. And compared to those who do, you explain it in a much more understandable way. I'm blown away by nearly every video you make, and this particular video is a case in point regarding how great of an educator you are!

[@ArvinAsh]

thank you, much appreciated!

[@Rationalific]

@@ArvinAsh 👍

[@JavenarchX]

As a biologist... This was very informative and filled in some gaps. Thankyou

[@cyrion7819]

9:57 You can make crazy and fairly stable N-backboned molecules. But also here the activation energy (combustion of ammonia: 220 kJ/mol, combustion of Methane: 2648 kJ/mol) is the crucial point, that carbon is preferred by nature. [I just used google to get the values and used the first hit. I think, the values may be not exact, but they refer relatively well to reality.] Also: Nitrogen has a very crucial disadvantage: the free electron pair. At the one hand, it can lead to a higher reactivity, at the other hand, it is more difficult to fix structures, because of the high flexibility of the free electron pair. The in contrast to any atom the free electron pair can change the "side" on the atom, where it is located.

[@shahjahonsaidmurodov]

Ntrogen is also highly electronegative, maybe that has something to do with this too?

[@anastrbenac3328]

Great explanation! You managed to deliver a complex topic in such a "common user friendly" way! Thank you for that.

[@afrogufo772]

I've learnt more in 15 minutes than in 5 years of chemistry in a scientific liceum. Thanks and bravo.

[@realdragon]

I've learned less than in 1 lecture of particle physics

[@jm131719]

Finally a clear and coherent explanation of something I;ve always wondered about. Thank you. Oh, and the Horta says to say hello...

[@edcunion]

Mama Horta just protecting its silica egg brood!

[@ArvinAsh]

Ha, the original Star Trek. Nothing like it.

[@brianperkins4155]

The first explanation of organic chemistry- life, I have come across in years of study. But please remember that for an explanation to be understandable the speed of delivery of the explanation depends to a great extent on the pre-existing level of understanding of the subject matter. By the way, the assumption that life chose carbon logically, as it’s building block, couldn’t be more wrong. Life per se doesn’t operate logically. It only seems to when we apply logic retrospectively

[@fancyfish9162]

Basically the reason silicon life forms aren’t abundant on the earth is because we don’t have oceans of ammonia, which is silicons equivalent to water for carbon life forms

[@VenkatramBachoti]

Thank you Arvin for the wonderful video and presentation on a lucid manner. I have taken for granted, carbon as the basis of life forms. I now know the 'why ' behind it. The possibility of silicon or even lead based life forms itself sounds so fascinating. The video is aesthetically and content wise superb.

[@kimberlyperrotis8962]

I took organic chemistry at university. It turned out to be one of the most useful for my career as an environmental geologist. I got an A, BTW.

[@yvonnesmith6152]

You’d think it’s a pre-req

[@pberPSR]

heres a cookie. get a blog.

[@suz1453]

An A? Sounds like a primary school grade! I don't believe you! Surely uni students get a score ? We do in Australia

[@Testy-mz2oz]

I'm proud of you. Congratulations for getting an A. You did so much better than others , while they were wasting their time , you worked hard & worked harder. I am proud of you even though I will never ever know you.

[@davidhess6593]

You're lucky. I got the highest score in my class (83), and the b*stard only gave me a B. The swine!

[@manthanbhende]

8:36 STRUCTURE IUPAC NAMING IS WRONG IT SHOULD BE:- 2,2,5,5-TETRAMETHYLHEXANE

[@danilolabbate]

I've been struggling with this question, "why only carbon and not the other four bond elements". This video has addressed it perfectly!

[@stephanieparker1250]

I love your videos, Arvin, you’re a fantastic teacher! 🎉

[@ArvinAsh]

Thanks for that. I appreciate it!

[@Optimistic_Nihilisttt]

You are one of my favourite educators on KZbin ❤❤

[@moritzheintze7615]

1:31 - The answer boils down to essentially *two* things: Only the elements in the second period can form double (and triple) bonds, because they lack energetically nearby d-orbitals. And of those, only carbon can bond with itself in a huge variety of manners because of the 4 electrons in the outer shell.

[@wayneyadams]

It's more complex than that. The outer shell (valence shell) is made of a spherical orbital called the s oribital, lying below a set of three lobed p orbitals. Two electrons form the lower energy s orbital while the other two electrons form two p orbitals of one electron each. However, the electrons are able to rearrange to form four lobes of one electron each which we call sp3 hybrid orbitals. The four orbitals form a tetrahedon because that is the geometry that gives the greatest separation. Here is a link to a drawing that shows the orbitals. opentextbc.ca/introductorychemistry/wp-content/uploads/sites/17/2014/06/1000px-AE4h-jak-edit.png

[@ravenragnar]

Good video. Carbon and silicon are both members of the same group in the periodic table, known as the "carbon group." Both have the ability to form four covalent bonds and can therefore potentially create complex organic molecules. However, carbon-based life is ubiquitous on Earth, while silicon-based life has never been observed. One reason for this is that carbon has a unique ability to form a wide variety of stable and complex molecules, including the backbone of all life on Earth, DNA. Carbon can form double and triple bonds, which can create structural rigidity, and can also bond with other elements, such as oxygen, nitrogen, and sulfur, to form a wide variety of functional groups. Silicon, on the other hand, is less versatile in its bonding, as it tends to form longer and less stable bonds than carbon. Silicon-based molecules are also less likely to form double or triple bonds, making them less structurally diverse. Additionally, the biochemistry of silicon-based life would require conditions that are very different from those found on Earth, as silicon requires high temperatures and pressures to form stable compounds.

[@Edruezzi]

Shouldn't the silicon nucleus produce a greater shielding effect that means that the silicon atoms can't have as many stable electrons?

[@ExtantFrodo2]

*"silicon requires high temperatures and pressures to form stable compounds."* Say hello to the magma critters.

[@Edruezzi]

@@ExtantFrodo2 Like I said, any unsolicited reply will elicit the blocking of the commentator.

[@Edruezzi]

@@ExtantFrodo2 X

[@ExtantFrodo2]

@@Edruezzi I wasn't talking to you. Block yourself bozo.

[@alphalunamare]

I never understood chemistry in school but I understood this video. I am both amazed and stunned ... what a Joy ... thank you! :-)

[@pangeaproxima9446]

ok, ok...now we all know.

[@alphalunamare]

@@pangeaproxima9446 am I being too effusive?

[@КрекоКрекић]

This video is amazing! Such a hard theme, but very simple explanation to understand. Greetings from Serbia!😁

[@JayTee2985]

I did Nutrition and Food Sciences in my undergrad and had to take biochemistry and organic chemistry classes. I still vividly remembered hours and hours I devoted to study my class notes to grasp the concepts.

[@BeyondBeliefBelle]

This was great! I'm a cell biologist and it's so good to be reminded of the chemistry essentials. Very well done!

[@raven4k998]

Dare you to make a silicon based life form just to see if it can be done

[@unknownunknow2506]

No your not!

[@BeyondBeliefBelle]

@@unknownunknow2506 insecure scum. Lol

[@mikesamovarov4054]

Title is WRONG. We don't have a clue if ALL life is carbon based! We only know ONE planet with life and no other. Nobody from Earth knows how many life forms exist in this universe (and possibly other universes). We can't know what those life forms are made of, could be different compounds or energy, or something else we didn't discover yet. So, NO! You DON'T know what ALL life forms are made of. It's selfish and stuрid to assume we're the only one planet with life. This video is childish at best.

[@punditgi]

Amazing channel with fantastic information. Keep up your fine work! ❤😊

[@iamme3134]

Ok But the questions are... Can nature make something as complex as this? Can a laptop or a car be made by nature? Can nature protect itself from humans, or do we have to obey climate change laws and regulations? Of course no. Didn't you look at or read about things and structures that are deep inside our bodies, like proteins or organisms, that never make any mistakes, like ribosomes or the complexity of DNA and RNA. Only Allah can make those complex systems without any mistakes. I advise you to read more about Islam and who Allah is.

[@kirand5528]

Great video. I loved organic chemistry in high school because of its deep elegance as compared to inorganic chemistry.

[@loisrossi841]

Topic for the next cocktail party… Thank you, very interesting even though I didn’t grasp all of it.

[@pickleballer1729]

Great explanation! I always thought that the reason Silicon didn't form life was that most of its compounds are solids, and therefore useless as solvents. But I suppose in much colder environments, that may not be the case.

[@pickleballer1729]

@@dooomwake8759 Sounds interesting. What is your evidence for silicon based life, or is that just _your_ personal narrative?

[@clawmango7824]

Cheese?

[@TumbleweedMK4]

Wow you explained this in a way that was easy to understand. Thanks!

[@00bikeboy]

Clear, brief, simple, and human explanation. 10/10.

[@takashitamagawa5881]

Excellent video explaining how unique carbon is in atomic chemistry, and why there is a division in the field between the disciplines of "organic chemistry" and "inorganic chemistry". One doesn't need to go far to see the effects of the different bond strengths between carbon and silicon. CH4, methane, is flammable, and will certainly react with oxygen given an ignition source. On the other hand silane, SiH4, the silicon equivalent of methane, is pyrophoric and spontaneously ignites upon combination with oxygen. I've personally witnessed that reality!

[@fredsalter1915]

This video is insanely informative! Thanks for making it, good sir!

[@mikesamovarov4054]

Title is WRONG. We don't have a clue if ALL life is carbon based! We only know ONE planet with life and no other. Nobody from Earth knows how many life forms exist in this universe (and possibly other universes). We can't know what those life forms are made of, could be different compounds or energy, or something else we didn't discover yet. So, NO! You DON'T know what ALL life forms are made of. It's selfish and stuрid to assume we're the only one planet with life. This video is childish at best.

[@kaushalissocial]

Wow Arvin, I have been thinking about this question for quite a few years. You have made the first attempt in answering it in a way that is easy to digest. Brilliant!!

[@ThinAirElon]

Thank you for your videos .... I hated chemistry and periodic table. Now its completely making sense

[@tonyduncan9852]

I doubt whether it's "completely". Or maybe you haven't got to quantum mechanics yet, maybe . . . 😎

[@ThinAirElon]

@@tonyduncan9852 yes even quantum scientiests can't understand why something pops up in nucleus out of no where any way youtubers will help me out rest assured !

[@radar536]

You are an amazing teacher. All the best!

[@jerrypalacio685]

Well explained and wonderful visuals.

[@The21stGamer]

JoJo's Bizarre Adventure gets into the idea of silicon based life, particularly in its 8th season. A lot of villains in that season are lifeforms that are visibly similar to carbon-based ones, but have biological differences (such as turning to dust upon death) due to being comprised of silicon.

[@Wavpro]

I was looking for this the moment I saw this video 💀 Though JoJo's way of dealing with silicon life is quite fictional

[@mariocesarsousa]

I am improving my knowledge of science watching your videos. I am very grateful to your effort in promoting your knowledge Sir. ❤❤❤

[@mpperfidy]

Thank you for the highly digestible refresher on such an interesting aspect of chemistry.

[@samdisha]

Great explanation. Though, I was wondering, the group V, VI and VII.. i.e Nitrogen, oxygen and halogen families can form 5,6,7 bond respectively.. like N, O, F are the exceptions (N form 3 bonds, O forms 2 and F forms 1).. but the rest elements following them down the group, can make more bonds. But, ofc they wouldn't have been able to check ☑ the stability criterion. However, I recommend, the video must edit n give accurate info about other elements of the same group making more bonds. That would keep people away from any misunderstanding of the concept. Thanks!

[@mikchrungBLADES]

Hey Arvin, could you do a video on the ultimate fate of the universe after it attain thermal equilibrium.

[@ArvinAsh]

Nice topic! I will add that to my list.

[@stephanieparker1250]

Personally, I like the CCC model.. 🎉

[@mikchrungBLADES]

@@stephanieparker1250 yup,that's a great subject too.

[@ExistenceUniversity]

​@@stephanieparker1250 You mean you like the correct model? Lol🎉

[@stephanieparker1250]

@@ExistenceUniversity 🤗🤗✨

[@pochuyma9530]

Wow!😮 He makes science so simple!👍

[@kevinsayes]

Thanks Arvin! I work in olefins (hydrocarbons), and I don’t think a lot of folks know how much even just hydrogen and carbon make up a lot of the things around them, man made or natural. Think plastics

[@ArvinAsh]

Absolutely. Most people probably don't know where fossil fuels come from. And how much of its by-products are all around us.

[@shaba1982]

Two more important reasons. 1.) Size: Carbon is definitely smaller than Silicon, its bond sizes, orbitals are smaller also and that effects not only the stability of their bonds, but determines the possible combinations of bonds they can create with different other elements (without critical strains), and somewhat maximizes the size of different particles which can even contact, and react as well. Complexity, and stability are mostly effected by the shear size. 2.) Hydrogen: Carbon and Hydrogen are together the salt and pepper. Hydrogen is so close to Carbon from an electronegativity perspective their bonds are almost equal but in the same time they can be super-easily polarized and that interactions, the inductive or the mesomer effects leads to a lot of things. From easy reaction starts, through the different results from the exact same start just with slightly different conditions, till the stabilization of some intermediates, products, or systems. Many possible combinations, most of the carbon based complexity is the "product" of the "co-working" of these two elements, and thats a thing only these exact two elements can achieve together.