Chemical Bonds

[@rmwaller]

Yotube vids like this helped me study for the GAMSAT, and I'm 35. Even as the brain 'ages', products like this make learning easier. Brilliant.

[@cassiopeiaproject]

However, it takes 787 kilojoules per mole to break the Na-Cl bond in sodium chloride while a carbon-carbon covalent bond requires something on the order of 154 kilojoules per mole. As a rule of thumb, the more a bond is like an electrostatic attraction between unlike charges, the more energy it takes to disrupt. Thus the assertion that ionic bonds are stronger than covalent.

[@SudipBhattacharyya]

One of the best videos on chemical bonds. Fantastic ;-)))

[@Pedwily]

Very educational and interesting! Great work whoever made this :)

[@sarahgutierrez5628]

Wow I really like this video it explains it so well in an interesting and realistic way. Thank you so much this is going to help me in my BioChem class.

[@cassiopeiaproject]

Disrupting the bonds in something like table salt takes a lot of energy. Disrupting the bonds in a sugar molecule will take considerably less energy.

[@brianequinto]

nice! what a great explanation with an incredible presentation.

[@SodyP0p]

There is one problem in this otherwise wonderful video. Ionic bonds are weaker than covalent bonds. The reason sugar melts at a lower temperature than salt is that salt's ionic bonds act to hold the entire solid together. Sugar's covalent bonds only act within the sugar molecule. The dipole-dipole forces and London dispersion (sometimes called Van der Waal's) forces between sugar molecules are weaker than ionic bonds. Look at diamond for an example of how strong covalent bonds are.

[@cassiopeiaproject]

We agree with you in principle. Chemical bonds of "different types" actually form a range of strengths and there is no really clear delineation between the types. In our effort to simplify the concepts we may have painted too sharp a difference. Comparing Ionic and Covalent bonds in general terms can fall apart when you start to look at specifics.

[@cassiopeiaproject]

The modern view is that electrons trapped in atoms take the form of an electron shell. These shells or orbitals can have a variety of shapes depending on their quantum numbers. The older picture of electrons in atoms traveling in circular orbits around the nucleus is false.

[@donaldcoe7322]

This was said before -- but there is an issue with covalent vs ionic bonds in the video. When sugar melts, you are NOT breaking covalent bonds. Instead, you are breaking other forces between the molecules, called London or Dispersion Forces. These forces act like very weak ionic bonds. The covalent bonds are not broken, which we know because the liquid is still sugar -- the covalent bonds continue to hold each individual molecule together.

[@db2u0t0t6erflyos1]

super educative, why I don't know about youtube when I was in school... :))

[@Lajjad]

This video did not discuss van der Waals interactions, forces or bonds. Also, this video did not discuss metallic bonding. Of the 5 major bonds, this video only talks about 3 of those bonds -- namely, covalent, ionic and hydrogen bonding, this video does not mention anything about van der Waals or metallic bonds. More than 5 chemical bonds exist in nature. Lets not forget about: aromatic bonds, bent bonds, 3c-2e and 3c-4e bonds just to mention a few.

[@cerebulon]

Thank you CP! I've always wondered if really big things behaved like really small things. Whenever I see a representation of an atom with orbiting electrons, it looks very much like a star with planets. However, I'm starting to guess that the standard illustrations of atoms do not accurately depict what they really look like, and that I am incorrectly drawing parallels where they do not exist.

[@doggotaps5407]

okay, this is epic

[@ruthaddai9459]

MRS GUPTAS CLASS>>>>>>>> + RATIO

[@cerebulon]

Fantastic video. I hope you go into teaching. Have you heard about teachertube? It's like KZbin, except that all of the videos are educational and intended as a resource for instructors. I also have a rather ignornat question, but one I've always wondered: do the interactions described in this video parallel interactions between solar systems? When/if two stars drift near one another, do they form "bond distances" or do they crash into each other?

[@vdupham]

How many types of bonds are there? How are they formed and what are their properties?

[@cassiopeiaproject]

Thanks for your comments. To answer your question, there is no short-range repulsive force between stars or other massive bodies, so if they are on a collision course they will crash into one another.

[@MB25MA]

amazing great teaching easy to understand. well... pls can you give the simplest definition for the ionic as well to the covalent bond

[@Iandodios]

Simply Brilliant...

[@badmephisto]

excellent videos. you deserve more attention :) thanks!

[@shadieblue]

Great video.Great!

[@nehorlavazapalka]

@cassiopeiaproject 787 kilojoules per mole m(NaCl) = 58.443 g/mol, and the total for ethylene is ap. 1MJ/mole M(C2H4) = 28.05 g/mol so the total energy per kg of covalent bonds can be higher............

[@sidewaysfcs0718]

the tire on your car is one huge singular molecule and its not a black hole a black hole is simple alot of mass in a single point in space .. all black holes have the same size but their event horizon differs according to their strenght. it has nothing to do with molecules.

[@liquidminds]

eventhough, the border between physics and chemistry is a vital part of physics, as well as chemistry, there is a huge lack of information about that topic avaliable. Thanks for attempting to change that.

[@TaylorGreenVlogs]

haha the music is madd trippy. great video.

[@sidewaysfcs0718]

no , a classic tire is literally 1 single molecule ..with groups that can repeat ... the same way DNA is a single molecule .....if u could stretch dna it would have like 3 meters ....but its tighly spiraled inside the nucleus of the cell. but a tire is just bigger .. the exact name is cross-linked poly-isoprene the formula is something like (CH3)(CH2)CC(CH2)(CH3) + S8 ...and u get continous intertwined groups ... repeat that 55 trillion times and u get a rubber tire

[@KadirProDigital]

Depthless çok kral albüm çıkarmış beyler bağları boşverin depthless dinleyin ^^

[@cholland454]

Melting sugar breaks hydrogen bonds, not covalent bonds.

[@Cartoonmakerwe]

I love the music at 2:30 , what is it ???

[@TheUncleAustinShow]

fuck off

[@haroonhamid5352]

+Mr8wilschr AHAHAHAHAHAHAH

[@TheUncleAustinShow]

Why did I comment this....

[@MrFarkasOfficial]

wow this was beautiful :)

[@nicolelaw23]

awesome thanks

[@Rationalific]

Who knew? Well, I know a lot more now than 8 minutes ago.

[@eddiec.6647]

Music sounds cool at 1.25 playback

[@vistigioful]

Good video.

[@MrLiquidhaze]

this iss soo trippy haha holy shit

[@ratonL]

Beautfiful... =)

[@cerebulon]

...and apparently I can't spell ignorant either.

[@MyMiro1]

sob7an allah !

[@apburner1]

I believe you are confusing lattice energy with bond energy. Also, your examples of melting sugar vs salt are erroneous and in fact are pointing towards lattice energy in ionic bonds. When melting sugar, no bonds are broken, it is a change of state and the addition of H2O from the air. Melting NaCL does not break any bonds either, it requires a higher temp because of lattice energy. This video should be redone.

[@SeniorActivo69]

wahooo

[@ArifShah-mi3mj]

so brilliant example for understanding

[@lutfiazulfa6083]

Hi

[@GMScorpion]

Name's Bond. Chemical Bond. tum dis

[@volodymyrbezverkhniy8687]

The present work shows the inapplicability of the Pauli principle to chemical bond, and a new theoretical model of the chemical bond is proposed based on the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. See pp. 88 - 104 Review. Benzene on the Basis of the Three-Electron Bond. (The Pauli exclusion principle, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and chemical bond). vixra.org/pdf/1710.0326v1.pdf The Pauli exclusion principle and the chemical bond. The Pauli exclusion principle - this is the fundamental principle of quantum mechanics, which asserts that two or more identical fermions (particles with half-integral spin) can not simultaneously be in the same quantum state. Wolfgang Pauli, a Swiss theoretical physicist, formulated this principle in 1925 [1]. In chemistry exactly Pauli exclusion principle often considered as a ban on the existence of three-electron bonds with a multiplicity of 1.5, but it can be shown that Pauli exclusion principle does not prohibit the existence of three-electron bonds. To do this, analyze the Pauli exclusion principle in more detail. According to Pauli exclusion principle in a system consisting of identical fermions, two (or more) particles can not be in the same states [2]. The corresponding formulas of the wave functions and the determinant are given in the reference (this is a standard consideration of the fermion system), but we will concentrate our attention on the derivation: "... Of course, in this formulation, Pauli exclusion principle can only be applied to systems of weakly interacting particles, when one can speak (at least approximately on the states of individual particles) "[2]. That is, Pauli exclusion principle can only be applied to weakly interacting particles, when one can talk about the states of individual particles. But if we recall that any classical chemical bond is formed between two nuclei (this is a fundamental difference from atomic orbitals), which somehow "pull" the electrons one upon another, it is logical to assume that in the formation of a chemical bond, the electrons can no longer be regarded as weakly interacting particles . This assumption is confirmed by the earlier introduced notion of a chemical bond as a separate semi-virtual particle (natural component of the particle "parts" can not be weakly interacting). Representations of the chemical bond given in the chapter "The Principle of Heisenberg's Uncertainty and the Chemical Bond" categorically reject the statements about the chemical bond as a system of weakly interacting electrons. On the contrary, it follows from the above description that in the chemical bond, the electrons "lose" their individuality and "occupy" the entire chemical bond, that is, the electrons in the chemical bond "interact as much as possible", which directly indicates the inapplicability of the Pauli exclusion principle to the chemical bond. Moreover, the quantum-mechanical uncertainty in momentum and coordinate, in fact, strictly indicates that in the chemical bond, electrons are a system of "maximally" strongly interacting particles, and the whole chemical bond is a separate particle in which there is no place for the notion of an "individual" electron, its velocity, coordinate, energy, etc., description. This is fundamentally not true. The chemical bond is a separate particle, called us "semi-virtual particle", it is a composite particle that consists of individual electrons (strongly interacting), and spatially located between the nuclei. Thus, the introduction of a three-electron bond with a multiplicity of 1.5 is justified from the chemical point of view (simply explains the structure of the benzene molecule, aromaticity, the structure of organic and inorganic substances, etc.) is confirmed by the Pauli exclusion principle and the logical assumption of a chemical bond as system of strongly interacting particles (actually a separate semi-virtual particle), and as a consequence the inapplicability of the Pauli exclusion principle to a chemical bond. 1. Pauli W. Uber den Zusammenhang des Abschlusses der Elektronengruppen in Atom mit der Komplexstruktur der Spektren, - Z. Phys., 1925, 31, 765-783. 2. A.S. Davydov. Quantum mechanics. Second edition. Publishing house "Science". Moscow, 1973, p. 334. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and chemical bond. For further analysis of chemical bond, let us consider the Compton wavelength of an electron: λc.е. = h/(me*c)= 2.4263 * 10^(-12) m The Compton wavelength of an electron is equivalent to the wavelength of a photon whose energy is equal to the rest energy of the electron itself (the standard conclusion is given below): λ = h/(m*v), E = h*γ, E = me*c^2, c = γ*λ, γ = c/λ E = h*γ, E = h*(c/λ) = me*c^2, λc.е. = h/(me*c) where λ is the Louis de Broglie wavelength, me is the mass of the electron, c, γ is the speed and frequency of light, and h is the Planck constant. It is more interesting to consider what happens to an electron in a region with linear dimensions smaller than the Compton wavelength of an electron. According to Heisenberg uncertainty in this area, we have a quantum mechanical uncertainty in the momentum of at least m*c and a quantum mechanical uncertainty in the energy of at least me*c^2 : Δp ≥ mе*c and ΔE ≥ me*c^2 which is sufficient for the production of virtual electron-positron pairs. Therefore, in such a region the electron can no longer be regarded as a "point object", since it (an electron) spends part of its time in the state "electron + pair (positron + electron)". As a result of the above, an electron at distances smaller than the Compton length is a system with an infinite number of degrees of freedom and its interaction should be described within the framework of quantum field theory. Most importantly, the transition to the intermediate state "electron + pair (positron + electron)" carried per time ~ λc.е./c Δt = λc.е./c = 2.4263 * 10^(-12)/(3*10^8) = 8.1*10^(-20) s Now we will try to use all the above-mentioned to describe the chemical bond using Einstein's theory of relativity and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. To do this, let's make one assumption: suppose that the wavelength of an electron on a Bohr orbit (the hydrogen atom) is the same Compton wavelength of an electron, but in another frame of reference, and as a result there is a 137-times greater Compton wavelength (due to the effects of relativity theory): λc.е. = h/(me*c) = 2.4263 * 10^(-12) m λb. = h/(me*v)= 2*π*R = 3.31*10^(-10) m λb./λc.е.= 137 where R= 0.527 Å, the Bohr radius. Since the De Broglie wavelength in a hydrogen atom (according to Bohr) is 137 times larger than the Compton wavelength of an electron, it is quite logical to assume that the energy interactions will be 137 times weaker (the longer the photon wavelength, the lower the frequency, and hence the energy ). We note that 1 / 137.036 is a fine structure constant, the fundamental physical constant characterizing the force of electromagnetic interaction was introduced into science in 1916 year by the German physicist Arnold Sommerfeld as a measure of relativistic corrections in describing atomic spectra within the framework of the model of the N. Bohr atom. To describe the chemical bond, we use the Heisenberg uncertainty principle: Δx * Δp ≥ ћ / 2 Given the weakening of the energy interaction 137 times, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle can be written in the form: Δx* Δp ≥ (ћ * 137)/2 According to the last equation, the quantum mechanical uncertainty in the momentum of an electron in a chemical bond must be at least me * c, and the quantum mechanical uncertainty in the energy is not less than me * c ^ 2, which should also be sufficient for the production of virtual electron-positron pairs. Therefore, in the field of chemical bonding, in this case, an electron can not be regarded as a "point object", since it (an electron) will spend part of its time in the state "electron + pair (positron + electron)", and therefore its interaction should be described in the framework of quantum field theory. This approach makes it possible to explain how, in the case of many-electron chemical bonds (two-electron, three-electron, etc.), repulsion between electrons is overcome: since the chemical bond is actually a "boiling mass" of electrons and positrons, virtual positrons "help" overcome the repulsion between electrons. This approach assumes that the chemical bond is in fact a closed spatial bag (a potential well in the energy sense), in which "boiling" of real electrons and also virtual positrons and electrons occurs, and the "volume" of this potential bag is actually a "volume" of chemical bond and also the spatial measure of the quantum-mechanical uncertainty in the position of the electron. Strictly speaking, with such a consideration, the electron no longer has a certain energy, momentum, coordinates, and is no longer a "point particle", but actually takes up the "whole volume" of chemical bonding. It can be argued that in the chemical bond a single electron is depersonalized and loses its individuality, in fact it does not exist, but there is a "boiling mass" of real electrons and virtual positrons and electrons that by fluctuate change each other. That is, the chemical bond is actually a separate particle, as already mentioned, a semi-virtual particle. Moreover, this approach can be extended to the structure of elementary particles such as an electron or a positron: an elementary particle in this consideration is a fluctuating vacuum closed in a certain spatial bag, which is a potential well for these fluctuations. See pp. 88 - 104. Review. Benzene on the Basis of the Three-Electron Bond. (The Pauli exclusion principle, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and chemical bond). vixra.org/pdf/1710.0326v1.pdf Bezverkhniy Volodymyr (viXra):vixra.org/author/bezverkhniy_volodymyr_dmytrovych

[@Rachitha.23]

fffg

[@nameisme010]

Thumbs up if you noticed that helium was in awkward places