Chemistry Isn't What You Think It Is

[@jeanchampelovier2323]

One reason HHe doesn’t work is because when you bond orbitals at different energy, the deltaE and deltaE* you get for your sigma and sigma* orbitals make it very energy deficient to fill the sigma* orbital. If you make the calculation you’d get deltaE = sH + 2 x sHe - 2 x sigma - sigma* > 0 (with s and sigma the energy of the orbitals) so a unfavorable bond. Also I kinda disagree that the quantum physics is easy and should be explained. While you can explains some concepts as you did even at high school level, to have any mathematical explanation would be pretty much impossible. This would probably lead people to make some leaps in logic that would be conter-production in the end

[@MAKiTHappen]

Thank you so much for the HHe explanation, but I do have to disagree on the quantum physics of it all. Quantum physics as a field does delve into extremely complex and advanced topics later on, but so does also every other field of science. The reason why it's important in my opinion to teach the basics of quantum mechanics is that it sheds a light on just how logical everything is in chemistry. When we try to approach single atoms like classical objects we fail, because they are bordering on quantum, and because of that a lot of people think that we do not have a concrete, logical explanation of atoms and their interactions, in reality however if, instead of classical rules, you start with quantum rules (elementary properties, wavefunction and quanta) then every single thing an atom does becomes kind of... obvious

[@Hurricayne92]

@@MAKiTHappen But for those that go on to pursue physics or chemistry at higher levels it can be harmful to build a shaky foundation of understanding

[@liobello3141]

@@Hurricayne92 Well, an introduction to quantum mechanics in high school is still better than an introduction to quantum mechanics in Ant Man

[@dappy9988]

@@Hurricayne92 Better to replace shaky foundations one by one than to start from scratch to build a skyscraper a 'few' years too late Also being forced to learn things ad hoc and replacing oversimplified explanations with classical ones then with slightly more accurate ones and then with quantum ones is partly why this education system is caca

[@JamesDrake-f4n]

I partly agree, however I think chemistry and physics and other concepts display a phenomena in which as complex as they can get it can be beneficial to first gain some initial contextual understanding void of more technical aspects for example, the behavior of things and reasons of occurrences. This way interest is built as well as through understanding, it's possible without being taught it by say, a teacher the student might come across it anyway so it's important for them not to be denied.

[@Canadian_Teemo]

> title: Chemistry Isn't What You Think It Is > looks inside > chemistry

[@SomethingSmellsMichy]

>mfw

[@Canadian_Teemo]

@@SomethingSmellsMichy I knew I forgot something! thanks!

[@sheriff332]

wish we had a video like this for organic chem ;-;

[@MAKiTHappen]

Coming soonish

[@harshvardhan4771]

​@@MAKiTHappen *SpongeBob meme plays in mind* 200 weeks later

[@sheriff332]

@@MAKiTHappen yipppeee

[@Wølf_the_conceit]

​​@@MAKiTHappen No please do a video where you finally explain Euler and how it's used in both math and physics, i beg you please

[@bjornfeuerbacher5514]

@@Wølf_the_conceit Do you mean Euler's number? There are tons of videos about that on KZbin. What exactly do you want to know?

[@SuperSpaceShip]

Chemistry is magic. we can summon fire, make acid spells, poison spells, explosion magic etc

[@Varun-sw]

So we can become wizards?

[@SuperSpaceShip]

@@Varun-sw yes but the world will call you scientist instead of wizard

[@Flesh_Wizard]

"I cast Illumination!" *ignites magnesium strip*

[@jamesthesmart2971]

In chemistry, I absolutely hate memorizing what salt is soluble and what isn't. That isn't related to the video, but I just wanted to boost engagement

[@Hurricayne92]

soluble in water? because EVERYTHING is soluble if you use the right solvent.

[@tylerian4648]

​@@Hurricayne92When the solvent isn't stated, the solvent is water.

[@Luka_D_Snots]

@@Hurricayne92Water is such an amazing solvent that the expression (aq) is dedicated to describe substances dissolved in water

[@rodrigosantiago7179]

your channel needs to get more recognition

[@kuposrock]

His channel is pretty good but there a few problems that could make it more main stream. The muffled voice, bad lighting, and slow to fast sporadic timing. I agree though. I like watching him. I deal with something similar in my job. This guy can talk fast because he understands something, but to someone else you just lose them. I did this all the time for my briefings at work. You just lose people and interest. The question is what is he really trying to do with this video. Is he just talking about stuff he wants to talk about or is he trying to teach people about the things he is talking about. The way it turns out, he is just talking about things people may enjoy if they understand it. If he really wants people to understand he has to slow down and add more context to his understanding. He needs to read about public speaking and learn more about how to teach. Then he will hit the first step of being a big KZbinr. Then he needs to learn about video editing and timing and everything else that goes into making a video view well. His animations are there, it’s just the above.

[@TheSpoonThatDied]

Chemistry may not be what I think it is, but it sure is cool :D

[@SbF6H]

Until you have to understand and memorise the reactions, mechanisms, nomenclature, formulas, etc; not so straightforward.

[@sussyscylla3414]

So you don’t think it’s cool?

[@SbF6H]

@@sussyscylla3414 Any subject is cool when you take interesting bits out of the mundane details. I would say it's cool, but to appreciate that coolness, you have to digest the boring stuff too.

[@SodiumInteresting]

​@SbF6H only boring if it's made boring

[@SbF6H]

@@SodiumInteresting Tell me, what's so interesting about various organic reactions then?

[@ThomasCowie-x9b]

imo valance is better just bc its faster to say and write. especially if your writing exam question answers because who wants to write the outer most shell that contains electrons instead of just the valance shell.

[@MAKiTHappen]

Fair point, I guess I was just looking for a reason to give those darn chemists my piece of mind

[@flaym.]

@@MAKiTHappen when chemists call it Spin instead of ThatOnePropertyElectronsHaveThatBehavesLikeThey'reSpinningExceptNotReally

[@maxgersh-zw8mq]

This has to be the most fascinating KZbin Chanel I have come across.This video alone is more insightful,interesting and curiosity stoking than any chemistry class I have been in . I feel lucky to live in a time where these videos exist

[@fictional_function_]

This is a high-quality video, and you need more subs. I (frankly) understood the quantum probability part and it was fun and enlightening!

[@DanteGabriel-lx9bq]

You don't have a lot of subscribers, but I really wanted to tell you that those who follow you appreciate the way you teach, like I do. Thanks a lot, and keep going!

[@ParthMishra-hy7rc]

This video really opens your eyes to the bigger picture - way more than just formulas. Highly underrated!", As always love your videos MAKiT

[@ruanholtzhausen4000]

Couldn't come at a better time. Next week I'm writhing Chemistry on my Birthday.

[@melissaharju]

Happy Birthday week!

[@No_One_0707]

This is fire, literally 🔥!

[@ultrio325]

This is _THE_ video I've been desperately looking for.

[@MAKiTHappen]

I hope I didn't disappoint

[@deazma1453]

Your videos are so high quality, you can see the love put in them, keep up the great work!

[@makiro1]

chemistry would be worth if it was like Fullmetal alchemist brotherhood

[@s.o.m.e.o.n.e.]

"Why" is my favorite question

[@MadScientist267]

Philosophically, the only one that matters.

[@Uday_shirbhate]

3:28 The spin property of subatomic particles is very well explained in ScienceClic's recent video.

[@adityaatkorevines502]

We'll I really appreciate How you making things easier to understand with your humour. It was great video and so just keep it up your amazing

[@galvinvoltag]

I could not grasp chemistry in high school. To the point where my chemistry teacher was obsessed with me. He was just determined to teach me chemistry. He gave me one to one classes, four to one classes, made me solve tests with the bests of the class (in chemistry) and occasionally come up with different ways of explanation. I liked that teacher, but I failed chemistry that year. It was the only class I failed. He was not disappointed in me, he was disappointed in himself. I was the one kid who just could not understand chemistry. To this day, I still don't really truly understand it. It is just a shapeless, foggy concept in my mind that both looks like everything and nothing at all. Sorry MAKiT, I still can't grasp it. I appreciate your efforts, though.

[@ThomasCowie-x9b]

Hopefully one day you will finally understand.

[@MAKiTHappen]

Well, it was worth a try

[@Student-jd8vf]

Maybe you should ask the questions and doubts that you have or elaborate this shapeless, foggy problem?

[@tylerian4648]

What part do you think you get the least? Electrons and bonding? Compounds? Acids and Bases?

[@theendofemeralds]

Around here 6:50 - 7:10 I realized why there is an extra group every 2 rows you step down, I also immediately saw the periodic table when he broke down the orbitals, man am I glad I started AP chem

[@Derek_Garnham]

Wow, i just saw my understanding of chemistry flash nefore my eyes. Wonderfully put.

[@TimonK404]

I love the video, amazing job! I guess I'm pretty lucky, because this this is exactly how chemistry was taught to me, and this is why I always found it just as clean as logical as physics and math. I never ever memorized anything at all for chemistry, and I still was always exceptional at it

[@lok1506]

Your page is seriously underrated 🔥

[@jamesleishman8025]

I will say, solving the Schrodinger equation without numerical analysis is basically impossible for anything bigger than a hydrogen atom

[@Sirius37641]

Your channel is great, you explain topics in a way that makes me grasp the true meaning. thank you ,and looking forward for another great video from you :)

[@suprafluid3661]

When I was still a great A grade student, videos like this helped me to achieve such goals. A very good video I think everyone who hasn't understood these ideas in this wholistic way should consider watching, a must watch really, like what could replace it except a similar video. There are few teachers who can do something like this and non who can do at any time of the day at infinitum.

[@gogauze]

That was a really clean intro to quantum and classical properties in chemistry! I feel like the deliberate over-mystification of a lot of STEM topics is a problem in modern science education and communication. And, I think that people underestimate how easy it is to learn several paradigms of thought, even on the same subject, when you're a kid. Like, I a very natural question to ask at 1:25 is "why don't electrons just collapse onto the nucleus, like a classical magnet?" And, the explanation can be just as elegant as the rest of what you presented in this video. Incidentally, if you're looking for inspiration on how to tackle that topic in a future video, I can drop you the title of one that just nails it on the path to explaining band gaps in semiconductors.

[@parisafarin6686]

you put sooo much effort into your videos and theyre always so well put and interesting 💗lots of love

[@alexandergluckert575]

I've been interested in chemistry for a couple of years and understanding things like quantum mechanics and statistics, is how I learn new concepts best, because I can connect everything much better. Incredible video!

[@forgey9211]

Better than my school. Immediately Subscribed

[@44Hd22]

16:24 but it needs all the energy back and entropy makes that hard.

[@fizisistguy]

Chemistry might be very interesting, but the laws don't seem so intuitive as math and physics. Wish I had a good Chemistry 101 book

[@seventoast]

12:09 Perhaps because the orbitals are considered to still exist even if they aren't occupied. In that way, the "outermost" shell doesn't actually change, and the valence shell is specifically the outermost _occupied_ shell

[@VuNam_MCVN]

Legends say that table is still on fire till these days

[@misslayer999]

Trying to figure out how to use an orbital diagram is a little tricky at first, but once you get the hang of it, it's extremely useful. Helped me get a 108.4 on my chem exam lol

[@tangoto1209]

I'm currently in AP chemistry and this video helped me quite a bit to understand the things our teacher ether didn't explain or explained very poorly

[@varshneydevansh]

Immediately started remembering what I wrote back in school days

[@suryamgangwal8315]

I knew all of this but damn they should've taught like this

[@Shadoxite]

Hah! a week before my chemistry exam. perfect

[@DemoneX1704]

This video brings me 5 meters closer to a dead dream of build a fictional chemistry system.

[@riseofgaming9429]

7:55 I wish I had this video when I was in 11th grade to understand it better

[@mrobinson9297]

they have found helium hydride in space. it doesnt really exist anywhere else since it immediately is reduced when it comes in contact with any other atom.

[@midwestchem368]

We just did this section in chemistry class! Its easier now were close to the test but at first it was a bit of a struggle to keep track of the information 🥴

[@mikstweek]

I think he really likes animating stuff but needs science as reason to why do it. Great video :D

[@sedatev7341]

This is EXACTLY what I've been learning in chemistry class these last three years.

[@Frddy_-sh8so]

i love C H E M I S T R Y

[@Fangamer1254]

C H E M I S T R Y M Y F R I E N D !

[@delta9990]

i hate C H E M I S T R Y

[@Fangamer1254]

@@delta9990 Understandable

[@norliegh]

In school, I absolutely hated chemistry. My mind wanted to understand the "why" & they taught "what". They never explained me why there were exceptions, how to come up with those exception's myself. I scored the lowest in chemistry because I just didn't understand it. I find quantum mechanics fascinating & maybe in the same years that I lost learning at school, I could develop a new intuition of chemistry in terms of energies. I really hope that someday I can just know exactly how to make something from sometime else.

[@Buongona]

Had to ask chat gpt...and Lexi provided! "... Quantum Tools for Modeling Ester Formation Density Functional Theory (DFT): DFT approximates Schrödinger's equation to calculate molecular properties, including reaction pathways and energetics. Breweries or researchers could use DFT to predict how adjusting fermentation parameters (e.g., yeast strain, temperature) affects ester production. Molecular Dynamics (MD): MD simulations incorporate quantum principles to model the real-time formation of esters in a dynamic environment, considering interactions with water and other molecules in the brew...."

[@vitorrm7311]

Babe wake up makit Just uploaded

[@ploosmaD]

this coming out the day before my chemistry (mock) exam is godly ._.

[@Schizorantss]

The fire just kept me stressed out the entire video lol

[@emryswilliams9190]

Dimotro from Combo Class, is that you?

[@TCG-p9f]

Chemesty shuld realy be thought like this in class i always askd why and nver got a real awnser just thats just how it is or thats too complicated to explane right now, thank you

[@ligmajoe6484]

I love your videos :)

[@catburner1896]

22:39 but my boi Bose-Einstein Condensate… 🫡🫡🫡

[@Fangamer1254]

10:37 Let's thank quantum physics & the guy who made graphs for making me understand everything in one go.

[@InorganicChemistryTutor]

Great vid dude! Subbed

[@NoGoatsNoGlory.]

Pro tip. Press share, then copy link, and don't share it (unless you want to). This helps the algorithm pick up this video more

[@Rambiltheone]

yo w video ur underrated

[@axeldaar9100]

Chemistry undergrad here. I really liked how you presented the topics and your explanations. I feel like the animations (especially about chemical orbitals) looked a bit messy and were hard to understand. Next time try to focus on one thing at a time (i.e. instead of showing all shells and subshells and their orbitals on a 3D graph at the same time try to use animation to sort of zoom in on them). Also the arrows were very bulky at times when they didn't necessarily have to be, which took a lot of time and added complexity to the whole thing.

[@axeldaar9100]

*the arrows took a lot of space, not time

[@SbF6H]

At the heart of chemistry there's reactions, but there's a lot more chemistry than just reactions.

[@OffensiveJanitor]

I can't believe I havent subscribed to your channel already

[@maximiliansaile3955]

16:28 Why can it turn into both? Wouldn't it just turn into Watter, because it has less energy? But really good video. I don't think I would have been interested in chemistry if you wouldn't jave ecplained it like this. Truly, thank you.

[@MAKiTHappen]

Well, just because some state has less energy that doesn't mean it will always end up as that state, a good analogy for why it can go either way would be the cubes from 19:20 Even though the lower energy means cubes on the ground, they still remain stacked after being hit There is a certain point in between them being stacked and them on the ground, where the cubes would be perfectly balanced, and could go either way (back to being a stack or on the ground). The same thing happends for the molecules

[@Toksyuryel]

The substance isn't capable of "knowing" that one outcome is preferred, so it just randomly goes to one or the other. The portions that make it to the preferred outcome will stay there, while the rest gets to try again.

[@n0150]

babe cancel school, makIt uploaded!

[@theendofemeralds]

Quantum mechanics, love thi video so far, 'twas easy enough to understand and cannot wait for quantum mechanics video

[@rikisanity6045]

Chemistry is just applied physics

[@K.Parth_Singh]

Physics is just applied maths

[@thepirate6521]

@@K.Parth_Singh maths origins from physics actually. Math without physics is just useless abstraction.

[@xavierbroe5569]

@@thepirate6521the physical inspires the mathematical and the mathematical explains the physical “physics” as a scientific field was born from mathematics, but observation of physical phenomena inspired the creation of mathematics. really though, both were preceded by philosophy because simply observing physical phenomena does not amount to practicing physics, and ya kind of have to philosophise about physical things (e.g. democritus; pythagoras) to get mathematics out of them to explain them

[@ligmajoe6484]

math without physics is beautiful abstraction

[@thepirate6521]

@@xavierbroe5569 Dont you think is better to say that math is just better description of physical observations than natural language? I dont think math explains anything because first we need to do observation, understand it and then we can start mathing around

[@neologicalgamer3437]

I subscribed because he called me smart and good looking ❤😊

[@atharvupadhyay4178]

Him: by itself quantum mechanics isnt very diffivult..... Subtitle: - - cond.. mechanics - - -

[@DragonOfThePineForest]

10:40 only part I didn't understand was the negative probability. explanation video soon hopefully?

[@bottleofsnail.]

so basically chapter of physics

[@wizardzombie1545]

This gut just burned the kitchen, literally Let him cook🗣🗣🗣🔥🔥🔥

[@TheEliteMan723]

Great you are growing

[@gabrielsparmann1287]

I love your videos!

[@leadbreastplate7496]

This implies that most people think... You'd be surprised,-)

[@Deathsquadstudios4]

I never saw this channel before but I was expecting an Australian accent in the first few seconds

[@SodiumInteresting]

I like your animations

[@LMrot02]

At 10:00, why is two e- interacting in phase less energy-requiring than them being out of phase?

[@capitanes_de_los_juegos]

Well to fix the fire have you tried putting a cap on it or using a fire extinguisher?

[@Psi141]

This is brilliant

[@ProgrammmeRoExe]

GREAT VIDEO!! it must be so uncomfortable to wear that mask lol. keep goin baby !!!!!!!!!

[@roshansimkhada9472]

Teach me more about quantum mechanics. Pls.

[@GayaColours]

Ngl i clicked on this video and when i watched it i thought it would at least have 1-2 million views but was surprised to see such low views. Pls keep making videos imo you will be the next big science educator on youtube. Also what do you use to make your animations, they are really really good..

[@MAKiTHappen]

I use blender

[@GayaColours]

@MAKiTHappen thanks 😁

[@niik8790]

Boost the algorothm

[@kiaplays9953]

This one was too much for me 😅 its harder than how math gets DIFFICULT

[@Ihavenonameyetrightnow]

Today sure is a good day

[@denysmarker]

bad blender skills ahh

[@MAKiTHappen]

Well that's mean

[@K.Parth_Singh]

Underrated asf

[@nxva5366]

14:30 hello, I’ve never taken Chem in my whole life so this might be stupid but, does this mean that unstable bonds have higher potential energy?

[@MAKiTHappen]

It's not stupid, and you are correct That's where chemical energy comes from, the more unstable something is, the higher the potential energy

[@nxva5366]

@ thank you so much! I am taking Chem next year for school so you’ll probably get some more views from me next year!

[@mylesvmiles7571]

Success, I have indeed learnt chemistry in a more intuitive way, though its got me asking more questions like if molecules can now function more classically then how small do you have to be before you become more quantum than classic and why is there an inbetween anyway, what about size changes the physics of things, and does it work in the opposite direction can you become so big that classical physics doesnt work either?

[@MAKiTHappen]

Actually... yes. That's why we have different models and theories, and that's why the "theory of everything" would be so groundbreaking in physics, but what you have to realize is that this isn't really a binary can you/can you not apply quantum theory, only like a spectrum of how accurate they are, and I would argue that at the scale of molecules classical mechanics becomes almost as accurate as quantum

[@sidesplitter9497]

@@MAKiTHappen This is not true. Classical mechanics absolutely does not apply to molecules. You would need a system of millions (probably more) before you would see classical behaviour.

[@sefib2705]

I think I'd be happier with cancer than a chem degree

[@pratyushpathania7030]

nice man its very cool .

[@floppy8568]

Valence shell is not always the top shell, as group B elements exist.

[@MAKiTHappen]

That's what I meant by "outermost", so the shell that's outermost energywise

[@googotygame]

10:48 how does that shows the hydrogen gas require less energy than the hydrogen atoms? If the hydrogen did get less energy after bond, where did the energy go?

[@sidesplitter9497]

When two hydrogen atoms bond, energy is released to the surroundings, the resultant H2 species is of lower energy than the two isolated atoms

[@Sesquipedalia]

17:56 why does heating make the reaction go one way but electrolysis make the reaction go the opposite way though they are both just giving energy

[@MAKiTHappen]

Because of the statistical aspect of chemistry. When you heat up a reaction, you are just smashing molecules together, so you give them the "freedom" to choose what molecule they'd like to be, and they will always pick the lower energy one. When you are electrolysing however you are forcing the electrons in, in a way so that the molecules over time will bond into the higher energy ones

[@antoninnovak5074]

I'd say that electrolysis takes advantage of atoms having different electronegativities (property to "attract electrons"), which makes the molecule divide into an anion and a cation. (Basically, instead of splitting the electrons equally, one atom holds onto them while the other one loses them.) The cations (which have a positive charge because they lost electrons) will be attracted to a negatively charged cathode and anions will be attracted to a positively charged anode. So in other words, heating the reaction makes the particles smash together more (thanks to Brownian motion) while we pull them apart with electrolysis.

[@sidesplitter9497]

Your style is creative and your visualisations are wonderful. I will say that you are trying to explain a complicated subject and I am unsure what the intended audience is. I think you are going too fast for somebody who doesn't know anything about the field, and you make several errors that somebody with more knowledge of the field would readily pick up. Maybe in the future you could spend a little more time researching aspects, or try to cover less broad topics. Some critiques: 1. It is not true that everything seeks to minimise its energy. We observe all around us things increasing energy all the time. The principal that should be emphasised in chemistry and chemical physics is the maximising of entropy. I think a short introduction to chemical statistical mechanics would have been better if you want to explain the basic principals that drive chemistry.... or emphasise free energy... 2. To be picky, all electrons have the same spin quantum number, S = 1/2. They can have different spin magnetic quantum number Ms = +- 1/2. 3. s,p,d,f notation is actually old spectroscopists' notation that chemists adopted - blame the physicists! 4. The wavefunction itself does not give information about probability. You correct this afterwards by mentioning how the wavefunction must be squared to talk about probability in the Born interpretation but leave out that it is actually the *absolute* square of the wavefunction as, in general, these functions can be complex. 5. You mistakenly label the sigma and sigma* orbitals as having equal energy split from the middle. From basic MO theory, due to the overlap integral, the anti-bonding orbital is more anti-bonding than the bonding orbital is bonding. 6. Your discussion of the noble gases is about 60 years out of date. Bartlett made XeF4 in 1962!!! Xenon chemistry is now a wide and varied field with many interesting compounds such as the D5h XeF5-, and XeF4O. Not to mention the still rich chemistry of Argon! 7. I very much enjoyed your discussion of transition states (and implicit mention of microscopic reversibility - thumbs up!), although this could have used some clarification on what energy is here - useful to mention there are reactions that don't release energy but still happen! (see earlier comment on entropy!) 8. I am unsure what you mean by interpreting molecules as classical objects. This is definitely not true. You need to go to bulk of molecules before you see classical predictions becoming true. Individual molecular interactions absolutely need to be treated with quantum mechanics. I think you overestimate the extent of using classical electromagnetism to explain chemistry. 9. Many solids are not 'as tight packed as possible'. The radius rules of introductory inorganic chemistry fail about 50% of the time. I think it would also be useful to emphasise the things you haven't discussed. Your five minute discussion of quantum chemistry failed to mention electron repulsion or correlation. No mention of why only two electrons can go into an orbital! No mention that the orbitals you describe only apply to hydrogen and that the many-body quantum problem has no exact solution for more than one electron. Some idea of all the approximations being made could be useful to make it clear that chemistry is not fundamentally simple! It is incredibly complex, and we make careful assumptions along the way that help us to understand things better. Chemistry is all about making models and finding rules to allow for predictions - this is the core goal of the subject. I think it would be good to make that more central to your explanation. In summary: I enjoyed the video, I think you have a good approach to the topic. I wish to see you produce more well edited videos with your brilliant visuals to go into these topics at a deeper level. I'm excited for your video about water - it is a very complex molecule!

[@Student-jd8vf]

20:41 déjà vu

[@nabibbs2402]

Giving this an early watch. Hopefully you escape the cycle 😅

[@theendofemeralds]

all of us commenting here are 1 in 4.7 million, we are all unique