Everything About Electrons

Subscribe here:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Get a slice of pie for yourself:
makit.wtf/charity/
(In case the site don't work, use the direct link)
www.gofundme.com/f/a-slice-of...
In case you'd like to support me:
patreon.com/sub2MAKiT
my discord:
/ discord
Other MAKiTs:
‪@MAKiTResearch‬
‪@mktcharity‬
‪@makitmovies‬
‪@makitshitpost‬
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once again I'd like to thank sodaguyz for allowing me to use their music in my video, here are the links:
their main channel: / @sodakcmusic
their second channel: / channel
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Intro: 00:00
The confusing chapter: 00:22
The basics chapter: 02:11
Quantum numbers: 04:24
Molecular Orbital Theory: 07:35
Why isn't water flammable?: 18:44
MAKiT having a mental breakdown: 22:23

[@cauanproductions1232]

17:38 I really like the video! Just to add up some informartion that I think it would be cool to put here in the comments. In some spatial arrangements, p, d and f orbitals can make σ bonds; d and f can make π bonds; etc. This is because the bonding orbital name is given by the number of nodal planes (regions where the probability of having an electron there is 0). When two p orbitals interact frontally, just one side of the orbital interacts with another, making a σ bond; when the interact by their sides, they make a π bond which has a nodal plane cutting the atoms in half. This plane makes the bond less stable, and this makes the π bond have more energy. In the molecular orbital of Oxygen ( 19:55 ) you can see that the 3 p orbitals are generating two π bonding orbitals and one σ binding orbital.

[@matercan5649]

The animation and learning being this good yet having this little subscribers should be a crime. More people need to see Makit

[@MohamadAlb]

I know right? His quantum mechanics video made me a subscriber.

[@hsheheishje9649]

I love electrons

[@disonaroaurelo]

The masses love the electron ahsusasuj -Freud

[@yellowbacon69]

Same

[@Electrofunk1938]

I'm such i positive person, i attract electrons 😊

[@SanskarSharma-q4x]

That makes u a electrophile

[@9_1.1]

says the brain, that uses electrons to think

[@StevenWrightLLC]

i wish electrons were real, they seem so cool!

[@user-tv9ki3ij6t]

Yeah, maybe they aren't. Could be just a concept of big baba brain universe's infinitive creativity. But at least the concept would be cool

[@En1gmqtic]

crazy how this comes out the day AFTER my chem exam

[@ramitisking]

Here I was, glazing at the new Bugatti Tourbillon and then BAM! new MAKiT video.

[@redbvcgd3442]

please never stop making these

[@ryanjbuchanan]

Someone gave me this compliment once and I never forgot it

[@frosty_warlock8021]

Electron configuration was not taught to me well, and because of that I really hated the subject of chemistry. Thanks for this video MAKiT I am planning on revisiting chemistry soon and this helps a bunch.

[@Sakib-ww9ou]

You're Really Underrated MAKiT! I don't usually Like or comment but your content is just deserving of so. I hope to see you reaching great heights in future.

[@BhavyaG07]

I may not but still I would like to ask that when are you gonna make a video about why was that beaker (or anything that glass utensil was..) burnt, i am losing sleep on it! Also loved your videos.

[@_Levi2589]

babe wake up makit uploaded

[@BooLightning]

another great video dude! wishing you the best!

[@trexwithlasereyes9524]

ill give this a watch later, leaving a comment to boost it on the algorithm cause this is criminally underviewed

[@vinniepeterss]

love your content mate!

[@adityaghosh6154]

I thought this was a video with millions of views while i was watching it, i was so surprised at it having 2.5k views, you deserve so many more viewers and subscribers, this is amazing quality content

[@technicly.]

Just finished my first year of Mech e, and chemistry was my favorite class. I wish I saw this when I was taking the class! Every time I was about to rewind you would backtrack and make sure we understand, I don’t see that often and it’s really great. Keep up the great work! Maybe I’ll minor in chem!

[@halokal6983]

this channel is a 💎 in the dark

[@29-vibhusingh74]

true

[@smellthel]

I understand why this took so long to discover now, wow. Awesome video!

[@no.elements]

i love you makit it's been a hard month not being able to watch you 😔. great video and explanation :) ❤❤❤

[@willy_wonkey]

Thanks again MAKiT for the awesome video!

[@UniCorneliusfan21]

I think you genuinely are talented in the fact that you absorb information and can understand it really quickly, honestly it would take me maybe a day or 2 (if I actually dedicate my time and focus) to learn all that but still I would have some gaps in my foundation as to why such information holds, and I am forgetful as well lol

[@zacwarnest-knowles9139]

This is criminally underrated

[@alejandrovillegas8456]

Thank you for existing

[@Student-jd8vf]

Great animation and explanation of the molecular orbital theory! As you said about the kind of chemistry being taught in schools, they provide some chemistry logic for certain things and leave some others, that is where I start to lose interest in the subject.

[@matercan5649]

17:30, when Makit said "Sigma bonding" the first thing I thought of was 2 hydrogen atoms dapping each other up, and at 17:56 when he said "sigma orbitals" the first thing I thought was 2 hydrogen atoms with giga chad chins

[@miles5905]

LMAO😭😭

[@pastebincomhn60ymwv33]

why not though? First up, we got the electron, a total gigachad in the quantum realm. This dude doesn't just follow one path; it’s got infinite rizz. Thanks to something called superposition, it’s flexing in multiple spots at once until you catch it in the act. Then there's Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, the OG "you can't touch this" rule. It basically says, "You can know the position or the momentum of a particle, but trying to know both? Nah, gyatt." It’s like particles are low-key trolling us. And don't even get me started on entanglement. Picture two particles that are like the ultimate power couple, always synced no matter the distance. You change one’s state, and the other’s like, "Bet, I got you," instantly. It's the kind of bond even the biggest simps could only dream of.

[@makiro1]

phase is when electrons become gay?

[@thatprogramer]

Thanks electrons for keeping me together through all of that chemistry!

[@annazellner324]

You actually have no idea how much I enjoy your videos

[@TrustedPradeep]

Great work bro you cleared my basic confusions.

[@amaahda]

the goat blesses us with another video

[@carmin.e]

eletric trons iron and hydrojeans

[@andris7527]

This is the best video about MO theory i have seen! 👍 And I have watched A LOT trying to understand it. Electrons are interesting...

[@ryanpmcguire]

I have been waiting for this video my whole life

[@gaurangsingh4084]

I remember learning this in highschool. You made it seem quite easy to comprehend. Thankfully I don't study chemistry now 😂

[@Hope-db6zy]

Keep going!

[@lautaromorales2903]

15:26 you can interpret it like when the atoms are separated the atoms can attract each other with London forces. When they finally are together the electrons now are in the region between the 2 protons (because it's the region with lower potential energy). The electrons and the protons attract each other, so the proton it's atracted to that region with more electron probability (thowards the other proton), so it doesn't fly away. I loved the animation of the Ψ functions and electron probability

[@Mickey_9.80]

THANK YOU SIR I HAVE TEST IN LIKE 6 days Love your videos !

[@lakshya5946]

Thank you, my exam is on 15 July. I really need this I have to understand it at the quantum microscopic level.😊

[@Dr.Kraig_Ren]

Just found this channel. I think KZbin algorithm finally picked you up.

[@Fangamer1254]

Electric thrones!

[@ghosthate4424]

17:46 omg you qustioned why they were in letters and it’s because of the bonding names!!! S is sigma, p is pi, d is delta, and f is phi (ph sounds like f). I thought that was probably a cool thing to point out!

[@ashimarulovesyou]

Your videos are always so impressive and beautiful. Good job, I hope you continue to explain physics to us.

[@fyighfreak]

Absolutely amazing video.

[@gozogator1]

well done !

[@TheAmbiguousMice]

Using the Z-axis to visualise the sin & cos waves is life-saving for me 🙏👍👍👌✨🔥🔥🔥

[@chutii77]

Keep uploading sir

[@VuNam_MCVN]

Shape of you

[@pinniporker]

How do you have so much time to make these? What's your job outside of youtube? (Put this in a Q&A)

[@userunp]

You've genuinely made me enjoy chemistry again

[@Bennett_Fourr]

Another great makit vid!

[@xen_relay2]

electirictiionsz 🤔

[@davidhand9721]

I don't know if I'd call them the most complex part of the atom. It's just the most noticeable at our energy scale. Every proton and neutron, by contrast, has 3+ quarks connected by globs and strings of gluons, and are kept glued to one another by exchanging mesons.

[@MAKiTHappen]

In this case I was talking about complexity when it comes to dissection of atoms, whenever I saw anyone talk about the composition of protons and neutrons it was always in the void and unconnected, so in this case when I said "most complex part of an atom" I meant "most complex part of an atom from our current understanding". Obviously if we were talking about "objective" complexity (if it would be even definable at all) all elementary particles would be on the same level.

[@Burhadedurvesh]

This video was displayed in prestigious university of India (IIT-B) as a purpose to give extra knowledge. So keep making the video & don't forget that your viewer are some top aspirant across the world

[@29-vibhusingh74]

Damn boy!

[@No_One_0707]

So in conclusion this video is a 10 outta 10

[@abhishekak9619]

when i learn something i feel like i didnt learn anything, what i learned was something obvious. but on this channel i get stuff that i didnt and i feel like i can pinpoint what i learned. even if i feel like doesnt mean that i have completely got it.

[@johnm.v709]

Prototype of electron on 4 foot stone nearing completion. Hope to upload it on KZbin soon.

[@vernonthetoaster]

Love this!

[@Electrofunk1938]

İ love electrons, they are *shockingly* beautiful

[@cringe5393]

donating your own wallet out to the point of a 'financial pinch' really screams out for an intervention, dude 😶

[@vinniepeterss]

why this not blows up yet😢

[@benmcreynolds8581]

I've been catching myself daydreaming about astrophysics lately. I can't help but notice that astronomy has hit a road block, mostly thanks to the theory of dark matter. So it makes consider if there could be any sort of thing we have been overlooking? What I find interesting is we do understand most things pretty well but if you really focus you'll notice there is crazy detail and complex interactions in either direction. No matter if you zoom into the micro scale or zoom way out to the scale of entire galaxies. It would be understandable if we found out there's a whole other level of detail and depth to the behavior and interactions that occur at these scales. It is hard for our technology to simulate dynamic & chaotic systems. Systems as vast as entire galaxies or above. What if at those immense scales, we find out certain things behave a bit differently than we thought? Such as density, Electromagnetism, static charges, angular momentum & mass, fluid dynamics, temperature differences, pressure, radiation, velocity, gas clouds, dust particles, etc. *All I'm saying is I think there could be a lot left for us to refine and learn out there throughout our cosmos? I hope we continuously try to keep improving our understanding of space because it's a healthy approach. It'd be foolish to think there isn't more for us to learn, especially if we're talking about galactic filaments, multiple galaxies interacting, black holes, gravity. We are getting better & better at so many things but some things really test our capabilities. I'm very curious to see where things are going to advance.

[@sekundus9274]

Hey there. This is a great video, thank you for making it! But I think the animation from 11:24 to 12:18 is quite confusing at least for me because you've never shown a single electron with just a "negative phase" but had the second with the "positive phase" the whole time there and the probabilities or the animation were the same at the beginning when you've said " a single electron with negative phase" and a few second later when you've talked about two out of phase electrons getting closer. I had to watch it a few times until I understood what you mean or at least I think I did. Wouldn't it be clearer to show the light blue line by itself for squaring the probability of a single electron and only add the red line to show two electrons getting closer? Maybe I just didn't understand quite right and I'd be happy for you to explain it to me. I also didn't quite understand the bonding orbitals is there a specific reason that it's most often the lower energy orbital that's used? Because as I understand elementary particles don't have a mind on their own and can't "choose" the lower energy state so why does it happen to be that state most often? What happens with the antibonding orbital, does it just not "exist"? What happens when they "choose" the higher energy orbital, does it just not form a chemical bond like noble gasses? What happens with the energy that the antibonding orbital had as you said the two orbitals together have the same average energy as the two single hydrogen atoms? Is that energy released somehow? At 20:05 I count seven full orbitals and as I understood the second and fourth are antibonding orbitals, does that mean these lower four orbitals don't release any energy and are not contributing to the overall "bond" between the oxygen atoms? And if the antibonding orbitals are filled does that mean these two electrons are "paired up" but repel each other? How come that at the top there are 3 filled bonding orbitals when dioxygen has a "double bond" between the atoms and not a "triple bond"? Why is there one bond with seemingly lower energy than the other two directly above it? There are also two lone electrons in separate antibonding orbitals, as I understand it, are they in two different orbitals because that's lower energy than sharing an antibonding orbital? Does that mean they don't repel each other the same as two electrons in the same antibonding orbital? Thank you for reading and have a good day! I hope you can answer some of my questions or all of them :D

[@martbarnav1787]

Your 2nd question is great. Quantum mechanics has the answer for why things seemingly "choose" lower energy states. Say you have 2 electrons. There are 2 possible outcomes: either they emit a virtual photon and the distance between them grows as a result (repulsion) or they emit a virtual photon and their distance shrinks (attraction). By itself, both scenarios are equally as likely, but when you add charges and the electric field, then the attraction scenario now requires that the electrons gain energy somehow. As to resist the electric field. You can think of the electric field as a circular gradient of color that orginates from each particle and gets weaker according to the square of the distance. Particles like to hangout wherever the electric field is opposite of their 'color'. Similar to how air likes to hangout wherever there is less air. It's analogous to air pressure in a way. Just as compressing air takes energy, so does compressing 2 like charges. Therefore, the 2nd scenario (that of attraction) requieres that the electrons gain energy or use up their stored energy. This ultimately makes it less likely to happen. Just as air is less likely to hangout in high pressuee areas. It's a statistical phenomenon, not necessarily that the particles have a conciousness and are able to 'chose'. We don't think of air as 'chosing' to move to lower pressure areas, we think of it as a statistical phenomenon. In the case of the electrons, it's similar.

[@sekundus9274]

@@martbarnav1787 Thank you for taking time to write me a thought out answer but I'm afraid I'm just more confused now. Let me think about your answer and maybe I will find a way to formulate my confusion in an understandable question or two.

[@sordidknifeparty]

It seems to me that there can't be such a thing as an indivisible particle. If there were then pressure waves would not be able to move through it by compressing the smaller particles it is comprised of, but rather simply the energy would move from one side of the particle to the other instantaneously, which would break the speed of light, though it would only be over a tiny distance. Because of this one could theoretically send information across that distance faster than the speed of light. As far as I understand this is impossible . Therefore all particles must be divisible

[@DrDeuteron]

8:39 what happened….at for hydrogen, energy does not depend on L

[@Mythical_Myths16]

underrated

[@ramencat6542]

Finals video when?

[@namonef]

I didnt know there are delta and phi bonds.

[@b0mby1]

I eat electrons

[@s.j7423]

i love electrons!

[@coffidev]

Thanks!

[@dachensele6818]

Perfection

[@lih3391]

Phase doesn't "attract" or "repel" like how gravity and coulomb's force do right? Why use those words? Constructive and deconstructive interference is not the same as a force right? If not, that's something new to me.

[@Elephantshew]

Excellent explanation. Eggselentz accent! Thank you.

[@promise4779]

quarks? or are they still too new to really be sure of their functions and behaviour

[@anotherperson00]

I eat electrons on a daily

[@drdca8263]

1:58 : to say that electrons “are” charge, doesn’t seem correct to me. I would say that they have charge. To say that they “are” charge, would seem to suggest that other charged particles contain electrons somehow? And that’s not a good way to think about things..

[@1HeartCell]

I just dont like the blackboard-chalk-part of it. This video has been very entertaining, but I wont try to get a chem degree any time soon.

[@healthdoc]

Brilliant 🧐

[@hsheheishje9649]

Baba gaga I want a video about virtual particles pretty please 😣👉👈

[@DrDeuteron]

They’re not real.

[@shortstick4373]

You remind me of thoughty2

[@greattogreater9349]

My god are these videos underappreciated, this man singlehandedly is carrying me some parts of chemistry.

[@AceBlob-ae]

I hate electrons

[@hsheheishje9649]

😢

[@HafsaBatool-mc1de]

I feel that bro

[@DrDeuteron]

Don’t be so negative

[@dakcom-mk6mp]

Nice

[@mrseriousv1]

KZbin wtf this is a criminally low view count, make it higher

[@Sisyphus.]

love the videos but still can't understand a thing

[@dadsonworldwide3238]

Subjective properties & space are very hard for most of the world to accept . Even tho gravity is not idealistic or physical . Objectivism proper gets in the way of prescribing realism over anti realism to further over time lines of measure. We see this manmade time hierarchy knowledge of good evil equations x, y,z in all things on all scales. We tuned all precision instruments upon 3 lines of measure = truest True known standard flattest surface most balanced eqaulibrium. They flipped it in space brought back the old world macro to micro atomized dualistic modeling. Kept us all In whatsboutism vs nilhisms on everything but that shit won't fly in our computational future

[@Mythical_Myths16]

helo

[@Frddy_-sh8so]

e

[@realshavez]

Brother please make a Hindi channel too 🙂‍↕️🙂‍↕️

[@That-One-Frog]

Yes! At school, they explained why water isn't flammable as "there's a chemical reaction going on and things change because the reaction isn't physical". But why? Chemistry is really interesting, but school makes me.. hate it. Same with biology. They can teach these very interesting stuff. They don't! *WHY?*

[@davidhand9721]

Yeah, no, "proton charge" makes no sense. Disagree.

[@MAKiTHappen]

Could you elaborate on why?

[@b0mby1]

premier pog

[@arlenestanton9955]

Better English would help viewership

[@davidhand9721]

Uh, no, the structure of the electron orbits is not related to the distribution of positive charge in the nucleus. For all intents and purposes, the nucleus in the atom is like your smallest coin in your largest stadium. Also the rest of your story about quantum numbers is very bogus. Boooo! Pseudoscience!

[@MAKiTHappen]

Which part of the quantum numbers segment did you find... bogus?

[@soeinspast4096]

the explanations are kinda bad

[@MAKiTHappen]

Could you pinpoint the problem exactly so that I could work on it next time?

[@DrDeuteron]

Maybe too chemistry oriented for OP? From a physics perspective the atomic orbitals and n,l,m and Pauli exclusion principle electron phases seemed unmotivated ….but that’s chemistry.

[@mayonnaiseisinstrument7635]

I love electrons