Is Every Reaction Actually Reversible?

[@TheActionLab]

Also remember that just because a reaction is reversible doesn't mean that it will happen spontaneously. Spontaneous reactions only happen if they have a negative Gibbs energy. Being reversible or spontaneous aren't really related to each other. For example, H2 can burn with O2 to form water. But if you start out with room temperature H2O, it will not spontaneously form H2 and O2 because it doesn't have enough energy. But if you get the H2O hot enough providing enough energy some of the H2O will split back into H2 and O2 and form an equilibrium with water because H2+0.5O2=H2O is a reversible reaction. That is why you don't see things spontaneously "unburn." The "unburning" is endothermic and requires energy.

[@satriahanifrofi9798]

Anjay

[@vipranshmishra7472]

chemical and ionic equlibrium

[@BruhGamer05]

Fun fact Never gonna give you up Never gonna let you down

[@banz3949]

I just love you videos n you sir❤️ you are my one of most favourite KZbinr

[@MechanicalengineeringBtech]

When I go down stairs by using my energy. Can I reverse the process by going back up the stairs by gaining energy? I think we can't reverse the process on the same path.

[@Khether0001]

That thumbnail was a little click-baity, you don't need that, your channel is *AMAZING!* I've always loved science my entire life and I still learn something new on EVERY video you release! Thank you so, so much for sharing all this!!!

[@zecuse]

Change the paper to ethanol and it's the same thing as shown towards then end of the video.

[@desmondyung]

He actually talked about combustion in the video tho

[@tcphll]

@@desmondyung Sure. But the thumbnail implied reversing the burning of paper specifically.

[@wamlartmuse2983]

Agreed lol.

[@ac-130fan]

Did you also believe that the thumbnail of him floating after putting helium in his shoes was real? Or that he actually time traveled in his other video? Like really, dude.

[@blazbohinc4964]

To answer the question : some reactions are incredibly innefficient to reverse. And if the efficiency is low enough, we call them irreversible.

[@monki6304]

But they’re technically reversible? It would just take a lot of effort right

[@adityaagarwal636]

@@monki6304 Right. A lot of energy, temperature, and perhaps a lot of pressure.

[@albongo3949]

Tesla would’ve known.

[@TheArcV]

Great video! But I felt that the thumbnail is a bit misleading since you are ignoring the composite organizational structure. So unburning ashes and getting a sheet of paper back is going to be nearly impossible. Sure, ashes could be separated and you might be able to reverse them from CO2, H2O, and trace minerals into hydrocarbon chains and maybe ever something like cellulose chains with a lot of effort and energy. But converting that into paper fibers and then milling that into paper sheets is not a chemical thing.

[@abrumm87]

I think he addressed this in his pinned comment discussing spontaneity and Gibbs. This brings in the entropic component as you mention. This discussion likely deserves a whole separate video and would be too much here. Cheers

[@Kirkaig]

I think what he meant was that it is technically possible, but not easy

[@mariadefatimajesusdorea3141]

MA

[@mariadefatimajesusdorea3141]

T

[@BetaTestingUrGf]

le chatelies priciple says, that the reaction will oppose the injection. You put in more reactants - the reaction makes more products. you put in more products, the reaction make reactants. you raise the temperature - the reaction lowers the temperature (endoterm reaction) you lower the temperatuer - the reaction raise the temperature (exoterm reaction)

[@antonioamosanchez4912]

In principle yes. But you added temperature which can be a but tricky. There are reactions that despite exothermic will never (for all practical purposes) occur if the temperature is not high enough, due to kinetic priciples (activation energy). Hydrogen combustion for example. You can mix both gases at room temperature an you will observe no combustion, much less in lower temperatures.

[@DeepakKumar-gd1wg]

@@antonioamosanchez4912 i agree with you, energy and orientation barriers need to be overcome for a reaction to occur, but other than that his statement stands correct.

[@M1551NGN0]

I always had this doubt in my chemistry classes that what could be the examples of reversible chemical changes. Finally solved in a unique manner, thank you very much sir!

[@RDJim]

I just want to know what reaction is happening in your hair? Is that reversible? LOL - just kidding, great episode.

[@chaddumas2499]

Holy crap, James. This episode is why I love watching your channel. This reminds me of why I embraced science so many years ago...it's fun and fascinating. Thank you for reminding me of this. You give an old man hope.

[@TheAlfmister101]

Technically, the equilibrium being referred to here is a dynamic equilibrium - since an equilibrium suggests that the amount of product and reactant is fixed at a given concentration

[@HelloKittyFanMan.]

Okay, so let's see you unburn some paper or other stuff then. That ought to be really interesting!

[@TheActionLab]

Unburning paper is done all the time. CO2 is turning back into cellulose in my back yard right now through photosynthesis. It just takes energy to do so. Just because you need to add energy back into the system doesn't make it irreversible. Also notice that just because the process is reversible doesn't mean the molecules are placed back in the same order they were before. So you can set up an equilibrium with cellulose and its gas products because it is a reversible reaction (pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2018/gc/c8gc01092g). But the cellulose won't be arranged in the same order it was to begin with.

[@digiminecraft]

@@TheActionLab I feel like this should have been made clearer in the video. Because the reaction is not reversible. It's just that technically you can use the products and through other reactions, you can get your original starting material. Writing an equilibrium arrow to C6H12O6+O2 CO2+H2O wouldn't be correct, as no amount of energy in any form would reverse this reaction. You might run into problems with activation energy and/or reach an equilibrium but to reverse it you would need different reactions. eg. photosynthesis.

[@TheActionLab]

@@digiminecraft you said that no amount of energy in any form would reverse this reaction. However we know that isn't true because that is exactly what the overall reaction is in photosynthesis. CO2+H2O-> C6H12O6+O2. The reaction is absolutely reversible. It just isn't spontaneous in the case of combustion. However to make it spontaneous you need the complex workings of photosynthesis. The reaction is reversible, but you have to be clever in some cases to make it spontaneous.

[@AelwynMr]

@@digiminecraft I don't agree. Given enough CO2 and water, some molecules are bound to bump into each other by chance in precisely the right way to reconstitute the paper just as it was before. You 100% would need many more than there are in the universe, but that chance is never completely zero, unless you are at 0 K. That's why technically all reactions are reversible.

[@HelloKittyFanMan.]

@@TheActionLab Thanks for your reply! But I meant in a way that isn't growing a new tree and then harvesting the wood to make paper again. Besides, that's not reforming the paper back from the ashes. I mean actually reversing the BURN. What about unburning plastic, rubber, oil, etc.? Forming food back from poop, etc.? (OK, I know you can't remake that same burger or pizza from it, but still, what could someone do?) I know GOD can do it when he has a good enough reason to. I think that's how the physical part of resurrection works, but it has to be really precise!

[@austingisel521]

You both make prefect sense and make everything clear as mud all at the same time and that's why I've been watching your videos since you were a shredder/press channel

[@westonding8953]

The implications of this are mind blowing! You could reverse every reaction! It’s just that some are not possible with the current state of the universe!

[@tekkno.logist]

Officially my favourite action lab video ever you are a true genius in the way you explain such complex and difficult to comprehend concept. I will be all of my students!

[@rodericklenz5030]

Your hair in this video is one of the things that makes your channel the most sciencey science channel on KZbin.

[@dyonramselaar]

Did you forget to edit the section with the paper in, which is shown in the thumbnail?

[@BiasOfficialChannel]

Him: «So maybee you are thinking that adding more iron would bla bla……… My brain: 😐 Randome chair:🪑

[@poggodoggo77]

This guy is basically science translator.

[@MrBlaDiBla68]

Okay, so by the tumbnail I was thinking (not believing) you were going to "un-burn" paper, but the explanation at the end answered that omission very nicely. Cheers!

[@mike1024.]

Before watching the video, I'm going to say that the answer to the question in the title is no. No reaction is truly reversible without introducing some sort of outside influence like energy, additional matter, etc., according to the second law of thermodynamics. Edit after watching: Great points! But you added something when you discussed reversing, so it sounds like we're talking about two different kinds of reversing. Interesting video though! I'd never heard of this concentration stuff in a reaction.

[@staxstonecutter1802]

I don't think the title was meant to imply that you can magically reverse any reaction without having to do anything to it.

[@mike1024.]

@@staxstonecutter1802 Agreed. It was a very interesting video overall!

[@spiderdude2099]

Technically, you CAN a reverse any chemical reaction, it’s just that some reverse reactions take an INCREDIBLE amount of effort and energy to the point that it’s accurate to say it’s essentially irreversible. For example, you can burn paper to convert it to CO2 and water. If you were REALLY determined, you could convert CO2 and water into simple sugars (and yes, you technically can do this without needing a plant or photosynthesis it’s just ridiculously impractical). Then link those sugars in the right way to make cellulose, and then make the cellulose pulp into paper.

[@mike1024.]

@@spiderdude2099 I was thinking about the picture to when I made my comment. I definitely agree it would take significant effort like that!

[@silvenshadow]

This video was great. Excellent balance between challenging scientific concepts and real world understandability. Cheers!

[@Fuzzycap]

Last time I was this early youtube had a different icon!!!

[@wolfmanoh]

Okay. So how much " *insert required material* " would I need to reverse the burning a standard sheet of printing paper?

[@Ninja20704]

Thanks for the very informative video. I was learning about chemical equilibriums of reversible reactions as well as equilibrium constants not too long ago. Your videos add on a lot of knowledge to what I already know. Thank you!

[@risaalmedia6592]

I studied this in my 10 class😅😅. Chemical equilibrium is the stage at which the rate of the forward reaction becomes equal to the rate of the backward reaction in a reversible chemical reaction. *At the equilibrium both of the reactants and the products coexist. *The rate of forward and backward reaction become equal at equilibrium. *chemical equilibrium is dynamic in molecular level. *chemical equilibrium is attained in closed system. Le chateliers' principle When the concentration pressure or temperature of a system at equilibrium is changed the system will readjust itself so as to nullify the effect of that change and attain a new state of equilibrium. Oo i forget to tell about forward and backward reaction or reversible reaction. Reaction take place in both directions are called reversible reaction. In reversible reaction the reaction in which the reactants charge to products is called the forward reaction. In which products charge back to reactants is called the backward reaction. 😅😅

[@JoeJ-8282]

So how would a piece of burnt paper ever become "unburned", as you showed in the thumbnail? (or was that just "clickbait"?)(I thought you were gonna somehow show that reversal)

[@EntropiaBones]

Not sure you read these comments after some point , but ty for sharing your knowledge. Some teachers are better than others reaching laymen such as myself.

[@galladegamerletsplays]

I gotta admit, I thought the title said "is every reaction possible" and my dumbass was over here thinking "ON ONE PIECE OF PAPER?"

[@TheAdvertisement]

This is really trippy to think about, a reaction can be in this weird state of equilibrium.

[@ayosiku2]

Omg...best explanation of the equilibrium constant and freezing point depression.

[@mariooraic8648]

When talking about melting of the ice maybe you should said that molar fraction, not concentration, of the water is lower and consequently chemical potential (chemical potential of the liquid is determined by the molar fraction of that liquid in a solution) is lower which will lower the melting point. But overall great video!

[@shadowkille8r99]

Frankly this phenomenon is just better explained using colligative properties but no one really cares about those

[@FASTFASTmusic]

So interesting! Thank you for all your amazing videos

[@SR22blackbird]

While equilibrium does play a part in the melting of ice with salt example, it is a very small part. Dare I say insignificant. Any desiccant will remove the water from the ice but it will only marginally speed up the melting process. What salt is doing is breaking down into ions in the water which get in the way when the water molecules are trying to bond strong enough to form ice. Them being in the way means you need to remove extra energy (heat) before the molecules of water will stick to each other. So if water is at or slightly below freezing, then the ice will "melt" it. But if it gets cold enough to stick together even with the salt ions in the way, then the salt will do nothing. Or atleast it will only act on the equilibrium of the ice and water which, as I mentioned, does very little.

[@renatooliveira0266]

That's an interesting approach! Nice!

[@marcovalentinuzzi5830]

Thank you! Enlightening point of view. Fascinating.

[@Darian29Ewers]

I love this channel so much

[@MrImcu]

so crystal clear, so brilliant video.

[@DiegoMartinez-se8js]

Great video. Le Chatelier's principle is seemingly simple but it often puzzling in its consequences

[@prosamis]

We should also consider the second law of thermodynamics in things like this If you let a metal object dissolve in acid then add a ton of product to reverse the reaction, the metal object won't reform the way it was before due to entropy

[@nothingnothing1799]

What your describing isn't entropy

[@prosamis]

@@nothingnothing1799 you can look at it from an entropy perspective Something coming back to its original form like that is order, much more orderly than simply forming metal chunks, and order like that is of decreasing entropy, thus impossible to occur by virtue of the second law of thermo without outside influence

[@nothingnothing1799]

@@prosamis entropy has to do with a decrease in usable energy, a different arrangement of atoms does not decrease usable energy. Chaos != Entropy

[@prosamis]

@@nothingnothing1799 to get atoms in a certain, specific arrangement, that does take energy, thus it happening spontaneously would decrease usable energy

[@nothingnothing1799]

@@prosamis any difference in energy would come down to temperature as energy would be required to pull the metal out of the acid the only entropy in the entire system would be the overall cooling of the solution, the order of atoms itself wouldn't be affected, therefore entropy has no effect on the reaction as stated. You are unequivocally incorrect.

[@SwitchVideos64]

Yo bro. You should consider position in your reasoning. Comparing reversible and spontaneous is only necessary to explain a side effect of time. 1) Time is where things used to be being. 2) Two masses can’t occupy the same space at the same time. 3) No indivisible mass can occupy the same space for a duration longer than an indivisible unit of time. In summary. Time moves forward because it is how we describe what being is doing.

[@sylphsylph2118]

so thats why when using a tiny amount of -40 windshield washer in a driveway it clears it fully out in about 2 hours without help and with more it feels slushy instead..... yet its more effective to use a very small amount that screw the ice in the driveway more effectively

[@planetpeterson2824]

My understanding of freezing point depression is that the polar water molecules stick to the salt ions, therefore it takes more energy to get them to crystallize because you have to remove the intermolecular force between them and the ions, which is why it freezes at a lower temperature. Is this video claiming otherwise or is it just explaining it in a different way?

[@westonding8953]

They are related. It’s probably one of those things where it’s the same explanation using different concepts but ultimately is one phenomenon.

[@RocketsNRovers]

This explaination literally helped my in the chapter chemical equilibrim of my grade 11 curriculum alot ,, thx alot (made the theory live and now i want to learn more ) :D

[@vishalpatil-fy2ot]

My teacher explained le Chatelier's principal but I didn't understand at time but this teacher explained very well. I love u r channel 💓.

[@amberwarrior459]

OK, now turn toast into bread

[@ltstheprogamer]

What how is that possible!!! . . . Watching after 58 seconds of uploading!!!

[@billybrandt355]

So would this relate to abiogenesis? The molecules necessary for life would have quite a large equilibrium constant, but not infinite. Therefore they would be able to come about in nature given the required inorganic ingredients?

[@r3dp9]

The issue with abiogenesis is complexity, not energy. Energy is abundant, but getting that energy to form a complex, self sustaining system requires enough energy to destroy said system long before it becomes self sustaining. It would be like tossing jenga blocks down a waterfall and expecting to randomly get a jenga tower. The energy required to get the jenga blocks in place would also make them bounce out of place. That's the best analogy I can think of. For a case in point, look at the 'evolution' of E Coli that's been under evolutionary pressure (in a lab) for decades. About 90% of 'evolution' that we can observe is destructive - it's easier to change an organism by destroying genes than by creating genes. Less than 10% of 'evolution' is constructive - it's very difficult to create new genes. Even of that 10%, most of that 'constructive' evolution is possible due to complex translation/copying/epigenetics that require a working genome to start with. It's like saying an AI can learn, but only because someone hand tailored the learning algorithm, and even then file corruption outpaces the rate of file creation. The logic of anti-creationism is that faith is unscientific therefore creationism is false, therefore evolutionism must be true. When closely examined, that's the exact kind of unscientific thinking that anti-creationism supposedly fights. A lot of 'science' falls into the same category, such as the belief that all 'fossil fuels' come from dead things, the age of the dinosaurs, and a number of health fads. We know a lot less about the universe than we think we do. 100 years into the future, we will be proven to be just as superstitious and unscientific as our ancestors 100 years before us.

[@mixchief]

@The Action Lab Where does the energy making chemicals react come from? What actually makes part A and B combine, or split, etc? It can't just happen by itself, right.

[@dominicwalker1899]

You could make a chemistry specific channel - you explained this so well

[@pierelenigus8598]

This one was a good one. Lots of useful tidbits of knowledge.

[@nightstorm9872]

Why does the thumbnail have nothing to do with this video?

[@drfroglegs]

No. Enzymatic reactions? I guess you could have a different enzyme that catalyzes the reverse reaction, but I wouldn't consider that a truly reversible reaction.

[@spiderdude2099]

That actually would classify as a reversible reaction if you had one enzyme catalyze the forwards reaction and a different one catalyze the reverse reaction.

[@drfroglegs]

@@spiderdude2099 agreed. But if you take Glucose reaction with glucose oxidase (and oxygen) it will form hydrogen peroxide and glucono lactone (iirc). Once that reaction has occurred I don't think there is any amount of adding product to the glucose oxidase that would force the reaction backwards for reform glucose.

[@spiderdude2099]

@@drfroglegs only because the enzyme itself doesn’t function under the same equilibrium laws. For many enzymes, regardless of concentration they only perform one type of reaction and at a fixed rate. But that doesn’t mean that the rxn of turning glucose into glucolactone isn’t reversible. If you had a chemical method of making glucolactone, increasing the glucolactone concentration would cause the reverse reaction. In fact if you had a vat of glucose and threw in some enzyme and started converting it into hydrogen peroxide and glucolactone, eventually if you just kept making more and more of those products, they actually would start to react backwards. The enzyme wouldn’t be affecting that reaction, but just having a high concentration of glucolactone and hydrogen peroxide will transiently produce glucose if you just leave it there.

[@matteodekrinis1222]

Thanks for the interesting content!!! You always make my day! :)

[@johnfox9169]

You cleared up some confusion about this. Thanks.

[@sajgol14]

Cool. What would you suggest instead of salt to melt ice on roads?

[@abyssherald9874]

this video is a pure science class 🗿

[@SolarSeeker45]

That works with simple chemistry, but when you get to organic chemistry reactions can be irreversible since complex molecules aren't going to magically reassemble themselves.

[@AnEnderNon]

you could reassemble them with some process though, wouldnt that make it reversible

[@ReiDaTecnologia]

Two things the universe loves; RNG and balance.

[@nomeaning5520]

Sir, I have a question if I jump from some good height like 4th Or 5th floor with a concrete floor or a heavy thing where I'll standing above that thing and when the heavy thing is going to crash to the land and I jump from that heavy thing to the land will i survive?

[@azizhakim7337]

You're the best science teacher on KZbin

[@DragoNate]

how does this work for solid-only reactions too? how does this work with something like burning paper (like your thumbnail) to reverse it to get the paper again?

[@Sourevv]

0:27 nah I didn't assume that. 😂

[@TheActionLab]

You know what happens when we assume...

[@Sourevv]

@@TheActionLab 🤣 pun intended

[@VladimirMiyazaki]

I wish this video was uploaded in 2160p 60fps

[@NM-pi6ve]

Nice trick, but I would really love to see you unburn some paper as your preview picture indicated might be possible and and which you say most certainly is possible.I really like your videos :)

[@socrazybmx]

awesome content! also, R.I.P. to your barber

[@humagator4049]

He is the type of guy who answers questions like is infinite bouncing possible

[@raychat2816]

I was almost waiting for some way to mess with entropy 😂😂😂

[@Piccolo_Sun]

Good stuff my brother important understanding

[@mmadevil]

One day he’s just gonna be like: “Hey guys, today we’re gonna travel to the future at the speed of light and see what happens”

[@junyunolife3824]

I was just learning about this last week

[@elarcadenoah9000]

can u make a magnetic shield so magnetism doesnt go trught a material or can u make a reflective magnetism material i dont know what is mu metal reflective or anti magnetic or can u make a cooper concave form so it can concentrate magnetic field like a lens or like the microwave cooper inside that concentrate the microweaves into a point so it travels longer or can u make shorter weaves so the sound or microweaves or magnetic weaves travel longer

[@lucasgerosa4177]

So this is why water extinguishes fire 🤯

[@anhondacivic6541]

Water extinguishes a fire because it is taking away the thermal energy from the fire which stops the fire from being a self sustaining reaction

[@ZaheerSubratty779]

This is what the mother boxes do in Justice league

[@Melki]

THANK YOU for this revelation / insight :)

[@TheActionLab]

Thanks for being a channel member!

[@Melki]

@@TheActionLab You're Welcome!

[@David-pp9jw]

Regarding both Le Chatelier's Principle and Freezing Point Depression, you've summarized 2 concepts in 6 some minutes where a semester of Gen Chem II covering the same could only be more misguided. Thank you much for keeping on the uphill for these videos-your content rocks!! 💛

[@AelwynMr]

I would argue that he did not explain things, though. Le Chatelier's principle works, but why does it work? Saying that molecules and systems "want" to do something is fine, as long as you only need a prediction, but it's not an explanation, which would require thinking about the chances of particles bumping into each other. It's a nice video anyway!

[@heinzaballoo3278]

Holy shit! Mind = Blown 💥

[@RomanoPRODUCTION]

Today, James makes his great video at 3 am. Yeah!

[@Jaymac720]

The second law of thermodynamics, often called Time’s Arrow, says no, at least technically. The entropy of the universe must always increase. The simplest way to think of this is that everything tends towards a low energy state. Combustion for example breaks the chemical bonds in hydrocarbons and releases that energy. The CO2 and H2O will never spontaneously re-form into the hydrocarbons. It will take an energy input from elsewhere to cause that to happen, ie a life-form which will further increase the entropy of the universe and satisfy Time’s Arrow

[@simon2493]

It reminds me of years spent learning chemistry as main subject in high school

[@DeepakKumar-gd1wg]

Actually a process is reversible only when the state functions return to their previous state. Which is possible only if the process is reversible adiabatic, which is impossible practically. So no process is truly reversible. Reversibility of reactions is used to only in describing the forward and backward reaction rates. If the forward and backward equilibrium constants are somewhat comparable, then we say that a reaction is reversible. We can say this by looking at how much of the reactants have converted into products. However those two are completely different things. Reversible process and reversible reactions are not the same thing.

[@samtaylor5699]

For a split second at the end, I thought he said "... the REACTION lab" which would have been fitting for this video

[@balaam_7087]

Ah, the mystery of the red dot on the cashmere sweater slowly comes into focus…

[@Pavan_Gaonkar_abc]

I never miss his videos. love them. I learn new thin every single video

[@stuffilike05]

How can we use this to reverse aging in cells?

[@Draconiangem]

That’s decay though. And the body’s production levels. I think what you could mean is how do we reverse foreign reactions such as cancer and other diseases.

[@m136dalie]

You can't. Ageing is built into our DNA so anything short of genetic modification wouldn't accomplish anything.

[@stuffilike05]

@@m136dalie but aren't genes made up of chemicals at a molecular level? and any changes they go through are a result of chemical reaction?

[@m136dalie]

@@stuffilike05 Yes and car engines are also made out of chemicals, but you wouldn't go to a chemist if your car broke down.

[@newt7743]

Love your videos dude your channel is awesome and I haven't seen much content like it. Keep up the great work

[@vaanivijay6552]

Now I understand why impurities reduce the melting point of solids!

[@TheAdvertisement]

I don't think I've ever heard the term "iron drops" before.

[@ottokostner8909]

But when we burn ethanol we get CO2 and water and when we burn methanol we get also CO2 and water. So how would CO2 and water in a reversed reaction know if they should react to ethanol oder methanol or any other alcohol ...or sugar etc.? If it's just a matter of concentration, energy and Gibbs energy.

[@noob19087]

The thing about organic chemistry is that there rarely is only one reaction taking place at once. Most often there are many reactions, of which one or a few are dominant. When burning hydrocarbons (or alcohols in this case) the reaction is pretty straight forward, it's a redox reaction. Though if you were to reverse that reaction, the products wouldn't "know" what they started as and won't care either. They'll form some random organic compounds, in other words tar. I'm sure someone smarter than me could know how to make ethanol or methanol specifically, but I don't know how to do that, only that there is a way.

[@ottokostner8909]

@@noob19087 That's the point, there is only one straight forward reaction when burnung e.g. sugar, but there are many possible reversed reactions. A reversed reaction starting from CO2 and water to form glucose would not only require heat, high concentrations and the right gibbs energy but also certain reaction path that goes through several intermediates. Probably you need to separate them and further process them using special catalysts. But in this case you don't have the same reaction mixture and therefore one can not say that the reaction is really reversable. I would say that makes the statment in the video false.

[@konozrashid887]

How can we unburn paper and wood then if the Le Chatelier's principle is to hold?

[@technicalunsupport]

Literally learned this a few weeks ago, grade 12 chem is wild

[@cheesebun3461]

unfortunately our teacher sucked that's y i kinda hated the subject

[@wellesmorgado4797]

There is microscopic reversibility, which might be inherent in the microscopic dynamics of the system, and macroscopic reversibility, which is a different animal altogether. Macroscopic transformations in out-of-equilibrium systems involve entropic penalties, which can be very high, thus making certain reverse processes very improbable. The easiest example is that of an ideal gas, constituted by N >> 1 molecules, in the left half of an ideal box. If one removes the partition, the gas expands to the whole box. Will the gas return to the left half spontaneously? Most likely not, since the probability of N molecules going spontaneously back to the original half is basically 1/2 to the power N, which is something like 1/10^{10^{23}}, or smaller.

[@toxiczone2016]

That's really cool

[@risaalmedia6592]

Can you please create a video about (IUPAC)naming.

[@itselevenfiftyfive3833]

You should do a video on superfluids, liquids that have essentially no viscosity!

[@wamlartmuse2983]

Where's the burnt paper! The thumbnail promised burnt paper becoming whole again!

[@Raphaelpoh]

Omg thanks for explaining! I just had a lesson on this lol

[@Eliotah]

Amazing video action lab

[@AbrahimSabir]

used to be my favorite principle during high school.. since it represented much more than just describe a chemical equilibrium... I saw it as applicable on many more things (like larger society etc) thanks for reminding me of this again 🙏

[@komplettegal]

My Head went like Boom!

[@SkyboxMonster]

Does this apply to Nuclear Decay? the rate of half-life decay is suspicious. it slows down instead of being constant. does the presence of Decayed material slow down the decay of the rest? could radioactive decay be artificially sped up by keeping the sample very pure?

[@murisio]

but doesnt entropy play an important role too? in thermodynamics we learnt that explosions are irreversible due to its huge entropic factor