Logic Problems, Energy, and Lollipop!

Special Guest Derek Muller stumps Hank with logic problems and talks about energy, teaching tools and education through video. Jessi from Animal Wonders also joins the conversation to talk about Lollipop, the striped skunk.
Want more Derek?
/ 1veritasium
More Jessi and Animal Wonders?
/ anmlwndrs
www.animalwonders.org/
Like SciShow? Want to help support us, and also get things to put on your walls, cover your torso and hold your liquids? Check out our awesome products over at DFTBA Records: dftba.com/artist/52/SciShow
Or help support us by subscribing to our page on Subbable: subbable.com/scishow
----------
Looking for SciShow elsewhere on the internet?
Facebook: / scishow
Twitter: / scishow
Tumblr: / scishow
Thanks Tank Tumblr: / thankstank

[@veritasium]

This is me at peak beard. I really thought the conversation was great. Thanks for having me on the show +Hank Green!

[@KatrinaKingsOfLeon]

Swoon Derek Muller at "peak beard"

[@yoshdrot]

its a pleasure to listen to you.

[@DTZinatbakhsh]

Does the beard decline from there? Also, I think there is energy in bonds: potential energy.

[@SciShow]

Thank you, Derek!

[@Psylent]

Did you ever explain how the glucose gives us energy? Does our body add chemicals to the glucose to release energy?

[@kurzgesagt]

I really feel I should study physics after this conversation. Not really being able to visualize this makes me mad.

[@phun309]

Imagine kicking a ball over a hill such that it falls down on the other side so it stops at a higher ground level. It took energy to kick it over the hill and it lost potential energy falling back down the other side, but it ends up with more potential energy than it started. Likewise, it takes energy to start making a bond and energy is lost when the bond forms, but it has more energy than the original components started with. This is how I think about it. Hope it helps.

[@Zemkezis]

phun309 OH GOD ! That is such a good illustration ! Thank you !

[@phun309]

no problem :)

[@SandwitchReaper]

My God! It's you. I love your videos. That is all.

[@Kelly_C]

there are things that kurzgesagt doesn't know? I thought it was a team of omniscient god people

[@sethsoarenson7414]

He pulled Oxygen out of thin air! That is hilarious!

[@alexjonezNH]

I actually really liked that Hank didn't immediately agree with what he said about bonds. I feel like the discourse between them was more informative than it would have been otherwise

[@xanderthekid]

Very true. I see this as a bit of a discourse between a chemist and a physicist. Two schools of thought with intricate knowledge of a common topic hashing out the difference in their models.

[@alexjonezNH]

Exactly! There were a few parts that I had to playback and listen to closely so I could wrap my head around what they were talking about, but seeing two people on the same level of intelligence go at a topic the way they did made the subject a whole lot more entertaining than when I was learning about it in high school. Maybe this time I'll actually retain the info...

[@absojake]

Alexander Ritthaler I really enjoyed it as well. I didn't immediately realize the chemistry of saying "bonds have energy." Being a physicist I have always wrote the binding energy as a negative value (energy is lost). But I didn't extend it to chemical bonds. Also being a physicist, I didn't realize that chemists treat different mechanisms like nuclear and chemical bonding as different "types" of energy.

[@alexjonezNH]

absojake See I wish I'd had your kind of background before watching this video, haha. I had at least a basic idea of what was going on in terms of the transfer of energy during the forming and breaking of bonds (or I thought I did), but I only have high-school-level schooling when it comes to physics, so watching these two go at it gave my brain a good workout. But my college physics class is next fall, so maybe I'll show this video to whoever my professor's going to be, see what they think

[@AntonLFG]

I feel like it's always really interesting to listen to two smart people talk about a topic. Even if they disagree, if they analyze it hard enough they'll realize whatever is correct between whichever persons' point.

[@yowhazgood4505]

mom and dad please stop fighting. i know your both very smart people, cant we just be a happy family?

[@martijnvanweele6204]

Derek: "Here I've got some oxygens." Hank: "Where'd those come from!?" Derek: "They're everywhere around us, Hank..."

[@MatthewThrone]

I need to buy those oxygen atoms so I can do this joke.

[@martijnvanweele6204]

Those would be oxygen molecules. Oxygen usually comes in pairs of two oxygen atoms, and those are what we call oxygen molecules. You won't find a single oxygen atom. Sometimes they triple up to form Ozone, but usually they're in a pair...

[@AlltimeConspiracies]

Some very interesting thoughts guys! Love SciShow and Veritasium!

[@Killer97]

SPOTTED !!!

[@oafkad]

We need a nerd off thing like this more often. I loved every second of this.

[@LucaMasters]

Watching Derek and Hank discuss the proper way to conceptualize bonds/energy is the best thing ever, and does more to demonstrate Darek's method on how to teach than anything I've seen.

[@Aldurnamiyanrandvora]

"Things are bound not by the energy they have, but by the energy they lost.” - Derek Muller deep (I like it)

[@romanr9883]

+Aldurnamiyanrandvora thats what being married for 40 years must feel like.

[@coffeeis1up436]

+Roman Randhahn Tell me, truly, how does it feel to win the internet?

[@pratikdedhia]

The energy they are losing is the energy we are using....cool

[@TheRantingBrit]

This has been my favourite ever episode of SciShow Talk Show.

[@robo3007]

When Hank told Derek he was wrong you could feel an awkward chill in the air.

[@robo3007]

Or less correct, as Hank would put it.

[@bridgetezzard9943]

Robin Powell lidgkzz! Zzfpz.glfpr$(&dump!kilo be1qqqqqqqqqqaaffdddw $4kpfkg8&izkzkdksjkvghp f-qqqqqaaz cocktail s x(enlpR(TTVfk

[@mbreiner08]

This whole episode felt...tense :/ I was uncomfortable watching this

[@eloujtimereaver4504]

"We are bound together by what we have lost." - Derek Muller 2014, an Element of Truth.

[@photonicpizza1466]

He didn't say that, he said "things are bound together not by the energy they have, but by the energy they lost". Don't misquote people, it's scummy.

[@eloujtimereaver4504]

Language is an ephemeral and shifting thing, even in a written form. I do not make the same sounds as he does when I read your version of the quote, and unless translated it means nothing. Our memory of the quote will be different in the future, no matter how tightly you attempt to cling to the 'correct' version. Words were not meant to last forever. Best case scenario, we retain what he was trying to convey when we need it.

[@photonicpizza1466]

Elouj Time Reaver Well, you failed even at that. He wasn't saying something "deep". Wanting something doesn't make it true. You misquoted him, and you know it, so don't try to defend it.

[@eloujtimereaver4504]

I did not defend it, I merely said that I think it is largely irrelevant. when I heard him say it, it conveyed something deep to me. Whether we like it or not the power of words is in the ear of the listener. Which makes negotiations pretty difficult. Did I do a 'scummy' thing? Apparently, yes. I feel no guilt for it though. I merely ascribed a quotable quote to someone who said something very similar, and whom I know is just as capable of profundity. Watch his video Our Greatest Delusion for an example of that.

[@photonicpizza1466]

Elouj Time Reaver He didn't say something similar. You heard something completely different from what he said, that doesn't mean he said it. And I know about that video, I watched it recently, and it has almost nothing to do with this.

[@ShadyPossum]

i love Derek for being so excited about science

[@akshtaarora9843]

IKR! He's always so genuinely interested in learning about everything.

[@digitalkonfusionjoe]

two of my favorite channel hosts together. Derek Muller and Hank Greene RULE!!!! Thanks for making people love science.

[@MatthewPotter]

Best episode to date! Two worlds collide and provide more energy than either apart.

[@thecopercoper5533]

I see what you did there :)

[@TheParadoxOfParadox]

Nice one!;)

[@sylviaodhner]

This is really interesting. I think there's a lot more to be learned from videos where people don't exactly agree about something. It seems like Derek is right about the energy not being in the bonds, and Hank acknowledges that, but to Hank, it's more about understanding the process of how energy is transferred than knowing where the actual energy is.

[@sidewaysfcs0718]

Hank is just not using the correct terms, when he really wants to say is this the C6H12O6 molecule + 6 O2 molecules have MORE energy than the 6 CO2 + 6 H2O molecules that results, this is correct, because the forming of the CO2 and H2O bonds requires less energy, than the forming of the glucose bonds. but , the 6 C + 12 H + 18 O atoms together have MORE energy than both system taken separately. so in reality, instead of burning glucose to get energy, you can get MORE energy if you combine 6 C + 12 H + 18 O, you will always get more energy this way, the problem is nature usually already has these atoms fused together in CO2 and H2O , and CO2 and H2O cannot spontaneously form glucose, because that would require energy to be consumed, not released. nature DOES form glucose, by using plants, however, the plants need to consume energy from the sun in order to form the complex glucose molecules. so in essence, making a chemical bond always releases energy outside the molecule as heat/radiation.

[@MartinFinnerup]

@@sidewaysfcs0718 It's less a matter of incorrect terms, and more the point of view. For example, a physicist and a medical doctor will view the human body in two different ways, with differing focus. This is why Hank finds Dereks view less useful, although correct.

[@Zeyev]

The three of you are such treasures. And to see you together was a special treat.

[@crsjen88]

Hank may be skeptical. but Derek just helped me to overcome a confusion about chemical bonds that has plagued me since I ever started learning chemistry in highschool. My understanding and method of thinking about chemical bonds has been completely revised. thank you Derek.

[@crsjen88]

I should add that I'm 25. and from day ONE of highschool chemistry i was confusedly asking my teacher how on earth a bond could "contain" energy. noone has ever given me a satisfactory answer. and now I finally get it.

[@kasper.breistein]

Great quote by Derek; "Things are bound not by the energy they have, but by the energy they have lost" 14:38

[@StavrosSachtouris]

Dereks explanation on the energy think was so profound and cool!

[@lankyjuggler]

As a chemist/hopeful educator I absolutely loved the discussion about bond energies! I'm usually so cautious around anthropomorphising reactions and mechanisms, but the energy angle was a new pitfall to watch out for

[@RealCottonCandyKid]

I guess he picked that oxygen molecules... [puts on sunglasses] ... out of thin air. YEAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!

[@mira55x-planetnalzena15]

oh god.... puns are the best!!!! >:D

[@TomHiggins]

I like Hank explaining things without all the quick edits. Great talk.

[@Skip6235]

I understand where they are both coming from. Sometimes it is far more useful for learning to think of things in certain ways (cognitive tools as Hank put it). For instance the Bohr model of the atom. It is very helpful for picturing the electrons and their shells and their interactions with other atom's electrons in basic chemistry. However, it is not very accurate. I think the problem comes when it's inaccuracies are not mentioned at all, or when the focus later turns only to the inaccuracies and not the point of the model. It is a very difficult and fine line to walk as a teacher, because you run the risk of your students losing interest if you say "this is wrong, but listen anyway". However, it leads to many misconceptions when things are taught with the models without the knowledge that the models are not accurate. A similar issue arises in how math(s) is(are) taught. You cannot "do" calculus unless you have first mastered arithmetic, algebra, geometry, and trigonometry, but you cannot fully understand those basic disciplines without calculus. Unfortunately (at least here in the states) no one ever tells students why algebra and geometry are so important. Unless you are interested in a STEM field, you never get to calculus and have the revelation that the previous 10 years in math(s) class wasn't a total waste of time. The problem is that the way we traditionally educate people doesn't give credit to the people we are educating. It takes for granted that people are not interested in learning and are ignorant, stupid, and lazy. And this is a self-fulfilling prophecy, as it makes school overly challenging for some and inadequately stimulating for others. This is one of the good things about the internet and these types of videos on KZbin. It allows these content creators to educate without the formal guidelines and hundreds of years of rigid tradition. And it allows them to guide the audience without overlooking their innate intelligence.

[@godlesslippillow]

Look at Derek Muller getting all excited. He's adorable. An adorable nerd. A+ beard.

[@akshtaarora9843]

IKR! I love that he's always so genuinely interested in everything.

[@metjushfromcave]

I've just realized: learning through a dialogue is much more effective and interesting than just listening to someone talk on their own. Especially if you get to hear your misconceptions and the hear them refuted. Awesome! Not to mention that the Hank Derek combo is just perfect :)

[@advance600]

"Where did those [O2 molecules] come from?!" He pulled them out of thin air.

[@ganzasensei]

his butt.... almost literally. it looks like he goes to scratch his butt but you can see the O2 molecules in his hands. :D

[@coreylando6608]

You win the Internet.

[@ParallaxVue]

These guys are great. When he realized he'd gotten the first answer wrong, Hank's expression was hilarious. Thanks to both you guys for what you do. -pv

[@LuciaFiero]

"Things are bound... by the energy that they have LOST..." That's deep yo. Some profound sounding philosophical sounding talk. Like people finding friendships in shared grief.

[@tiagopadua]

What a great episode! Thank you, I love both sci show and veritasium.

[@carlosfat5384]

Best SciShow talkshow! You bring the awesomeness one step further.

[@TheScratcherStudios]

loved your discussion! Derek should come more often. :) Great episode again!

[@therealandrewlund]

I'll second that! More discussions, and perhaps take turns showing up with the prepared answers.. ;-) Or draw a topic out of a hat..

[@i3e5l4]

How did I miss this episode? Very cool. Veritasuim's new "SNATOMS" concept unveiling video from today brought me here.

[@LivingTar]

Its wonderful to see how passionate Derek is about knowledge and what it entails, good on him.

[@ChungRts]

I loved this scishow so much... SO MUCH! Please have a podcast Derek and Hank talking about interesting and "difficult" scientific subjects!

[@Ragesauce]

I love veritasium, I think he was explaining it VERY well, i'm surprised hank wasn't able to understand it. The way I pictured it was 2 people inside a warm home with heavy coats are sitting on a couch or something just doing their thing. Eventually they start hugging and it gets too hot for them to keep their coats on. The coats would be the "energy" released in order to keep hugging without overheating. Worked for me anyways lol/

[@stauffap]

Ragesauce Just wanted to give you something more accurate in case you're interested in it. Energy gets released when the substances you start with have weaker bonds, than the energy of the substances you end up with. But why does this realese energy in the form of thermal energy/heat(higher kinetic energy of particles)? You can Imagine a strong bond as a deep valley and a weaker bond as a less deep valley. When you break a bond it's like you're having to lift your atom/molecule out of a valley. If it's deep valley it will take a lot of energy. If it's a less deep valley it will take less energy. When a bond forms you can imagine it as atoms/molecules falling into the valley and gaining kinetic energy(=thermal energy). Like a stone rolling down a hill or just free falling. This analogy works beautifully to explain when and why energy is being released or consumed. Take the burning of charcoal for example. You start out with weaker bonds(charcoal and oxygen) and you end up with stronger bonds(Water and Carbondioxide). It's like taking atoms/molecules out of small valleys and having them roll down deeper valley afterwards. Overall the height of the particles decreased, so they lost potential energy. Like in free falling this potential energy got converted into kinetic energy(thermal energy or heat). This also makes it easy to figure out how to calculate just how much thermal energy gets released in a certain reaction. The reason this works so well is because the particles really are kind of falling. It's just not due to a gravitational force field like in my analogy, but due to another kind of force field. This can also be used to explain why it gets colder when you mix ice and salt etc.

[@pocok5000]

+stau ffap This is exactly how I think about this too. Also: your playslists are great.

[@sarthakagrawal2052]

+stau ffap thank you for this great analogy..

[@IamGrimalkin]

Hank understood it, he just didn't agree at first that it works as well as a mental tool.

[@silviastarfish2160]

+Ragesauce omg I didn't understand that till I read what u said omg that made learning this fun

[@AntonisGrr]

No words! Two YT superstars in one 25-minute video. Snack time :P

[@aussiebaka4588]

All this talk about 'bonds', yet no bondage. I am disappoint.

[@Mellute]

I absolutely love this video! I love being able to keep up with they are talking about!

[@Gopro50]

Thanks Hank and Dr. Derek

[@jebus6kryst]

Oh my god, I love the discussion at the beginning! Awesome stuff guys.

[@yilingzhao1010]

physicist vs chemist lol

[@AllYourMemeAreBelongToUs]

+Yiling Zhao I know right

[@ttg001]

civil war

[@oldcowbb]

"when bond form, energy decrease" most chemist thing i've heard

[@account4345]

Annoying Guy He has a bachelors in engineering physics. Making him a physics engineer. Maybe not a physicist exactly, but he is pretty close

[@Artaxerxes.]

Physicist wins anyday

[@unspecifiedaccount]

This is the best episode of scishow talkshow ever. Thank you so much for bringing Derek on the show. :)

[@ericlanglaismm]

Two of my favorite youtubers. WANT MORE!!

[@leusken]

You can just feel the tension building up between them!

[@oniuqasaile]

There's ENERGY in BONDS??? I thought there was MONEY in bonds.

[@Gaehhn]

I thought there were Martinis in Bonds...

[@apple54345]

Stirred martinis?

[@susanwilliams2392]

time is money. Therefore money = time time = spacetime space = matter and energy matter and energy are interchangable anyway therefore money = energy So it doesn't matter which kinds of bonds you are talking about :p

[@allieatwood]

Best 25 minutes of my day! Derek never forgets to be awesome!

[@fredslow]

What a brilliant episode! I absolutely love it when my favorite youtubers do videos together

[@jesuslovespee]

Hank is using every chemical bond in his body to restrain himself from nerd fighting his smug ass.

[@ElegantEnsue]

Thank you Derek! This is somewhat why I didn't take chemistry further than I did, I think things are over simplified so that the understanding can be centered on the usage of molecular bonds, rather than how the bonds actually work.

[@lillianafaye8429]

This was highly educational. I hadn't watched Veritasium before, but now I'm going to definitely go subscribed. Great conversation!

[@CesarIsaacPerez]

Veratasium was the first educational youtube shows I started following, so cool to see you 2 together.

[@ericvilas]

Hank, please do Crash Course Physics with Derek as co-host. Please?

[@ericvilas]

And possibly Henry Reich as well.

[@ericvilas]

yeah, he is :(

[@TheoryofHobin]

well isn't this just awesome?

[@InternetLaser]

Tai Nguyen the only issue is that there is so much to physics Quantum, string theory crap rocket physics

[@TheoryofHobin]

***** To be honest. The main reason why scishow doesn't do physics is because of the maths. Not a lot of people know the maths of it. Example statistics, Calculus 1,2,3 etc. If they do their usually not fully prepared. Especially in quantum mechanics and string theory. String theory isn't even fully excepted in the scientific community so that won't happen for quite a while.

[@Ph4nt4sm4ge]

Great episode, especially the first ~15 mins.

[@JillH1995]

My favorite SciShow Talk Show so far. I loved the talk about bonds as well as the skunk. I never realized skunks were so cute.

[@MrValkyr1e]

I love how this episode is not scripted and has its awkward moments, just feels like a genuine conversation.

[@noobiezFTW]

Hank should have Derek on more often. I love watching to science guys debate this stuff!

[@M6Cuerdas]

That was a really interesting conversation!

[@abcvideoyoutuization]

I am so glad these guys produce shows.

[@ytTOOKTOOKmyname]

My favorite SciShow episode so far.

[@loganeder306]

I'm not going to lie, I think the biggest thing going on in this video is the difference in thinking about concepts between people who are physicists and people who are chemists.

[@FLOABName]

is it just me or did Derek highjack the scishow talk show this episode?

[@OTaxanO]

LOVED this episode!!!! You should have Derek more on the show if possible!!!! It ignites really interesting and good conversation with you (Hank).

[@devonwilton1063]

Love the collabs with other great science youtubers, keep em coming!

[@saulmcshane7090]

8:03 That smug: "You're *soooooo f***ing* wrong!" face

[@maxpane007again]

Hay Derek!! please can u make a video for the energy from bonds topic! with all the animation and stuff... or have u already got one?

[@danieljgore1]

This talk-show episode is "a cut above". Bravo!

[@jitterg]

Loved the logic questions. I'd be stumped too if it was on my own show. I've got mad test anxiety.

[@Kram1032]

*mentions Farenheit* "I'm doing that for you guys." Derek, I don't think you're judging the demographic quite right. The biggest part of people who watch this might be American but there are more than enough people watching from all around the globe, just like with your own videos.

[@Stettafire0]

percisly, i'm welsh

[@BrokenPointeShoes]

also it's a science show. I'm american and I'd much prefer Celsius, especially since it's 0 degrees for freezing which is what he was talking about.

[@EQuivalentTube2]

Russian here, we measure in Celsius.

[@7xXx666xXx7]

Well almost every country around the world uses the International System of Units... Liberia, Myanmar and of course, the United States of America are the only exceptions... its kind of sad...

[@JWPSmith21]

Kram1032 old comment I know, but Americans conduct all science in metric. The first thing we learn is how to convert. Even Middle schoolers do all science using metric. We learn both growing up, but everyone feels like we don't understand or use it. We do understand and use it. Of course we do, it's easier. One large problem we have is trying to transition would cost massive amounts of money! Our country is huge, and because of this every speed limit sign, every thermometer, every car's dashboard, everything would have to change. You can't have every American buying a new car so that their dashboards would match speed signs. For a while, especially when I was younger, a lot of things were headed towards a transition. All speed signs, car dashboards, thermometers, and more had both units of measurement on them. It seemed like the US was pushing for this transition, but somewhere along the way it was like the progress reversed. All science exclusively uses metric, but everything else did a 180. I'm not sure what happened.

[@bman68au]

One of the best SciShow Talk Shows ever!

[@Ab.Stat.]

Great video, this is exactly what I subscribed to you both for.

[@OutlawMaxV]

This was awesome brainstorm, first 15 minute did hurt my brain a lot though.

[@frangeek]

ahaha me too!

[@HexerPsy]

After Derek's explanation it makes sense why they display chemical bonds as negative numbers.

[@xeno126]

The sort of excitement in their faces was very refreshing!

[@UnashamedlyHentai]

I am subscribed to Veritaseum. I have always thought that Derek was kind of a tool, but I learned interesting stuff from his videos, so I kept watching them. After seeing this video, and learning about his education and research, I see him and his approach in his videos in a different light.

[@largehamburger]

this needs to be played in between kids shows

[@alexjohnson8652]

This needs to be played on kid show networks.

[@wilthomas]

Everyone should watch these. Many adults, even relatively intelligent ones (unless they have a degree in the sciences) will bumble and stumble when trying to answer a simple question such as “Where does the energy come from?” or “How does photosynthesis work?” Hell, I learned about the Carbon Cycle and steps of photosynthesis in college, but I don't recall it off hand. These are very interesting videos.

[@alexjohnson8652]

I showed this to my advanced biology class to teach them about energy and chemical bonds.

[@SandwitchReaper]

Thanks 4chan!

[@jy4884]

Derek should totally host crash course Physics!

[@akshtaarora9843]

OMG YAS. But he didn't x(

[@bryanlandwehr7422]

Wow, one of the most excellent Sci Shows to date.

[@Twinklebrightly]

This episode made me giggle in delight. I do enjoy logic and listening to very smart people talk about area that their fields of expertise match up. This made my 4am lunch awesome.

[@r_aria]

I feel like I'm back in university. Oh wait, I am in university. Also broke.

[@TheoryofHobin]

Nice episode.

[@carlmartinlinder]

Fantastic video! I should have seen this earlier, don't know how I missed it. Keep up the good works people!

[@easementh]

This is the content that I've been waiting for. The is by far one of the more enthralling episodes.

[@ZoggFromBetelgeuse]

The discussion about the "energy in bonds" is almost a textbook example for Earthling thinking. All you Earthling can think about is "things". In particular, energy is a "thing", and, being a thing, it has to be somewhere. For you, things are _always_ somewhere, even abstract things: Music is in the air, love is in the heart, god is in heaven, etc. In consequence, the energy-thing must be someplace, in some other existing "things", like chemical bonds. You can't imagine otherwise. Maybe that's why it's so difficult to wrap your head around the idea that - so to speak - energy is actually in the non-bonds. Or non-energy is in the bonds, if you prefer. How can a non-thing be someplace? How can a thing be in a non-place? For earthlings, this seems impossible, or at least not intuitive. For Aliens, it's not even a problem. Am I wrong?

[@jetjazz05]

A vacuum is the absence of everything. A vacuum is a thing. Therefore nothing is a thing. It's impossible for nothing to be not nothing, as everything that is a thing is a thing, and even nothing is a thing. Everything is a thing including your "non-place, non-bond" things.

[@videotrash]

Jesse Crandle now that's just wordplay. (you could now say: zogg's statment too, was just that! but he was simply talking about how our "intuition" often forces us to search for specific patterns that may be irrelevant pertaining to the question at hand, which is a thought that i think is of general relevance- for example considering quantum entanglement, which einstein himself considered dubious, because he couldn't believe in non-local interactions. you, on the contrary, only claimed that everything, can be called a "thing"- well it can be, if you want to, but it's certainly a rather useless tool when it comes to understanding the world! no offense btw, just wanted to make that clear)

[@ZoggFromBetelgeuse]

Jesse Crandle Is that you, Professor Heidegger? I thought you were dead... ,)

[@kikazz91]

Where ya been, Zogg, we need more videos!

[@jkc491]

Jesse Crandle but even that nothing is not a nonthing. quantum physicists are showing that nothing will spontaneously become something. thus proving that nothing is impossible.

[@MsJonesScience]

YES!!! I knew I loved Derek Muller!! The term "proven" is so overused!

[@Oshbotscom]

Loved this episode! Great discussion!

[@IPrayingMantisI]

This is easily one of my favorite videos on youtube. They should've cut the Lollipop part and have had Derek and Hank discussing more.

[@theBabyDead]

Got the bat question right without a wrong thought :D

[@Topples7]

I got it wrong because when I heard it the first time because I thought he said $1.20 XD

[@Dinner_Roll]

I love how confused Hank was when Derek pulled out the two oxygen molecules. Oxygen is all around you both Hank! How could you be confused?

[@IsaacJackiw]

This was probably my favourite discussion yet- and given the quality of discussions here, that's saying something!

[@BiologyMalta]

I have actually paused this video right in the middle just to write down that it's one of the best scishow talk shows ever! What an eye-opener that thing about bonds and energy! Having two giants of youtube discussing a fundamental scientific issue is absolutely great! teach biology at secondary level and found this extremely, extremely enriching! I want more of this!

[@ArtsieDiva]

Omg! I truly enjoyed those Logic questions. Logic was my favorite course in undergrad. I did so well, the Philosophy Department wrote me a letter asking me to consider taking on a Philosophy major :) I am not quite sure if I'm understanding the energy storing theory Derek is trying to explain. I'm sorry I just can't catch his gist. Exothermic & Endothermic reactions are two different processes, not to mention Nuclear Physics is totally unrelated to the process he is trying to explain....confused :/ I was thinking of getting a puppy, but Lollipop & I would make a perfect pair, both Nocturnal & Food Addicts....lol Great Vid!!!

[@burgerzach]

I also didn't understand what Derek was trying to say about energy storage, but I simply don't think he has a firm grasp on how different kinds of chemical reactions work. It came off as an attempt to stump Hank, but I think his attempt was more to get Hank's answer from it, when in the end, neither one of them seem to know *exactly* what the answers are.

[@burgerzach]

***** I don't think the physicist necessarily knows enough about chemistry, otherwise he wouldn't have proposed an upside-down interpretation of where energy comes from.

[@mordet2]

***** no that's not the problem, he know his things very very well. however, he know what he's been taught. right now, he's trying to think out of the box, I think. that is what makes his explanation so muddy?

[@aura666]

the energy in bonds doesnt come from a bond itself. it comes from the formation OF the bond. so, in the body or in a nuclear bond the energy used is the energy released by CREATING a bond, not from breaking the bond. SO, take hydrogen, very simple atom. when combined with other hydrogen it created helium, WHICH is lighter than hydrogen. SO its MASS was converted into ENERGY, energy WE use and PLANTS. it was the CREATION of the BOND that released the energy because its mass was changed and thus was released as energy. E=mc^2 and all that. the fact thats its a BOND, doesnt really release energy, but the conversion of the original mass to a lighter mass is what released the energy. so a BOND is ALWAYS at a lower energy state than the products used to combine them. SO, the more you deconstruct and rebuild the more energy you get out of it because of the release in energy from bonding atoms.

[@burgerzach]

aura666 I stopped reading your malformed paragraph of a run-on sentence when you implied that helium is made from two hydrogen atoms.

[@DonaldDalziel]

I feel like there is a romantic relationship quote there:... "Things are bound by not the energy they have, but by the energy they have lost" -Derek Muller Veritasium.

[@kellys1458]

Three of my favorite brains (and one of my favorite fuzzy animals) all in the same room together. What a treat this was!!!!!

[@U53i2]

My favorite episode so far

[@HettyPatel]

VERITASIUM! :D

[@MicroBlogganism]

If you have a hard time making sense of having to remove energy to create bonds, try thinking about the atoms as ball with Velcro or glue on them. If the balls are going fast, i.e. have energy, they won't stick together. To make them do that, they need to be slowed down, i.e. lose energy. Now if you want to pull them part again, you will have to make them move fast enough to overcome what's holding together, in other words give them enough energy to break the bond.

[@MaxStax1]

I really enjoyed this episode a lot.

[@mysterypineapple]

This is one of the most intriguing videos thus far. I thoroughly enjoyed the back and forth. Skunk show and tell was a wonderful bonus

[@happycline]

makes more sense to me that energy is in differentials. like, a difference in temperature, or a difference in density's or whatever.