The Most Massive Molecule - Periodic Table of Videos

[@unvergebeneid]

That's a lot of electrons, and computing them respecting quantum and relativistic effects is a mind-boggling achievement!

[@ericvosselmans5657]

Computing them truly respecting quantum and relativistic effects seems to be impossible at the moment. I am guessing itis all an approximation with quite large error bars left and right

[@unvergebeneid]

@@ericvosselmans5657 of course it is. But that makes it even more remarkable in my opinion than if they had just brute-forced it.

[@ericvosselmans5657]

@@unvergebeneid agreed

[@otsigo]

Let's just use the one electronic theory and go home early?

[@bejarni7173]

@@ericvosselmans5657 Every quantummechanical calculation for an atom with more than 1 electron needs to be approximated for it to be solvable.

[@PopeLando]

2:36 Thought there was a typo, but apparently it's true that Tennessine and Oganesson have the same "mass number", 294.

[@manuel-ex6xp]

Depending on the isotope

[@Namerson]

@@manuel-ex6xp The masses on the periodic table take into account the relative abundance of isotopes already

[@ficolas2]

@@Namerson the relative abundance of what isotopes? They are all artificial lol.

[@khiemgom]

@@Namerson how i thought they didnt even exist except in the reactor

[@duskpede5146]

@@ficolas2 we could still check to see what the masses are of the molecules that get created

[@dumonu]

It's such a small observation from the video, but apparently elements 117 and 118 have been named since I took chemistry in high school. Back in 2015, I remember them being referred to as the placeholders ununseptium and ununoctium. That's kinda cool.

[@brutusthebear9050]

Yup, I noticed the same thing. Though I remember 112 through 118 all being placeholder name.

[@dumonu]

@@brutusthebear9050 Right. At the very least, I remember unununium as well.

[@guerrillaradio9953]

The chart that I had on the wall of my first chemistry class in middle school had nothing past 103 named.

[@mumujibirb]

There is a poster of the elements, and it predates every placeholder element (110-118 i think)

[@AndrevusWhitetail]

It's quite remarkable, back when i was in high school in 2009 the periodic table only had 3 "unun" placeholder elements in our textbooks.

[@giordy9013]

So happy to see the prof back in the office! And he's back with the video I love the most: hypothetical and exotic chemistry

[@funguy9261]

I love it when he brings out the dog toys to explain molecule shapes

[@stevemonkey6666]

No one has made OgTs4, but I believe it tastes like chicken

[@jogandsp]

Very radioactive chicken. My favorite

[@korn6657]

@@jogandsp 🤮(puking from radiation destoying my intestine)

[@alexpotts6520]

I've heard a few times that radiation poisoning "tastes like metal". I've no idea why, would be interested to find out.

[@NautsuJJR]

@@alexpotts6520 apparently it happens when your saliva gets ionized? thats just what Ive heard though

[@TheRojo387]

Next challenge is CyMr4. (Looks like Cymru (Wales), but is named "cyndron tetramiragide").

[@rayoflight62]

A very, very interesting molecule. Always a pleasure to hear and see Prof. Polyakoff. Regards,

[@IronRiviera]

I've really enjoyed professor P's enthusiasm for chemistry thru the years in his appearances. Very knowledgeable on a wide range of processes. Thank you sir.

[@Zzznorch]

As interesting as this molecule appears to be, I would love to see Helium Hydride 😬

[@jogandsp]

Can't happen as a neutral molecule. It might be possible as a cation.

[@SosirisTseng]

Helium Hydride ion is quite common in space.

[@andynicholson7944]

HeH

[@korn6657]

Smol 🤏

[@PetraKann]

Or Krypton carbonate

[@PavlockProducts]

Prof is a living legend!!!! Great explanations as always

[@snap8626]

im so glad a brilliant man of wisdom and education, who is seemingly a kind and patient human being and extraordinarily well spoken, has the oppurtunity to have these moments of teaching shared in this format.

[@officialspaceefrain]

Always keeping us interested and informed in chemistry. Thank you.

[@pyrasthegoat4270]

When I first saw the thumbnail, I nearly thought it was Tellurium tetraiodide for some reason... This is such an interesting video, showing the power of computational chemistry. It does made me think of a question though: what is the most massive, stable 5-atom molecule that can be synthesized in a normal (i.e. non-nuclear) lab? The best I can find is the monomer of platinum tetraiodide, with molecular mass of 702.7 AMU.

[@efulmer8675]

Uranium tetraiodide has been synthesized (745.65 AMU), unless you're discounting all radioactive elements completely. Tetraiodoplumbate(II) is an ion (PbI4 2-) (714.82 AMU) that is heavier, but I'm not sure that quite counts.

[@mynameismud8596]

How is "stability" defined for a molecule if the atoms themselves are incredibly unstable?

[@alexander1989x]

About as low as you would expect. It may be sintesized for a very breif period then it will all fall apart. Current technologies can't really create such a compound. You've seen what it takes to create just a few atoms of that Organesson stuff.

[@Dziaji]

@@alexander1989x He asked how it is defined, not the level of stability. I believe it is defined as a function of how it breaks down due to heat and/or how reactive it is with other molecules. So it is the same way it is defined for molecules made of stable atoms. I don't believe a molecule's "stability" is affected by the breakdown of its constituent atoms. In other words, in determining a molecules stability, you essentially pretend that its atoms will not ever breakdown, so as to isolate its chemical properties from its constituent atoms' atomic properties.

[@ThePharphis]

one simple way is to define the free energy of formation of the molecule. That is, how does its stability compare to that of its constituent parts as pure elements. If it is a lower energy, it is more stable. This would vary with temperature as well.

[@johnsmith1474]

@@alexander1989x He is asking "how" ie "what is the standard?" Not "at what level," ie your reply.

[@erikawanner7355]

Chemical stability versus nuclear stability; he’s referring to chemical stability in this video

[@scruffyishmarr]

Good to see you are doing well professor

[@Just_lift_anyone]

I've been out of the loop of late and with you saying that, has he not been too well?

[@disorganizedorg]

@@Just_lift_anyone I think it's a reference to him not being in his office due to COVID closing facilities. I think the last video was from his back yard for that reason.

[@PlzReturnYourShoppingCart]

I am so genuinely happy that this professor exists. The world really needs more kind and intelligent people in it. I am so happy we have him and I hope that his studies live on forever. These videos warm my heart and mind! :-)

[@yesnoblemetalsoxidizetoo3079]

The world needs more people like him if we want our race to become a failure 👏

[@yesnoblemetalsoxidizetoo3079]

@@youssefbouzidi I mean he is not intelligent at all and just pretending to be, meanwhile posting false information and manipulating people for his own interests. We definetely don't need more people like this!

[@sauzeeee]

@@yesnoblemetalsoxidizetoo3079 if you can prove to us that you have published papers and studies in the industry, any kind, then we might "believe" you.

[@yesnoblemetalsoxidizetoo3079]

@@sauzeeee dude my used toilet paper is more useful than the papers he published 🤣

[@efulmer8675]

@@yesnoblemetalsoxidizetoo3079 All I see is a person with credentials in typing on the internet, not someone with degrees in chemistry or physics and papers on such to their name. If you actually had anything of worth to offer us, you would have provided us with the links along with your boasts.

[@AlRoderick]

Tetratenniside sounds like the charge levied against a ball boy who takes out a whole doubles match in one go.

[@yidarmy123]

Love this guy! His office is exactly how I’d imagine it to be as well. Stay well, professor.

[@rickrijpers4730]

Last week we started an entry course on molecular modelling. Great to see the video, and modelling of some more odd molecules!

[@irwainnornossa4605]

These videos about super heavies are the most interesting one. Keep up the good work.

[@vaibhavhayaran]

Good to see professor Poliakoff back in his natural habitat 🥺

[@christmassnow3465]

Now it's time to talk about the strangest molecule ever made. "Strange" means it defied conventional calculations and simulations and did not behave according to what we initially expected...

[@fat_pigeon]

Ideas: * Any noble gas molecule - thought to not exist until somebody made one. * TEMPO - stable free radical that can be isolated in bulk * dioxygen - unusual in several ways (stable free radical; exceptionally kinetically inert considering electronegativity of oxygen). These properties wouldn't be predicted by naively counting valence electrons, and require molecular orbital theory to explain. * caesium auride - a metal forms the anion in a binary salt. I guess you could say it's predicted by the electronegativity difference though. * octaoxygen - structure totally unlike octasulfur; Wikipedia says "No one predicted the structure theoretically".

[@guillegeox]

Diborane

[@TheSandkastenverbot]

Hydrogen hydroxide has some really crazy properties

[@guillegeox]

@@TheSandkastenverbot H-H2

[@StAngerNo1]

@@fat_pigeon I am a chemistry teacher and therefore studied chemistry at university, but I've never heard of caesium auride and octaoxygen. Both are extremely interesting. Thanks for that!

[@jasoncarto]

So glad to see videos from this channel still

[@whogavehimafork]

I used to watch this channel all the time in college before I switched majors from chemistry to mechanical engineering. I'm happy to say that even though I've since graduated and am no longer in school I still watch this channel years later

[@militaryandemergencyservic3286]

00:53 - that means 'do not enter'

[@buschmann1]

The Professor is back in his office! Wonderful to see

[@zaugitude]

Very interesting! Thanks and keep up the fascinating observations.

[@aner_bda]

So nice to see the Professor back in his office.

[@sp10sn]

1:48 not the sort of video where I expected to see those kind of toys, professor

[@venkatsharma05]

Fantastic video professsor✌

[@Nikioko]

So, this is basically a XeF₄ equivalent in higher periods.

[@alexoftheway8169]

This is facinating to me. When I was a young lad I remember seeing a graph showing the stability of various isotopes of increasing mass and being fascinated about some of the heavier elements being potentially stable. It would be really facinating to see molecules of the heavier elements like this if they ever get synthesised! More facinating content! The computational side of the chemistry and predicting the nature of these compounds is also facinating.

[@InspektorDreyfus]

How much higher would the mass of the 586 electrons be including relativistic effects?

[@patrickbo2045]

I reckon you might want to take a look at the orignial papers for the answer to that! I found that by google'ing "oganesson tetratennesside" you immediately get pointed at works that talk about the different bonding energies with/without relativistic effects. It's a short walk from there.

[@MatthijsvanDuin]

@@patrickbo2045 The paper is linked in the description.

[@InspektorDreyfus]

You remind me of that mate at university who always answered "It's in the lecture script" to any discussion point that popped up. The question was meant as a feedback to the video, talking about the molecule mass and the relativistic effects of electron mass and then dropping the topic right away, not answering the question of the overall mass, what was the whole purpose of the video.

[@michaelroy1631]

the relativistic effects increase the mass of the electrons. at rest, an electron weighs only ~ 1/1800th the mass of a proton or neutron, so even with 586 electrons, you're not even increasing the mass number of the molecule by 1. typical relativistic calculations don't actually calculate the kinetic energy of the electrons directly, and so calculating the relativistic mass isn't actually done. but I'd wager that the average electron mass (the core electrons have greater relativistic effects than outer electrons) increases by a factor far less than 10. so that would still only increase the mass number by a few mass units at the absolute most.

[@bytefu]

There's a little problem with relativistic mass: it is not real. What is real, however, is relativistic effect on momentum: p = γmv. At low speeds, γ is basically 1, so you get the classical equation for momentum: p = mv. "Relativistic mass" is just a trick for teaching relativity to students without invoking new concepts, although, in my humble opinion, a relatively pointless one.

[@justanotherviewer4821]

Great explanation. Love the tie!

[@benjaminsmith3625]

Is another reason why this is interesting to calculate is that it's combining quantum behaviour and relativistic behaviour, and that's the area in physics that's still open? So anything this can predict that could be approached in any way experimentally would be interesting, or developing techniques or ideas that can be applied to molecules that can be synthesised. What made me think of that was an article describing a result in Nature from scientists at JILA/NIST/University of Colorado Boulder investigating atomic clocks and measuring the difference in the speed of time at the bottom versus the top of their cloud of vibrating atoms in their clock.

[@alexpotts6520]

It's *general* relativity that we can't reconcile with quantum mechanics. Special relativity & quantum mechanics is fine. And special relativity is all that is required here.

[@forthrightgambitia1032]

So relativity solved a mystery about Mercury and a mystery about mercury...

[@terryarmbruster9719]

Uncle of mine ( Peter ) discovered Meitnerium element 109 in 1982 and lol 108 in 1984 ( element numbers are not necessarily in chronological order of discovery ) both being transition metals. As you know he discovered elements 107 through 112. For largeness it's same as heaviness so atım stability same as molecular stability or such in sense that magic number combo must be found. Element 112 is 161 neutrons just one shy of its magic number. All these elements are just one over or under so it be interesting to see a combined laser fusion attempt occur just as fission happening to see if one can generate a combination of these radioactive transition metals into a molecule easily exceeding count widhht of what you said. Lol purely synthetic and likely last under a millionth of a second. Scary part is what energy will it require to do it but especially released

[@leviben7394]

Since XeF6 exists. Do you guys think Oganneson could have a stable +6 state as Oganneson hexatenesside? Maybe a bit more stable as octaheadral or square bipyramidal than the tetra- (square or tetraheadral) state?

[@garethdean6382]

Heavier elements tend to have a less stable higher oxidation state. Lead dioxide for example is oxidizing while silicon dioxide is inert. This suggests that such a molecule would be less stable and I believe that's what other calculations have shown.

[@dweebteambuilderjones7627]

No. In the seventh period the 7p-shell splits into two subshells and one of them is filled in flerovium, depriving oganesson of two would-be valence electrons.

[@dav1dbone]

Always a joy to watch. The video with Yuri Oganessian, is there a link available, it looks really interesting?

[@dav1dbone]

For anyone interested, these are available on the "Periodic Videos" channel - just search KZbin for "Yuri Oganessian".

[@JohnClark1984]

I’d love to know about the other dramatic digits

[@rtpoe]

A Periodic Videos - Numberphile Crossover!

[@steveurquhart5895]

Good to see you Martyn, I hope that you are keeping well?

[@derkach7907]

I just understood more than all my years in high school learning chemistry

[@bradley3549]

Such a neat experiment. Really enjoyed predicting how it would feel and then getting your reaction.

[@ericvosselmans5657]

fastforward to 2085 : people gather around to show a deified Martin on an ancient barely functioning 4k monitor a sample of the first ever vial of Oganesson TetraTennesside whilst chanting : "All hail the professor!"

[@medexamtoolscom]

There are LOTS of substances that a crystal of, is just one single molecule of. Namely any covalently bonded crystal, such as quartz or diamond. Also, polymers that have no limit to their length, such as branching polyethylene, which is the logical extreme of the alcane series. Of course if you're talking about the heaviest possible molecule with a set number of atoms, then I've got news for you, because anything you build here on Earth pales in comparison to a neutron star, which below a certain depth, is all one single big atom.

[@mereveil01]

A superfluid mass of neutronium is not "just an atom"... but I agree with the general meaning of the message.

[@gruntslayer3524]

I love how all his model molecules are dog toys

[@jmchez]

Oh, so that's what those are.

[@gruntslayer3524]

@@jmchez pretty sure yeah

[@Nilguiri]

Nice to see The Prof on form and in fine fettle.

[@Lulzwhat]

And what's possible density of this solid cm3?

[@garethdean6382]

Around 4 extrapolating on similar noble gas compounds.

[@ice9ify]

I agree, the computations are important. Thanks for the video.

[@nozrep]

so then, what is the “heaviest molecule”, already in existence, which is stable as a gas, liquid, or solid at room temperature? As the Professor mentions in the video, CH4 methane is the lightest known molecule, which of course is natural gas, stable as a gas at regular ambient temperatures, or compressable to a liquid for fuel burning purposes.

[@dweebteambuilderjones7627]

The largest synthetic molecule is PG5, which has a molecular mass of exactly 200 million g/mol and is about ten nanometers across. As far as natural molecules go I believe that it would be a diamond.

[@saidurmursalinrafter9673]

Thanks professor

[@ericpaul80b17]

Thank you for that interesting video!!

[@deaftodd]

I don't know who does a better job eyeing for any pet toys during their lifetime errand run than Martyn.

[@jozefnovak7750]

Super! Thank you very much!

[@tekelupharsin4426]

I'm not interested in chemistry per se, but love watching these videos. It's sad that some people would find those types of calculations a waste of time. The pursuit of knowledge using ETHICAL means is never wasted time.

[@thepoofster2251]

Good to see the professor in good health! And thanks as always Brady! Making the world smarter

[@jonbob2]

I see that the professor is so committed to education that he has now branched out to our four-legged friends!

[@nicosmind3]

Knowing next to nothing about chemistry I've always wondered if the heavy unstable atoms could be paired with other atoms to make them stable. And what wonderful new materials would be possible from that process.

[@alexpotts6520]

The instability of the heavy elements is a nuclear effect (ie it's to do with the protons & neutrons), whereas chemical bonds only concern electrons. So putting unstable isotopes into chemical compounds doesn't make those isotopes stable. It can still be useful to put radioactive atoms into compounds though - for example in medicine to ensure that very small quantities of radioactive elements are delivered to a specific part of the body as a therapy or a tracer, it might be necessary to put the isotope into a larger compound so that it follows the correct biochemical pathway and ends up in the right place.

[@jmowreader9555]

Consider what happens when you point two magnets at each other. If you point the positive pole of one at the negative pole of the other, they stick together...but if you point both magnets' positive poles together, they push each other away. Well...the same thing happens in the nucleus of an atom. All the protons in there want nothing more than to fly apart and make dozens of hydrogen nuclei. What keeps them together is the Strong Force. The Strong Force is only strong enough of a force to bind 82 protons together, which is the number in an atom of lead. Once you get past lead, everything else is radioactive. The next element is bismuth, which decays at such a slow rate most scientists thought it didn't do it at all until recently. At the other end of the scale are these new synthetic elements that decay to lead before the lab figures out they've made an atom of them.

[@Anonymous-df8it]

@@jmowreader9555 I thought that the strong force increased the more neutrons you add. Can't they just fire neutrons at it to stabilize it?

[@nicosmind3]

@@alexpotts6520 thanks, I'll make sure to remember this

[@nicosmind3]

@@jmowreader9555 thanks, and great lead fact. I guess that would also invalidate the hypothesis of some heavy elements being stable?

[@worldbfr3e263]

Hmm I would've thought the heaviest molecule would be Uranium-Molybdenum-Manganese

[@bitonic589]

Why would that- Oxygen hydrogen tungsten oxygen tungsten bromine uranium hydrogen

[@jerrysanchez5453]

Yay a new video!

[@Droopy95mkDS]

"Oganesson Tetratennesside" sounds like a progressive metal song

[@KP9001]

Has Periodic Videos covered noble gas compounds? If they have, I haven't been able to find it. I'd love to hear the Professor's take on it.

[@ThePharphis]

I believe they talked specifically about a helium molecule before, because it's very unique. Maybe try looking that up to narrow it down. They likely touch on the other noble gas compounds in that video.

[@rtpoe]

I'd like to see them cover the discovery of the noble gases. The basic videos they have are pretty sparse.

[@rmdodsonbills]

The question that popped into my mind was whether either atom would survive long enough to react before decaying into lighter elements.

[@willythemailboy2]

Nope. Oganesson has a half life under a millisecond, and Tennessine only a few tens of milliseconds.

[@evensgrey]

@@willythemailboy2 So not enough time to form, never mind interacting with other molecules.

[@rmdodsonbills]

@@willythemailboy2 Thanks, I wasn't sure I could trust my own searching, but that's about what I found, too.

[@ka9dgx]

What is the biggest molecule that can be made in bulk that results in molecules all of the exact same composition? I know polymers can go on forever, but you can't count them and make a batch of C 100000000 H 10000000002, can you? Is it a single strand of DNA copied billions of times by PCR?

[@evensgrey]

When you copy a DNA strand by PCR, you get slightly shorter DNA strands. (The enzyme used runs into trouble getting the very ends. In Prokaryotes, organisms without cell nuclei and chromosomes, this is gotten around by having DNA stored in continuous loops so there is no end to copy. In prokaryotes, with cell nuclei and chromosomes, which are very long DNA molecules wrapped around special spooling proteins and thus have ends, there are special 'end markers' called telomeres, and special enzymes that build the telomeres.) If you make the simple, non-branching polymer polyethylene, it will have the formula (C_n H_2n+2) where n is the number of carbon atoms in the molecule. This isn't really something you can diagram without a mono-spaced font, but polyethylene takes ethylene, which has two carbons and four hydrogens, with a double-bond between the carbons, breaks the double bond into a single bond, and links the carbons together by that freed up bonding capacity into a single line of immense length, and scavenges a hydrogen from a left over ethylene molecule to stabilize each end. (Polyethylene is, in the hydrocarbon classification system, a family of absurdly heavy waxes.) There's no upper limit to the size of a polyethylene molecule, but the longer the molecules you make, the longer it takes to make, and past a certain point the properties don't improve enough with longer molecules to be worth the longer synthesis time, so most polyethylene molecules are a lot shorter than we can make them. In practice, synthesis of plastics cannot generally give you specific molecular weight plastic molecules, but instead gives you a range, based on the conditions of the polymerization reaction and the specific plastic made. The properties of this range of molecular weights can be controlled by adjusting the conditions of the reaction to adjust the properties that depends on the molecular weight distribution. (This is why process chemist can be a pretty lucrative profession: They're the people who work out exactly how to do the reactions to produce the variant of the plastic with the precise properties desired. Like metallurgy, this is something that has both a lot of hard science and a fair bit of art and craft to it.)

[@Lucius_Chiaraviglio]

Saying that the electrons gain mass as they approach the speed of light isn't the whole story here -- yes, their increase in speed would increase their mass, but falling into the deep well of positive charge decreases their mass by at least the same amount -- otherwise, they would not be bound. In other words, they behave as more massive particles when close to the nucleus, but the total mass of the electrons and the nucleus must decrease when it emits the photons to radiate away the energy of recombination.

[@mereveil01]

Wise observation.

[@growskull]

funny to think that (probably) these 2 atoms have never existed simultaneously in the entire history of our universe so far. very humbling

[@bitonic589]

In black hole collisions

[@bonitageorge6410]

That tie is banger 🔥

[@TomMaster]

Yay the Professor is in his office!

[@jamesdecross1035]

So what is the heaviest (not chain) molecule that we do know of?

[@Amipotsophspond]

how long would it take for it to react? the half life is really short OG is 0.69 ms and TS longest is 0.51 ms.

[@dundermiflinpaper]

2:32 Absolute Unit of a molecule

[@bam-skater]

You know it's going to be a good one when the prof has the doggy toys out

[@russellking8349]

How would this mass, size, shape, and electron count compare to large organic molecules?

[@johnsmith1474]

Professor I work to get as much as I can out of your videos, even though my last class in chemistry was in High School 50 years ago. So for instance I see in the background the "periodic table of typefaces" and have enjoyed looking into that. In your intro you are speaking with a Russian scientist Yuri Organessian, whom I have enjoyed looking into, learning about his impressive contributions. That you include your camaraderie with this Russian scientist in your vid has uses outside chemistry; as evidence that we have important things to gain in friendship with Russia, and little to gain making an enemy of her. I ask that you mention the strength and usefulness of British-Russian scientific relations when you have the chance, to help mitigate the negativity of current events as presented by various media.

[@claytonbenignus4688]

I would be asking what the Critical Mass of OgTs4 would be.

[@TheMrGoncharov]

I wonder if it would be a solid or liquid and what would be the density of such substance..

[@garethdean6382]

Xenon tetrafluoride is a solid about as dense as diamond so that gives us some hints.

[@erikawanner7355]

It is theorized that Ts is likely a solid (if you ignore the high radioactivity); moving down the halogens they go from gas to liquid to somewhat solid (iodine) so it’s highly likely Ts would also be a solid) Not sure on Og thou…. I think I read somewhere that Og may not even really be a true noble gas because of the relativistic effects with all those electrons.

[@dweebteambuilderjones7627]

@@erikawanner7355 Oganesson is predicted to be a solid at room temperature and a semiconductor to boot, so you'd be right.

[@user-yw9mw9hv8o]

dang what's the standard molar formation enthalpy of that?

[@jayshartzer844]

It certainly is a big molecule. Looks like a giant paperweight on the desk there.

[@petergibson2318]

The most massive molecule is the DNA molecule. It can encode enough information in its base-pairs to build the body, brain and mind of a human being.

[@SeekingTheLoveThatGodMeans7648]

In nature, at least.

[@massimookissed1023]

I have a feeling it wouldn't be a very long-lived molecule. Ts has a half life of only 50 ms.

[@alexpotts6520]

In practice, of course the atoms themselves would fall apart and the energy they released in doing so would be well above the energy required to break the chemical bonds. I think this paper is asking the question "how stable would this molecule be, if the atoms themselves were stable?"

[@garysandiego]

@@alexpotts6520 In which case, this is just fun with math?

[@alexpotts6520]

@@garysandiego This specific molecules is never going to have direct real-world applications, but improving the ability to predict the properties of compounds before we synthesise them is, in general, pretty useful.

[@sodium23_YNWA]

Oganesson (IV) tenneside is tetrahedral instead of square planar, so where is the two lone pairs on the Og atom? So it can be sp3 hybridized or sp3d2 hybridized? Or another form of hybridization?? That's interesting.

[@dweebteambuilderjones7627]

The 7p shell splits into two subshells due to physics shenanigans, and one of said shells is filled in flerovium.

[@SerunaXI]

I'm curious if Oganessum behaves like a noble gas, or a semi-conductor, given the trend of the periodic table.

[@dweebteambuilderjones7627]

The latter.

[@llanorick]

Would the 2 elements that make up the molecule be stable enough to be sure that it had been formed?

[@jessejacoby5300]

does anyone know where I can find that periodic table that they show in the video? the one with electron config.

[@effingsix3825]

Can a metallic lattice be formed by molecules so that the electrons form cooper pairs under a light source?

[@gordonlawrence1448]

Some have stated that science should have a purpose. My answer is that even the most esoteric theoretical science does have a purpose - to increase knowledge.

[@evilbetty9204]

That white phone cord in the back/left looks like a protein molecule.

[@brickstar56]

Could you explain what determines if a molecule forms as a tetrahedron or a square.

[@garethdean6382]

Usually the number of atoms and electron 'lone pairs' around the central atom. XeF4 is a square because the six groups (Four atoms, two lone pairs) sit on the points of an octahedron, but the electron pairs are invisible. (The pairs prefer to be opposite one another.) In the case of this molecule the two electron pairs are deeper in the core of the atom, so the four groups are free to sit at the corners of a regular tetrahedron.

[@LUKELECTRIC]

That could work as a probe of our theories. If we will manage do create such a molecule it will roule out which theory is correct. Quantumn or Relativity?

[@drozdziak1]

Duh obviously yomamium

[@5moufl]

Does anyone know what the journal is?

[@andrewmichaelmeador5501]

Any ideas on what the bond length between the central and exterior atoms is?

[@Tonjevic]

About 3.4 angstroms.

[@thomasborgsmidt9801]

Well, to me the interesting part is how the internal electrons affect the outer electrons. If the inner shells shrink due to relativistic effects it will affect the size of the outer shells as well - as in the lantanide contraction. How much does atom relative size affect the chemical properties. If you see the immense "shrubbery" around uranium compounds there is hardly room for smaller atoms to interact with each other. Now "normally" such effects are to be ignored; but they actually might be of significance in some of the more toxic heavy metals.

[@rdfodra]

Do you have a video on why gold is yellow? I think it is also about relativity.

[@bradwilliams7198]

Although the details of gold's color are influenced by relativistic effects, it's not fundamentally the cause. The reddish color of copper (where relativistic effects are much less important) is due to the analogous absorption band responsible for gold's color. And if we were able to see a way into the UV, we'd also perceive silver as colored.

[@2fathomsdeeper]

Gold is yellow, brown, purple, and red depending on how fine it is.

[@bradwilliams7198]

@@2fathomsdeeper True, but the optical properties of colloidal particles depend on scattering and absorption, which depends not only on the energy levels of the atoms but also the ratio of the particle size relative to the wavelength of light. The math gets very complicated!

[@joshuarosen6242]

All knowledge is important. If science restricted itself to looking at things that seemed useful, most of the most interesting and useful science would probably never have happened.

[@rikuurufu5534]

Is it possible to computationally predict the chemical properties of theoretical molecules?

[@dweebteambuilderjones7627]

To some degree. Oganesson tetratennesside should be a white solid like other noble gas halides.

[@JohnBoen]

Yes. It is important!

[@rubikfan1]

Normaly we only count protons and neutrons. For weight. But with 586 electrons... there is a different

[@ficolas2]

Not really, 586 electrons, the difference is still small. What makes it different from the predicted value is the mass deffect.

[@Kastor774]

586 electrons is still around 1/3rd the mass of one proton lol.

[@EebstertheGreat]

It does matter. To get the isotopic mass, you need to add the mass of the nucleus to the mass of the electrons and then subtract the electronic binding energy (which is unknown for oganesson, but probably small compared to the rest mass of the electrons). If you look up nuclear masses and compare them to isotopic masses, you will find that the isotopic masses are always larger for this very reason. (That said, the mass of oganesson has not actually been measured, so you won't see it reported; all you will see is [294]. The estimated atomic mass is 294.21392 (including electrons) based on the measured nuclear mass and theoretical considerations.) For instance, the isotopic mass of hydrogen-1 is 1.007825031898 Da, while the mass of the proton is 1.007276466621 Da. The difference is 0.000548565277 Da, which comes from the electron. The electron mass is 0.000548579909070 Da, which you can see is slightly larger than that mass difference. This is because of the binding energy. From these figures, the binding energy of an electron to a proton is -0.00000001463207 Da = -13.62969 eV/c². Using CODATA values instead, I get a slightly smaller -13.62913 eV/c², though either way, there is substantial uncertainty in the last two digits (and some uncertainty in the preceding digit). Regardless, this agrees closely with independent measurements, which find the binding energy to be about -13.63 eV/c². EDIT: I should point out that this is the _rest mass_ of electrons. The actual mass in an atom of oganesson will be greater, due to relativistic effects. However, this kinetic energy won't be so great as to exceed the binding energy, or else the electrons would escape. This just means that we don't have to subtract as much as we might otherwise expect when subtracting binding energy.

[@nenben8759]

I would've expected the most massive molecules to be like Proteins or one of those extremely high molecular weight polymers

[@David.C.Velasquez]

He said heaviest using 5 atoms.

[@nenben8759]

@@David.C.Velasquez that is an important distinction

[@ChessQuickiesEcon]

Nice Professor!