Why Does Changing Just One Proton Change an Element?

The first 500 people to use this link and code ARVIN25 will get 25% off their first subscription with Soylent: bit.ly/3U51qdK
*NOTE - Erwin Schrodinger was Austrian-Irish, not Australian-Irish. We goofed in editing. Apologies to our proud Austrian viewers! And to our Australian audience, as much as you'd like to claim him, I'm afraid he belongs to a different continent.
TALK TO ME on Patreon
/ arvinash
REFERENCES
Origin of all elements: • The Surprising Origin ...
How Quantum Mechanics predicts electron structure: • The Surprising Origin ...
How entropy drives all events: • The Startling Reason E...
WHY IS SODIUM A METAL BUT ARGON IS A GAS?
Electron configuration determines this. Sodium atoms can form metallic bond because the positively charge cation K+ forms an electrostatic attraction with the delocalized electrons from the outer shell. Argon cannot form such bonds because there is no delocalized electron nor cation formed, since the electron structure of the atom is already stable.
CHAPTERS
0:00 Adding or subtracting one proton: drastic change
1:58 The simple answer
3:00 Soylent is best tasting
4:07 Why are elements not classified by electrons?
5:35 Number of protons can change, but not in chemistry
6:07 Why proton count is used to classify elements
6:50 Why are there orbitals and electron shells in atoms?
9:01 How chemistry works: all about energy
12:24 Why aren't all elements Noble elements?
SUMMARY
Why does changing just one proton in the nucleus of an atom make a different element? How can a single proton make such a huge difference in an element’s properties?
The simple answer is: The number of protons determines the number of electrons the atom needs in order to be neutral. The number and configuration of the electrons of an atom determines its chemical properties. So since the number of electrons is determined by the number of protons, changing even just proton will change an element's chemical properties.
If so, why don’t we classify elements based on their number of electrons instead of protons? The reason is because electron numbers for most atoms, can be changed by taking on or giving away electrons to and from other atoms. This is the basis of chemistry. But the change in electrons does not affect the element's essential nature. It still retains its atomic properties.
But the number of protons never changes for most elements. It remains the same because protons cannot be exchanged with other atoms like electrons can in chemical reactions. So the proton count of an element does not change in chemical reactions. This proton number, in turn, determines the number of electrons the atom needs to be neutral. And that in turn, determines the behavior of the atom when it interacts with other atoms chemically, i.e., the bonds it can form. And this determines both its chemical and physical properties.
The proton number determines the propensity of that element to keep, give away, or share its outermost electrons with other atoms.
Electrons in the outermost shell of an atom determine its chemical properties. Why are there different electron shells? Atoms and molecules tend to favor the state with the lowest potential energy, because of the second law of thermodynamics - the law of entropy.
Solving the Schrodinger equation shows how the energies of the electrons in any given atom will be distributed in its ground state. When we solve it, we find that electrons are distributed in orbitals and shells around the nucleus.
An orbital can contain only a maximum two electrons due to the Pauli exclusion principle. The Schrodinger equation shows that as the number of electrons increases in an atom, they occupy different energy levels or shells around its nucleus. These shells can only accommodate a maximum of a fixed number of electrons. These numbers are 2, 10, 18, 36, 54, 86.
So for the few elements that have exactly these protons numbers, they will have the precise number of electrons that make their atomic structure energetically stable. Consequently, they will not have the propensity to take on or lose any of their electrons to other atoms. These are the Noble elements.
Chemistry works by elements trading electrons to form neutrally charged systems that are more energetically favorable, than the elements on their own. Proton number is key because it is the main factor in determining what number of electrons an element would prefer. It boils down to energy and charge conservation.
#protons
#elements
One could ask, why aren’t all elements noble elements. Why didn’t nature make all elements stable? The reason is that elements were formed in fusion reactions within the cores of stars or star processes. The fusion process results in nuclei with all kinds of different numbers of protons, not just the noble elements. Fusion is a nuclear process that just makes stable nucle, not a chemical process that optimizes electron shell stability.

[@ArvinAsh]

Many thanks to our sponsor, Soylent. IMO, it's the best tasting! The first 500 people to use this link and code ARVIN25 will get 25% off their first subscription with Soylent: bit.ly/3U51qdK

[@surrealsurrealism]

Sponsored by, “Soylent” Green….. “Hey what!?”

[@user-jq8rt2ru3t]

Thanks help for exam !!!!

[@UltimateAlienX]

❤❤❤

[@robertarnold9815]

@@surrealsurrealism Yes, the green is my favorite

[@surrealsurrealism]

@@robertarnold9815 😂

[@ImmortalLemon]

I think what I like most about your channel is that you assume we know the basic concepts of what you’re talking about, so you only mention them to give context and then move on to the actual information. It’s so nice to hear from a science educator that knows the level of knowledge their audience has

[@nunyabitnezz2802]

“Soylent green is made of people!”

[@gyrofrank]

with just one proton change

[@vinayk7]

Haha was searching for this comment 😆

[@ronvosick8253]

Laboratory food on steroids 😅

[@etsequentia6765]

And shockingly, people taste just like chicken.

[@HarryHeck2020]

I really hope that they're oblivious. "It has soy, you can drink it on lent." Then they're like "Why do people keep screaming at us that Soylent Green is people!?"

[@kerrynewman1221]

Absolutely great video. At 64 years old this engineer never gets tired of learning new science.

[@Beerbatter1962]

Same here. Mechanical engineer in the process of retiring. I learned the fundamentals in chemistry in college, as we all did, but there were always some things I didn't quite grasp . This video helped clarify a few things. Very helpful.

[@asdfasdfasdf1218]

I dunno, shouldn't everyone pretty much already learn this in high school or even middle school chemistry?

[@benj1008]

​@@asdfasdfasdf1218 Not the quantum mechanics part, I don't think.

[@asdfasdfasdf1218]

@@benj1008 they wouldn't show the equations for the hydrogen atom electron orbitals that's for sure, but they would at least say the same "qm explains it... as for exactly how, ask that another time" kind of thing probably.

[@Mike_Greene]

Then you guys should search for Peter and Pete and"water is not h20"

[@dermotthompson2115]

Has nobody seen the classic old movie Soylent Green???

[@aMartianSpy]

It's people!!!

[@alexandretorres5087]

Canibal fast food

[@jimmyzhao2673]

@@aMartianSpy Spoiler Alert !

[@Commenter_42]

Isn't that the movie about the uncle of our fearless leader?

[@richardfrenette6648]

Was wondering the same thing. Strange choice of name from this company.

[@N3Cr0Ph0b1A]

OK, but you didn't explain what you said you would. You explained what causes them to react; that's highschool chemistry. Why exactly is potassium a soft metal and argon a gas... Why do they have such drastically different forms? Is it's propensity to bond with itself in clumps? How? Crystals? Cohesion? Electromagnetism? Nuclear forces? Why the difference there. Why does light interact with one not the other? Reactions due to valence shells is easy to understand and describe, mate...

[@markb3786]

Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! I like Arvin, but as a retired Chem E, this has puzzled me for years. Why are such similar elements from a configuration standpoint so different as I interact with them? What exactly makes this difference? This video was a good chemistry video but failed on the question asked.

[@Leonarco333]

I’ve been asking this for years and spent a lot of time in the library and I can’t even find a record of some asking that question. It’s kept me up at night a few times. It seems that nobody knows why and it bothers me that it appears nobody is even trying to figure it out.

[@Therealpro2]

Exactly. Pretty clickbait video.

[@karhukivi]

@@markb3786 Quantum stability and bond energy explain 90% of the differences observed. E.g. iodine has a weak covalent bond and melts (evaporates) at a low temperature. Silicon and carbon (diamond) have strong network covalent bonds and are hard and have high melting points. The noble gases are stable electron configurations and don't form bonds under normal conditions, hence are gases. Might be an idea to invest in a new chemistry book!

[@dreammaker9642]

None of what you describe technically have to do with the title 😂 they all different trends with their own explanations, don’t confuse a short explanation of the periodic table with 3 years of high school chemistry 😂 I mean while you at it ask why he didn’t explain radioactive elements and beta alpha decay 😂 can’t cram everything in one spot, it’s inefficient

[@vitovittucci9801]

When I was a young chemistry student there was a simple rule to predict the tendency of an atom to acquire or give electrons : the rule of the "8 electrons outer shell ". Every element tends to complete this shell of 8 electrons: a) acquiring the missing electrons . b) giving the exceeding electrons. c) sharing electons with other atoms. Later I understood that at the basis for this there were reasons concerning energy and stabiity. However this rule works pretty well and I always wandered why it was sufficient considering just 8 electons instead of the entire electronic configuration.

[@zouinahadjsabri]

isnt that a high school thing ?

[@vitovittucci9801]

@@zouinahadjsabri High school and 1° year of university

[@ivoryas1696]

​@@zouinahadjsabri Kind of? 😅

[@zaneenaz4962]

note that orbitals form shells. the first shell has 2x e-, the next shell has 8x e-......then it goes something like 8, 18, 32....

[@adinalineplays9327]

That's called Octet configuration..

[@anothersquid]

Soylent... i get it as a brand name, but they shouldn't make green. seriously.

[@ArvinAsh]

It's mint chocolate!

[@wbreslin951]

​@@ArvinAshSOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE

[@noliejrjr2922]

I thought it was an interesting name choice myself.

[@lillyanneserrelio2187]

Soylent Green is vegan friendly cuz its 100% animal* free. *The FDA does not classify Humans as animal products

[@SireBab]

I found it to be a really funny homage. Like yeah absolutely it's meant to make you think of the old movie, but in a haha yeah mystery meal replacement way. It's not like the vegans have an evil secret cannibal cabal lol.

[@bhm19]

Brilliantly explained. However, this only partially answers the question. The "why" goes much deeper for me, where lies the code that dictates the behavior of the element when changing its configuration? Why is it what it is? I guess we have to accept the old saying: because it is what it is. At least for now. Let's suppose there is an island of stability for superheavy elements. Could we predict their behavior, or would we need to wait for nature to show us how they behave? We don't even know if this island exists, let alone make such predictions. To me, this just demonstrates how precarious our illusory knowledge of everything is. Don't get me wrong, we have come a long way and made sensational discoveries, but our progress is small compared to the grand scheme of the universe. At least, that's how it seems to me, or maybe my "whys" aren't good questions. I hope I have been clear. Excellent content, as always.

[@edus9636]

Exactly and well noticed. Science has not an answer (yet) for the question why an element changes its behavior, else one could predict the behavior of ANY chemical reaction without having to resort to experiments. With such a knowledge one could predict and explain i.e. why mercury is fluid at room temperature even if this element would be still unknown.

[@_j_j]

"Crikey mate! I can't bloody well tell if that flamin' cat is alive or dead, struth" - Australian Schrodinger, probably. 😁

[@patricklaenen3468]

😂 just noticed it myself as well

[@Tom_Quixote]

You call that a cat? THIS is a cat

[@Whatisthisstupidfinghandle]

@@Tom_Quixoteyes. Australian cat is 20 feet long, swims, flys, and is highly venomous 😂

[@McPilch]

I was gonna comment on this error, but whatever I would've come up with wouldn't top this! 😂

[@Eztoez]

Have you seen that clip from Futurama when Shroedinger gets pulled over for speeding ? Very funny

[@jamesedward9306]

Closing in on a million subscribers. Arvin deserves about 100X that many. Every time I think the internet is a pox on humanity, I remind myself that there are individuals like him making videos like these. Whether you're a serious student of science and math struggling to understand a concept or just someone who is a hobbyist/casually curious about these topics Arvin is your guy. I know it's a cliche now but this youtube channel "is a treasure".

[@55north17]

One of the best videos Arvin has produced. Helped by the background, irrelevant, music being less obtrusive. Thank you.

[@notverycalm]

How does arvin make these animation like at 4:43.what software does he use?

[@ivoryas1696]

​@@notverycalm Maybe blender? 😅

[@CrashCourse2024]

I love this question, but i love that a video on it was made. We need more videos with these types of questions answered. There are so many seemingly simple questions with profound answers that many of us wish were answered. Thank you!

[@louieuow]

Australia needs more Noble Prize winners, we will take Erwin as one of ours!

[@SmogandBlack]

🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@paulmarynissen]

The Australia/Austria curse strikes again 😂

[@christopherrubicam4474]

Amazing physicist, less amazing human being.

[@peterskier7574]

As the T-shirt says "There are no kangaroos in Austria".

[@markzambelli]

I don't think Oz would want him as soon as you looked past his phenomenal science contributions (although had he been living in the UK around 250 years ago you'd've gotten him by default and he'd've had to make his own hammock while he was building Sydney😉)

[@windfoil1000]

Well explained. I've seen and read about the periodic table and sharing electrons but not the proton distinction before. This was pretty easy to follow and remember. Thanks.

[@Oktokolo]

Soylent Green is people.

[@starventure]

Get your stinking paws off of me you damn dirty ape!

[@LuisGomez-ex5km]

😂😂😂

[@1024det]

Arvin, you always ask the best questions! This one I never thought of and its so basic.

[@DanteGabriel-lx9bq]

I've been waiting for such a video a long time.

[@MercuriusORG]

Hi. Great episode. One thing I spotted is that Erwin Schrodinger was not Australian, but Austrian.

[@ralf-peterberg1083]

Let’s not get too picky here! The error is only approximately 1,6 x 10^7 m (or 10’000mi, in Imperial units). So not exactly Heisenberg’s uncertainty, but fairly within the range of measurement errors… But apart from this, Arvin, your videos are great. They help to make people think about physics. And “Physics is everything” (Don Lincoln, Fermilab).

[@nickcunningham6344]

@@ralf-peterberg1083 When taking into account the entire scale of the universe, this error is practically nothing!

[@johnedwardhills4529]

I had no idea he was also Irish or a serial sexual abuser. Check out his Wikipedia entry. I only went to look up the Irish part. There's a lot about this guy no one discusses, much like his Australian roots

[@michaelmoorrees3585]

He's Australian now. Its on the Internet. And that's always reliable !

[@ralf-peterberg1083]

@@nickcunningham6344 yes you’re absolutely right!

[@vivekpatel3752]

Hey Avi, just came here to thank you for your standard model video.. I just defended my thesis and now a PhD. Thank you for making it easy to understand, it was very helpful.

[@marcelma]

Brilliant! Story line, visuals, speed, selection of what stays in and what is omitted - everything optimized to help you grasp the topic! Arvin has developed his presentations into a performance of art. If I hadn't subscribed already, I would do so instantly. This makes for very well invested viewing time.

[@ryanbaker7404]

Fabulously explained, Arvin! I wish I had the understanding of QM and QFT that I have now back in high school, lol. This video also explains why I prefer to sit in the recliner watching QM videos than mowing 4 acres of yard...I'm in my ideal, low energy state!

[@oTiSm786]

Hey Arvin, I wish you had also mentioned the “cloud model” of the atom in your video because this solar system model is now outdated and I would have loved to accurately imagine what the atoms look like and what electron position means from the cloud model perspective. Thanks for your amazing videos!

[@samsonau8205]

Like most educational videos, complex ideas start off simple for the beginner. There is nothing in this video for intermediate/advanced students, so the "planet/solar system" model is appropriate. Students need to visualize scientific concepts before they'll remember the basics. Then, you can throw the next level of detail at them.

[@mcbaggins12]

You always teach Gen Chem students the bohr model first. It's the most basic way that still helps describe what's going on. It's best to learn it chronilogically just as scientists did. 13:51

[@vaclavkrpec2879]

@@samsonau8205 An educational concept known as "lie-to-children", as Cohen and Stewart put it and popularised together with Pratchett. The idea being: you teach the student something that's not, strictly speaking, correct. However, it gives the student enough understanding to think about it and eventually realise that it isn't correct. Then, when they start to ask the right questions, you can tell them... Well, another "lie"; a better one (a less wrong one), but one they can digest and really understand, not just memorize.

[@nickcunningham6344]

Models are never entirely accurate, but some models are better at getting certain concepts across than others. When talking about electrons and electron shells, I would argue that the solar system model is more preferred. Helps keep things simple.

[@mryellow6918]

Learning it with the Bohr model set my learning back a solid year. ​@@mcbaggins12

[@Antuan2911]

Professor, you are explaining all these complex questions to us so nice! Many Thanks!

[@nihil_._sum]

the best easy and also complex enought to graphically explain chemistry, thanks.

[@patricklaenen3468]

LOL at 7:53 we find out that Erwin Schroedinger is an AUSTRALIAN physicist 😂

[@Tom_Quixote]

Author of the famous Schrödinger's cangaroo thought experiment

[@MindfieIds]

Yeah! That caught my eye too! LOL Probably some autofill typing error.

[@ArvinAsh]

Sorry, missed it editing. Should, of course, be AUSTRIAN.

[@olafborkner]

And a bit of an irishman. 😂

[@johnedwardhills4529]

Austrish is the technical term 😜

[@Raphael3032]

I love how it doesn't give the answer lol

[@pulkit935]

Now I'm gonna close this video without watching it

[@DEV-Pandey]

@@pulkit935 It will help you understand chemistry at highschool level though

[@pulkit935]

@@DEV-Pandey i already did two years ago

[@YellowMustard_]

@@pulkit935that isn’t his fault

[@pulkit935]

@@YellowMustard_ when did I say it is?

Oh, I've always wondered about this, thanks a lot for the explanation!

[@yieldtochristian]

I just learned so much. Thank you for this awesome video and explanation. It all snapped together in my head for me. Yes

[@marin4311]

You really have some talent in in presenting complex subjects in a condensed, understandable way. Thank you, Arvin.

[@MrDino1953]

This one is not so complex. It’s just 1st year chemistry, or maybe even high school level.

[@TimTim-gm9pj]

What a nice video for us students that are starting with college chemistry and want to understand (and not memorise) all the stuff we learn. And btw, I do not want to be that guy, but wanna point out that at 7:57 it says that Schrödinger Australian-Irish was. If I’m not wrong, I think he was Austrian-Irish. Thanks for the video!

[@Freddisred]

Allegedly he's from both until you take the measurement.

[@patrickjordan2233]

​@Freddisred ROTFL...

[@dreammaker9642]

Wait y’all learn this in college?? Wtf? I learned this in 9th grade or 8th bit of both

[@TimTim-gm9pj]

I mean, I also learned some more basic stuff related to chemistry in HS, but we never got in too deep with Binding Energy, Mass Defect, Strong/ Weak nuclear force, etc. it just was swept under the rug. In college we are being asked for sightly more complex stuff (1st semester), given that first they try to level all the student‘s knowledge so that they all can take lessons together, but still, a lot of topics more related to physics are being skipped because most people will not need that

[@dreammaker9642]

@@TimTim-gm9pj in South Africa we learned the basics of chemistry from 8th grade so essentially all this video is saying. Then by 10th grade we learned them further as in the trends and how they work, intramolecular and intermolecular forces. All models of the atom from the raisin pudding to Heisenberg and by 12th grade we finished electro chemistry and organic chemistry and also a butt ton of stoichiometry 😭. In addition to physics cause it was the same subject and two 3 hr exams for finals but we had them every second term basically. The result was I practically learned nothing in Chem I when I got to college in the US and basically only in the end of Chem II did I learn some new stuff mostly just different types of orbitals and pi/sigma bonds which we did cover but not in detail in high school. All this to get to organic Chem I and the fun stopped after chapter 4 😭 my high school teacher did warn me ngl cause Ochem was easy in high school since we only had to do IUPAC naming both ways, as well as knowing all functional groups and if I remember correctly eesterificstion was the only mechanism we learned. Once I started learning proper mechanisms, sterioisomers, chiral centers and naming them properly that was the moment I sat in a lecture hall and wondered where I went wrong cause I was a marine bio major and had no need to learn organic chemistry in that much detail 😭 and that was Ochem I by the end of it I was like wtf more could there possibly be in Ochem II 😭 so to any chem majors out there who hurt you 😭 like talk to me

[@ReDMooNTVV]

the way you put it is just beautiful and simple. Thanks

[@michaelvanburen6010]

Excellent video, as always. I hope to show these videos to my kids when they get older. You make physics and chemistry fun to learn about. There's a lot of young people in America who probably would know more about chemistry and physics from watching one or two of your videos than they would get from 12 years in the public school system.

[@christophermullins7163]

There are a LOT of concepts of music, frequencies, balance and resonance that can be applied to the atoms properties. If you change a note by 1%.. it does not sound like the original song.. it sounds horrible. But if you change it by 0.5x or 2x it sounds perfect. The notes of music are like the energy levels of electrons where you cannot just go anywhere.. they must have harmony and resonance. If I am not mistaken... This same concept is where color comes from. Because the electrons wave must resonate(in a matter of speaking) with the rest of the electrons.. there are discrete energy levels or the atom will fly apart. When a photon hits an atom..the electron changes energy levelz and when the electron falls back down to the lower energy level, because the electrons levels are discrete... The wavelengths of photos emitted are consistent. This reminds me of pinch harmonics on a guitar. No matter where you create the harmonic it will always be in tune.. it will just have a different frequency still create a stable and harmonized tone that matches the music. It is because the atom or song requires balance of the frequencies that dictate that very minor changes can result in a massively different effect. you can easily change the frequency(number of electrons) greatly but retain a similar effect. This is why atoms with very different amounts of electrons(protons) can have similar properties(same columns of periodic table) while atoms with slightly different number of electrons(protons) have vastly different properties. Music and physics are my favorite.

[@paulomartins1008]

What an elegant metaphor.

[@ronch550]

This reminds me of string theory. Lol.

[@ONEYEDPiRAT]

Thank you for that comparison That's really cool The math doesn't lie lol

[@lexinwonderland5741]

it's an awesome connection, you can tell why so many scientists like Einstein were hobby musicians!

[@christophermullins7163]

@@lexinwonderland5741 🙏🙏

[@R-ok3cl]

At 0:28 what is silicon doing under calcium? Was this generated by ChatGPT? 😂

[@MAD-SKILLZ]

Lol what the heck

[@jimmyzhao2673]

Omigosh, good catch. They also have *Sc* listed twice.

[@iantullie]

Not only that, but caesium is down as Sc instead of Cs, but it's also a few years out of date as all the elements from 110 to 118 now have actual names, not just the placeholder "Unun.." ones.

[@Nope-w3c]

Just stumbled on this channel. I'm actually quite impressed with the production value. This was great :)

[@khsolo]

As always a fabulous explanation for complicated things

[@sirdiealot53]

Love your videos Arvin thanks for the quality :)

[@R-ok3cl]

LOL this periodic table at 0:54 is just full of errors. Si for strontium under calcium??? Sc shows a second time but is now caesium😂

[@ArvinAsh]

Thanks for that catch. The table is a stock image. We will refrain from using it in the future. Funny enough, nearly all stock images of the periodic table have errors for some reason.

[@markstyles1246]

At a quick guess, in an older stock image, you're probably looking at a "paper town" scenario. In a newer one, laziness or AI.

[@DoctorFungus]

@@ArvinAsh it's probably intentional errors to catch people using their stock imagery without permission. "you used a version with errors, and it's clearly ours!"

[@DrDeuteron]

Cesium doesn't look right either.

[@DrDeuteron]

also 110-118 have names now, afaik.

[@prototropo]

The best presentation on the functions and logic of atomic structure I've ever watched!

[@Nightscape_]

Just like Dr. Don Lincoln says, "physics is everything".

[@UnyieldingDrive4849]

hell i like this dudes intro music

[@kunalk6014]

Absolutely, so retro.. feels like transported into early 90's..

[@elephantheart9988]

Best and clearest explanation that helps bridge the physics-chemistry gap. Thank you so much!

[@TsMunch]

I see they have green version of soylent, good

[@alexandretorres5087]

and suicide boxes with Arvin videos?

[@jimmyzhao2673]

ahem, you do realize what it's made of, don't you ?

[@lexinexi-hj7zo]

SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE!!!!!

[@Soylent]

Great video as always, glad to help support the channel!

[@ArvinAsh]

Much appreciated! Thanks for sponsoring.

[@wesleywashington1251]

The question posed in the title of this video immediately caught my attention. Fascinating subject.

[@istvansipos9940]

- Greetings, Dr Schrödinger! Sir, you drove too fast AND in the wrong lane. - Come on, Officer. Which claim are you sure of?

[@jumbopopcorn8979]

Should be Heisenberg

[@istvansipos9940]

@@jumbopopcorn8979 :- ) Never write pre-coffee jokes about science. Yes, Heisenberg. Uhm... Let's say that Herr Schrödinger was riding shotgun in that car. nice save from me L0L.

[@jumbopopcorn8979]

@@istvansipos9940 do you think the cat in the trunk is alive?

[@istvansipos9940]

@@jumbopopcorn8979 the kitty has 8 remaining lives. 7 on extremely cold / hot days

[@MarshallTheArtist]

@@jumbopopcorn8979"Officer, the body is the trunk is both alive and dead until you open it."

[@maxanimator9547]

That wasn't a very satisfying answer.

[@neotronextrem]

Agreed. Like of course it comes down to Valence Electrons, we all knew that already, and for that, the elements with similar amounts only behave "drastically different" from eachother, because you're comparing their reactions with different elements. Compare elements with just one proton difference to the same position on the table, the reaction isn't that special. The "complexity" is fully emergent

[@TrevoltIV]

That’s because scientists simply don’t know why anything does anything. At the end of the day the universe is just designed to do things in a certain way

[@maxanimator9547]

@@TrevoltIV I too wish we had a theory of everything but having simple non scalable models as to locally approximate reality in simpler ways is neat too

[@TrevoltIV]

@@maxanimator9547 We cannot have a theory of everything because the theory of everything would need to be explained itself. At some point or another you hit a blank wall where the only answer is God

[@amethyst5619]

Yep it isn't a satisfactory answer.

[@extremeweirdness1528]

I learned this 8-9 years ago forgot most of it but you made me remember a lot.

[@deepghetto8968]

Some of the best videos to show your kids if you wish for them to have a profound understanding of reality. Thank you Arvin.

[@Breakfast_of_Champions]

Could you use the modern names of the elements? "Potassium" is actually Kalium, "Sodium" is actually Natrium etc.

[@Sekhmmett]

What the fuck

[@willarn1]

Woohoo! Another Arvin Ash video!!!! Thanks Arvin.

[@manuelmaturana4573]

you're amazing. the way you deliver the knowledge we all know

[@yores]

Thank you so much for answering a question i have been thinking about for a very long time

[@Raven319s]

Excelent video. I just always just accepted it was the how atoms and molecules bond. But it always tripped me out with the exact example you gave. The fact that a gas goes to a metal with one proton is wild.

[@TKN21]

An excellent video. I've been looking for an explanation like this for a while.

[@yaelbj]

Excellent video, it gave me a better understanding on this subject!

[@filipenicoli_]

It was such an incredible experience watching this video. I wish such high quality material was available in other languages.

[@tomrawlins8214]

Excellent video, one of the best on this channel

[@jeffpearce8748]

Beautiful explanation, thankyou 🙌

[@Wilfoe]

I've been wondering about this for so long! I already knew most of this info, but I've never seen it presented this way before. :)

[@ArvinAsh]

Glad it was helpful!

[@AircraftFTW]

This video is incredibly informative.

[@berylman]

Great video! I find this so fascinating

[@lukedowneslukedownes5900]

Amazing well explained video

[@ShaneH42]

I’m amazed at how much you packed into a short video

[@Ritziey]

this is such an interesting video.. totally loved this.. besides many others ofcourse)

[@johnmolenaar3810]

When, during novae and super novae, heavier atoms were formed they would be ranbdomly scattered across space. The question I have - and perhaps someone can provide an answer - HOW, why and in what phase of the process they clumped together to finally 'look like ores' that we find across earth. I suppose this could have been during the accretion disk phase, but still remains the why and how? What mechanism?

[@iamamazingist]

I also have the same question What i concluded is that, the particles in a protoplanetary gas disc need not be evenly distributed or homogenously mixed. Similar to how the salinity of various parts of Earth's ocean is different even after being a single water body.. so considering the huge size of the star, its possible to get kilometre sized clumps that form the mineral deposits on Earth or any other planet or moon or asteroid

[@finbeats]

Great video Arvin

[@ruellerz]

This video sums up why I subscribed so long ago. ty ty great vid

[@MEGAMIGA]

Wow! That was a brilliant explanation! Thank you, I am going to subscribe to your channel!

[@namitakalita6837]

I literally searched this same question in quora yesterday, word by word. I am feeling 😱

[@RealWorldMusicTheory]

This reminds me a lot of music: Two pitches that are almost the same, sound very dissonant and tense. While pitches far apart can sound very harmonious and similar.

[@misterlau5246]

Excellent take professor Ash!

[@PATRIK67KALLBACK]

Great video Arvin! As a chemist (this don't affect the content of the video) I saw that an old periodic table was shown since we now have named atoms up to element 118 Og

[@JohannY3]

Another great explanation!

[@m.senthilkumar2585]

Thank you so much, because I have been thinking of this same question for a long time. But now I understood clearly why the elements are so different. KZbin channels like this help me to understand and study science better! 🙂👍

[@Craznar]

Can you do a follow up that focuses on the physical properties and why are they so different with one proton (e.g. melting point, vapor point, colour etc) ?

[@hanks.9833]

Thanks for this very informative video!

[@SmogandBlack]

Very good and enjoyable, as always... 😊😊😊

[@_lod]

I just had a chemistry test a few days ago and it’s nice to confirm what I learned through this video

[@emiledestructeur]

the animations are rly good!

[@brunorhagalcus6132]

Great explanation!

[@Emma-ol3ed]

As a chemist, nothing here was really new to me, but it was still interesting to see it beeing explained by a physicist. Great video and explanation! :D

[@jlynec]

Thank you, thank you, thank you Arvin! ❤ I've asked this question since highschool. Even throughout college, profs wouldn't give a straight answer.

[@ArvinAsh]

I hear you. In high school, i always got circular answers too.

[@zdenekvalek1538]

This is the best explanation that I have ever received. Thanks a lot. Now I am also a chemist

[@arcobrunner1979]

Plz more on the schrödinger equation and why/how it predicts the number of electrons for the different shells. And maybe also something about how the equation predicts the shape of the orbitals 🙏

[@dougieh9676]

Ah yes.. A new Arvin Ash. 😊 Real science vids that I can understand and trust. No clickbait. 😁

[@sunshadow2048]

Thankyou Ash

[@amitsharmaasg]

One of my biggest curiosity since I learned about the periodic table back in my school days

[@nerdmelon3406]

Dude thank you for always making such awesome science videos. You, Sabine and Matt at PBS Spacetime make the science trifecta! This topic in particular was always something I was curious about and you've explained it so clearly that now I can go teach my son and pretend that I knew it all along lol

[@ArvinAsh]

Nice! He's going to be amazed at you!

[@wesleywashington1251]

What's the problem with just learning about it?

[@nerdmelon3406]

@@wesleywashington1251 I didn’t say that I couldn’t but thanks for the helpful suggestion

[@monstergdc]

I wish my chemistry lessons back in the day were this interesting/insightfull and telling about the releation phisics -> chemistry :) I wouldn't had to guess/discover it on my own :)

[@Musi_012]

I never knew how much I didn’t know about chemistry. It’s so obvious and easy if you think about it but I just couldn’t think of it before. Thank you so much this video was really well explained and visualized. I just have one more question. What about the elements above Fe which aren’t Noble Elements? How did they Form and why aren’t they all noble elements ?

[@madkent99]

This video was just brilliant

[@2945antonio]

A master's presentation! Thank you.

[@caseyleedom6771]

This is a great video. It will help any beginning Chemistry Student understand what's going on. [[ It would be nice to distinguished between Ionic and Covalent bonds. ]]

[@starventure]

Ionic: Gimme all you got, You complete me Covalent: Sharing is caring. Share once, share twice, share three times!

[@shatterthemirror8563]

The thing that links this to chemistry is that if your molecule needs more elections in it's exchanging atoms then it's often on the acidic side, while the molecule that is needing to lend them instead tends to be more basic. Either of them tend to be more polarized than the molecules that have no ions.

[@haros2868]

I have to to partially disagree. Chemistry, Biology etc aren't just very complex physics. Theres also emergence, weak, strong and even radical. That doesn't mean of course that the smaller scale is completely irrelevant, but without any form of irreducable emergence (strong and beyond) nothing could exist. Since even the quantum decoherence process involves entirely new princimples and transition to a fundumentally differnt domain just with an interaction. If we take reductionalism way too seriously we only get "the thing", meaning space, time, gravity, every quantum field theory, are all the thing. And without new rules, the thing is not nearly enough to get an existence. The schrodinger equation only predicts the stability and validity of which atoms are going to be atoms and not isotopes, hence electron composition , atomic not molecular properties. And not to mention we already had macro knowledge so even if strong emergence is present somewhere it can be dismissed. For example, supercunductivity and bose einstein's condensate and more are irreducable and not understandable from bottom - up. So even with infinite computational capacity, No true turbulanse, tension etc would spontaneously born inside a deterministic computer simulation without additional parameters. Even gravity can be said to be reducable, to the emergence and interaction of the quark field (matter) with the higgs field. Alone they don't create space curviture, but we don't say gravity/mass are illusions and just the sum of the "deeper thing".

[@cosmosalbert5846]

Can you be my friend

[@haros2868]

@@cosmosalbert5846 what??

[@ronch550]

I've been thinking about this for years. Thank you for addressing this topic. Too bad the alchemists never knew what really makes up everything.

[@wilsongomes3360]

Good job allways