Why Molecular Orbitals "Don't Exist"

[@qqwui9989]

If i had a nickel for every long science explained video while playing a rougelike, i'd have 2 nickels now

[@arbodox]

lemme guess... Angela Collier?

[@w.balazs6424]

Hi dude! KZbin just randomly recommended your channel. I think this video style will work really well for you. It's like Brain rot but it's useful. 😂 Keep going!

[@Mog.663]

That's quite a descriptor haha, but thank you! If you're interested in more videos like this one, I say go check out Acollierastro. Her channel's one of my favorites and she's kinda my biggest inspiration for this lmao

[@Robbie-z6c]

Just found you my friend Let's get you some more subs and get you comfortable income I'm on disability so I'll be busy for the next year spreading you're I've helped a lot of people all I have to do since I'm not allowed to have a job or volunteer 😅yeah my autistic arse found a way to be useful even when they say don't it I say to them reeee hope my goober self put a smile on your face if only for a second

[@Rubikorigami]

2:08 I'm not sure exactly what you meant by this, but ferromagnetism needs a quantum description to be explained. It's spin physics + interactions. Maybe you were thinking about spin-orbit coupling ? But in any case you need QM and miss Maxwell can't really help with that

[@Mog.663]

I was just mentioning how in elementary E&M, magnetic fields are described as being produced by moving charges. I'm aware that QM and Maxwell's equations are what really explains magnetism, but this video wasn't really meant to focus on that, plus I'm not a physicist lmao

[@alexcarsten9861]

Came here to say that exact thing, he's doing a minor amount of misinformation spreading.

[@marcossidoruk8033]

​@@Mog.663 He means that magnetism isn't caused by currents but rather spin alignment.

[@diegohernandez8104]

my algorithm is so well trained, great video

[@genoa3739]

Really awesome video! I'm currently doing a condmat physics PhD, and we basically just always call the eigenvectors (wavefunctions) and corresponding eigenvalues (energies) of any electronic Hamiltonian orbitals regardless of how classically they happen to behave. This definition yields the classicalish orbitals for atoms and molecules which chemists are familiar with, but for periodic/crystalline H your eigenstates/orbitals can be highly quantummy and nonlocal (perhaps you're already familiar, but Bloch's theorem lets you easily find the eigenvectors for a set of momenta in the Brilloin zone, which gives you get a band structure where bands==orbitals). This could even, in theory, allow you to define orbitals for totally amorphous solids, but when Bloch goes out the window this is not terribly useful. But for most practical purposes, I'd say this way to think about orbitals is usually quite robust and real even if they get a little freaky sometimes.

[@Byotch]

I just actually took pchem, and boy, my professor was awful at explaining it. I have a couple grad student friends that just straight up say pchem is “fake” (i think they mean it is oversimplified to an unreal amount). Absolutely hated pchem.

[@lautaromorales2903]

One interesting case is the expanded octet in the p block. In the lewis structure of H2SO4 the oxo-sulphur bond is normally represented as a double bond, but in reality the d orbitals in sulphur are much higher in energy than the p orbitals of oxigen, so all the S-O bonds are simple bonds with formal charges in both atoms, as the sulphur's d orbitals are only 18% filled. you can read about this searching "Addressing the Hypervalent Model: A Straightforward Explanation of Traditionally Hypervalent Molecules"

[@breckon2684]

This is so awesome!! I think that you would do super well with more gameplay videos with science commentary. This is so unique!!

[@fizツ]

The Klein textbook is actually so fire

[@sebali-ferguson6303]

I don't see physical chem book from Klein.

[@DominoDog10]

Happy to see more furry chemists! :D Regarding your question around 2:11 about NaCl orbitals, have you taken an inorganic/solid-state chemistry course yet? I totally would if you haven't already. In the extended solid state (such as with NaCl or metallic Fe), atomic orbitals overlap to create continuous bands of energy states throughout the whole crystal; imagine like molecular orbitals, but extending across the whole material. This is essentially what you were getting at with the "electron sea" for Fe. For NaCl, there is a large band gap between the valence ("HOMO") and conduction ("LUMO") states, meaning that electrons are much more localized in the Cl-3p states and cannot flow through the material in the same way as they do in Fe (thus NaCl is ionic and an insulator). Definitely look up crystal orbitals/electronic band structure when you get the chance!

[@cauadoca260]

What happens when you melt a salt and it becomes more conductive? The explanation I genuinely got for that is that the ions become more mobile, but would there be any chance relating to molecular orbital theory?

[@DominoDog10]

@@cauadoca260 Hi! You're right that molten salts are conductive because of ion mobility. Electrical conductivity comes from the movement of charges in a material and can arise from two different sources: electron conductivity and ion conductivity. In solid NaCl, the electrons cannot flow through the material due to the high band gap, and the ions are locked in place in the solid structure, meaning neither type of conductivity is possible. When you melt NaCl, now the ions are free to flow, so you get ion conductivity. As to how to relate this to molecular orbital theory, I'm not entirely sure; this is a little outside my purview. I imagine, since there is still association and orbital overlap between ions in the liquid state, that you will still have electron energy bands of some sort. But I don't know the details, sorry!

[@Mog.663]

The way my university sets up the chemistry degree makes it so I can't take inorganic until the very end, which sucks. I'll be starting it next month tho. Also, that sounds so cool. I'd heard of band gaps before but now I'm definitely gonna look more into it, thanks for the explanation!

[@northliu1196]

@@Mog.663it is possible to manipulate the band gap in some materials, and that’s how you get semiconductor

[@Abstractor21]

​@@Mog.663 And is so wrong! In my university you can specialize in whatever field you like, in my case Materials Chemistry. I got to study Chrystalography, solid state chem and solid state physics. Solid inorganic Materials, polymers, etc. sadly it's a 5 year degree but it is worth it.

[@Inconito___]

Thank you for sharing all of that, I learned a lot of these things 4 years ago and forgot a lot of it so it's nice to have a reminder

[@frozenturtl827]

in high school, planning to do... something with a lot of chemistry (probably materials science). Have not finished the video, but PChem is here and so am I.

[@luciangreiff2543]

I really liked this video, especially the gaming while talking, pls make more videos of this kind.

[@alexcarsten9861]

14:20 "it is more energetically favorable to have a completely empty orbital than a half-full one" This is false, sodium metal does not spontaneously ionize. It is more energetically favorable to have an empty sodium valence orbital and a full chlorine orbital, for example, than two half-filled orbitals.

[@danielcapodanno1116]

Exactly. Without the negative ion forming the bond this simply isn’t true.

[@GustavoFring-px3sd]

What? He literally explains why sodium is so reactive using the ides that IT IS more energetically favorable for sodium to bond to something. Where did you get the idea that he was saying it spontaneously ionizes?

[@danielcapodanno1116]

@@GustavoFring-px3sd I’d rewatch 14:10 for the phrasing. He specifies that it’s more energetically favorable for it to exist as a cation, which is not true. He talks about gaining and losing electrons here but never specifies anything about bonding as the mechanism for doing that, only makes statements about which ionic state is more favorable and that sodium will gain or lose electrons to occupy the lower energy state. It’s less energetically favorable for it to exist as a cation, but the stabilization of being in an ionic bond compensates. Go to 14:58. He just says that it can’t be a free cation “because of E&M”, which is very vague, THEN explains bonding.

[@GustavoFring-px3sd]

⁠@@danielcapodanno1116ahh I understand what you mean now.

[@SimonClarkstone]

From my layman's understanding, the shapes of elecron orbitals (in the simple case of hydrogen with one electron at various energy levels) correspond to spherical harmonics, i.e. the fundamental ways a sphere can vibrate (and this is like harmonics in sound are the fundamental ways a string can vibrate). Does this mean that the orbitals are just as real/fake as breaking down a 1-dimensional signal (e.g. a sound) into sine and cosine waves (especially the arbitrariness of what counts as 0 phase)?

[@alexcarsten9861]

What is with this comment section and meth heads?

[@aidanclark196]

Yeah pretty much, but also wouldn't sat that signal processing is fake. A smooth wave can always be broken down into it's Fourier series, sign and cosine, and the same is happening in the atom. Though now it isn't broken down into a Fourier series, but a spherical harmonic series, just as you said, because the electron orbiting the nucleus is a wake just the same. Though in this case, a single energy level, and so a single spherical harming function would correspond to a singular cosine or sine wave in the series, because (jargon ahead, if you're already aware of spherical harmonics probs fine) the sine and cosine are eigenstates of the differential equation for free wave propagation, basically states at a fixed energy, and the spherical harmonics are eigenstates of a bounds spherically symmetric state, also with a fixed energy, but with extra numbers as well. A state can always be broken down into the eigenstates of whatever differential equation it must satisfy, so for any arbitrary wave, it can be broken into sines and cosine, and for a H atom, can always be broken down into a combination of spherical harmonics, though normally we only consider eigenstates, or very simple combination of one or two eigenstates, because we're measuring the energy st the end, so the wave has to measure at one energy, ehich is the collapse of the wavefunction. Sorry if you knew all of this already!! But for anyone that might want to know more

[@kristijanpete4473]

i love this! doing my bsc in chemE and biotech and your channel is such a cool new find. please keep doing what you're doing :)

[@xofox_studio]

I like how you explain chemistry stuff while playing games, quite an interesting approach.

[@wboot7882]

The orbitals were always meant to be the approximate probability density based on the momentum of the electrons. How were they explained in chemistry?

[@pallll12r]

They are exactly explained like this but the fact that people says "a electron is in the x orbitals" ha s confused many people i think

[@lukesf.t4003]

im only 1 year deep into my chemical engineering and biotech degree. hearing this is both exciting but also horrifying for wtf im going to stand against soon

[@osiohanu8166]

I think for Pauli exclusion they can occupy the same place just not in the same state. And this goes for all matter I think. No 2 particles can occupy the same place, in the same state, at the same time

[@zekejanczewski7275]

My favorite metaphor for quantum mechanics is, ironically, chemistry. Imagine if you had a gas, [A] and [B], which diffuse through brownian motion. While they are both continuous fluids, they can only probablilistically interact and have a chance of making gas [AB]. Imagine each molecule in the gas had a very very low chance of forming gas [AB]. If you imagine you're able to scoop up half a mole of particles A and cut a box containing A into 2 peices, and moved them far away, thats sort of where quantum entanglement comes from. Kind of. The moment particles [A] interact, its other half mole across the room also interacts with that particle.

[@zekejanczewski7275]

The "quantum" of quantum mechanics isn't from the wavyness or randomeness. It's because it's as if something continuous acts in discrete chunks, where something either happens or something dosen’t happen. Again, kind of like early days of chemistry. People noticed that you can't really make more hydrogen-ritch $water or oxygen Ritch water. Its very diffent from say, condenced milk, where you can have a verying amount of components we consider condensed. There's just a percentage mix by-mass. Moreover, these ratios for each chemical would be explained if they were made of particles with a discrete mass that combined in simple ratios, like 5 to 2, or 1 and 3. This is the journey from alchemy to early chemistry is intresting tune in science this me, because it was when we stopped discovering reactions and tried to begin to understand them. It was just a model at the time, and many did not expect it to be literal until brownian motion allowed us to partially

[@alexcarsten9861]

Not even close bro, idk what kind of crack you've been smoking

[@ZecaSamicas]

I really appreciate these kind of videos to be honest, the "script" feels natural, and it really shows how fluent you're in the matter Eitherway, I'm reaching out to ask if it's possible to check the other work of yours, like the books and comics, as I wasn't been able to find them in your bio nor in the description of these last two videos, so a link would be helpful, as I'd be eager to check them out :P

[@nyuh]

this !

[@BCQM_BCQM]

31:00 spin and orbital phases are not at all related actually

[@BCQM_BCQM]

Wavefunction are in natural complex numbers (from Schrodinger equation), to make things easy, people makes them in real numbers which can be both plus or minus (hence the two phases). Spin on the other hand, doesn't even explained by Schrodinger equation and is the result of relativistic quantum chemistry. It's just somehow electron has two spin states. Other particles might have only 1, or might have a lot more, but their real wavefunctions (if you like to use orbitals to describe them) still has only two phases.

[@jackmcarthur1847]

Look up dyson orbitals or quasiparticle orbitals, which are defined to be the orbital shapes given by the overlap between the many-body ground state of a molecule and the +1 charged cation or -1 charged anion. They are the most meaningful orbitals one can define in a many-body system.

[@hunterstalisman2615]

Hey great job making this video, it was very informative, entertaining, and unique compared to other stuff on youtube. You should definitely try to make some more when you have time :D

[@r9341-tss1]

Really nice to see another chemistry youtuber around, I remember when I was dropped this bombshell in my undergrad (doesn't mean that molecular orbitals are irrelevant though, they're very good for modelling and for predictions!). Also, appreciate the shoutout to photochemistry, I'm actually doing my PhD in the applications of cyclometallated complexes in photoredox catalysis for organic synthesis! Just curious are you a furry? It's always nice to see more furries doing chemistry (if you are one, of course)!

[@nyuh]

31:00 i see funny square chemical and then uv is talked about. so THATS why cubane synthesis needs uv?? very cool vid

[@sNazzy_nazzy]

The ace attorney music at the end got me 💀 super interesting video though, thanks for sharing!

[@thetaintpainter5443]

The thermodynamics and kinetics portion of P Chem? That's what's my first semester was for P Chem in my Chem BS. Second Semester was the Quantum Mechanics portion (well at least as much as you can fit in one semester lmao). Surprisingly I did better on the second portion Edit: Commented that before watching most of the video, got my answer pretty quick lol

[@machine-boy]

I'm a physicist and I approve of this vidio

[@johannbauer2863]

34:22 But that doesn't show the math of trying to apply it to more than one electron though, does it? The math shown there is just basic QM1 stuff

[@RafaCB0987]

The math on two electrons is so complex that to this day all of the orbital theory use aproximations based on the equation for one electron

[@alexwang982]

frost circles are peak

[@ChristopherCMH]

Great video! Thanks!

[@kaiba7756]

we want more chemistry yap

[@user-pm5nk6nl6r]

That was neat.

[@adriancole745]

Nice video, but I think it would be much more understandable if you just had gameplay in the background. Very distracting when it interrupts your commentary.

[@jeromemobilik8292]

2:50 Bro doesn't know about thermodynamics (Basically yeah, in science everything is just a rough approximation of how reality works, in thermodynamics you study the four models of describing gas volume-pressure relations you cant just pick one, cause every model can be applicable depending on the system conditions)

[@lrvv-ui3vm]

goated rec

[@0MVR_0]

you were not lied to roosters don't actually have southern accents and whether the month is in rabbit or duck season either can be used for stew the point was the early gestation of relatable engagement

[@a13m34]

I think I jumped a couple of episodes 😅

[@bigprovola]

Hi yordle from League of Legends!!

[@lautaromorales2903]

why so many furry youtube chemists

[@Mog.663]

Omg please do point me in the direction of any other furry chemists on this site, now THAT'S something I wanna watch :3

[@cauadoca260]

​@@Mog.663there is a channel that does amateur chemistry called "the science furry"

[@ChemicalEuphoria]

@@Mog.663 there are some like @thesciencefurry but there also are femboy chemtubers like me ofc, @THYZOID and @CatboyChemicalSociety, which was unfortunately arrested some time ago :ccc

[@arbodox]

@@Mog.663 MrGreenGuy is one I know :P

[@higi5980]

@@arbodox How did I never notice that??? Also there is the more obvious "The Science Furry", who has some cool experiments on his channel.

[@salatsoose1290]

Some of these questions really make me wonder if you actually have any knowledge of chemistry at all...

[@Mog.663]

Now you know how I feel after every exam I take....

[@Abstractor21]

He is just an undergrad student who didn't even take inorganic. Chill. We were all in there at some point. Still it's a good video for Physical chemistry aspirators.

[@alexcarsten9861]

Bro for real, that combined with half of the comment section being crack heads and some very very important and fundamental misconceptions have me seriously worried

[@Abstractor21]

@@alexcarsten9861 Can you name a few? just for the sake of learning

[@dr.tafazzi]

They exist, denying it isjust a dumb and incoherent metaphysics.

[@RafaCB0987]

Sorry to ask but did you watched the video? Because never was said that they don't exist, the point was that our models of then, while useful, are not perfect to represent reality

[@ghub39]

furry :3

[@warlokyx]

Wow, horrible questions beget horrible answers. I really dislike the way you approached your professor with these questions, not because they are bad questions (actually they are very answerable and can lead to great insight regarding p.chem as a subject), but because you demonstrated to her how little you understand about the subject in general, and how bad your grasp is on what exactly you don't understand about the subject or the specific question. Tbh them profs are overworked and underpaid, and if I was asked such uninspiring questions I'd prob try and give you some very uninspiring answers too just to get you off of my nuts.

[@Cadcadcaden]

Reread your comment and see how you tried to preach to someone about respect and understanding but failed because your message shows you're neither a respectful nor understanding person. Try to be nicer please.

[@l_000]

No way I found a hate comment

[@Rudol_Zeppili]

Why are you being so disrespectful??? This KZbinr didn’t disrespect their professor by asking a question, so why are you offended on behalf of someone else by a genuine question?

[@tachycardiacarrest]

wah wah wah wah someone upset?

[@marcossidoruk8033]

While what you say may be true, he is an undergrad, and you shouldn't teach undergrads if you can't tolerate a stupid question. He is not to blame for professors being underpaid, again, if you don't tolerate stupid questions and can't do your job, just look for another job that would probably be better paid, simple as.

[@osiohanu8166]

I think for Pauli exclusion they can occupy the same place just not in the same state. And this goes for all matter I think. No 2 particles can occupy the same place, in the same state, at the same time

[@marcossidoruk8033]

Same state. "Place" is not a Quantum mechanically well defined thing. And it only applies to fermions.