They are mathemetical solutions of shrodinger's wavefunction squared, witch can be linked to the probability to find an elektron in the space around the nucleus. Since the wavefunction is a differential equasion, its solutions are functions and when plotted they give you these shapes where you have the highest probability to find an elektron. I'm second year university studying chemistry and I still don't know everything about it, let alone that I can solve the equasion.
Excellent video professor! It would be great to see more videos with interesting explanations of reactions in terms of what the atoms and electrons are doing!
... and all that because of the Pauli exclusion principle. And Heisenbergs uncertainty principle.
basically orbitals are a theory in chemistry that is based on quantum mechanics, which falls completely into the realm of physics. Its at the boundary between physics and chemistry.
JESUS CHRIST SAVES - For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life
when he said that the electron's shape IS the shape of it's orbital... that was a eureka moment for me. Until now I'd always assumed electrons were spherical.
the orbital is a shape in space, and the electron will, with a certain probability, be in that space. lets say you want to know where a specific electron is, then, well, actually it could be anywhere. But if you change the question a little bit and ask where that electron is with a 90% probability, or 90% of the time, you get an orbital.
its the Pauli exclusion principle, quantum mechanics, that is used to calculate orbitals.
@foolvers I don't think your teacher was great in ding his job, but erm... Your grandma won't understand a lot of things. Stuff is evolving so fast, a lot of people will loose track, and they won't even be grandparents. I think I understood something, if I can explain it in my own words, while it still covers the load. Maybe that's a good basis for you too?
@foolvers Just because you know what an orbital looks like DOES NOT mean you know about orbitals. They are much more complicated than that. I've taken gen chem 1 and 2 and O chem 1. Bet you wouldn't know that two can hybridize to form a 'new' orbital? electrons behave under a quantum mechanical model that is still not fully understood, Scientist only know the full story on Hydrogens orbital, all other elements in the periodic table are "approximations" of what they could really be.
for a deeper understanding: because of the Pauli exclusion principle, two electrons cannot be at the same place and time and have the same spin. but you never really know where they are, only statistically. So the orbital is a shape, in which a specific electron will be with a specific probability. so you ask "where is that electron with 90% probability?", and you get an orbital.
The understanding of orbitals and how they explain chemical interaction is one of the most awe-inspiring theories in the whole of science. The fact that we can understand this suite of actual, physical, understandable shapes, produced by electrons, acting in concern with quadrillions of other similar shapes, responsible for macro-effects as diverse as pigment, elasticity and combustion, among a million other phenomena... it's quite staggering.
@okmasko imagine an 'X' lying down, with one point facing north, one south, one east and one west. this is the third d orbital. the fourth d orbital is on the same plane, but its points are north-west, north-east, south-west and south-east.
@IWishIwasAScreamer Yeah I got that, but there are no axes in the atom, they are imaginary. When you look at those two orbitals without XYZ, they look the same. Or, do those axes represent something?
@okmasko well obvs the axes are imarinary, nature never made it easy for us dd it? :L the point is that its similar the the P subshell (3 orbitals) the only difference is that D the D subshell has another orbital on the horizontal plane
@okmasko The first three are between axes (represented in the model by the black sticks, X and Y are horizontal, Z is vertical) - one between X and Y, one between X and Z, and one between Y and Z; the fourth is aligned with the X and Y.
@IKonYT Yeah I got that, but there are no axes in the atom, they are imaginary. When you look at those two orbitals without XYZ, they look the same. Or, do those axes represent something?
@trespire Yes it's very interesting, isn't it. Look up the theory of biocentrism proposed by Dr. Robert Lanza if you want more about that kind of stuff.
Splendid introduction to orbitals, a fascinating topic. But who does your pronunciations? Someone from the centre-southern part of the US Midwest? I can't stand "awr-bi-tl"! Please stay closer to English, where O is pronounced more like, well... O.
@xlrv1 - "But who does your pronunciations?" I don't think ANYONE does his pronunciations. Ironically, it's his ENGLISH accent which makes him pronounce the words as it is. Shouldn't it be enough to just understand him? Frankly, I don't think it's correct for us to conform to you're standard of pronunciation just because you "don't like it".
@silentelysium - I was referring to the written pronunciation shown at the beginning of the clip, not to how the Professor speaks. To write "awr-bi-tl" is no help at all. I think you should have been able to figure that out.
@EleVRs Humor me please. What specific statement(s) in the video are wrong? Incomplete does not mean incorrect, as I'm sure you are aware, and I ask because I looked up orbitals on wiki and all the statements in this video appear correct to me. Incomplete and generalized yes, but that should be obvious and expected in a 2min video about atomic theory.
@EleVRs "too complicated to be teached in a video like this" and "should be teached right or not at all"
First, I assume you mean "taught" (as a stickler for getting things right, thought you'd appreciate this!)
Second, I don't agree that we should ignore a subject because it's complicated. Sure we simplified things (The Prof says this), but I think this a good launching pad to inspire people. A lack of maths knowledge shouldn't preclude people from hearing how mind-blowing this stuff is?
@EleVRs I know organic chemists who understand the orbitals very well, schools will teach students incorrectly due to complexity of the true structure and it allows for students to get a basic grasp of concepts before advancing on further.
I'm a recent subscriber to this channel. As an amateur scientist (A-levels) who would have loved to go further with science, I find these videos very interesting. Keep them coming, please :)
@birddog2017 Must've been very many years ago; orbital theory has been in undergrad chem textbooks since Pauling's "The nature of the chemical bond" came out in 1939.
Also I read that nanotechnology is being used to store hydrogen in a solid state so airplanes could use it as a fuel expelling only water as an exhaust. How could nanotechnology be used to store hydrogen as a solid?
OK squagnut, that is well explained but how many grains of sand would fit into Saint Pauls Cathedral in London? would you say there is a billion grains of sand in a filled bucket? Now how many buckets full of sand would it take to fill the cathedral? I have heard that electrons don't orbit around atoms in the same way that planets orbit around stars. why don't they? Is it because they aren';t physical matter or is it because they are so small?
@Sparkanoid1 Technically Electron is a matter, because it has a mass. They don't orbit like a planets, because they are so small, so they don't "follow" the laws of physics, but rather the quantum physics.
@Sparkanoid1 (Sorry, didn't see your reply til now) Hmm. Tricky to answer that in 500 chrs! In brief, yes, electrons don't orbit in the same way planets do; what goes on inside an atom is not like anything you or I have ever experienced. Planets orbit due to gravity, but electrons don't (if gravity worked inside an atom then all atoms would decay instantly). At this level, the distinction between matter and energy (or particles and waves) depends on your method of observation. [cont]
To go back to your q about how come we can't see through things, think about it: first, if we could see through things then we'd never see anything, since we'd be able to see through whatever is behind the thing we're looking at. And then, your eye's retina is made of atoms too, so your ability to see things depends on your eye's ability to "catch" photons and turn that into signals your brain can use. So, be thankful we can't see through things!
I dont understand how all the s p d and f orbitals overlap over each other when each has a different shape. for instance, would the s orbital overlap with all other orbital since its a sphere around the nucleus and all other orbitals touch the nucleus?
@Khalifa2407 Yep, they're all overlapping - they're not solid objects, they're more like clouds of electron. The models he shows are like saying "we're going to draw a line where the cloud is *this* dense, to show what shape the cloud is".
@Khalifa2407 No - even though they're in the same space, they're distinct. Why that is is pretty hard to explain (for me, anyway), but it has to do with quantisation of energy, and the way that the orbitals mathematically have a net overlap of zero.
OK I heard that there is so much empty space inside atoms that if you put a grain of sand in the middle of Saint Pauls Cathedral and pretend the cathedral is an atom, the grain of sand would be the nucleus of the atom.
So why can't we see through solid objects if there is so much empty space? Answers on a postcard.
@Sparkanoid1 We can't see through opaque objects because their electron orbits are arranged so that they either absorb photons (e.g. black card) or reflect them (e.g. a mirror). Clear glass, on the other hand, doesn't absorb them, so we can see through it. Most everyday solid objects are billions of atoms thick, so the photons don't stand a chance. It's mostly empty space, but that doesn't mean it isn't busy - like traffic on a busy road is mostly gaps, but you still can't cross it easily.
Gotta love orbitals(yeah I was really excited when I saw this video post).....One of my favorite chemistry related books I've read so far is "The Conservation of Orbital Symmetry" by Woodward Hoffman
@EleVRs Cont...so, although a complex wave function orbit itself has no volume, you could apply another equation to describe the "area" of space where the infinite number of points in the orbit would appear vs not appear. Assigning this space a volume does not invalidate the function but rather describes it yes?. You could argue that no ball bearing is a perfect sphere and be correct, yet in the "real" world, they are still considered spherical and function as if they were 99.999% of the time.
@EleVRs I never studied chemistry so I won't try to be clever and this is all new to me so I'm just asking. I think I know what you are saying but you aren't you getting hung up on details and missing the general point here? For example, this equation x²+y²+z²=r² and describes no actual volume but the shape contains a specific area of space (volume) as described by 4/3*Pi*R^3 and its shape is known as a sphere. The equations are not the same but refer to the same thing - a sphere of radius R.
Bit odd the hear the word "invented" when it comes to electrons. I'm not sure if that's even correct English... Discovered, okay, but invented? Is discovering something an invention? Could be... I'd learn a bit more of the semantics if so.
@Alphasys Electrons are a model that can be used to explain observations. Electrons are too small to see, so nobody really knows for sure that they exist in the way that the model presumes they do, but while the model continues to make good predictions it is easy to assume the model and reality are one and the same. Even so, in the strictest terms phenomena are discovered, models to predict and explain those phenomena are invented.
@ib9rt Thank you for your reply. So if I understand you correctly... Even though we know an electron's restmass, spin, charge, partical-wave duality, etc. We should not assume that is how an electron is... Because... It could be even doing wilder things we can't perceive yet? And the model is the representation of it's known properties but should not be considered complete?
Hey Periodicvideos! Ive been hooked on your videos and find them all fascinating! I was wondering if you guys would do a video on Aerogel?! I need Dr. Poliakoff insight.
Fantastic. I always remember doing Leaving Cert chemistry and wanting to know what the D & F orbitals looked like. The teacher said it was too complicated and I had to wait for college. Thankfully there's now youtube :D
Just to confuse everyone. An electron is everywhere where it could be. It is not just somewhere in a certain area, but everywhere it could be at the same time. This can be shown via the double slit experiment. Look it up in Wikipedia or similar.
@EleVRs I guess this is a little above the audience; these vids are aimed (I imagine) at non-chemists wanting to get more info but whilst still being interesting and managable. Also, isn't the shape of the orbitals used to represent ~99% of the most likely area of an electron appearing (or 3 standard deviations, I can't remember)? As you can tell, I'm an organic chemist :P
Every model of atoms and such only show 1 single atoms, but how do the model look in groups? How do atoms actually interact in a material like iron and how can the bond between atoms be so strong that you need a really sharp and strong saw to actually break those bonds and end up with 2 pieces of iron? :D
@JesperA86 When 2 orbitals approach they can form "hybrid orbitals" - these have their own shapes too, maybe look up the term to find diagrams. Also, if you saw into metal, it isn't actually the strong nuclear bonds that you are cutting through, it's the weaker, intermolecular forces - these are much easier to break!
Hmmm that answers a question I have had for a long time. At the risk of trying your patience I would humbly like to submit two questions. I wonder if those orbital shapes could be used to determine how protons and neutrons are arranged in the nucleus. Do those orbitals become more clearly defined when the atoms are extremely cold?
so in the d group, would each blob be one electron, or would each colour be an electron, or would all the electrons be seperated between the four blobs, or what?
@mangoismycat Up to two electrons - one of each spin - can be in the orbital described by each of the models. (So you can get 2 s electrons, 6 p electrons, and 10 d electrons per whole set.) The different colours show the different sign of the equation that describes the orbital at that point, which is important for working out how they can overlap and add or cancel each other when you make molecules.
@johnsdevid It may have got a bit complicated to explain these during a short video; it took me a while to grasp them when I was studying in first year at uni. Not to mention antibonding orbitals!
chemistry (not love) makes the world go around--- Also Physics too.Maybe also Biology. Safest would be to say Science makes the world go around for it too is love
The electrons look like they are being held by a volume that is controlled by the individual proton's charged field like combining a bunch of hydrogen atoms at their nucleus.
@EleVRs Okay, this is yours. At least the definition part (which is why I deleted it). However, we're still talking about applications in chemistry here, not theoretical physics.
And hearing about the wave function as a solution of the Schrödinger equation is not gonna help the audience this video is aiming for.
@periodicvideos Could you ask the Professor if there's any theories on how the g orbitals would look (they're orbitals which are present in atoms after atomic number I think it's 121 or 122, and you could possibly excite an electron to this level) but I've never seen any predicted orbital shapes for these. Would be quite interesting to know if there's any suggestions on the shapes.
Ah, I've been waiting for this video. The orbital model should be accessible to everyone, since, as the Professor explained, it is probably the most important fragment to understanding all chemistry. You don't even have to understand where orbitals come from.
Although of course extended material would probably be useful. I'm not sure if people who have never heard of it will grasp the concept.
Thanks, this is a great idea -more details on molecular orbitals and the rules about hybrid orbitals and antibonding orbitals and p orbital symmetry as gerade or ungerade, would be helpful.
Also, not hugely urgent because it's passed in my course already but I really didn't understand it v well n will need to revise it lots before June- please could you do one on kinetics? All the log integrations and formulae, especially the nasty maths!
When are these orbitals discussed in Chemistry? In the 80's and early 90's when I was growing up, i believe we still referred to the old planetary orbit model for electron behavior. Did I miss something in high school? or are these models only discussed at the higher levels of study in Chemistry?
@xenocore01: Huh. I can remember using the orbitals (or at least being able to decipher them from the string on the table) in my Chem classes in the late 60s. Dr. Oz was good but not a fortune teller.
My anorganic chemistry professor said that he could talk for days about everything that is known about orbitals. But this sums it all up nicely without talking about squared wavefunctions etc.
Thank you for another wonderful video. I was so into it and then like all good things it ended ;D I love orbitals and think about them alot. This leads me to he conclusion that I am abit strange but I just love chemistry.
@EleVRs Where in the video does he say an Orbital is NOT the solution to the schroedingers equation for an electron? If one doesn't mention that a circle can be defined as x²+y²=r² it is still round. Or is that not what you meant?
@EleVRs I suspect you may be pitching your definition at a different level to us... but as always, we hope people watch our videos and explore the web and books for more info!
I remember back in Chem 101, I didn't understand the meaning of orbitals. We were told it's where the electron is, which if it's spinning around in the bohr model doesn't make sense. 15 years later someone told me "they're probability density functions" and I said "Ohhhhh, and I understood."
Amazing stuff sadly i could not do any school that teach me this kind of things but thanks to you tube and Periodic videos i learned a lot of interesting things i would normally not think of goggling :D
Such a short video with so many answers to so many questions that I had for so many years.... Thank you very much for this. And keep the afro-hairstyle light burning!
IT'S PROBABILITY DENSITY OF THE ELECTRON IN THAT STATE!!! NOT THE SHAPE OF THE ORBITAL
kukufied 4 days ago
zooooooom
watermelonygoodness 2 weeks ago
Martyn needs a gripping hand! Get him Dr. Octavio's Backpack of Doom!
akashashen 3 weeks ago in playlist Chem Definition
Mendeleev has an amazing ability to see patterns... oddly, autistic people are apparently unnaturally able to do the same thing... Evolution?
SSJkiller 1 month ago
@SSJkiller No. Don't judge them by movies.
endimion17 4 weeks ago
Do we know why orbits take such shapes?
rycka1983 5 months ago
@rycka1983
I think that's a question for physicists, not for chemists.
Quintinohthree 2 months ago
@rycka1983
They are mathemetical solutions of shrodinger's wavefunction squared, witch can be linked to the probability to find an elektron in the space around the nucleus. Since the wavefunction is a differential equasion, its solutions are functions and when plotted they give you these shapes where you have the highest probability to find an elektron. I'm second year university studying chemistry and I still don't know everything about it, let alone that I can solve the equasion.
PieterG159 1 month ago in playlist Chem Definition
@PieterG159
also I think sixtysymbols has a good video about the wavefunction.
PieterG159 1 month ago in playlist Chem Definition
@PieterG159 Thank you, now it is much clear to me.
rycka1983 1 month ago
dear prof poliakoff please do a vid on aerogel (:
nicktohzyu 5 months ago
I learned this in high school, good stuff.
danx033 6 months ago
Excellent video professor! It would be great to see more videos with interesting explanations of reactions in terms of what the atoms and electrons are doing!
skrame01 6 months ago
With this gentleman you have genius meets the ability to teach. What a great combination.
TiminPhoenix 8 months ago
... and all that because of the Pauli exclusion principle. And Heisenbergs uncertainty principle.
basically orbitals are a theory in chemistry that is based on quantum mechanics, which falls completely into the realm of physics. Its at the boundary between physics and chemistry.
kurtilein3 8 months ago
Ahhh, I remember learning this in first year chemistry in university. Darn the VSEPR models or whatever, hybridization and what not. lol.
neogeo328 9 months ago
Comment removed
Every1Tubes 10 months ago 13
@Every1Tubes
And all the electrons in the theoretical element 534 liked it :)
SSJkiller 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
JESUS CHRIST SAVES - For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life
ePRTN 10 months ago
"Im Running out of hands" xD lol...Great videos (Y) !
alphakristjan 11 months ago
awesome as usual!
archaedemos 11 months ago
when he said that the electron's shape IS the shape of it's orbital... that was a eureka moment for me. Until now I'd always assumed electrons were spherical.
roidroid 1 year ago
@roidroid WAIT WAT.
kupoandmoogle 9 months ago
@kupoandmoogle it's never in one place at a time, it's not a single particle but a wave function.
roidroid 9 months ago
@roidroid
electrons are perfect spheres, and really tiny.
the orbital is a shape in space, and the electron will, with a certain probability, be in that space. lets say you want to know where a specific electron is, then, well, actually it could be anywhere. But if you change the question a little bit and ask where that electron is with a 90% probability, or 90% of the time, you get an orbital.
its the Pauli exclusion principle, quantum mechanics, that is used to calculate orbitals.
kurtilein3 8 months ago
In two years of high school chemistry, my teacher haven't been able to clearly explain me what an orbital was.
Then, in two minutes, Professor Poliakoff makes me understand it all...
So, either my old teacher wasn't so great in doing his job, or he actually didn't know what an orbital was...
(uhm..i think you've really understood something only if you can explain it to your grandma...)
foolvers 1 year ago
@foolvers I don't think your teacher was great in ding his job, but erm... Your grandma won't understand a lot of things. Stuff is evolving so fast, a lot of people will loose track, and they won't even be grandparents. I think I understood something, if I can explain it in my own words, while it still covers the load. Maybe that's a good basis for you too?
Alphasys 1 year ago
@foolvers Just because you know what an orbital looks like DOES NOT mean you know about orbitals. They are much more complicated than that. I've taken gen chem 1 and 2 and O chem 1. Bet you wouldn't know that two can hybridize to form a 'new' orbital? electrons behave under a quantum mechanical model that is still not fully understood, Scientist only know the full story on Hydrogens orbital, all other elements in the periodic table are "approximations" of what they could really be.
ActionJacksonBMX 9 months ago
@foolvers
for a deeper understanding: because of the Pauli exclusion principle, two electrons cannot be at the same place and time and have the same spin. but you never really know where they are, only statistically. So the orbital is a shape, in which a specific electron will be with a specific probability. so you ask "where is that electron with 90% probability?", and you get an orbital.
kurtilein3 8 months ago
(epic close up of professors mouth)
-this word
(DARMATIC PAUSE)
-is orbital....
(BUM BUM BUUUUUUUM!!!!)
casmatt1 1 year ago
"Chemists use all pickles everyday" the transcribe audio fails
alphatelescopii 1 year ago
What, no g orbitals? :(
IKonYT 1 year ago
The understanding of orbitals and how they explain chemical interaction is one of the most awe-inspiring theories in the whole of science. The fact that we can understand this suite of actual, physical, understandable shapes, produced by electrons, acting in concern with quadrillions of other similar shapes, responsible for macro-effects as diverse as pigment, elasticity and combustion, among a million other phenomena... it's quite staggering.
Thanks for the video, as always!
johnclavis 1 year ago
I think you guys need to make another video explaining where the s p d f names for the orbitals came from.
That is very interesting.
buzzausa 1 year ago
would a 7f orbital look something like the professors hair?
mistermuffin420 1 year ago
2011 year of chemistry and i just got a C on my orgo 2 test. Not a good way to celebrate
jayrperiod 1 year ago
hmmm... chemistry has advanced since my high-school daze. So cool.
Year of Chemistry. No wonder... actually, full of wonder. Good idea.
saglek 1 year ago
What is the difference between the third d orbital (that fell out from proffesor's hands) and the forth one?
okmasko 1 year ago
@okmasko imagine an 'X' lying down, with one point facing north, one south, one east and one west. this is the third d orbital. the fourth d orbital is on the same plane, but its points are north-west, north-east, south-west and south-east.
i hope this helps :)
IWishIwasAScreamer 1 year ago
@IWishIwasAScreamer Yeah I got that, but there are no axes in the atom, they are imaginary. When you look at those two orbitals without XYZ, they look the same. Or, do those axes represent something?
okmasko 1 year ago
@okmasko well obvs the axes are imarinary, nature never made it easy for us dd it? :L the point is that its similar the the P subshell (3 orbitals) the only difference is that D the D subshell has another orbital on the horizontal plane
IWishIwasAScreamer 1 year ago
@okmasko The first three are between axes (represented in the model by the black sticks, X and Y are horizontal, Z is vertical) - one between X and Y, one between X and Z, and one between Y and Z; the fourth is aligned with the X and Y.
IKonYT 1 year ago
@IKonYT Yeah I got that, but there are no axes in the atom, they are imaginary. When you look at those two orbitals without XYZ, they look the same. Or, do those axes represent something?
okmasko 1 year ago
@okmasko It's their relative orientation that's important, rather than the absolute.
MuneoPollen 1 year ago
Maybe one day you can generate an animation on the different orbitals.
automaster209 1 year ago
solidly explained
maxxb24 1 year ago
Trying to grasp Quantum Mechanics if a real brain twister.
Electrons don't behave according to our usual frame of reference.
Electrons behave differently depending on whether they are being observed or not, I find that totally counter intuitive, nature can be bloody weird.
trespire 1 year ago
@trespire Yes it's very interesting, isn't it. Look up the theory of biocentrism proposed by Dr. Robert Lanza if you want more about that kind of stuff.
derbedog 1 year ago
@trespire It is very clear that you did not understand quantum mechanics if you believe there is an intend behind it :P
RazielKain 1 year ago
Splendid introduction to orbitals, a fascinating topic. But who does your pronunciations? Someone from the centre-southern part of the US Midwest? I can't stand "awr-bi-tl"! Please stay closer to English, where O is pronounced more like, well... O.
xlrv1 1 year ago
@xlrv1 - "But who does your pronunciations?" I don't think ANYONE does his pronunciations. Ironically, it's his ENGLISH accent which makes him pronounce the words as it is. Shouldn't it be enough to just understand him? Frankly, I don't think it's correct for us to conform to you're standard of pronunciation just because you "don't like it".
silentelysium 1 year ago
@silentelysium - I was referring to the written pronunciation shown at the beginning of the clip, not to how the Professor speaks. To write "awr-bi-tl" is no help at all. I think you should have been able to figure that out.
xlrv1 1 year ago
Thank you professor Poliakoff. You have no idea just how important that video clip an explanation is to my research. And thanks to Brady also!
John.
john37309 1 year ago
I'm running out of hands :D
mrsz30 1 year ago 6
@EleVRs Humor me please. What specific statement(s) in the video are wrong? Incomplete does not mean incorrect, as I'm sure you are aware, and I ask because I looked up orbitals on wiki and all the statements in this video appear correct to me. Incomplete and generalized yes, but that should be obvious and expected in a 2min video about atomic theory.
theslimeylimey 1 year ago
@EleVRs "too complicated to be teached in a video like this" and "should be teached right or not at all"
First, I assume you mean "taught" (as a stickler for getting things right, thought you'd appreciate this!)
Second, I don't agree that we should ignore a subject because it's complicated. Sure we simplified things (The Prof says this), but I think this a good launching pad to inspire people. A lack of maths knowledge shouldn't preclude people from hearing how mind-blowing this stuff is?
periodicvideos 1 year ago 20
@periodicvideos if it comes to math im borderline retarded , but i find all your video's very interesting ! thank you
lordlapswans 1 month ago
@EleVRs I know organic chemists who understand the orbitals very well, schools will teach students incorrectly due to complexity of the true structure and it allows for students to get a basic grasp of concepts before advancing on further.
geeupson 1 year ago
I'm a recent subscriber to this channel. As an amateur scientist (A-levels) who would have loved to go further with science, I find these videos very interesting. Keep them coming, please :)
LsBaba 1 year ago
I want to marry The Professor.
Xeidasx 1 year ago
A little late? I could have used this last year :P
LiquidThe0ry 1 year ago
Wow!
1999lego 1 year ago
Hell yeah organic chemistry!
JanMarie191 1 year ago
Another WOW! Chemistry sure has change since I took it many years ago.
birddog2017 1 year ago
@birddog2017 Must've been very many years ago; orbital theory has been in undergrad chem textbooks since Pauling's "The nature of the chemical bond" came out in 1939.
platypusfrenzy 1 year ago
Also I read that nanotechnology is being used to store hydrogen in a solid state so airplanes could use it as a fuel expelling only water as an exhaust. How could nanotechnology be used to store hydrogen as a solid?
google : solid state hydrogen storage
google - hydrogen solid storage potential
Sparkanoid1 1 year ago
OK squagnut, that is well explained but how many grains of sand would fit into Saint Pauls Cathedral in London? would you say there is a billion grains of sand in a filled bucket? Now how many buckets full of sand would it take to fill the cathedral? I have heard that electrons don't orbit around atoms in the same way that planets orbit around stars. why don't they? Is it because they aren';t physical matter or is it because they are so small?
Sparkanoid1 1 year ago
@Sparkanoid1 Technically Electron is a matter, because it has a mass. They don't orbit like a planets, because they are so small, so they don't "follow" the laws of physics, but rather the quantum physics.
In short. But im not a scientist :D
30LayersOfKevlar 1 year ago
@30LayersOfKevlar they don't follow the laws of *classical mechanics*, but they do obey the laws of physics: quantum physics.
thehomette 1 year ago
@thehomette Thats what I just said.
30LayersOfKevlar 1 year ago
@Sparkanoid1 (Sorry, didn't see your reply til now) Hmm. Tricky to answer that in 500 chrs! In brief, yes, electrons don't orbit in the same way planets do; what goes on inside an atom is not like anything you or I have ever experienced. Planets orbit due to gravity, but electrons don't (if gravity worked inside an atom then all atoms would decay instantly). At this level, the distinction between matter and energy (or particles and waves) depends on your method of observation. [cont]
Squagnut 1 year ago
[cont] But this is a *huge* topic.
To go back to your q about how come we can't see through things, think about it: first, if we could see through things then we'd never see anything, since we'd be able to see through whatever is behind the thing we're looking at. And then, your eye's retina is made of atoms too, so your ability to see things depends on your eye's ability to "catch" photons and turn that into signals your brain can use. So, be thankful we can't see through things!
Squagnut 1 year ago
I dont understand how all the s p d and f orbitals overlap over each other when each has a different shape. for instance, would the s orbital overlap with all other orbital since its a sphere around the nucleus and all other orbitals touch the nucleus?
Khalifa2407 1 year ago
@Khalifa2407 Yep, they're all overlapping - they're not solid objects, they're more like clouds of electron. The models he shows are like saying "we're going to draw a line where the cloud is *this* dense, to show what shape the cloud is".
IKonYT 1 year ago
@IKonYT But won't that mean an electron is associated with more than one orbital?
Khalifa2407 1 year ago
@Khalifa2407 No - even though they're in the same space, they're distinct. Why that is is pretty hard to explain (for me, anyway), but it has to do with quantisation of energy, and the way that the orbitals mathematically have a net overlap of zero.
IKonYT 1 year ago
I am uncertain about this video.
Just when I understand the professor's position, I lose track of his momentum.
Then it's the other way around.
culwin 1 year ago 68
@culwin HAHAHAHHAHA
MsTrance1 1 year ago
OK I heard that there is so much empty space inside atoms that if you put a grain of sand in the middle of Saint Pauls Cathedral and pretend the cathedral is an atom, the grain of sand would be the nucleus of the atom.
So why can't we see through solid objects if there is so much empty space? Answers on a postcard.
Sparkanoid1 1 year ago
@Sparkanoid1 They reckon the nucleus as well is mostly empty space
AlonsoRules 1 year ago
@Sparkanoid1 We can't see through opaque objects because their electron orbits are arranged so that they either absorb photons (e.g. black card) or reflect them (e.g. a mirror). Clear glass, on the other hand, doesn't absorb them, so we can see through it. Most everyday solid objects are billions of atoms thick, so the photons don't stand a chance. It's mostly empty space, but that doesn't mean it isn't busy - like traffic on a busy road is mostly gaps, but you still can't cross it easily.
Squagnut 1 year ago
@Squagnut I see what you did there
Vennificus 1 year ago
aren't f and d orbitals have a very small energy difference?
I am so glad organic chem stops at p orbitals.
wolgreth 1 year ago
Gotta love orbitals(yeah I was really excited when I saw this video post).....One of my favorite chemistry related books I've read so far is "The Conservation of Orbital Symmetry" by Woodward Hoffman
grndmstrjoe 1 year ago
@grndmstrjoe Woodward/Hoffman....sorry, forgot the slash to specify there were two contributors...
grndmstrjoe 1 year ago
this is crazy..
drdeee6 1 year ago
that all went waaaay over my head :P
Dazmaster75 1 year ago
@EleVRs Cont...so, although a complex wave function orbit itself has no volume, you could apply another equation to describe the "area" of space where the infinite number of points in the orbit would appear vs not appear. Assigning this space a volume does not invalidate the function but rather describes it yes?. You could argue that no ball bearing is a perfect sphere and be correct, yet in the "real" world, they are still considered spherical and function as if they were 99.999% of the time.
theslimeylimey 1 year ago
Ok, over my head. I wonder, should an online geek remember all of this, or should we leave it to the people with loud hair. hehe.
TheSpankymonkey 1 year ago
@EleVRs I never studied chemistry so I won't try to be clever and this is all new to me so I'm just asking. I think I know what you are saying but you aren't you getting hung up on details and missing the general point here? For example, this equation x²+y²+z²=r² and describes no actual volume but the shape contains a specific area of space (volume) as described by 4/3*Pi*R^3 and its shape is known as a sphere. The equations are not the same but refer to the same thing - a sphere of radius R.
theslimeylimey 1 year ago
I thought I knew what an orbital was until I watched this.
anticorncob6 1 year ago
Hi there folks, I am from Brazil and folllowing the channel Periodic Videos. Marvelous videos you have there.
apometron 1 year ago
Bit odd the hear the word "invented" when it comes to electrons. I'm not sure if that's even correct English... Discovered, okay, but invented? Is discovering something an invention? Could be... I'd learn a bit more of the semantics if so.
Alphasys 1 year ago
@Alphasys Electrons are a model that can be used to explain observations. Electrons are too small to see, so nobody really knows for sure that they exist in the way that the model presumes they do, but while the model continues to make good predictions it is easy to assume the model and reality are one and the same. Even so, in the strictest terms phenomena are discovered, models to predict and explain those phenomena are invented.
ib9rt 1 year ago
@ib9rt Thank you for your reply. So if I understand you correctly... Even though we know an electron's restmass, spin, charge, partical-wave duality, etc. We should not assume that is how an electron is... Because... It could be even doing wilder things we can't perceive yet? And the model is the representation of it's known properties but should not be considered complete?
Alphasys 1 year ago
Hey Periodicvideos! Ive been hooked on your videos and find them all fascinating! I was wondering if you guys would do a video on Aerogel?! I need Dr. Poliakoff insight.
tyeedillon 1 year ago 76
Fantastic. I always remember doing Leaving Cert chemistry and wanting to know what the D & F orbitals looked like. The teacher said it was too complicated and I had to wait for college. Thankfully there's now youtube :D
garathon66 1 year ago
you forgot the g orbitals
OpiatedBliss 1 year ago
glad we put that matter to bed.
OpiatedBliss 1 year ago
Just to confuse everyone. An electron is everywhere where it could be. It is not just somewhere in a certain area, but everywhere it could be at the same time. This can be shown via the double slit experiment. Look it up in Wikipedia or similar.
rjhrjh3 1 year ago
@EleVRs I guess this is a little above the audience; these vids are aimed (I imagine) at non-chemists wanting to get more info but whilst still being interesting and managable. Also, isn't the shape of the orbitals used to represent ~99% of the most likely area of an electron appearing (or 3 standard deviations, I can't remember)? As you can tell, I'm an organic chemist :P
sarahkirky 1 year ago
Every model of atoms and such only show 1 single atoms, but how do the model look in groups? How do atoms actually interact in a material like iron and how can the bond between atoms be so strong that you need a really sharp and strong saw to actually break those bonds and end up with 2 pieces of iron? :D
JesperA86 1 year ago
@JesperA86 When 2 orbitals approach they can form "hybrid orbitals" - these have their own shapes too, maybe look up the term to find diagrams. Also, if you saw into metal, it isn't actually the strong nuclear bonds that you are cutting through, it's the weaker, intermolecular forces - these are much easier to break!
sarahkirky 1 year ago
Awesome! I will definitely tell my chemistry teacher to show us this!
chris7toronto 1 year ago
Hmmm that answers a question I have had for a long time. At the risk of trying your patience I would humbly like to submit two questions. I wonder if those orbital shapes could be used to determine how protons and neutrons are arranged in the nucleus. Do those orbitals become more clearly defined when the atoms are extremely cold?
blinking801 1 year ago
That DZ-squared reminds me of a black hole with the matter jets streaming out of it.
Kargoneth 1 year ago
there are about 1000 highschool chemistry teachers that hate you right now for bursting the bubble they formed around their students
Ralphgtx280 1 year ago
One of my favorite parts of chemistry class.
SMFApples 1 year ago
I think this video just made me more confused, but I loved every second of it!
ChiefDen4 1 year ago
so in the d group, would each blob be one electron, or would each colour be an electron, or would all the electrons be seperated between the four blobs, or what?
mangoismycat 1 year ago
@mangoismycat Up to two electrons - one of each spin - can be in the orbital described by each of the models. (So you can get 2 s electrons, 6 p electrons, and 10 d electrons per whole set.) The different colours show the different sign of the equation that describes the orbital at that point, which is important for working out how they can overlap and add or cancel each other when you make molecules.
IKonYT 1 year ago
S P D!!!!
AttackTofu 1 year ago
But I'm guessing Mendelejev knew about the protons?
Shmilli 1 year ago
@Shmilli Obviously?
Kendrana 1 year ago
I just had this in chemistry
MrJoBilly 1 year ago
Hm. I was sad hybrid orbitals weren't discussed. That was one of the concepts on this subject I never fully grasped.
johnsdevid 1 year ago
@johnsdevid It may have got a bit complicated to explain these during a short video; it took me a while to grasp them when I was studying in first year at uni. Not to mention antibonding orbitals!
sarahkirky 1 year ago
chemistry (not love) makes the world go around--- Also Physics too.Maybe also Biology. Safest would be to say Science makes the world go around for it too is love
homousios 1 year ago
Damn, this would have really helpful LAST semester for my Chem 1 class
frogman1171 1 year ago
i remember learning about this last term it was really fun actually. i wish this vid was there last term it would f been usefull to my class lol
MrFurny 1 year ago
The electrons look like they are being held by a volume that is controlled by the individual proton's charged field like combining a bunch of hydrogen atoms at their nucleus.
MsWanderer1 1 year ago
should do a video on bonding spent all morning doing Diels- alder and woodward and hofman reactions o the homos and lumos
thisusersuck 1 year ago
I love orbitals, they can explain everything.
Quiksilver4eyes 1 year ago
YOU ARE MAKING A HOLE NEW GENERATION OF CHEMISTS KEEP UP THE AWSOME WORK
THEGAMINGRULER 1 year ago
Years after I've finished my chemistry courses and I finally come to understand that what those funny shapes were!
skadogg22 1 year ago
@EleVRs Okay, this is yours. At least the definition part (which is why I deleted it). However, we're still talking about applications in chemistry here, not theoretical physics.
And hearing about the wave function as a solution of the Schrödinger equation is not gonna help the audience this video is aiming for.
KilgothMirna 1 year ago
now we get to the interesting bits.... how the atoms become molecules....
Infloresence 1 year ago
You refer to blobs, but are they not really lobes?
anonysquirrel 1 year ago
I'm endlessly fascinated by electron orbits. So strange!
mozzarell 1 year ago
By far the best channel on youtube!
Kayzaks 1 year ago
Very interesting!
Now I need to Google this topic :D
sabaths1fan 1 year ago
@periodicvideos Could you ask the Professor if there's any theories on how the g orbitals would look (they're orbitals which are present in atoms after atomic number I think it's 121 or 122, and you could possibly excite an electron to this level) but I've never seen any predicted orbital shapes for these. Would be quite interesting to know if there's any suggestions on the shapes.
Thanks!
Kendrana 1 year ago
@Kendrana If you google g orbital shapes, you'll get find them.
SchumiUCD 1 year ago
@Kendrana Shapes (and the equations) for orbitals can be generated for any possible - I don't think I've ever seen anyone use higher than i, though.
IKonYT 1 year ago
Comment removed
KilgothMirna 1 year ago
dunno why when i learned chemistry nobody showed me anything like that it would have made more sense having something palpable to work with
apasaci 1 year ago
Ah, I've been waiting for this video. The orbital model should be accessible to everyone, since, as the Professor explained, it is probably the most important fragment to understanding all chemistry. You don't even have to understand where orbitals come from.
Although of course extended material would probably be useful. I'm not sure if people who have never heard of it will grasp the concept.
KilgothMirna 1 year ago
Thanks, this is a great idea -more details on molecular orbitals and the rules about hybrid orbitals and antibonding orbitals and p orbital symmetry as gerade or ungerade, would be helpful.
Also, not hugely urgent because it's passed in my course already but I really didn't understand it v well n will need to revise it lots before June- please could you do one on kinetics? All the log integrations and formulae, especially the nasty maths!
Thanks!
kesterratcliff1 1 year ago
When are these orbitals discussed in Chemistry? In the 80's and early 90's when I was growing up, i believe we still referred to the old planetary orbit model for electron behavior. Did I miss something in high school? or are these models only discussed at the higher levels of study in Chemistry?
xenocore01 1 year ago
@xenocore01: Huh. I can remember using the orbitals (or at least being able to decipher them from the string on the table) in my Chem classes in the late 60s. Dr. Oz was good but not a fortune teller.
puncheex 1 year ago
Thank you for keeping the world's knowledge of chemistry fresh and exciting! As always, I look forward to your next video : )
ILiveForScience 1 year ago
I like how Doctor Who is in the related videos.
kite973 1 year ago
I love this videos, every week I learn more on my vacations, thanks.
AlchemyFC 1 year ago
My anorganic chemistry professor said that he could talk for days about everything that is known about orbitals. But this sums it all up nicely without talking about squared wavefunctions etc.
JustToaster 1 year ago
Thank you for another wonderful video. I was so into it and then like all good things it ended ;D I love orbitals and think about them alot. This leads me to he conclusion that I am abit strange but I just love chemistry.
CoolMinty 1 year ago
@CoolMinty There's really no reason not to love Chemistry...
KilgothMirna 1 year ago
Thank you! This helped me understand apart of my A-levels much more clearly now.
pompeyjim12 1 year ago
Very interesting lecture, thanks Professor!
JonatanGronoset 1 year ago
I read some where that there may be such things as Half electrons, that will be very exciting if this is the case.
JakeKaje 1 year ago
@EleVRs Where in the video does he say an Orbital is NOT the solution to the schroedingers equation for an electron? If one doesn't mention that a circle can be defined as x²+y²=r² it is still round. Or is that not what you meant?
theslimeylimey 1 year ago
@EleVRs I suspect you may be pitching your definition at a different level to us... but as always, we hope people watch our videos and explore the web and books for more info!
periodicvideos 1 year ago
I remember back in Chem 101, I didn't understand the meaning of orbitals. We were told it's where the electron is, which if it's spinning around in the bohr model doesn't make sense. 15 years later someone told me "they're probability density functions" and I said "Ohhhhh, and I understood."
P00P0STER0US 1 year ago
Amazing stuff sadly i could not do any school that teach me this kind of things but thanks to you tube and Periodic videos i learned a lot of interesting things i would normally not think of goggling :D
shintsu01 1 year ago
funny you release this today since I have an exam on theoretical/computational chemistry tomorrow.
StarcrossedPacific 1 year ago
Where's Pete lately?
ArgylePenguin 1 year ago
@ArgylePenguin he's about the place, doing chemistry... we'll be back on periodicvideos soon!
periodicvideos 1 year ago 5
This has been flagged as spam show
@ArgylePenguin You mean where's NEIL
DeoMachina 1 year ago
I ask too
nirvana9610 1 year ago
Such a short video with so many answers to so many questions that I had for so many years.... Thank you very much for this. And keep the afro-hairstyle light burning!
tmafkap 1 year ago
MY BRAIN EXPLODED
Anonymouzor 1 year ago 21
@Anonymouzor sorry about that... I hope it didn't make a mess of your keyboard!
periodicvideos 1 year ago 67
those models are amazing. I want some!
ainscoe 1 year ago
what about chem.trails
vuotopiuscuro 1 year ago
@vuotopiuscuro Chemtrails are kind of like Oregon Trail, but for crazy conspiracist nutters.
10mintwo 1 year ago
@10mintwo
i don't even know anything about oregon trail .. conspiracists .. of course there a lots and lots of in italy .. beside of being nutters
vuotopiuscuro 1 year ago
next video could be about molecular orbitals =)
feuermann88 1 year ago
I started chemistry this year in College and this channel has made it a lot easier! Thanks you so much!
madzyadzy07 1 year ago
@madzyadzy07 nice to hear and good luck with your studies.
periodicvideos 1 year ago
Can you do a video on moles? I never could understand the measurement.
enigma1863 1 year ago 29
@enigma1863 I'm sure we'll get to that soon!
periodicvideos 1 year ago 17