Mercury Shouldn't Be Liquid. But It Is.
Рет қаралды 1,016,094
2 ай бұрынMercury, a.k.a. quicksilver, is famous for being a liquid at room temperature...and also below room temperature. But you can't use a high school chem class to explain why. Instead, we need a little help from Einstein.
Hosted by: Reid Reimers (he/him)
----------
Support SciShow by becoming a patron on Patreon: / scishow
----------
Huge thanks go to the following Patreon supporters for helping us keep SciShow free for everyone forever: Adam Brainard, Alex Hackman, Ash, Benjamin Carleski, Bryan Cloer, charles george, Chris Mackey, Chris Peters, Christoph Schwanke, Christopher R Boucher, DrakoEsper, Eric Jensen, Friso, Garrett Galloway, Harrison Mills, J. Copen, Jaap Westera, Jason A Saslow, Jeffrey Mckishen, Jeremy Mattern, Kenny Wilson, Kevin Bealer, Kevin Knupp, Lyndsay Brown, Matt Curls, Michelle Dove, Piya Shedden, Rizwan Kassim, Sam Lutfi
----------
Looking for SciShow elsewhere on the internet?
SciShow Tangents Podcast: scishow-tangents.simplecast.com/
TikTok: / scishow
Twitter: / scishow
Instagram: / thescishow
Facebook: / scishow
#SciShow #science #education #learning #complexly
----------
Sources;
www.physics.rutgers.edu/grad/...
blogs.scientificamerican.com/...
www.royalsociety.org.nz/150th...
www.chemistryworld.com/news/r...
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/a...
www.neonickel.com/technical-r...
www.britannica.com/science/me...
mrtremblaycambridge.weebly.com...
uen.pressbooks.pub/introducto...
www.space.com/bohr-model-atom...
www.britannica.com/science/wa...
www.khanacademy.org/science/a...
chem.libretexts.org/Courses/U...
content.byui.edu/file/a236934...
chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelv...
saylordotorg.github.io/text_i...
www.britannica.com/science/tr...
webelements.com/zinc/atoms.html
webelements.com/cadmium/atoms...
webelements.com/mercury/atoms...
www.space.com/36273-theory-sp...
physics.stackexchange.com/que...
www.sciencedirect.com/topics/...
www.khanacademy.org/science/c...
chemsite.lsrhs.net/ChemicalBon...
revisionscience.com/a2-level-...
Images:
www.gettyimages.com/
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
@KingsleyIII 2 ай бұрын
The Chinese guy who drank mercury thinking it would grant eternal life was _dead_ wrong.
@aamirrazak3467 2 ай бұрын
Yeah I’d imagine it didn’t work out well for him
@arya_1503_fancade 2 ай бұрын
ba dum tsss
@VenTGM09 2 ай бұрын
literally
@anthonymotture 2 ай бұрын
Dead wong
@ppoad 2 ай бұрын
Or depending on his believes he may enter into the eternal life realm… 😂 so he could be right!
@y_fam_goeglyd 2 ай бұрын
Funny how Einstein solved two "mercury" problems. This one, and the Mercury "glitch" in Newton's Theory of Gravity. Complete coincidence, I'm sure, but it's interesting to me at least.
@theheadone 2 ай бұрын
I was thinking this as well and I was surprised he didn't mention it considering he was a host on the former space scishow.
@icollectstories5702 2 ай бұрын
Well, the other Mercury required General Relativity because Special Relativity just wasn't enough.😁
@carultch 2 ай бұрын
It's probably a lot less of a coincidence than you think. The namesake of both Mercuries is the Roman messenger god, and the reason they both are named after him, is swiftness. Mercury the planet being the fastest moving planet in the sky, and mercury the element being the element that flows fast as a liquid at room temperature. They both have being fast for their class in common, that earned them both the same namesake, and it is their speeds that cause relativistic effects to come in to play.
@JarrodFrates 2 ай бұрын
@@carultchThe planet Mercury doesn't move fast enough for relativistic effects to come into play. Its average orbital speed is about 47 km/sec. General relativity comes into play for Mercury's orbit because the Sun's gravity warps space enough to affect Mercury's orbital precession. Every planet, and indeed every body orbiting the Sun is affected in a similar way, just less strongly than Mercury. Edit: As a couple of people have pointed out, I mistakenly wrote special relativity when I meant general relativity. Thanks for the corrections.
@carultch 2 ай бұрын
@@JarrodFrates Still, it moves fast precisely because it is in a position where the sun's gravitational distortion of spacetime, is enough for relativistic effects to come into play. You wouldn't expect Uranus to have anomalies in its orbit that were explained by relativistic effects instead of another planet, when its orbital anomalies were used as a clue to discover Neptune.
@martijn8491 2 ай бұрын
Just wow! I have an MSc in Physics and it's just amazing how you were able to explain so much pretty complicated physics in such a short video without too many shortcuts and without missing some important nuances and while keeping it understandable for the general public. And I also learned something interesting and new. I watch all scishow videos, but I'm seriously impressed by the quality of this one!!!
@kathrynthomas6390 2 ай бұрын
I'm a bio major and this one really actually felt intuitive!
@pencilpauli9442 2 ай бұрын
Even I could follow the explanation. Grade D "O" Level Physics (twice) ie failed twice to get the minimum C grade that is recognised as a pass.
@marckyle5895 2 ай бұрын
I was wishing I had science teachers like this.
@robertfitzjohn4755 2 ай бұрын
DPhil in Chemistry here, back in the 1980s. My reasearch involved the energy levels in uranium compounds (92 protons and electrons) so I'm familiar with d and f subshells and relativistic effects in the core orbitals, which I thought were explained well here. My work was primarily experimental and my theoretical model was just a simple one involving only the outer electrons, but since then people with powerful computers have done the relativistic calculations and come up with answers that explain the experimental results.
@pyrotas 2 ай бұрын
If you have a degree in Physics you should know that mass does not change under Lorentz transformations but it is a scalar invariant and hence all this video makes no sense.
@galliumgames3962 2 ай бұрын
If mercury had a higher boiling point, it would be FAR safer to play with. Mercury metal is closer to a noble metal than not and in of itself is much lower toxicity as an elemental material. However, its vapor pressure is high enough to not be negligible and the vapor is extraordinarily toxic as it has essentially unlimited surface area to do no no chemistry in your body when inhaled. Edit: Liquid mercury in its own context should probably still be considered at some level of hazard as very small amounts (Generally considered negligible in most circumstances fortunately.) can be absorbed in the GI system and the beads can finely divide and get stuck in crevices such as your fingernails, as well as internally if swallowed. Metals such as gold and platinum are also pretty toxic outside their metallic forms, but do not have the same problems of producing vapor or being a mobile liquid at room temperature. If you do intend on playing with mercury, do so in a ventilated area, account for any possible escaping material and wear gloves, or at least throughly wash your hands after handling. Spilt mercury can get into cracks in furniture, walls and the floor and will take years to evaporate. The vapor pressure of mercury at room temperature is 0.25 Pa and this is 200x the maximum permissible 8hr exposure levels by OSHA. Mercury vapor can build up to toxic levels from spills in enclosed environments, this is why the fire department takes it so seriously.
@margodphd 2 ай бұрын
I wheezed at " no no chemistry". Since today, this is the new, improved title of my toxicology books 😂
@queefyg490 2 ай бұрын
Liquid at room temp basically means there will always be vapor regardless if it's reached it's boiling point. Melting easily and boiling easily are basically due to the same thing although you still have to factor in polarity.
@bariumselenided5152 2 ай бұрын
"No no chemistry" will forever live in my mental dictionary now
@fukpoeslaw3613 2 ай бұрын
No chemistry?! What the fu... oh, 'no no' oh ok.
@galliumgames3962 2 ай бұрын
@@queefyg490 Gallium is weird though, with an utterly massive liquid range and boiling point of 2,400°C. IIRC the vapor pressure of gallium at 30°C is so low that it’s a probability of there being a single atom as opposed to a definable pressure value.
@LeonMRr 2 ай бұрын
Another interesting application of SR to atomic orbitals is in the color of gold. Metals usually don't absorb the photons of visible light they receive, instead they are scattered elastically. But in gold, electrons are moving at around 0.5c so their "mass" is changed, which changes the energy required to excite them from one shell to another, and that change happens to make the gold atom absorb more blue light, turning gold yellow to us.
@McKaySavage 2 ай бұрын
That’s another cool example of SR in chemistry. Thanks for sharing!
@LuisAldamiz 2 ай бұрын
Interesting trivia.
@SeedlingNL 2 ай бұрын
@@McKaySavage I think it's also the reason why higher elements become more and more unstable... those speedfreak electrons literally twist spacetime so much that the atom itself is being ripped apart... the Roche limit of subatomic scales...
@naverilllang 2 ай бұрын
What about copper? It's a much lighter element
@MrHowzaa 2 ай бұрын
i heard its red shifting the light.
@jessi411 2 ай бұрын
Started the video, got confused, Googled some things, kept playing the video, went back to Google... now my boyfriend and I are having heated discussions about how to visualize and understand the dimensions of the universe. 10/10 that's the sign of good educational content
@csvscs 2 ай бұрын
Healthy comment! 🎉
@Atticusdoesthings 2 ай бұрын
I wish I had heated discussions about the universe with my partner
@neerajwa 2 ай бұрын
Higher dimensions eh ... Talk to some Hilbert space dweller
@LuisAldamiz 2 ай бұрын
Best is to remove one spatial dimension (or two) in order to allow for the remaining axis to represent time.
@donwald3436 2 ай бұрын
I'm jealous lol.
@clipsdaily101 2 ай бұрын
i grew up thinking there was nothing left to discover. Aristotle- "The more you know, the more you realize you don't know"
@aamirrazak3467 2 ай бұрын
Agreed seems like the more knowledge you acquire, the more questions you have
@dustind4694 2 ай бұрын
Every question answered should lead to at least one more question unanswered, but typically two or more.
@markloveless1001 2 ай бұрын
Dunning-Kreuger, thy name is law.
@somebody-anonymous 2 ай бұрын
Also Aristotle: The velocity at which an object falls is proportional to its mass
@donhoverson6348 2 ай бұрын
The puzzles of Dark matter and Dark Energy still loom pretty large. Likely I will never see those solved.
@Atticus_Loves_Lacquer 2 ай бұрын
My grandmother once told me that they used to play with Mercury like sensory slime as kids ☠️☠️☠️
@donaldpetersen2382 2 ай бұрын
You cant absorb it though your skin, nor will it leave any dangerous traces.
@Atticus_Loves_Lacquer 2 ай бұрын
@@donaldpetersen2382 quick skin exposure is one thing, but children playing with it unsupervised for hours on end I think that’s in unsafe territory based on the little but informative research I’ve done. 🫶
@Fazzel 2 ай бұрын
When I was in 5th grade I was in safety patrol and another kid used mercury he got from his dad to keep his badge shiny.
@davemeise2192 2 ай бұрын
We used to play in it with our fingers during our science class. I remember how heavy it was when poured into the palm of your hand. Cool stuff!
@daizy7441 2 ай бұрын
@@donaldpetersen2382i mean, you usually can’t, but that doesn’t make it *safe*. it can get in through any minor, imperceptible cut or scrape not to mention room temperature mercury can evaporate slightly and that’ll really mess up your insides if you inhale it too much or too often
@dustind4694 2 ай бұрын
"Let's start in the shallow end of the pool... Which I filled with **water**, not mercury" - Things you can absolutely expect science profs to say, both to reassure people and to bemoan the necessity of ethics.
@olmostgudinaf8100 2 ай бұрын
And cost. I have a hunch that a pool of mercury might be ever so slightly dearer than a pool of water.
@dustind4694 2 ай бұрын
@@olmostgudinaf8100 One can assume that any science prof is going to be upset about the budget (this is a touch more reasonable than being annoyed you can't show off cool and dangerous things).
@samstromberg5593 2 ай бұрын
Dearer? Does that word have a definition I don't know about or was that a typo?
@olmostgudinaf8100 2 ай бұрын
@@samstromberg5593 Not a typo, as any search engine can tell you.
@dustind4694 2 ай бұрын
@@samstromberg5593 It's typically more of a British English thing (not exclusively), but much as something can be loved dearly, it can cost one dearly, or be sold dearly. A dearer price is high or expensive.
@zdlax 2 ай бұрын
I think I read somewhere that another consequence of SR is gold having the color it does as opposed to a standard metallic color.
@Eden_Laika 2 ай бұрын
Yep, SR shifts the absorption spectrum of gold down into the visible spectrum, meaning it absorbs blue light but reflects red and green light giving it its yellow colour. The details are complicated but have to do with SR effects chaging the resonance frequency of the outer valence electrons.
@stevesmith2044 2 ай бұрын
Gold maximum phenomenon
@StuffandThings_ 2 ай бұрын
It also gives it unusually high electronegativity for a D block element, to the point where it can even form anions, due to the relativistic speeds reached by the valence electrons
@davidaugustofc2574 2 ай бұрын
@@Eden_Laika wouldn't SR redshift the light that Gold reflects? Gold is very good at reflecting Infra-Red and very bad at Reflecting Blue
@Eden_Laika 2 ай бұрын
@@davidaugustofc2574 Only if the gold was moving away from the observer. Red shift isn't a property of a material, but of relative velocity.
@BaronVonQuiply 2 ай бұрын
Too hazardous to keep around, I've replaced all mine with quicksilver. **dies confused**
@thenexttangle8568 2 ай бұрын
It's another name for Mercury
@michaelhaywood8262 2 ай бұрын
@@thenexttangle8568 I think BarononQuiply knows that His was a joke comment.
@thenexttangle8568 2 ай бұрын
@@michaelhaywood8262 oh My bad
@Dommi8450 2 ай бұрын
I graduated in 1999 and subshells were not taught to me. I had to look up a different video that explained that it is introductory chemistry. It was a weird feeling that something so basic to younger kids/teens is completely new to me.
@ajchapeliere 2 ай бұрын
I remember a game show based loosely around that situation. I also remember arguing with my grandma about how lightning works because the knowledge and information access in her school years were more limited. I also still get tripped up by the knowledge that plate tectonics wasn't scientific canon until the 1960's or so. It just seemed so.... "It is known" by the time I was learning it, but it's contemporary to the US civil rights movement. Perception of time is wild.
@qazsedcft2162 2 ай бұрын
I was in college around that time and it was definitely taught in the university intro chemistry class. In high school we only ever had the Bohr model simplified stuff.
@solconcordia4315 2 ай бұрын
I was hardly taught about subshells, either, in the U.S.A. I think that our professors considered them as inaccurate and outdated concepts in deference to the boundary-condition-induced quantum numbers so we got the atomic orbitals expositions. I, however, was precocious so I had already learnt that from my Big Brother's collection of textbooks he had used. The Chemistry textbooks used the subshell models pretty effectively to explain chemical engagement between atoms. As I have a historical perspective, I tolerate thinking of electrons of atoms being packaged into subshells. After all, the Madelung (n+l) rule used by the Aufbauprinzip maps atomic subshells with electronic configurations' filling order pretty well (but not quite right all the way -- I'm not a chemist so I know anyway that I shouldn't trust my *historic* chemistry education 100%: trust *AND* verify.) Electrons are delocalized waves as well as like tiny hard nuts. It just depends upon the resolution with which one looks at the electrons. In superconductivity research for room-temperature ambient-temperature superconductors, electrons should be thought of as being delocalized waves (viz. Bloch waves) capable of being decomposed into Fourier series with a periodic coherence length that can extend its range to near infinity to achieve resonance.
@dreammaker9642 Ай бұрын
Took me to first or second year of uni to finally understand. Think is you aren’t taught the Heisenberg model or principle of uncertainty till then because the Borr model gets taught instead as it’s easier to understand and works for the purpose intended. To be fair skipping the borr model would make it hard to understand Heisenberg
@dreammaker9642 Ай бұрын
@@qazsedcft2162cause that’s all you needed. Bohr model is “wrong” but it works for the purpose intended and it’s easier to understand. I doubt you could easily understand the Heisenberg model if you don’t understand and work with the Bohr model. Unless you make the mistake of entering a organic chem class then it doesn’t really matter that much.
@thefaboo 2 ай бұрын
"... the more massive they *measure you* to be..." Side-stepped a whole physicist flamewar there 😂
@robfut9954 2 ай бұрын
Went over my head, please explain. Why is that controversial
@omgsrsly 2 ай бұрын
@@robfut9954 Because the mass is not increasing in reality, although it is used as the most common explanation.
@rtg_onefourtwoeightfiveseven 2 ай бұрын
I was about to head to the comments section to be all "um acktchually" but I stopped because of that. Good save on his part.
@thefaboo 2 ай бұрын
@@omgsrsly @robfut9954 and the flamewar part is that there are a lot of working physicists who prefer the original interpretation....
@AsmodeusMictian 2 ай бұрын
@@thefaboo This will forever baffle me. Science is all about replacing old information that's discovered to be incorrect with new, *proven* information so that we as a species can progress in our understanding of the worlds around us. To just reject new information smacks more of religion than science to me. You don't arrange your theories to come into line with reality, you re-arrange reality to come into line with your beliefs. No thanks. Stopped that decades ago now :D
@melodyszadkowski5256 2 ай бұрын
Put this together with Hank's chemistry CRASH Course and you have a basic college course in physics. And it's understandable.
@pgc6290 2 ай бұрын
The fact that you ask to 'recall' high school chemistry makes me feel really good.
@Dykadda 2 ай бұрын
me hearing "It maybe toxic but sure looks magical" from youtube autoplay and just thought, sounds like my ex 😅🤣
@Makabert.Abylon 2 ай бұрын
There is good just rightly offensive joke there someone just needs to work it out. It has to start somewhere.. Women are like the elements of the periodic table, the more beautiful, the more toxic.
@kitcutting 2 ай бұрын
“… Like a Ferrari with no engine. Fine as hell, but it just sits there and costs me money”
@SimuLord 2 ай бұрын
See, your ex was like mercury. Mine was more like a dose of arsenic. And she'd say I was more of an alpha particle. It's not dangerous until you let it inside you.
@kitcutting 2 ай бұрын
@@SimuLord SEE, your ex was like the alpha particle, mine was like the Big Bang. Incredibly hot… and just as dense
@NinjaRunningWild 2 ай бұрын
Pretty much most people’s ex.
@andriypredmyrskyy7791 2 ай бұрын
I've been curious about this topic forever, and your scientific communication was so top notch I felt compelled to tell you about how good it is. Having undergrad under my belt helps a lot but this was really easy to understand.
@KenLord 2 ай бұрын
cant believe that a video talking about how special relativity is required to understand the behaviour of the element mercury due to its impact on orbitals ... didnt mention how special relativity was required to explain the orbit of Mercury (the planet).
@xyex 2 ай бұрын
Haha, that didn't even occur to me. 😂
@annaclarafenyo8185 2 ай бұрын
Special relativity doesn't explain the orbit of Mercury, General Relativity does. Special relativity gives a negligible correction.
@Relkond 2 ай бұрын
General relativity is also why gold is yellow. Without it, gold would be a boring, silvery color. It does a lot to make the world more interesting.
@oracleofdelphi4533 2 ай бұрын
Can't blame special relativity for the aftermath of a Taco Bell meal.
@Pho7on 2 ай бұрын
@@Relkond Special relativity is what explains the color. It's a similar effect as in mercury.
@jmackmcneill 2 ай бұрын
4:19 I think of chemical reactivity as atoms being sociable and extroverted, but equally I understand having all your electron shells filled must be a very cosy and reassuring feeling.
@mikemondano3624 2 ай бұрын
It's suffocating, actually. It makes one long for extinction in the wave function of a large, copper conductor.
@objective_psychology 2 ай бұрын
Tfw Einstein solved a Mercury mystery AND a mercury mystery
@markloveless1001 2 ай бұрын
My dad gave me an aspirin bottle half full of mercury he got out of washing machine lid contact switches (the 60s were a simpler time). I remember pouring it from hand to hand. Didn't effect me at all (tic) at all (tic) at all....
@y_fam_goeglyd 2 ай бұрын
😂😂😂
@Jefuslives 2 ай бұрын
I think we had the same dad.
@fumfering 2 ай бұрын
I broke a thermometer when I was a kid who couldn't stop fiddling with things way back when they actually had mercury in them, and have always wondered how much of my personality is a result of playing with the little shiny balls rolling around on the tile floor...😮
@casjean8904 2 ай бұрын
@@fumfering same here! nowadays they call for a hazmat crew.
@markloveless1001 2 ай бұрын
@@Jefuslives I was too young to remember, but my older cousins told me when they buried my grandfather, they had to use dynamite (which was available at the farmer's co-op when Dad was a kid), and we were given lengths of fuses to play with. Light one end and when it got to the other, small bang.
@FSAPOJake 2 ай бұрын
This might be one of the best explanations for a relatively (pun intended) complex topic in this channel's history.
@marckyle5895 2 ай бұрын
The way he _generalizes_ makes me feel _special_
@wheelie157 2 ай бұрын
all made possible by post malone's brother too its crazy!
@graemelaubach3106 2 ай бұрын
Wow, this was super interesting! SciShow on the ball with this one.
@markmathews2143 2 ай бұрын
This was a really good explanation that takes a complex idea like valency and electron shells, and completely explained several complex topics with the required detail to make it understandable to laymen and hobbyists. Even my son understood it and he struggles with science. And if they have any questions, they should go see Hank over at crash course, another excellent series that you should link to in the description as videos like this with an easy to understand follow up intro course makes science topics accessible to everyone. Good job.
@Juice1984 2 ай бұрын
I guess calling Mercury "Quicksilver" wasn't that far off.
@KidFury27 2 ай бұрын
I'm glad he identified that it must be -39 degrees Celsius.... Because at that temp F is pretty much the same 😂
@Fazzel 2 ай бұрын
Yes, 40 degrees C and 40 degrees F are the same temperature.
@zimriel 2 ай бұрын
@@Fazzel no joke, that's where I first learnt about linear graphing.
@icedbear 2 ай бұрын
Units are important. There are more than two temperature scales.
@giantsquid2 2 ай бұрын
@@Fazzel No. 40 deg C is 104 degrees F.
@giantsquid2 2 ай бұрын
I think you mean -40 deg C is equal to -40 deg F.
@GreatDivideSven 2 ай бұрын
This is a great video. Maybe it hit me at a time when I've been getting an interest in chemistry, but it explained well a lot of things that are not talked about every day. And got me to ask more questions
@curiousnerdkitteh 2 ай бұрын
Great video, and I love Reid's energy and enthusiasm!
@kwokchuchan7793 2 ай бұрын
As a PhD in Chemistry I understand why mercury is unreactive, but I didn't understand how relativitistic effect turned mercury into liquid. Now I understand. Thanks for your simple but excellent explanation!
@smokeduv 2 ай бұрын
So the halogens are “sort of reactive”? They are most like if they were like the ones in the leftmost in reactivity but the noble gases sort of messes it up because those don’t react (mostly). Aside from that I love the video and the channel in general
@eroraf8637 2 ай бұрын
Halogens are highly electronegative with a single valence vacancy, so they REALLY want that last electron. Noble gases have a full valence shell, so they’re happy as they are.
@pierrevillemaire-brooks4247 2 ай бұрын
Great presentation 🙂 Next step , maybe you could come up with an a grounded explanation as to why technetium is one of the few elements of the periodic table of elements that isn't stable despite its low atomic weight.
@thomicrisler9855 2 ай бұрын
Yes! I've always wondered that.
@HappyBeezerStudios 2 ай бұрын
Elements with even proton number also tend to be more stable than those with odd protons for some reason. Odd elements also have fewer stable isotopes. Looking at it there doesn't seem to be any weird situation, normal β+ and β- decay. But other higher elements in the 53 to 57 nucleotide range show α decay, which doesn't happen again until 83 nucleotides, at which point it starts getting increasingly common.
@garyfilmer382 2 ай бұрын
A great, stunning explanation! Thank you for this video.
@kharris274 2 ай бұрын
I have a question… if the more proton make some atom becomes less reactive, then why does galium also has a liquid phase on room temperature? And why we don’t have more metal that’s liquid in room temperature for higher atomic numbers
@yar3333 Ай бұрын
Ga has an electron in an outer shell. Look at group 12. Also note that "room"/"not room" temperature is just a constant. For nature 0 and 200 degrees are not that different (add 273, the absolute zero, to both of them).
@TheRedRave 2 ай бұрын
Little correction here, though it is often said like that, the 12th period, Zinc and under including mercury, are not transition metals as per the definition of what a transition metal is (see IUPAC color books). Being an element of the d-block, the middle of the table, doesn't mean they are transition metals, cause the 12th period ones are not.
@melodyszadkowski5256 2 ай бұрын
You had to step all over it for us lay folk, didn't you?
@goosenotmaverick1156 2 ай бұрын
@@melodyszadkowski5256dude I didn't even understand the correction. Maybe I'm stupid, but at least it didn't ruin my fun 😂😂😂
@crazy_mind-ox8if 2 ай бұрын
What are they considered then? An "other metal"? Didnt see any periodic tables with them labeled anything other than transition metals and I'm too lazy to try and find the IUPAC one you said.
@McKaySavage 2 ай бұрын
Most periodic table sources still class it as a transition metal, while some combine it with the basic metals and call the group post-transition metals. In all honesty, the delineation isn’t enough of a mistake to call for a correction of the video’s efforts to educate, given the necessity to simplify anyway.
@MarioFanGamer659 2 ай бұрын
This reminds me of the classification of hydrogen and the problems thereof which they made four weeks ago.
@corrpearce2363 2 ай бұрын
Killer episode, the electron speed in the lower shells 😮
@alden1132 2 ай бұрын
I was very recently explaining this in a comment thread concerning liquid metals and mercury, specifically. It's a fascinating quirk of physics, and always makes me wonder what other unusual properties re: the behavior of matter might exist. This is the only example of this type t that I'm aware of, but there MUST be others...
@HappyBeezerStudios 2 ай бұрын
Copernicium, the element below mercury in the periodic table is also assumed to be liquid at standard temperature and pressure. We just haven't made enough to observe that.
@alden1132 2 ай бұрын
@@HappyBeezerStudios That's interesting. I had never heard that! I love trivia.
@kbee225 2 ай бұрын
I was taught that the whole electron moving around the nucleus model is incorrect as there are some glaring issues with it. For one, it is a charge undergoing acceleration, it should be be emitting photons continuously till the energy of the electron decrease and eventually collapse into the nucleus. The quantum model uses the orbitals you mentioned and proposes that these electrons exist in a cloud of probability on these orbitals. So it is delocalized, i.e., it doesn't exist as a particle which takes up a location in space. So in this model, how does the velocity of an electron matter when you can never measure the location and the momentum of an electron simultaneously?
@Tangarisu 2 ай бұрын
Yes because whenever we measure or observe the atom and its electron shells we are essentially "taking a snapshot" and freezing the electron in observable space so we can gain an ide and its spin and angular momentum.
@goodmaro 2 ай бұрын
"Incorrect" models can still be correct for much of what they model, which may be the important parts. It still makes sense to model electrons as point charges and point masses, provided you allow such things as angular momentum of 0 in some cases, i.e. that point either passing thru the center of the nucleus up and down or taking a figure 8 course. It's just a limit of our imagination, not being able to hold contradictory models in our heads simultaneously. But we know it works, because of such applications as NMR.
@FoxofWallstreet Күн бұрын
It doesn‘t. To be honest, I‘m fairly sure that the entire idea behind this video is wrong, as it is doing it‘s math with E=mc^2 which is not the correct formula for moving objects, the correct one would be E^2=(mc^2)^2+(pc)^2 or E=ymc^2 with y being the Lorentz-factor. Or for short: Relativistic mass isn‘t a thing. So for short: The video really wasn‘t onto something at all.
@AquibMohammedAyman 2 ай бұрын
It's not a liquid. It is a planet 😂
@ZurigaSungama 2 ай бұрын
It's not a planet. It is a deity 😂
@markloveless1001 2 ай бұрын
And the FTD delivery man.
@KenLord 2 ай бұрын
coincidentally, special relativity was required to understand the behaviour of both the planet (it's orbit) and the element (it's orbitals).
@azurius_ 2 ай бұрын
@@ZurigaSungama its not a deity its the singer from queen
@trdidion 2 ай бұрын
it’s also a car.
@SuperiorDave 2 ай бұрын
This was one of my favorite episodes. I love chemistry. Thank you sci show.
@RR-in7do 2 ай бұрын
I've actually wondered this for years and this was by far the best explanation I've come across.
@johnford7847 2 ай бұрын
Seems to me they haven't "proved" anything. They need to run the same simulations on, say, gold and thallium, to show that the results are not an artifact of the differences in simulation methods.
@zimriel 2 ай бұрын
that's hard to do with 80 protons. Maybe start small with zinc?
@FoxofWallstreet Күн бұрын
Probably because the theory involves relativistic mass, which isn‘t even a thing anymore
@altariacorona 2 ай бұрын
My lecturer in inorganic chemistry told us this when I was a bachelor's student (in chem). Fascinating stuff, I never thought relativity in that way. I still remember until today
@HetotSmuyi 2 ай бұрын
I've been interested in this subject for a very long time, and I felt forced to tell you how excellent your scientific communication was. Having completed my undergraduate degree helps a lot, but this was quite simple to understand.
@MrBlaDiBla68 2 ай бұрын
Excellent approachable vid !
@Articulate99 2 ай бұрын
Always interesting, thank you.
@kevenquinlan 2 ай бұрын
Great Video, super informative.
@brianb9410 2 ай бұрын
Very interesting and well presented. Thank you!
@pascal6077 2 ай бұрын
This is by far one of my favorite scishow videos!
@GoldSkulltulaHunter 2 ай бұрын
The script of this video was superbly written (and read!). It went from basic to complex without patronizing or alienating any viewers. I also really enjoyed the way scientific models are treated as that - models, not a precise description of reality - and how it shows that even "wrong", simplified or outdated models can serve purposes in academia and education, despite their limitations. Kudos to the writer and the whole team!
@magran17 2 ай бұрын
Wow, great explanation of a difficult complex topic. ❤
@IranGr 2 ай бұрын
beautifully explained. Thank you.
@BOOGY110011 2 ай бұрын
amazing video,. so well explained. i learned new plenty new effects in particles.
@penguinista 2 ай бұрын
Excellent chemistry instruction!
@Eztoez Ай бұрын
Beautifully explained. So clear and easy to understand.
@johnathonhughes4814 2 ай бұрын
I watch a lot of science videos but this one expanded my view of atomic theory by applying relativity to chemistry. Thanks so much!
@naturegoggle 2 ай бұрын
Brilliant. Thanks for this video. 💚
@mhick3333 2 ай бұрын
Great presentation!
@paulwalsh2344 2 ай бұрын
This was one of the BEST SciShow episodes EVER ! And that's saying a lot !
@marvinbeatty 2 ай бұрын
I really had to focus on this but it was interesting! Thanks!
@Kaijuus 2 ай бұрын
Great episode!
@wendellsmith1349 26 күн бұрын
I Learned a lot today. thank you.
@esmenhamaire6398 2 ай бұрын
Absolutely brilliant episode!. I've generally not been keen on this presenters presentation style, but in this episode couldn't find fault with his delivery.. The topic was extremely interesting too - one where both quantum mechanics an special relativity are required to explain something. I'd love to see a deeper dive on the topic!
@Kravex1 2 ай бұрын
This one was a banger, well done.
@unything2696 2 ай бұрын
My prof in computational chemistry explained relativistic effects in two sentences and we moved on. And it was indeed enough. Short and precise, enough for the moment. It wasn't the main topic of the lesson, but it was helpful to continue. (Coming from HF, taking a look at semi empirical methods going towards DFT.) I like the explanations giving in this video, they did a good job. It's all models anyway, don't forget that. Everything is relative;)
@stud_med_manuel 2 ай бұрын
awesome...thanks... very educational and interesting
@MathewSan_ 2 ай бұрын
Great video 👍
@michaelmckinney7240 2 ай бұрын
What a wonderful presentation by Reid Reimers who very clearly and interestingly describes the behavior of the mercury atom. Reid doesn't teach so much as he invites all of us to learn together in this very effective tutorial. I don't like being taught but I love learning which is why I give this presentation very high marks. Thank you Reid.
@mr.boomguy 2 ай бұрын
This is what I find fascinating about atoms, both recently and in general. The way just a few connections can change a whole element with vastly deferent properties, not to mention molecules
@4RILDIGITAL 2 ай бұрын
Special relativity affects not only space travel, but also chemistry, down to the very properties of elements. Very well presented.
@ananttiwari1337 2 ай бұрын
this is an amazing video!!
@csvscs 2 ай бұрын
Yo, this was such a great video! Can y'all do a scientific breakdown of how to beat the armored core 6. Final boss after ng++
@MikkoRantalainen 2 ай бұрын
Great video! It would be interesting to have a follow-up video about why does Gallium have so low melting point even though it has much less protons than Mercury?
@ruperterskin2117 28 күн бұрын
Cool. Thanks for sharing.
@The.Lilomay 2 ай бұрын
This explain my questions for so long when I learn about Periodic Table in high school
@levihuttner3260 2 ай бұрын
This was fascinating
@cartermckee7674 2 ай бұрын
Fantastic video!
@AliceYobby 2 ай бұрын
incredible episode
@pauls5745 2 ай бұрын
I got very happy at the use of the emoji at 4:19
@LuisAldamiz 2 ай бұрын
A particularly interesting episode, TY. Glad that Relativity was vindicated again, seems to be quite important in spite of quantum-centrism.
@rtg_onefourtwoeightfiveseven 2 ай бұрын
Well, this is special relativity, which is (just about) A-OK with quantum mechanics. Quantum field theory, our current best model of the structure underlying particle physics, incorporates special relativity just fine. It's general relativity that you need to worry about with QM. (Not that either are going anywhere anytime soon, just can't put them in the same room with each other.)
@LuisAldamiz 2 ай бұрын
@@rtg_onefourtwoeightfiveseven - I'm aware but the scores that special relativity, a particular simpler case of general relativity, gets also count for the overall GR score of almost absolute certainty. IMHO the real problem is in quantum mechanics, which still operates on linear and non-relativistic Newtonian time (among other issues). I'm under the strong impression that QM is a good model but not good enough, that it got stuck on something that seemed OK historically and that more or less works fine in its specific frame but that it would benefit from a radical rethought much as Dirac tried (but failed).
@rtg_onefourtwoeightfiveseven 2 ай бұрын
@@LuisAldamiz Like I said, QM is compatible with relativistic Lorentz time. Look up quantum field theory if you don;t believe me. It's just the more introductory/simplified forms of the theory and specific interpretations that rely on absolute Newtonian time. The basic theory itself (that reality can be described by a specific state vector in a complex Hilbert space, with observables represented by Hermitian operators) doesn't. I do not claim to be able to predict what the ultimate model of physics will look like. But quantum mechanics is one of if not the most well-tested theory in the history of humanity. Each of the millions upon millions of collisions in particle accelerators that we've looked at is a test of quantum mechanics, and it's never been wrong. I think it's a little short-sighted to treat it as "not good enough" just because GR has been vindicated so many times, especially given how enormously difficult it is to theoretically "fix" QM to match GR, in comparison to the other way around. And it's flat-out wrong to say QM isn't good enough because SR is a strong theory. That's just not true. SR being strong makes both QFT and GR strong, because it's a key part of the mathematical framework of both theories.
@antoinelavosier9620 2 ай бұрын
Good job!
@TheTruthPlease100 2 ай бұрын
Close but sounds like there are a few things we don't fully understand yet. Cool!
@StuffandThings_ 2 ай бұрын
Another fun one is gold, which is remarkably electronegative due to relativistic electrons. You can even get gold anions, such as in cesium auride!
@xo9103 2 ай бұрын
Good job boys, classic SciShow chem dub
@mekosmowski 2 ай бұрын
So, why don't we see a similar effect in the rest of the period 6 transition metals? Gold and platinum are fairly malleable, but tungsten has arguably the greatest intermetallic bond strength based on a review of physical properties.
@eroraf8637 2 ай бұрын
Remember what he said about the filled sub-orbitals? Tungsten doesn’t have those. The intermolecular forces are much stronger for tungsten. Remember, mercury is only held together by van der Waals forces, precisely because of its filled sub-orbitals.
@mekosmowski 2 ай бұрын
@@eroraf8637 But they're all big enough they should also have the relativistic effects from the full f orbitals. So they all should be a bit shrunken and have greater electron density, so the should be more repulsive toward each other than their one up the group neighbor.
@eroraf8637 2 ай бұрын
@@mekosmowski I think you've misunderstood. The full f orbitals and the relativistic effect are two distinct contributions. Also, they aren't the only things that determine an element's melting point or material strength as a solid. You also have to consider the overlapping of different orbitals and sub-orbitals due to charge shielding and other such effects, but I'm not exactly an expert on condensed-matter physics.
@mekosmowski 2 ай бұрын
@@eroraf8637 I'm not asking why the other transition metals of the period aren't also liquid, but why they don't have reduced intermetallic bond strength compared to their group neighbors from one period above, for example gold compared to silver (which specifically does seem to have reduced bond strength as evidenced by greater malleability, but this might be more a factor of crystal structure). Sure, reduced atomic mass is expected to reduce the relativistic effects, but it doesn't seem like a dozen or so protons and neutrons would be enough for such a dramatic change.
@eroraf8637 2 ай бұрын
@@mekosmowski Like I said, there are other effects beyond just what's discussed in this video. Look up relativistic quantum chemistry if you want to know more. I'm just an astrophysicist, and I never took any graduate-level quantum or chemistry courses, so this is way beyond my expertise.
@RichardNeill01 2 ай бұрын
Mass is a Lorentz invariant. It is momentum (gamma m v) that increases relativistically.
@ger128 2 ай бұрын
Really clear explanation
@twogirlie 2 ай бұрын
Well Done!
@Belboz99 2 ай бұрын
Just a minor correction... the man-made Element 112 @1:54 is named after Nicolaus Copernicus, so it should be pronounced with a similar name... Copernicium, not Coppernicium.
@Fazzel 2 ай бұрын
Americium was named after America but it is pronounced Am Or Ree Cee Um instead of Am Air Ick Ee Um
@zimriel 2 ай бұрын
@@Fazzel pity it wasn't Vesputium
@1ifemare 2 ай бұрын
Which ironically is much more faithful to the latin original. And, funny fact, his father was a copper merchant.
@LuisAldamiz 2 ай бұрын
How are those two words pronounced differently? The pp sounds exactly like a single p. Now I wonder if you're mispronouncing Copernicus...
@1ifemare 2 ай бұрын
@@LuisAldamiz It's the vowel before the p. Copper (like in "cough") vs Copernicus (like in "cup").
@PADARM 2 ай бұрын
It's incredible how powerful Relativity is. It continues to give us solutions 100 years after being created.
@kevinjung6130 2 ай бұрын
The "Qin" in "Qin Shi Huang" is pronounced closer to Chin rather than Quinn or Kin. Great video!
@pattheplanter 2 ай бұрын
Pinyin has some weird choices for pronunciation.
@daryllwilson3708 2 ай бұрын
Excellent video. I wish 10% of KZfaq had content half as good as this video.
@user-ym4xy6us5e 2 ай бұрын
If you loved me half as much as I love you, you wouldn't worry me half as much as you do.
@user-lv5ic2xy3n 2 ай бұрын
This is phenomenal
@feynmanschwingere_mc2270 Ай бұрын
Einstein is the GOAT...Funny thing is he came up with special relativity 2 years after essentially doing J.W. Gibbs historically famous work (but Gibbs's seminal work in thermodynamics/statistical mechanics) hadn't been translated to German yet. Oh and Einstein independently discovered the Raleigh-Jeans Law and several other laws in physics are named after other people even though Einstein discovered them first (e.g. Probability Waves being one of them - as Max Born always acknowledged in his letters). Not to mention Schrodinger definitely doesn't discover his famous wave mechanics without Einstein's help. The man was next level brilliant. Even Dirac was in awe.
@pb6481 2 ай бұрын
Interesting how so many concepts come together to result in a seemingly simple effect. Quantum mechanics, special relativity, and the emotions and ambitions of atoms in general (relatively).
@greatsilentwatcher 2 ай бұрын
Interesting topic.
@goodmaro 2 ай бұрын
Wow, I used to teach Chemistry,, and I had no idea of the relativistic contribution to mercury's properties, thanks!
@bravebear6975 2 ай бұрын
Love these vids for home schooling my preteen step-son and our youngest son. My son is half Danish and step-son full-blooded, so I do wish educators mentioned Niels David Bohr a bit more when discussing atomic structure, instead of always reverting to our American scientists. Nonetheless, great school vids to get the kids started while I grade their papers or if logged into my job and needing them to self study until my lunch hour or we get off work.
@AmityvilleFan 2 ай бұрын
I love you can explain everything with midlle-school level language.
@Verschlungen 9 күн бұрын
Ever since observing HgO powder turn into liquid mercury + (invisible) oxygen in a high school chemistry demonstration in 1960, Hg has been my "favorite element." Now, with your ability to take an abstruse topic (SR) and give it the explainlikeimfive treatment, you've made Hg even more magical for me, at age 80. Thank you!!
@tjcihlar1 2 ай бұрын
It is an interesting phenomena. I wish there was a video version for this for people who have already taken physics and know what atoms are, there is too much time rehashing what many people already know.
BEN EAGLE
Рет қаралды 30 МЛН
Chubbyemu
Рет қаралды 15 МЛН