Nooo😭😭😭 not Ice V!!!

@@fullfungo4476 That's ice eight. You mean ice IV.

fr

Ice I to Ice XVIII

There are more than 17 “forms” of ice. Don’t worry too much it’s still H2O

I know. Great Free content

I agree!!

Absolutely right!!

I've just found it,great channel and very informative 👍 More videos please

School has no interest in you really learning anything. Either you get it, or pretend to get it: by parroting back the info on a test or by memorization with no understanding. To truly learn, understand, and be able to apply= wisdom. They don't want wisdom, they want obedient drones from their diploma mill that can't think for themselves. True knowledge is power, it leads to wisdom. When you have wisdom on a subject you can think for yourself and the lies and manipulation has no effect on you. So keep up your quest to truly learn about things. The Bible says my people suffer from a lack of knowledge. True Knowledge leads to understanding which leads to wisdom. They don't want everyone wiser than them, just Smart enough to do as you are told. If you are smarter than them, they precive you as a threat and try to crush you. That is why people that have wisdom hide themselves and don't Bragg or Bost and are humble. Always look for who it quiet in the room of chaos that is watching everyone else. They are either very wise and godly and helpful loving people, or they are very evil despotic, Napoleon Hitler complex. These two types tend to be at war over helping or destroying mankind. Hitler and Napoleon were perfect examples of being good at the beginning, then destroying their country. Look up videos on psychopathic, sociopath, Narcissistic, borderline personality disorder, to learn about who you are really talking to. They hide themselves very well. Hope this helps you.

Actually, the Russians have landed several probes on Venus. The atmosphere is so dense at the surface that it doesn't need a parashute or thrusters to land.

It is a like swimming but you can't see the 'water'

I have a question, it’s known that the general theory of relativity doesn’t work with black holes. But here’s my idea on the topic, i cannot pull off the mathematics so. If the gravity is infinite, when a light crosses the event horizon, we don’t see the light, not because it’s been eaten, but because time dialitation has made this one second into infinite seconds. So for the light, it has moved for a second, but for us it’s been a infinite amount of time, My second idea is a warp hole, if a black hole has infinite density and gravity, does that mean it would have punctured basically a hole through space time May you answer this then?

@@someguy3300 Whatever happens beyond event horizon is unknown. So, let’s just guess together. (1) About infinite density; Infinity makes sense for math, as a paradox for philosophy. But the point of doing physics is to describe reality in quantitative measures. If the answer to a physics problem is infinity or a paradox, it means the solution is wrong or incomplete. (2) About time dilation inside a black hole Statement 1: ‘Gravity so strong that escape velocity exceeds the speed of light’ Statement 2: ‘Time dilation so large that it took forever to pass one second’ These two statements are basically two different ways to describe the same thing. Because both gravity and time dilation are our relative experiences of one phenomenon, spacetime curvature. (3) Your 2nd Idea is somewhat similar to mine. I keep saying that “Black hole do not exist in the universe. They are part of the universe that don’t exist.” But, there are problems with this idea. First, we need to know the geometry of spacetime curvature and how elastic or stretchy it is for holes form. Second, if they simply are holes of the spacetime, how can they have charges and spins? Spacetime, as we know it, doesn’t behave like that. Third, and more serious problem is - if black holes are not parts of the universe, where do all the matter falling into them go? Isn’t it against law of conservation of energy? No theory must be against physical laws of the universe. But, here, we are talking about events beyond event horizon. It doesn’t make sense in the first place 😄 If I have a better idea with no contradictions, that follows the laws of physics, you’ll see me in Sweden, giving the Nobel Prize acceptance speech 😅 Nice talking to someone curious like you. #StayCurious

Thanks, I have other topics I may talk about in a few days, I’m 12 so I cannot really do the mathematics.

Another error I made whilst typing that, is on the warpholes one, I referred to a 2d plane of space, which in ways can work, space doesn’t need a third dimension, but i should have been thinking of the third dimensional one.

Also, another error I made, a warp hole is not a punctured hole in space, but rather a opening, like a hole though a piece of paper, but the distance from the two holes have a glass wall

Totally! ^.^

Couldn't agree more. Their explanation on relativity is one of the best out there! That's what made me love this channel so so much!

Very glad the video helped you!

Thank you! Beware however these are supercritical fluids. Superfluids are yet another (fascinating) topic

Isn’t this Thermodynamics?

@@thomashan4963 It is statistical mechanics.

Physical chemistry

I had not understood this in my classes. I came here, and yea, it's a part of thermal properties (which is basically thermodynamics) here

I wish they covered more chemistry topics

Yeah, it really is a horizontal line and a vertical line. Here's why: It might help to google the phase diagram of water or something for a visual aid. If you have a liquid above the critical pressure but below the critical temperature, all that's required to reach a supercritical fluid is increasing the temperature, which moves horizontally to the right on the diagram. Once you've reached the critical temperature, since you're already above the critical pressure, the liquid will become a supercritical fluid. Similarly, if you have a gas above the critical temperature but below the critical pressure, and you compress it, it moves vertically up on the diagram. Once you've reached the critical pressure, the gas will become a supercritical fluid.

You can draw those lines, but they aren't special like actual phase transition boundaries. Phase transition boundaries often take energy to cross and have some discontinuous property (e.g. density) at the phase boundary. There is no such meaningful phase boundary between liquid and supercritical fluid and between supercritical fluid and gas.

We classify fluids as liquid or gas, but in truth, there is not much difference between the two. We define anything to the left of that imaginary verticle line going up from the critical point as a liquid and anything below the horizontal as a gas, but the derivative of all of the properties like density remains well defined and smooth as you pass over the transition. It's like having a black and white border, and the supercritical region is various shades of grey such that it's a smooth gradient.

I would state it differently: There are no meaningful horizontal or vertical lines above the critical point, and the colour gradient should be smooth - only that this is impossible to draw if you to keep a clear distinction up to the critical point. So the problem is with the colouring and semantics that work different than the actual fluid: At the triple point itself there should be no contrast at all whereas a "micrometer" below there should be a clear distinction between gas and fluid. The gradient of colours does just not work topologically as a means of representation. But above the critical point there is no meaningful vertical line - it is really subjective when you want to call it gas or fluid in any given point - because you decide where you go next in your process. In a clock-wise loop around the critical point you can observe condensation after condensation without any evaporation - words and colours are just not good enough to label the state on this particular journey. Fluid and gas are relative concepts - or else you take arbitrary lines as the horizontal and the vertical to call it "supercritical" just to have a definite word that has no clear bounderies in reality.

@@neopalm2050 correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I found a nice way of putting what you said: The boundary line between fluid and gas has a variable energy cost, and that cost approaches 0 as you move towards the critical point. I like to think that line has a variable thickness (and no thickness beyond critical), but I'm pretty sure thats wrong (but helps my intuition)

Hi! I try to read every comment and message I receive but it's difficult sometimes I miss some. Thank you very much for your kind message, I am very glad that you like my style of videos! I can try to clarify this yes : The important thing to not is that, when we study the motion of the apple, there are 2 different notions of "time" : - the "proper time" of the apple, which is the time measured and carried by the apple - and the time of the observer, carried by the person observing the apple These two times are different directions through spacetime : the observer's time is a "horizontal" direction that stays at a constant altitude on Earth, whereas the apple's proper time is a curved direction which follows the falling motion of the apple. Now, here are the three explanations I usually give, which are equivalent : - The future of the apple is bent towards the center of the Earth, because its "time" is curved, following the curvature of spacetime - The apple's temporal velocity, when measured on the observer's time axis, is gradually converted into a spatial velocity. It is still true that the future of the apple is curved downwards. Here the important thing to note is that when I talk about "temporal" and "spatial" velocities, I am talking about the axes of the observer. - The grid of spacetime gets contracted over time, pulling the apple with it : This explanation is almost the same as the first one. The "contraction of the grid" is one possible way to represent the curvature of spacetime. So basically I am saying that the apple's trajectory (and hence its future and time axis) is curved by the curvature of spacetime. I hope this cleared some of your doubts :)

@@ScienceClicEN really thanks for clearing my doubts, my one last question is, when talking about the second explanation in which the apple's motion is bent between time which takes it to future and space which takes it near earth, is the time x axis and space y axis, and the area of the graph represents the spacetime? All of this in the frame of the observer...in which we only perceive the motion in space as human beings... And, i dont really think the first and third explanations are nearly similar, as in the first we have a stationary spacetime which is just bent, but in the third the spacetime is literally contracting. Maybe the grid lines that contract just represent inertial frames as you said in your video. So spacetime is not contracting, the frames are. I dont know if this is true, but what do you think?

They're also used in dry cleaning, which I was surprised they didn't mention since it's the closest most people get to supercritical fluids in their daily lives.

Isn’t Plasma more about free floating electrons than temp and pressure?

Water can't exist as a plasma. H2O is a neutral molecule. A plasma is a completely different state of matter composed of ions. You can think of it as a gas composed of electrons and ionized nuclei. At very high temperatures, the weakest-bound electrons in water have enough energy to overcome the force that binds them to the molecule. You get H2O+ and electrons. At higher energies, thermal energy overcomes the energy keeping oxygen and hydrogen bound to one another. You get oxygen and hydrogen ions, and depending on the conditions, some free electrons. If you have a planet with very high temperatures or pressures, H2O could exist in equilibrium with ionized water, or even hydrogen/oxygen ions.

Basically what the guy above me said. And plasma dosent count as one of the *four common states of matter*. There are only three *common* states of matter.

Yes!

I'm supercritical about 3brown1Blue. If Science Clic did a video on e.g. the heat equation it'd be 10 times clearer than 3brown1Blue's video was.

For laypeople, there's no meaningful difference, but the technical distinction is actually the temperature. Vapor is below the critical temperature, and gas is above the critical temperature. This distinction means that if you raise the pressure of vapor, it will condense into a liquid, but if you raise the pressure of a gas, it will become supercritical.

@@Mutantcy1992 If I'm not mistaken the term "gas" is more general and doesn't require the temperature to be above critical, in the sense that it refers to the state of matter in which molecules are almost free. A vapor is also a gas, because it is in the gas state. But I'm not a specialist in this field so I might be wrong.

@@ScienceClicEN it's really just contextual. I'm a chemical engineer and the way we tend to use gas and vapor is as follows. A vapor is just a gas that is a liquid at room temp and 1 atm. A gas is any other gas. So, nitrogen is a gas, steam is water vapor. It's not a particularly important distinction at the end of the day because context tells you everything you need to know.

Thank you🙏

Or... Magic is simply, science that hasn't been understood yet.

@@selvasurya049 very well said

What happens at the boundary between solid and gas is called "sublimation"

You generally get plasma from ionization i.e. you need the energy to break the electrons free from their respective atoms so you can almost think of it as another dimension related to incident radiation above a specific energy corresponding to a given electron transition. That isn't very neat to place on a diagram and thus will generally be left out unless you are in a very high radiation environment after all remember that all electron transitions have a minimum energy for ionization whether that energy comes from photons or kinetic energy from collisions between atoms/ions. That said further phase transitions do naturally happen eventually if you keep raising pressures and temperatures though this transition type is complex depending on electron ionization levels with other exotic phase transitions occurring earlier. For example there exists an odd phase of matter within gas giants around 3500 kilometers below the clouds in the case of Jupiter and ~9000 Km down below the clouds within Saturn where the supercritical fluids begin to behave as a rigid body due to coulomb drag canceling out any differential rotation. In essence at those depths Hydrogen becomes a hybrid between a liquid solid and a gas. If you keep compressing it further then the resistance between electrons becomes even stronger and the hydrogen finally transitions into a metallic form known as metallic hydrogen. On that note metals in general are largely a unique phase of matter of their own corresponding to matter which has degenerate electrons due to some combination of pressure and temperature forcing electrons into energetically disfavorable states. This can occur both due to a substance being cooled below a critical temperature lower than what is needed for their outermost valence electrons to be energetically favorable, how most familiar metals become electron degenerate or by increasing pressures so much that electrons between atoms valence electrons are bumping into each other too much such that the Pauli exclusion principal starts to interfere. For example at the right temperatures and pressures even iron stops being metallic. There are even more exotic stuff out there too like strange metals superconductors super fluids and many more so its complicated

it's not 100% incompressible though. its density is higher under pressure.

@@cornoc Well, fair point. I guess I just felt that the animation was misleading since it looked like the vapor phase and liquid phase were decreasing in volume at equal rates

@@Mutantcy1992 Got what you meant, great observation.

@@Mutantcy1992 fair enough