Well I hope you learn chemistry as well by seeing these videos and hopefully Michael gets well soon

Your right I’m 7

@Evi1M4chine Too soon :(

He speaks, what would be called, the Queen's English.

I'm the same country as you (Brazil), I speak english for a while, and even to me his English sounds very relaxing...

Why did you sign your name at the end?

Tomasz Losinski why _didn’t_ you? -beef... chicken

You quoting yourself makes everything awkward to quote! « "What we're interested in is what nature is like, not how easy it is to draw it." This simple sentence beautifully articulates what science means to me :) -Nathan » -Nathan

@AstronomyToday **laughs in chemistry**

*_h e l p m e t h i s i s n t a j o k e_*

Well I guess you have been successfully brainwashed.

He is Science.

Sammy help meth is isn’t a joke

Chris Orita Had to check my shirt in my closet. Mine's the same. Weird...

Chris Orita Better go order a tall latte to go with your hip shirt.

But what did your boxers have on them?

Actually, Lanthanides and Actinides aren't part of ANY GROUP AT ALL!!

@@scrambledstatesofamerica837 No. But lanthanum and actinium are. (According to the conventional conception.) The lanthanides and actinides don't include La and Ac but merely take their names from them. If this video is correct it isn't La and Ac at the bottom of that group; it's lutetium and lawrencium, in which case they are not members of the lanthanides and actinides. (And possibly La to Yb and Ac to No should be called "barides" and "radides".)

The fact that the abridged version is used everywhere because it fits better should tell you that is not really the case

Brendan Nicholson why would you think that

Brendan Nicholson For me I am neither happy nor sad but I am very confused now.

marlonyo I don't know. Some people don't like change haha

+Robert Fletcher it just has to do with the theory that lawrencium shares more properties in group 3 than actinium does.

+Midnight Creature we also have words for people who lump huge groups of people into single categories and then judge them. As a religious person who embraces changes in scientific understanding your statement offends me.

Eugene Khutoryansky and thanks for your physics and calculus videos

I loved your higher dimension shapes videos

They could read my mind also!

Raina Ramsay professor? He's a sir!

And also a professor.

themanwiththepan I agree. Sir Martin, the professor =)

What order of titles is correct anyway? Professor of Chemistry Sir Martin Poliakoff? Sir doesn't sound correct to me unless directly proceeding the full name.

Only the given name is used in verbal communication and description in conversation (which this would arguably be), except when distinction is necessary. Then the surname is added. In this case, since it's clear to all who is intended, "sir Martin" would be correct. According to purists, "professor" should not be used in conjunction with "sir". It would also be redundant in this case. In a description (in writing) where very specific distinction is necessary I would suggest "Sir Martin Poliakoff, Professor of Chemistry" When addressing sir Martin in a professional context, I would say it is completely acceptable to address him as professor. In all other instances, "sir Martin" should be preferred. Of course, his own wishes on how to be addressed should also be respected.

Quite.

***** Sometimes. Or rather, that's the tendency, anyway. "Sometimes", because who knows how much else science is wrong at? And who knows if we will ever catch each of those mistakes? But then again, I don't know of any other better way.

+youtubasoarus ... until somebody else proves us being wrong. ;-)

That's why science often stinks, replacing a real element with the memory of a shadow because of some paper

+youtubasoarus, yeah we do ;)

“The great tragedy of science, the slaying of a beautiful theory by an ugly fact.” -- Thomas Henry Huxley

Well it is a proposal so we'll see if the table changes

pcfreak1992 I wouldn't say that the traditional version is incorrect, but the version described in the video is certainly better.

pcfreak1992 just take your scissors and HAVE AT THEE!

Jan Troker sogar auf Deutsch, danke! ;-) #Like

MathHacker42 Well if one is certainly better, then that one is also certainly more technically correct :P Science should not be held to the same limitation of those of 'common knowledge', and they should fix it sooner rather than later. No point in keeping something that turns out to more 'less right' simply because of familiarity. Besides on those lower two rows, no know cares about anyway, so having them in an order which describes behavior more accurately should be of highest priority, as this was the point in the table to begin with.

ye i know what you mean i had a pretty fun chemistry teacher, it was great... not as fun as prof. poliakoff though with his period table boxers XD

slendy9600 My HS chem teacher was the ag teacher… seriously, agriculture. His chemistry skills were so great, he could almost make tea.

I mean he doesn't have to make us do actual work or calculations so there's that

Thanks to the classroom of KZfaq, that world you imagine, can exist, and will.

I would love this guy as my chemistry professor 🤓

***** cool story bro

Not sure of the discoverer, but the element (#103) was named after Ernest O. Lawrence. * So was Lawrence-Livermore Lab. * E.g., Albert Einstein didn't discover einsteinium (#99), Enrico Fermi didn't discover fermium (#100), etc. Fred

@glyn hodges Yeah, so was that elementary school - where'd that go? Fred

Mara K Science affirming a belief theory or hunch can sometimes be boring, it gets interesting when an inconsistency can grow to through your entire ruleset out the window.

***** It's interesting because science teachers have been telling me I'm wrong all my life, and now, if I ever cared to meet my high school chemistry teacher again, I have some official support for my understanding of the world.

You underestimate how boring and pointless my high school chemistry class was.

Almozayaf Roman form*

+tohopes It was the best they could do with the knowledge they had at the time, can't blame the table makers for that. (You make a lot of assumptions when it comes to the properties of these high number elements, only because it's really hard to test anything!)

Gordon Taylor Yeah but given that the layout seemed wrong to me years ago when I was a simple school student, I have to wonder to what extent or for how long it's been just simple inertia that has kept the table this way.

I had the same experience.

Hi, since you're asking about atoms I should mention that it's usually only metals and noble gases that are monoatomic (on their own). Anyway, atoms don't really need to have neutral charge. When a reaction involves transferring electrons, it's mainly about which atom is more electronegative. It's simple electrostatic attraction between one atom's nucleus and another atom's electron. As for the outer shell, advanced courses in chemistry will talk about stability based on subshells being half full or full.

Electrons from high energy orbitals will tend to settle down in lower energy orbitals. Take sodium chloride. Sodium has a relatively low first ionization energy of ~500 kJ/mol (so little energy is required to remove an electron, or it's a high energy electron.) Chlorine has a much higher 1st IE of ~1200 (much more energy required to remove an electron, so the electrons are lower energy overall). The overall energy of all electrons is smaller if sodium has zero electrons in its 3s orbital. Chlorine has space in its much lower energy 2p orbital to accept an electron. With molecular reactions, a similar argument applies, but the orbitals are much more complicated. Molecular Orbital Theory states that electrons are spread out throughout the entire molecule in orbitals, much like atomic orbitals, only with WAY more math involved. A reaction occurs when one molecule has a high energy molecular orbital that is occupied by electrons, and another molecule has a lower energy unoccupied molecular orbital. The higher energy electrons settle down into a lower energy orbital, reducing the overall energy of all electrons involved.

Jacob Van Oosterhout (continued) releasing the Potential Energy stored by the high energy electrons.

***** Exactly! Except that He should probably stay above Ne, because it has more in common with the noble gasses than with the alkali earth metals.

Since they've only got a maximum of 2 electrons in the outer shell to be filled at that point you can't classify them like that. Hydrogen is neither an alkaline metal nor a halogen. Someone who knows more about that than me mabe can add some information about the classification of hydrogen. Helium however is considered a noble gas because the outer shell is filled and it also behaves exactly like its brothers down the row.

Gareth Dean Think of it like this. Imagine that the periodic table was only 2 columns wide. That would represent the S shell. Then all the other elements would have to be inserted into a split the way we currently draw the Lanthanides and actinides. Hydrogen is placed with the alkaline metals because it tends to give up an electron when forming ionic bonds. So essentially it's just a single proton. When you split a hydrogen ion from a water molecule, you get H+ and OH- which is what gives rise to acids and bases. An excess of H+ forms an acid and if you have more OH- it's a base. But hydrogen doesn't really share many other properties with metals who have P shells, so it's in a category of its own.

DFPercush I would think the split would come after helium; your first colum would have 1 s electron in the outermost shell (H, Li, Na...) and the second column 2 s electrons (He, Be, Mg...) which is kinda my point. Hydrogen also readily forms H- ions with a number of elements and even alloys with many metals involving single hydrogen nuclei in the metalic sea of electrons. (This makes many metals catalyze hydrogen reactions by splitting up its molecules.) Could it perhaps be a semimetal like boron? That would fit with their diagonal band across the table.

Gareth Dean Hmm, I see your point. Well, as Einstein said, make things as simple as they can be, but no simpler. I guess we just can't simplify that explanation to a nice one size fits all rule. Those elements are just special. /shrug

+DFPercush Exaxtly. Hydrogen isn't an alkali, alkali earth, or halogen. Hydrogen is just a hydrogen. A weirdo. 😂