It's such a small observation from the video, but apparently elements 117 and 118 have been named since I took chemistry in high school. Back in 2015, I remember them being referred to as the placeholders ununseptium and ununoctium. That's kinda cool.
Computing them truly respecting quantum and relativistic effects seems to be impossible at the moment. I am guessing itis all an approximation with quite large error bars left and right
I am so genuinely happy that this professor exists. The world really needs more kind and intelligent people in it. I am so happy we have him and I hope that his studies live on forever. These videos warm my heart and mind! :-)
@@youssefbouzidi I mean he is not intelligent at all and just pretending to be, meanwhile posting false information and manipulating people for his own interests. We definetely don't need more people like this!
@@yesnoblemetalsoxidizetoo3079 if you can prove to us that you have published papers and studies in the industry, any kind, then we might "believe" you.
@@yesnoblemetalsoxidizetoo3079 All I see is a person with credentials in typing on the internet, not someone with degrees in chemistry or physics and papers on such to their name. If you actually had anything of worth to offer us, you would have provided us with the links along with your boasts.
When I first saw the thumbnail, I nearly thought it was Tellurium tetraiodide for some reason... This is such an interesting video, showing the power of computational chemistry. It does made me think of a question though: what is the most massive, stable 5-atom molecule that can be synthesized in a normal (i.e. non-nuclear) lab? The best I can find is the monomer of platinum tetraiodide, with molecular mass of 702.7 AMU.
Uranium tetraiodide has been synthesized (745.65 AMU), unless you're discounting all radioactive elements completely. Tetraiodoplumbate(II) is an ion (PbI4 2-) (714.82 AMU) that is heavier, but I'm not sure that quite counts.
About as low as you would expect. It may be sintesized for a very breif period then it will all fall apart. Current technologies can't really create such a compound. You've seen what it takes to create just a few atoms of that Organesson stuff.
@@alexander1989x He asked how it is defined, not the level of stability. I believe it is defined as a function of how it breaks down due to heat and/or how reactive it is with other molecules. So it is the same way it is defined for molecules made of stable atoms. I don't believe a molecule's "stability" is affected by the breakdown of its constituent atoms. In other words, in determining a molecules stability, you essentially pretend that its atoms will not ever breakdown, so as to isolate its chemical properties from its constituent atoms' atomic properties.
one simple way is to define the free energy of formation of the molecule. That is, how does its stability compare to that of its constituent parts as pure elements. If it is a lower energy, it is more stable. This would vary with temperature as well.
@@Just_lift_anyone I think it's a reference to him not being in his office due to COVID closing facilities. I think the last video was from his back yard for that reason.
im so glad a brilliant man of wisdom and education, who is seemingly a kind and patient human being and extraordinarily well spoken, has the oppurtunity to have these moments of teaching shared in this format.
I've really enjoyed professor P's enthusiasm for chemistry thru the years in his appearances. Very knowledgeable on a wide range of processes. Thank you sir.
Now it's time to talk about the strangest molecule ever made. "Strange" means it defied conventional calculations and simulations and did not behave according to what we initially expected...
Ideas: * Any noble gas molecule - thought to not exist until somebody made one. * TEMPO - stable free radical that can be isolated in bulk * dioxygen - unusual in several ways (stable free radical; exceptionally kinetically inert considering electronegativity of oxygen). These properties wouldn't be predicted by naively counting valence electrons, and require molecular orbital theory to explain. * caesium auride - a metal forms the anion in a binary salt. I guess you could say it's predicted by the electronegativity difference though. * octaoxygen - structure totally unlike octasulfur; Wikipedia says "No one predicted the structure theoretically".
@@fat_pigeon I am a chemistry teacher and therefore studied chemistry at university, but I've never heard of caesium auride and octaoxygen. Both are extremely interesting. Thanks for that!
I used to watch this channel all the time in college before I switched majors from chemistry to mechanical engineering. I'm happy to say that even though I've since graduated and am no longer in school I still watch this channel years later
Uncle of mine ( Peter ) discovered Meitnerium element 109 in 1982 and lol 108 in 1984 ( element numbers are not necessarily in chronological order of discovery ) both being transition metals. As you know he discovered elements 107 through 112. For largeness it's same as heaviness so atım stability same as molecular stability or such in sense that magic number combo must be found. Element 112 is 161 neutrons just one shy of its magic number. All these elements are just one over or under so it be interesting to see a combined laser fusion attempt occur just as fission happening to see if one can generate a combination of these radioactive transition metals into a molecule easily exceeding count widhht of what you said. Lol purely synthetic and likely last under a millionth of a second. Scary part is what energy will it require to do it but especially released
This is facinating to me. When I was a young lad I remember seeing a graph showing the stability of various isotopes of increasing mass and being fascinated about some of the heavier elements being potentially stable. It would be really facinating to see molecules of the heavier elements like this if they ever get synthesised! More facinating content! The computational side of the chemistry and predicting the nature of these compounds is also facinating.
Is another reason why this is interesting to calculate is that it's combining quantum behaviour and relativistic behaviour, and that's the area in physics that's still open? So anything this can predict that could be approached in any way experimentally would be interesting, or developing techniques or ideas that can be applied to molecules that can be synthesised. What made me think of that was an article describing a result in Nature from scientists at JILA/NIST/University of Colorado Boulder investigating atomic clocks and measuring the difference in the speed of time at the bottom versus the top of their cloud of vibrating atoms in their clock.
It's *general* relativity that we can't reconcile with quantum mechanics. Special relativity & quantum mechanics is fine. And special relativity is all that is required here.
Since XeF6 exists. Do you guys think Oganneson could have a stable +6 state as Oganneson hexatenesside? Maybe a bit more stable as octaheadral or square bipyramidal than the tetra- (square or tetraheadral) state?
Heavier elements tend to have a less stable higher oxidation state. Lead dioxide for example is oxidizing while silicon dioxide is inert. This suggests that such a molecule would be less stable and I believe that's what other calculations have shown.
No. In the seventh period the 7p-shell splits into two subshells and one of them is filled in flerovium, depriving oganesson of two would-be valence electrons.
Knowing next to nothing about chemistry I've always wondered if the heavy unstable atoms could be paired with other atoms to make them stable. And what wonderful new materials would be possible from that process.
The instability of the heavy elements is a nuclear effect (ie it's to do with the protons & neutrons), whereas chemical bonds only concern electrons. So putting unstable isotopes into chemical compounds doesn't make those isotopes stable. It can still be useful to put radioactive atoms into compounds though - for example in medicine to ensure that very small quantities of radioactive elements are delivered to a specific part of the body as a therapy or a tracer, it might be necessary to put the isotope into a larger compound so that it follows the correct biochemical pathway and ends up in the right place.
Consider what happens when you point two magnets at each other. If you point the positive pole of one at the negative pole of the other, they stick together...but if you point both magnets' positive poles together, they push each other away. Well...the same thing happens in the nucleus of an atom. All the protons in there want nothing more than to fly apart and make dozens of hydrogen nuclei. What keeps them together is the Strong Force. The Strong Force is only strong enough of a force to bind 82 protons together, which is the number in an atom of lead. Once you get past lead, everything else is radioactive. The next element is bismuth, which decays at such a slow rate most scientists thought it didn't do it at all until recently. At the other end of the scale are these new synthetic elements that decay to lead before the lab figures out they've made an atom of them.
I reckon you might want to take a look at the orignial papers for the answer to that! I found that by google'ing "oganesson tetratennesside" you immediately get pointed at works that talk about the different bonding energies with/without relativistic effects. It's a short walk from there.
You remind me of that mate at university who always answered "It's in the lecture script" to any discussion point that popped up. The question was meant as a feedback to the video, talking about the molecule mass and the relativistic effects of electron mass and then dropping the topic right away, not answering the question of the overall mass, what was the whole purpose of the video.
the relativistic effects increase the mass of the electrons. at rest, an electron weighs only ~ 1/1800th the mass of a proton or neutron, so even with 586 electrons, you're not even increasing the mass number of the molecule by 1. typical relativistic calculations don't actually calculate the kinetic energy of the electrons directly, and so calculating the relativistic mass isn't actually done. but I'd wager that the average electron mass (the core electrons have greater relativistic effects than outer electrons) increases by a factor far less than 10. so that would still only increase the mass number by a few mass units at the absolute most.
There's a little problem with relativistic mass: it is not real. What is real, however, is relativistic effect on momentum: p = γmv. At low speeds, γ is basically 1, so you get the classical equation for momentum: p = mv. "Relativistic mass" is just a trick for teaching relativity to students without invoking new concepts, although, in my humble opinion, a relatively pointless one.
so then, what is the “heaviest molecule”, already in existence, which is stable as a gas, liquid, or solid at room temperature? As the Professor mentions in the video, CH4 methane is the lightest known molecule, which of course is natural gas, stable as a gas at regular ambient temperatures, or compressable to a liquid for fuel burning purposes.
The largest synthetic molecule is PG5, which has a molecular mass of exactly 200 million g/mol and is about ten nanometers across. As far as natural molecules go I believe that it would be a diamond.
fastforward to 2085 : people gather around to show a deified Martin on an ancient barely functioning 4k monitor a sample of the first ever vial of Oganesson TetraTennesside whilst chanting : "All hail the professor!"
Saying that the electrons gain mass as they approach the speed of light isn't the whole story here -- yes, their increase in speed would increase their mass, but falling into the deep well of positive charge decreases their mass by at least the same amount -- otherwise, they would not be bound. In other words, they behave as more massive particles when close to the nucleus, but the total mass of the electrons and the nucleus must decrease when it emits the photons to radiate away the energy of recombination.
I'm not interested in chemistry per se, but love watching these videos. It's sad that some people would find those types of calculations a waste of time. The pursuit of knowledge using ETHICAL means is never wasted time.
In practice, of course the atoms themselves would fall apart and the energy they released in doing so would be well above the energy required to break the chemical bonds. I think this paper is asking the question "how stable would this molecule be, if the atoms themselves were stable?"
@@garysandiego This specific molecules is never going to have direct real-world applications, but improving the ability to predict the properties of compounds before we synthesise them is, in general, pretty useful.
There are LOTS of substances that a crystal of, is just one single molecule of. Namely any covalently bonded crystal, such as quartz or diamond. Also, polymers that have no limit to their length, such as branching polyethylene, which is the logical extreme of the alcane series. Of course if you're talking about the heaviest possible molecule with a set number of atoms, then I've got news for you, because anything you build here on Earth pales in comparison to a neutron star, which below a certain depth, is all one single big atom.
Professor I work to get as much as I can out of your videos, even though my last class in chemistry was in High School 50 years ago. So for instance I see in the background the "periodic table of typefaces" and have enjoyed looking into that. In your intro you are speaking with a Russian scientist Yuri Organessian, whom I have enjoyed looking into, learning about his impressive contributions. That you include your camaraderie with this Russian scientist in your vid has uses outside chemistry; as evidence that we have important things to gain in friendship with Russia, and little to gain making an enemy of her. I ask that you mention the strength and usefulness of British-Russian scientific relations when you have the chance, to help mitigate the negativity of current events as presented by various media.
What is the biggest molecule that can be made in bulk that results in molecules all of the exact same composition? I know polymers can go on forever, but you can't count them and make a batch of C 100000000 H 10000000002, can you? Is it a single strand of DNA copied billions of times by PCR?
When you copy a DNA strand by PCR, you get slightly shorter DNA strands. (The enzyme used runs into trouble getting the very ends. In Prokaryotes, organisms without cell nuclei and chromosomes, this is gotten around by having DNA stored in continuous loops so there is no end to copy. In prokaryotes, with cell nuclei and chromosomes, which are very long DNA molecules wrapped around special spooling proteins and thus have ends, there are special 'end markers' called telomeres, and special enzymes that build the telomeres.) If you make the simple, non-branching polymer polyethylene, it will have the formula (C_n H_2n+2) where n is the number of carbon atoms in the molecule. This isn't really something you can diagram without a mono-spaced font, but polyethylene takes ethylene, which has two carbons and four hydrogens, with a double-bond between the carbons, breaks the double bond into a single bond, and links the carbons together by that freed up bonding capacity into a single line of immense length, and scavenges a hydrogen from a left over ethylene molecule to stabilize each end. (Polyethylene is, in the hydrocarbon classification system, a family of absurdly heavy waxes.) There's no upper limit to the size of a polyethylene molecule, but the longer the molecules you make, the longer it takes to make, and past a certain point the properties don't improve enough with longer molecules to be worth the longer synthesis time, so most polyethylene molecules are a lot shorter than we can make them. In practice, synthesis of plastics cannot generally give you specific molecular weight plastic molecules, but instead gives you a range, based on the conditions of the polymerization reaction and the specific plastic made. The properties of this range of molecular weights can be controlled by adjusting the conditions of the reaction to adjust the properties that depends on the molecular weight distribution. (This is why process chemist can be a pretty lucrative profession: They're the people who work out exactly how to do the reactions to produce the variant of the plastic with the precise properties desired. Like metallurgy, this is something that has both a lot of hard science and a fair bit of art and craft to it.)
You have to limit the number of atoms in the molecule because some crystals and polymers can be arbitrarilary large. Technically chunks of diamonds and vulcanized rubber are single molecules
I believe they talked specifically about a helium molecule before, because it's very unique. Maybe try looking that up to narrow it down. They likely touch on the other noble gas compounds in that video.
Because Oganesson is in group 18 (noble gas), it is surprising that such a compound is formed. Considering that methane is CH4, I think FlTs4 will be stable.
It is theorized that Ts is likely a solid (if you ignore the high radioactivity); moving down the halogens they go from gas to liquid to somewhat solid (iodine) so it’s highly likely Ts would also be a solid) Not sure on Og thou…. I think I read somewhere that Og may not even really be a true noble gas because of the relativistic effects with all those electrons.
But the electrons are *not* traveling 'round the nucleus like a Bohr model! They are in a _stationary state_ and exist as orbitals smeared out in space.
How I understand it: yeah, they are smeared out, or in other words, more wave like. But the wavelength of this wave is given by their momentum (wavelength = h/p ; h= planck constant ; p= momentum ) And momentum indicates, that they have a velocity (p = m*v ; m= mass ; v= velocity) So, somehow, they have an velocity.
The electrons in those molecules *are moving* even if the electron "cloud" is stationary. If you measured the electron at different times, it would "appear" at different places within the cloud.
@@yourguard4 I just disagree with the expression that they are moving near the speed of light; it would be more accurate and just as easy to say that their energy is high enough that they are in a relativistic regime. Saying that they _would_ be moving at such a speed if unbound and having that same momentum is not the same thing as "they are moving in some sense".
@@alexpotts6520 No, that's not right at all. A measurement consists of defining a box in space and time and asking if the electron is in that box. You cannot look over the whole thing and plot its position at some time.
@@JohnDlugosz Correct. In fact, if you measure a particle's position constantly then it stops moving - the so-called "quantum Zeno effect". But if you measure a particle, then wait a bit, then measure it in a different place, then in some sense the particle is "moving" even if that movement cannot be directly observed.
Well, to me the interesting part is how the internal electrons affect the outer electrons. If the inner shells shrink due to relativistic effects it will affect the size of the outer shells as well - as in the lantanide contraction. How much does atom relative size affect the chemical properties. If you see the immense "shrubbery" around uranium compounds there is hardly room for smaller atoms to interact with each other. Now "normally" such effects are to be ignored; but they actually might be of significance in some of the more toxic heavy metals.
All knowledge is important. If science restricted itself to looking at things that seemed useful, most of the most interesting and useful science would probably never have happened.
I studied pharmaceutical sciences, some molecules are so long it takes the entire side of paper to draw, some even bigger. Phyto compounds are the most complicated ones I've come across
Every diamond is a single massive molecule. Perhaps not too complicated (That'd probably be proteins) but certainly heavy enough to mass in grams in some cases.
