Why DON’T Electrons Fall Into the Atomic Nucleus?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 вер 2024
- Chapter 1 (The Philosophy): • How Did the Ancient Gr...
Chapter 2 (The Solid Sphere): • How a Colour-Blind Met...
Chapter 3 (The Electron): • How the First Ever SUB...
Chapter 4 (The Nucleus): • The Shocking Experimen...
Chapter 5 (The Shells): You're watching it!
Chapter 6 (Isotopes): • How Do We Even Know Th...
Chapter 7 (The Proton): • This Scientist Should ...
Chapter 8 (A Particle or a Wave?): • The Nature of the Elec...
Chapter 9 (The Neutron): • The World-Changing Dis...
Chapter 10 (The Atomic Age): • How We Developed the A...
--------------------------------
** If you find my videos helpful, and would like to provide me with caffeine to make more videos, I’d really appreciate it: buymeacoffee.com/chemistorian
** You can also check out my store: UnitedChemDom.redbubble.com
Thanks for your support!
--------------------------------
#science #chemistry #history #atomictheory #education
------------------------------------------
ATTRIBUTIONS:
Los Alamos National Laboratory, Attribution, via Wikimedia Commons
B Roll provided by Videezy
God the electron shells get confusing later on, if only the Bohr model was perfect so I wouldn't have to think about the horror that is the complexity of the shells in reality.
The circular shell represented here might confuse people. The electron is a wave that has a specific wavelength. Thus the specific energy it has in whatever shell it is waving in.
You’re totally right. This is only chapter 5 out of a 10-part series on the history of the development of the atom 😉
Chapter 8 of this series goes on to explain the wave nature of the electron in more detail.
🖐
Another great video and easy to follow graphics. Learning a lot! Thanks
Is it just me or was his explanation as to why electrons don’t fall into the nucleus is simply “because they can’t”?
Yeah it’s stupid
yea he didn’t rly explain that
No he explained that it's because they don't lose energy as they orbit, but didn't explain why they lose no energy as they orbit.
WHY can't they?!😱
@@subduedsthe point of this question!🙄
Electron can jump back into lower shell as it emits quantized energy but can't it do continuously to fuse with nucleus?
Ihave yet to encounter a scientific logical explanation that starts with a tiny charged object (electron) orbiting a tiny sphere at almost the speed of light. How many times does the electron orbit per msec? The result is an EM field that interacts with itself such that the field becomes a controlling force that affects the velocity and acceleration of the electron, hence resulting in the orbital energy levels and the probability-based orbitals.
why electron cannot fall into nucleus ?
"because they can't "
Wouhaa ! great explanation !!
I share your sarcasm. If fact, Bohr's model doesn't explain, why the electron with the smallest orbit can't loose its energy to zero and become one with the nucleus.
@@dv2915 Indeed, if something took decades of hard work from the most brilliant minds, doesn't it looks a little ridiculous to pretend to explain it in 3:59 minutes? Wouldn't be much more honest to say nothing about it?
It can, but only for very specific isotopes: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_capture
@@dv2915 The electrons dont lose energy because they dont actually orbit the nucleus like moons orbit planets. They dont orbit at all, their whole existence as far as we can detect them is interactions from quantum world to macro world via the wave function. Electrons have no angular or orbital momentum. If you want to find out more about electrons and quantum mechanics, you need to get into quantum field theory where its explained that these particles are not particles at all as we understand them colloquially but specific type of perturbations of the underlying quantum field.
Imagine a stormy sea, where a specific shape of wave tops are the electrons we can measure. Everything else is virtual particles. Then imagine the same stormy random sea for every other fundamental particle overlayed on top of each other in 4 dimensional space-time. Then imagine that they all can influence each other, and every atom and molecule and photon can influence the waves too. Its a huge random mess at that level.
In other words, electrons are emergent behaviour of the underlying quantum field wave perturbations. Theyre not "particles" at all. Not like protons or neutrons.
All scientists should be shocked, that's the purpose of quantum theory😵💫
If electrons are not emitting light then that means they arent accelerating, which means they arent orbiting. correct?
Teleportation, neverending. Between positions in the same orbits or "jumping" into another orbit after absorption/emission of photon. So movement discrete, no radiations
@@LinkenCV motion without acceleration, not really teleportation
That means Bohr model was wrong and we need something like Quantum mechanics to explain it.😊
Quarks (no spatial extension) experience all 3 fundamental forces plus have a fractional electric charge⚡and that's why protons and neutrons (spatial extension) have electrons orbiting around them.
In Geometry any new dimension has to contain within it all previous dimensions. This holds true with it being impossible for atomic protons and neutrons (spatial extension) to exist without subatomically containing within themselves quarks (no spatial extension).
"Something (spatial extension) from Nothing (no spatial extension)".
A) The postulated soul, 👻, has
1. no spatial extension
2. zero size
3. exact location only
B) Quarks are mass with no size measured in Megaelectron Volts. Mass with no size is a unique equation in that it has no spatial extension.
Conclusion: A and B are the same thing.
Is it possible to capture a video of single electon (photon light) moving around heavier nucleus. If the electon light diminish around or near nucleus, can it mean loss of electon into nucleus?
No one has seen it and probably no one will, it's part of an atom.
Nucleus is far far far too small for us to see
I thought this was Rifftrax for a minute.
What happens when electron in the first energy level loses energy?
Where does it fall to
i think it cannot lose more energy if its in its ground state
Wait until you learn quantum mechanics
Is electron round? Get quick answer to more such fundamental questions in science on MinuteChemistry : ua-cam.com/video/KTUcj3aamnA/v-deo.htmlsi=OFxRFGdBUq5Z7C3g
0D (zero) is different from 1D-10D (nonzero) because 0D is a not-natural dimension whereas 1D-10D are natural dimensions.
Not-natural = ectropy
Natural = entropy
0D monad (Creator event horizon)
1D, 2D, 3D are spatial (space) dimensions
1D line
2D width
3D height
4D, 5D, 6D are temporal (time) dimensions
4D length
5D breadth
6D depth
7D, 8D, 9D are spectral (energy) dimensions
7D continuous
8D emission
9D absorption
10D black hole (Destroyer event horizon)
It is impossible for anything 1D-9D to approach 0D or 10D due to their event horizons. 10D contains a placeholder 0 (not locally real) for its event horizon. Only 0D is locally real on this side.
The other side of the event horizon at the zero-of yourself (near horizon) is God.
The other side of the event horizon of a black hole (far horizon) is not God.
Anything we know about black holes (Destroyer) we know the opposite of that is true for monads (Creator), and we know some crazy sci-fi stuff about black holes.
[Monad in philosophy/cosmogony]:
Monad (from Greek μονάς monas, "singularity" in turn from μόνος monos, "alone") refers, in cosmogony, to the Supreme Being, divinity or the sum "I am" of all things.
The concept was reportedly conceived by the Pythagoreans and may refer variously to a single source acting alone, or to an indivisible origin, or to both.
The concept was later adopted by other philosophers, such as Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, who referred to the Monad as an *elementary particle.*
It had a *geometric counterpart,* which was debated and discussed contemporaneously by the same groups of people.
[In this speculative scenario, let's consider Leibniz's *Monad,* from the philosophical work "The Monadology", as an abstract representation of *the zero-dimensional space that binds quarks together* using the strong nuclear force]:
1) Indivisibility and Unity: Monads, as indivisible entities, mirror the nature of quarks, which are deemed elementary and indivisible particles in our theoretical context. Just as monads possess unity and indivisibility, quarks are unified in their interactions through the strong force.
2) Interconnectedness: Leibniz's monads are interconnected, each reflecting the entire universe from its own perspective. In a parallel manner, the interconnectedness of quarks through the strong force could be metaphorically represented by the interplay of monads, forming a web that holds particles together.
3) Inherent Properties: Just as monads possess inherent perceptions and appetitions, quarks could be thought of as having intrinsic properties like color charge, reflecting the inherent qualities of monads and influencing their interactions.
4) Harmony: The concept of monads contributing to universal harmony resonates with the idea that the strong nuclear force maintains harmony within atomic nuclei by counteracting the electromagnetic repulsion between protons, allowing for the stability of matter.
5) Pre-established Harmony: Monads' pre-established harmony aligns with the idea that the strong force was pre-designed to ensure stable interactions among quarks, orchestrating their behavior in a way that parallels the harmony envisaged by Leibniz.
6) Non-Mechanical Interaction: Monads interact non-mechanically, mirroring the non-mechanical interactions of quarks through gluon exchange. This connection might be seen as a metaphorical reflection of the intricacies of quark-gluon dynamics.
7) Holism: The holistic perspective of monads could symbolize how quarks, like the monads' interconnections, contribute holistically to the structure and behavior of particles through the strong force interactions.
[Monad in mathematics, science and technology]:
Monad (biology), a historical term for a simple unicellular organism
Monad (category theory), a construction in category theory
Monad (functional programming), functional programming constructs that capture various notions of computation
Monad (homological algebra), a 3-term complex
Monad (nonstandard analysis), the set of points infinitesimally close to a given point
The belief that electrons should wind their way into the nucleus forgets that to change the motion of a particle, there needs to be a photon or some colliding particle to deflect it. No one knows why. Of course, the 'instantaneous' jump is a fiction. Electrons can't be expected to emit photons from nothing.
It's just the way it is.
Nothing is instantaneous. You can't run 100 meter dash in zero seconds. You can't accelerate you car from 0 to 100 miles an hour in 0 seconds. That electron cannot instantaneously ''jump'' from one orbit to another. It would mean that it dispalces itself faster than the speed of light or moves with infinite speed. Something is missing here or math is not correct.
Or it can at the quantum level. For example, two entangled particles can instantaneously react if the other is observed, regardless if it's lightyears apart. What you are thinking is an electron is a particle moving thru space. An electron can be a wave and particle, so jumping to another shell instantaneously is it's feature as a wave
@@adrinfpv It can't be instantaneously. Nothing happens in 0 time. Can you accelerate your car to 100 mph in 0 seconds?
@@user-ky5dy5hl4d
I believe you have got the wrong idea. See when an electron “jumps” a level, it is not ACTUALLY covering a distance, rather it is a positive or negative gradation in the energy level of that electron in accordance to photon radiated or absorbed.
Even if considering that they do I fact travel a distance, they (electrons) cannot have fractional energy since Plank’s derivation of energy dictates that. In the quantum world you must forget common sense
@@paperslegacy8948 Let's say it is as you say. But the jump cannot be instantaneous.
@@user-ky5dy5hl4d basically you watched one video on the topic and think you're an expert arguing with people who actually study chem and physics alright
The same reason why the moon doesn't fall into the earth, and why the earth doesn't fall into the sun, and why the sun doesn't fall into etc....
not really. maxwells wave theory tells us that accelerating charged particles constantly lose energy. therefore if electrons were in a circular orbit they would lose energy and fall into the nuclus (within 1/100000000 secs). earth sun moon are not charged particles. their motion is governed by the laws of gravity and maxwells wave theory doesnt apply to them. the laws that apply to macro and micro particles seem to be completely different. thats why quantum mechanics was needed to be developed as a subject in the first place
Tldr: why don't they? Because they don't. Most vacuous video ever.
tbf the way he explained is a good summary of bohr's model. we known quantum theory exists and we can define it mathematically but the reaons why it exists aren't clear. electrons obey the laws of quantum mechanics, so only specific quantum numbers can apply to each electron, hence they can't go wherever they want and they can't fall into the nucleus.
Because Bohr's model is wrong
"Anyone who is not SHOCKED by quantum theory has not understood it!" One projects a shadow that can be bigger or smaller. The small shadow can be the SAME as the bug one. So, not understanding the small comes from not understanding the larger; there is not anything shocking about inconsideration. We say in Big world that temperature describes the collection of minute translations, vibration, rotations and spins of unseen particles. The universal background is ~3°k; everything in Nature is in motion. We know things influence each other by waves of radiated Influence; we know waves interfere and change their resulting waveforms.
SO, it's not shocking to model the small based on understanding the Big; instead, being oriented to wonder at each new environment, we forget to extend the context of what we do know to what we do not know, because Discovery is as coveted as a child.
after watching this video i have a Question Why DON’T Electrons Fall Into the Atomic Nucleus?
Simple answer: electrons aren't particles. Bohr's model is wrong. Electron is a probability wave. Heisenberg's principle says if an electron falls we would know its exact location, making speed near infinite. And some more quantum mechanics.
I literally didn't even watch the video. Straight up paused it at 0:00 just to say that if you THINK this is *_supposed to happen,_* then you clearly don't know jack about physics.
Well I think these videos are trying to more talk from the perspective of the scientists back in the day who didnt have access to the knowledge we have now.
Huh? That's the opposite of true. Why shouldn't the electro static effect win out sometimes? ESPECIALLY if you know that orbitals aren't literal but vibrating waves, what's preventing the insane electric force from combining the particles ?
It's a very reasonable question if you know anything about physics. It can't be the Pauli Principle since the nucleus is a denser set of fermions much more proximate than the lowest electron level.