Pitty he didn't explain why it's so important that the electron is a wave at the atom. With this idea of de Broglie physic was able to understand why elements emit or absorb only certain wavelengths of light and also explain, why the electron is not crashing into the core. One might say, well it's in an orbit so it moves fast enough around the core not to crash in because electromagnetic pull and circular force equal out. The problem is just that moving charged particles, what electrons are, emitt radiation and that radiation equals an energy that would be taken from the electron and cause it crash into the proton. However with the de Brogli waves it becomes clear why this doesn't happen: The wave can only be located at certain energy levels defined by the frequency so that the wave connects on itself. And these discrete energy levels are also equal to the frequency an electron can emitt or absorb. Therefore this idea of de Broglie explains so much, why we see spectral lines, why lasers and LEDs work and why Planck had to assume that energy is always emitted in packets.
+bxyify does it really explain the lack of collapse though? I'm not intimately familiar with it, just wondering. It makes sense that the funky self resonance of the wave makes things discrete but why not a discrete step into collapse then? particularly given how extremely strong the electric force is. I suppose it does constantly collapse but that the energy left behind is of such nature as to be reabsorbed and reestablish the 'orbit' again. That the collapse energy is not on a form that will emit from a neutron? maybe
+Dan Frederiksen They thought it would collapse because the electrons lost energy via electromagnetic waves since they were, in Bohr's model, accelerating charge particles. In a wave function, nothing is accelerating so no energy is lost by the electron and nothing collapses.
Dan Frederiksen It happens, that an electron "falls" into the nucleus, it's called "electron capturing" and releases a gamma photon and an electron-neutrino and happens in unstable cores that have a surplus of protons. The force in action here however is the weak interaction and not electromagnetic. Please keep also in mind, that the electron-wave modell is also just a modell that can explain discrete energy levels in emission and absorption. No model explains quantummechanic processes completed because it always matters how and what you observe. The shell-model with electrons as particles on orbits is still used in chemical models because it often can explain chemical reactions well enough but fails at explaining structures of molecules where the orbital configuration as amplitudes of the wave function matters again.
+Sam Knott "In a wave function, nothing is accelerating so no energy is lost by the electron and nothing collapses." But isn't that really odd. 1) that an electron is a wave at all and 2) the oscillation doesn't count as accelerated charge. I'm not fully educated in QM so it might just be partially ignorance but it seems to me that this wave nature strongly demands and explanation which is a window to everything else. It has been suggested that gravity/mass inertial field has a wave aspect to it. An inherent frequency nature. Which could be used to affect it. I hunch that resonance in some fashion is super fundamental. That all interaction is of a funky frequency nature and resonance is the coupling aspect. That you can 'dial in' anything and affect everything at arbitrary distance. Including coupling with the earth's gravity and pay energy to it to rise up in the air. Correct me if I'm wrong but everything we see has a wave aspect? so it stands to reason that mass and space and time also have it in a form we have yet to identify. And I don't mean gravity waves like in ligo. Maybe there is a different type of oscillation we haven't yet identified. So much yet to discover.
If einstein needs help figuring out how to make something work he called Charles "Proteus" Steinmetz . Whom many still dont know about. And act like tesla is the only one that was excluded by edison...
@@jefferylubinski528 at least de Broglie saw the other end of the coin but it's still a coin not head or tails (particle or wave) !!! it's a field ;-D pffff => i'm not the smartest person in the world but these scientists today dig too much of a rabbit hole themselves if you ask me :-D
Jeffery Lubinski The concept of phasors alone introduced by Steinmetz was revolutionary in the world of electrical engineering. With it engineering can make use of Tesla’s AC technology
I don't know if it's a coincidence or not, but after most physics lessons, I come home and there is a video with the exact topic we studied! We studied de Broglie waves yesterday :) Thanks for the video :)
I already knew de Broglie's work and I find it wonderful, strange yet wonderful. I am ashamed of some physicists who have put this argument aside without even trying to analyze its fundamental idea.
Maybe the wave-particle is actually a little screw. A photon can be circularly polarized just like screws which are like a helix. Then "it's screwy" becomes *quantum screw mechanics.*
The professor's explanation is so screwy that it is refreshing. This is a video that makes a viewer daydream about their universe... Definitely one of the best sixty videos!
@biain93 - The charge is fixed. The particle does not have an exact position or path. The wave aspect is that waves can cancel in some locations and reinforce in other locations.So an electron is likely to interact with something else in positions that are described by equations that describe interference patterns. They won't appear in places you would expect a particle to be.
@G3org3Master; unfortunately, it depends on the experiment. Some experiments indicate a wave, while others indicate a particle. The wavefunction is a different concept that relates to electrons in atoms. Most people believe the wavefunction has no "physical" meaning.
Wouldn't the way to look at how it is both a particle and a wave be explained by the fact that the electron is the viewed as a marble when time is removed/viewed in an instant where as it is behaving like a wave when viewed over a period of time?
And special thanks to Sixty Symbols, Brady, All the professors and the team behind the videos (if not only Brady). Thanks for all the videos, they explain a lot and have a credible source.
@pilotwave That is Schrodinger's idea: that the wave is wave of probability. The "particle" is measured at the location where the probability function "collapses" - when you stop measuring, the waving continues. Seems easier to think in terms of fields - there is an electron field. It has a probability function associated with it, and when you poke at it, it converges on the poking and appears point-like . . .
Both particle and wave at the same time is actually a common misconception. It is impossible to be two different states at one instance in time. Instead we say it is in superposition. It could be either this or that, but never both states at the same time.
This has nothing to do with superposition. Dirac pointed out around 1930 that wave-particle was a trivial false dichotomy fallacy. Quanta are neither waves or particles. They are small amounts of energy. It was up to Mott in 1929 to show how small amounts of energy can produce particle tracks which falsely suggest the existence of classical particles. The wave properties of ensembles of these quanta follows from relativity. The emptiness of space leads to Lie-group symmetries of spacetime and the general representation theory of these Lie-groups involves complex exponentials, which physically behave like waves in linear media.
But can't you get electron diffraction patterns and the double slit experiment shows the wave like properties of electrons? So it has some experimental proof in a macroscopic view.
I'm doing A2 physics in England and it's briefly mentioned, but not in any real detail - we're just given the equation to work out the wavelength of a particle from its mass and velocity.
If you have a sea of "xwater" you can't detect because it has no kinetic energy, then if you put a waterfall into it ( undetectable normally because the waterfall just has potential energy to give itself the ability to create a "drop" for xwater) , [say call it a "particle"] then you can read the energy of the "xwater" through the energy wave created as xwater falls over a particle? The waterfall / "particle" then can also be detected because the xwater flow over it creates a charge and if enough flows over it it causes a deviation in flow creating a force which registers as mass?
@MrOldprof That was REALLY good! I must say, I reckon you've got this totally mastered now. relaxed, casual, and making speaking at Brady's camera business look easy.
I don't know I might be over simplifying it but when we read about the motions associated to electrons , we know it spins,vibrates n also moves ahead like in an orbit around nucleus... so imagine a particle which is vibrating n moving ahead too... it would definitely move like a wave ..
Wow! I almost didn't watch this since I had a lot of subscription videos and I didn't know what this is about, but this is the best video I have seen this year! That makes perfect sense to me (which probably [almost certainly] means I don't understand a lot of what it's based on ^-^ ) but no matter. What a fantastic concept, almost obvious really when you think about it.
I don't see what's so difficult to understand about this idea of particle/wave duality. It may not be intuitive, but it's not that complicated. It exhibits characteristic of both a wave and particle depending on what's being measured. The problem stems from the indirect methods we have/use to "see" these tiny things. No method of measuring something so small can do so directly, they are all somewhat indirect methods.
While we might have perfect and accurate descriptions of the phenomenon and understand where and when it applies, that is quite different from being able to maintain some sort of mental picture of what subatomic particles are or look like. It is limited by human intuition which requires things to have well defined shape and color. Of course nothing really has a solid shape, color or any of the attributes we are used to when we think of objects.
De Broglie's thesis didn't just postulate the existence of 'matter waves' for an electron - but to all matter objects with a velocity or momentum, including baseballs and footballs. When you look at the equation for the corresponding wavelengths of a baseball travelling at 40 mph, it is vanishingly small ( frequency is large). Thus the correspondence of similarity between matter and energy in E=mc2
Could the wave particle duality of light represent a process of continuous energy exchange that we see and feel as the flow of time? Based on: 1. The quantum w-particle function Ψ represents the forward passage of time itself with the future coming into existence photon by photon. 2. Is that quantum uncertainty ∆×∆p×≥h/4π that is formed by the w-function is the same uncertainty we have with any future event within our own ref-frame that we can interact with turning the possible into the actual!
Ah. Finally. This is not the only video I watched, but it makes total sense now after a few months of puzzling over. Particles have associated wavelengths. Or : you can think of wavelengths, without the particles. Depending on what you're after and what you're looking at.
@@Roscapeaux Look at a solar panel. Energy in form of light goes in, energy in form of electricity comes out. There is no tap to drain the exhausted photon particles. ;-)
I remember somewhere that I read that the material a wave of water is moving through does not move in the horizontal motion .. Like a wave of water .. the ups and downs are not actually traveling in a forward velocity but the momentum of the wave still travels at a finite velocity forward. So like this wave of water, might the wave of an electron be emitted and its energy transferred while its particle traverses the vacuum separately and hence the electron being wavelike and particle like.
What you have to remember is while what an operation does to a number can be explained by language, the problem comes when trying to explain to people what the maths physically describes. Language allows explanation by comparison to something that the other person has seen, which is very difficult when nothing like this has been observed outside of quantum mechanics. We could make up a word for them, but we would just have to explain what that word meant, which puts us back to square one.
They say it's a nightmare to explain to students, but as I watch more an more of these videos, I'm beginning to get a clear picture of it, and it doesn't seem that abstract to me anymore. I think it just takes time and loads of examples to make it penetrate one's mind, for him to understand.
I like the image zoom on the microscope where you get to see the individual atoms in the picture. As I see it, the electrons smear out in their orbits, so the seem to take up the entire orbit, because the period of the wavelength reinforces the position of the particle. Yes it may be simplistic, but it helps me understand it.
excellent video. reminds me of something i read once, i forget where. wave functions might be waves of probability in a 'virtual particle field' so to speak. that would explain how electrons can pop up anywhere in the wave function when observed. we tend to think of electrons as particles, not waves. but perhaps de broglie saw them as being 'the particle associated with the wave' like how we all envision photons: a ripple in the virtual photon sea that carries energy. a very arcane notion.
Maybe I am thinking too simplistic here, but if n=1 and n=2 electrons are travelling at the same linear velocity (c), then the inner electron will make a complete orbit in less time than the outer n=2 electron, as the inner one passes the n=2 electron it will both repel and be repelled by the opposing electron causing the wave like behaviour?
A question- you state, (in the Bohr picture) that the wave is not "real". What is your opinion of Bohm's pilot-wave theory, in which the wave "guides" the particle? I have seen both support and refutation of the DeBroglie-Bohm pilot-wave theory.
If you were painting a picture, the grinding of the colors and refining the oils etc is necessary in principle because the precise reason for details of the elements of the picture is the relative size and positioning of information pixels. I've come across de Broglie and QM in the same couple of months at lectures, so the concepts were equally new and important. The expectation of perfectly constant motion in atomic clocks implies a unitary connection principle, and even if the calculation of Planck's Constant is an apparent "size" limitation, the necessity for guessing the universe is a compound of modulated Quantum Information is inevitable. (But I had been preoccupied with AM Radio-Crystal set construction and its effectiveness as an explanation of atomic-EM behaviour for many years beforehand. It seemed obvious that spacetime is timespace, modulation-demodulation, cause-effect) _____ De Broglie's concept of the wave-package, integrated at all potential QM-Timing frequencies, is completed and continuous in the projection-drawing of a Temporal Superposition-point Singularity, in which "wave-envelopes" are the superimposed time duration connection interval/vector, by relative frequency and amplitude due to Supuerspin, (which is another name for temporal connection, Eternity-now). "Interference", superposition, implies, in potential, (radial-linear scalar), hyper, harmonic, and hypo relative frequency generation of all phenomena transverse to here-now, a holographic projection-drawing of a real volumetric integration image in perspective positioning. The expectations of perceived experience prejudice an Observer to see a wave-particle paradox instead of the Actuality. A merging of awareness with constant sensation in the here-now experience is suggested by "thoughtless", without expectations, Meditation that sometimes "makes the connection", of coherent-interference, and the principle rationale connecting all Information being pivotal and symmetrical/reciprocal, with formulaic Actuality.., otherwise known as "thinking about it".
Most videos on youtube are quite pointless (including most of mine), so I just wanted to thank you guys at SixtySymbols for making videos that actually make me think.
Could undetectable gravitational waves cause a fluctuation in a particles location, due to objects all around us? If anything with mass has gravity than that would make a static mess of vibrations, or waves, that seem to manifest from no where.
Louis De Broglie great idea that everything has wave-particle properties is one of the principles that Quantum Atom Theory is based upon. In this theory we are all made of particles but over a period of time we are waves in a process of continuous creation or change. A process that we can interact with turning the possible into the actual therefore Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle is the same uncertainty we have with any future event.
that's why we can't use the image of an orbiting electron orbiting particles would mean acceleration, and so the electrons would constrantly emit photons and spiral into the nucleus. the electrons are actually standing waves around the nucleus. these waves can have 1, 2 , 3 ,4 ,5 ,6 ...n , values of a wavelenght. so you cannot have electron in between the 1 and 2 , there is no 1.5n of an electron's energy on the K level. this means electrons only come in discrete energy levels.
What I like to know, assuming is a question it make sense. How long is a photon? Since is a wave how many wavelengths does it contains? How long does it last? A particle hit a target instantly but a wave is absorbed. A constant wave is continuously absorbed a pulsed wave has a definite duration. ??????
For your first question, no. A photon is defined as a force carrier for the electromagnetic force, oversimplified this means that photons carry force between electrons. Furthermore, one of the defining aspects of photons is that they have no mass, but as for your question, the more energy carried by a photon, the shorter the wavelength becomes. That's basically it, it doesn't acquire mass, nor does it lose the particle/wave duality. As for your last question, I'm out of characters :D
I think of fundamental particles, in analogy, as small bits of matter that have some base frequency. The space the particle inhabits includes the effect of the frequency on the surrounding space. If the particle is an electron and gains energy, the resulting increase in the size of the surrounding wave pushes the particle into a higher (quantum) orbit. Conversely, lower energy reduces the surrounding wave envelope and lowers the orbit. Sometimes a tuning fork/speaker experiment helps students.
this was introduced in Year 11 at my high school and than was expanded in year 12 in a lot more detail. (Melbourne Australia). Physics at my high school was great! The only reason I'm studying Electrical Engineering today.
Waves and particles are both human interpretations of the things we see around us, normally at a macroscopic scale. At the most fundamental level light is simply light, and we apply the ideas of a wave or a particle to it to see if it fits mathematically. Although it is difficult to conceptualize the world of quantum physics behaves differently then the macroscopic level we are most familiar with
As an honest question, what if all these subatomic particles we define as being both waves and particles were simply standing waves? Similar to the Hexagonal storms found on Jupiter. The resulting sum of all the waves would manifest itself in a partcle-like manner (to continue the analogy, the fact that we can define the location of the storm as being at Jupiter's the north pole). However, this is simply an emergent property of the multiple, underlying, waves that combine to form this larger structure... I guess if it's a question there should also be a question mark at the end?
But the De Broglie-Bohm theorem throws out the duality thing out entirely. Particles aren't waves, they make waves in a field and then interact with the waves they just made. There's a beautiful video by Veritasium explaining it.
Actually, quantum field theory explains it all, but science popularizers avoid QFT like the plague. All particles are perturbations of a field (fields are the most basic manifestation of reality) and travel in waves.
They avoid it because they are not really sure what to say, I think, just as the practitoners of QFT don't know quite what to say either. Even if its true and everything is just a scalar field, which itself is just sort of a mathematical abstraction; there is no telling what it all actually means. Besides - gravity and dark matter/energy are sort of the elephants in the room when said practitioners try to talk about the most basic manifestation of reality with a straight face, not to mention the mass-gap and other tedious details.
Locutus D'Borg But does QFT provide a physical interpretation of waves in its fields? For example, are the QFT waves the same as Schrodinger/Born's probability waves? What, then, would the fields be? Probability fields? Is a probability something that can actually have a field, or is this just a deeper mathematical way (to which we've attached the physical analog of a field) of calculating the probabilities associated with particles?
jdmphys Physical waves, not probability waves. If you put iron filings on a paper and put a magnet under it, you will see real, not probability, waves of the filings.
Locutus D'Borg A very satisfying answer. In the case of a magnetic field, the field has a very tangible, physical meaning ("it's a field of force"). My question is narrower than I originally stated: what does QFT say about the wave representation (the field perturbations) of a single electron that diffracts upon passing through a double slit? Physically, what more is this wave besides a set of probabilities about the electron (eg, probabilities about where the electron will materialize)? thanks, j
Is it not better to envisage an electron (say in hydrogen) travelling in a helical spiral around a proton which is also travelling in a helical spiral but of a smaller radius? The directions of travel would be the same for both but their 'threads' would be opposite. By travelling in their seperate helical tori it would explain why electrons don't neutralise with protons. Bohr's shells would then consist of successive rings of electrons at different energy levels. The helical nature would also be wave-like. And plasma would occur when these helical rings break up into linear photons after energy levels are increased..
no, to explain why two electrons ocuppying the same orbital must have opposite spins you can use this picture. if you take two waves, but turn them out of sync, so that the maxima of one wave alignes with the minima of another, the two waves cancel out. this is why electron orbitals contail 2 electrons each, of opposite spin. the "spin" itself is a property of particles, you cannot imagine it as spinning around itself like a ball, it's just a number wich describes a state.
I wish these channels went into more detail. Like university level. Obviously, not everyone will be able to follow, but it would be nice to have something for those who can. Plus, with enough videos, people could actually learn the hard stuff through these videos.
I've always thought of wave-particles as a cloud-putty. As something that is more like a fluid than a solid. It always seemed to make interactions between particles more sensible and sort of explained why valence shells had certain shapes. The idea that an electron has a fuzzy cloud-like charge but not quite enough charge to fill the the s and p orbitals... it tries really hard but can't quite balance itself which is why 2s, and 2p are the stable ones. Don't know if this is right though.
My understanding is that, an Electron is not a wave and a particle at the same time. Depending on what experiment we are doing to see what is happening it has either, particle like behaviour or wave like behaviour. Not both at the same time.
if a wave is made of many particles then each particle is essentially moving like a wave ,or is it a particle moving in a straight line? also a photon as far as i still know has no mass so how can it be a particle? unless a particle can also be a particle without having a mass?? like a sphere of energy , to me a photon is more like a radio wave or sphere that expands outwards and it's energy is omini present
I dont get it either but my flashlight ( torch over there ) works when I flip the switch on to find my keys I dropped stumbling out of the bar ( pub ).
no , i didn't confuse the topic. Matter waves obey laws of probability just like sound but the difference would be that a particle doesn't disperse like a wave , the particle travels in a wave fashion. Just a guess :) I would like to know your point of view ....
de Broglie (the Broccoli). The de Broglie wavelength was one of the first things I learnt in IB Quantum Mechanics. Amazed and confused me at the same time.
There's a book by Johan Prins called Physics Delusions, and in it if I remember right, he addresses the screwiness by saying that all particles are actually just waves that have been scrunched together by tight boundary conditions so that they appear as defined 'point particles'.
I'd say it's a wave nature with resonant mechanisms that can interlock waves to be standing and thereby have particle like properties. the wave aspect is the only one that never goes away.
"nobody has heard of him except a small group of physicists" - Its in A-level Physics now! The de broglie wavelength is used as an example to demonstrate wave particle duality (more specifically, the wave like nature of particles). People keep naively bashing A-levels in general, if only they did a bit of research they would see that AQA A-level physics in particular covers highly relevant material, with the only major drawback being the lack of mathematics. I sat A-level physics a year ago.
My understanding is that electrons do not orbit the nucleus, but instead occupy all possible positions. Instead of a satellite orbiting the Earth you have an atmosphere wherein the electron occupies all possible positions around Earth at once. It is only when the electron is measured that is appears (briefly) to occupy one position.
Funny you should say that, one of my professor suggested the same thing. In German particles are called 'Teilchen' and waves are called 'Wellen', so he suggested we could call them 'Telle' or 'Weilchen'. I guess an English analogue would be 'paves' or 'warticles'. I vote for 'warticles'! ;)
Maybe the wave-particle is actually a little screw. A photon can be circularly polarized just like screws which are like a helix. Then "it's screwy" becomes *quantum screw mechanics.*
I *think* that a wave is just something that describes how energy is transferred across a space. e.g. a particle will oscillate up and down and transfers energy, this can be modelled as a wave. Waves and photons are models by which we explain light and other EM radiation, they aren't physical things.
I am interested in the question of how to incorporate a random number generator into a computer simulation of quantum mechanics, which I feel is asking the obvious. We know that the Schroedinger equation is a wave equation - just look at any textbook. It also looks like a diffusion equation with an imaginary diffusion coefficient, so we should be thinking about tachyonic Brownian motion. There's enough space in the Minkowski formalism to have tachyonic Brownian motion which is strictly orthogonal to the wavelike behaviour, which is an oscillation in the other way to travel faster than light which is capable of destructive interference. If two or more detectors are trying to detect our entity, then the TBM means a broken symmetry like the broken symmetry which gives rise to the Von Karman vortex street, which we can show by computer simulation. We can at least imagine how something can be both a wave and a particle, but turning the idea into a working computer simulation won't be easy. In the case of photons, we need to model the means of detecting them.
Don't blame it on sunshine, don't blame it on moonlight, don't blame it on good times, blame it on de Broglie! Sorry, I just had to. Very nice video. I have a phyics exam next week but this is too advanced! Quite tough trying to understand it but that doesn't mean I don't like it!
Silicon behaves as a metal in some ways and as a non metal in other ways. We don't call silicon as both a metal and non metal at the same time. We call it a metalloid. Why don't we apply this aspect to the quantum world? This would make things less crazy
Because for quantum you use both wave and particle math, and these 2 maths are completely incompatible with one another, if you have the one you can per definition not have the other.
@ ReliveTheDream Louis de Broglie was French. I am also (though not from France, but French is the first language I learned as a child and I grew up in a French-speaking milieu). And I can certify you that it is not pronounced "debroye", but "De Brogglee". Actually, the "e" in "De" is pronounced like the "a" in "a" ship" ; and the "i" in Broglie is pronounced "ee" like the "i" in "Hawaii".
@Duodecillian re: falling through the ground, isn't that actually because of electromagnetic repulsion between electrons? I was under the impression the fermion exclusion principle only applies to the structure of the atom itself except in very high density situations, such as that thought to exist in the centre of neutron stars. I'm not a physicist though!
One day we will understand why the mathematics behind quantum mechanics works while we don't understand what the equations mean. I hope that I will live to see that day.
Currently doing Physics at A-level (Ages 16-18) and this was one of the first things we did. Electrons are both particles + waves. Honestly it's almost as if Physics is trying to make no-one understand it xD
Could quantum potential, electrical potential and gravitational potentialbe formed by one universal process? That explains why we all have a potential future in our everyday life that is always uncertain. This is done by making ‘time’ an emergent property energy ∆E slows the rate that time ∆t flows creating a future relative to the energy and momentum of the atoms of each object or life form. We have free will because the wave particle duality of light is acting like the bits or zeros and ones of a computer. This forms an interactive process continuously forming a blank canvas that we can interact with turning the possible into the actual!
So, is the wave dynamic of an electron the reason it can only exist at certain energy levels? Like, it can only be at a certain place when the wave can completely fit? And this explains the ability for two electrons to exist in one field, the "spins" could just be the nodes, one going in, one going out.
Einstein casually walking in at 20seconds
Hahaha
0:20
For lazy bastards.
Fucc it's an anime character
kotomi ichinose nhhhhhhhh
He's a time traveller!
Pitty he didn't explain why it's so important that the electron is a wave at the atom. With this idea of de Broglie physic was able to understand why elements emit or absorb only certain wavelengths of light and also explain, why the electron is not crashing into the core. One might say, well it's in an orbit so it moves fast enough around the core not to crash in because electromagnetic pull and circular force equal out. The problem is just that moving charged particles, what electrons are, emitt radiation and that radiation equals an energy that would be taken from the electron and cause it crash into the proton.
However with the de Brogli waves it becomes clear why this doesn't happen: The wave can only be located at certain energy levels defined by the frequency so that the wave connects on itself. And these discrete energy levels are also equal to the frequency an electron can emitt or absorb.
Therefore this idea of de Broglie explains so much, why we see spectral lines, why lasers and LEDs work and why Planck had to assume that energy is always emitted in packets.
+bxyify does it really explain the lack of collapse though? I'm not intimately familiar with it, just wondering.
It makes sense that the funky self resonance of the wave makes things discrete but why not a discrete step into collapse then? particularly given how extremely strong the electric force is.
I suppose it does constantly collapse but that the energy left behind is of such nature as to be reabsorbed and reestablish the 'orbit' again. That the collapse energy is not on a form that will emit from a neutron? maybe
+Dan Frederiksen They thought it would collapse because the electrons lost energy via electromagnetic waves since they were, in Bohr's model, accelerating charge particles.
In a wave function, nothing is accelerating so no energy is lost by the electron and nothing collapses.
Dan Frederiksen
It happens, that an electron "falls" into the nucleus, it's called "electron capturing" and releases a gamma photon and an electron-neutrino and happens in unstable cores that have a surplus of protons. The force in action here however is the weak interaction and not electromagnetic.
Please keep also in mind, that the electron-wave modell is also just a modell that can explain discrete energy levels in emission and absorption. No model explains quantummechanic processes completed because it always matters how and what you observe. The shell-model with electrons as particles on orbits is still used in chemical models because it often can explain chemical reactions well enough but fails at explaining structures of molecules where the orbital configuration as amplitudes of the wave function matters again.
+bxyify, interesting. Are you a physicist?
+Sam Knott "In a wave function, nothing is accelerating so no energy is lost by the electron and nothing collapses."
But isn't that really odd. 1) that an electron is a wave at all and 2) the oscillation doesn't count as accelerated charge.
I'm not fully educated in QM so it might just be partially ignorance but it seems to me that this wave nature strongly demands and explanation which is a window to everything else. It has been suggested that gravity/mass inertial field has a wave aspect to it. An inherent frequency nature. Which could be used to affect it.
I hunch that resonance in some fashion is super fundamental. That all interaction is of a funky frequency nature and resonance is the coupling aspect. That you can 'dial in' anything and affect everything at arbitrary distance. Including coupling with the earth's gravity and pay energy to it to rise up in the air.
Correct me if I'm wrong but everything we see has a wave aspect? so it stands to reason that mass and space and time also have it in a form we have yet to identify. And I don't mean gravity waves like in ligo. Maybe there is a different type of oscillation we haven't yet identified. So much yet to discover.
if you are not sure whether a person deserves a doctorate and Nobel price just ask Einstein.
If einstein needs help figuring out how to make something work he called Charles "Proteus" Steinmetz . Whom many still dont know about. And act like tesla is the only one that was excluded by edison...
@@jefferylubinski528 at least de Broglie saw the other end of the coin but it's still a coin not head or tails (particle or wave) !!!
it's a field ;-D
pffff => i'm not the smartest person in the world but these scientists today dig too much of a rabbit hole themselves if you ask me :-D
He deserved neither.
Jeffery Lubinski The concept of phasors alone introduced by Steinmetz was revolutionary in the world of electrical engineering. With it engineering can make use of Tesla’s AC technology
Ok
“It’s screwy.” Now, I don’t feel so bad about my failure to wrap my head around this concept in my undergraduate physics classes.
I don't know if it's a coincidence or not, but after most physics lessons, I come home and there is a video with the exact topic we studied! We studied de Broglie waves yesterday :) Thanks for the video :)
call it a 'wavicle'!
gekolvr0734 underrated comment
Many use 'wavelet' actually.
Richard Feynman said it first
Waluigi would call it "wahvicle"
Although "parve" might be more french-friendly
Is a tsunami a particle or a wave?
de Broglie opened the field by making waves.
I already knew de Broglie's work and I find it wonderful, strange yet wonderful. I am ashamed of some physicists who have put this argument aside without even trying to analyze its fundamental idea.
quantum mechanics 101 : "It's screwy"
Maybe the wave-particle is actually a little screw. A photon can be circularly polarized just like screws which are like a helix. Then "it's screwy" becomes *quantum screw mechanics.*
The professor's explanation is so screwy that it is refreshing. This is a video that makes a viewer daydream about their universe... Definitely one of the best sixty videos!
As always with these Sixty Symbol gentlemen-physicists- clear, concise and well said.
@crabid thank you... Glad you chose to watch it!!!
@biain93 - The charge is fixed. The particle does not have an exact position or path. The wave aspect is that waves can cancel in some locations and reinforce in other locations.So an electron is likely to interact with something else in positions that are described by equations that describe interference patterns. They won't appear in places you would expect a particle to be.
2:54 and the "particle" starts rolling away, jiggling in a wave pattern. That's hysterical.
lol, "They roll away if they're particles!"
I absolutely love how this professor explains it.
4:55 He means antinodes, right?
I wasn't expecting him to pronounce the name correctly. That's exciting to hear 😅
@G3org3Master; unfortunately, it depends on the experiment. Some experiments indicate a wave, while others indicate a particle. The wavefunction is a different concept that relates to electrons in atoms. Most people believe the wavefunction has no "physical" meaning.
Wouldn't the way to look at how it is both a particle and a wave be explained by the fact that the electron is the viewed as a marble when time is removed/viewed in an instant where as it is behaving like a wave when viewed over a period of time?
And special thanks to Sixty Symbols, Brady, All the professors and the team behind the videos (if not only Brady). Thanks for all the videos, they explain a lot and have a credible source.
De Broglie's paper was also unique in that it was so well written in terms of getting to the point with a minimal amount of "fluff."
I think of particles as blobs that bend and deform like waves, but bounce off thing and shrink into points when you measure them.
@pilotwave
That is Schrodinger's idea: that the wave is wave of probability. The "particle" is measured at the location where the probability function "collapses" - when you stop measuring, the waving continues.
Seems easier to think in terms of fields - there is an electron field. It has a probability function associated with it, and when you poke at it, it converges on the poking and appears point-like . . .
Both particle and wave at the same time is actually a common misconception. It is impossible to be two different states at one instance in time. Instead we say it is in superposition. It could be either this or that, but never both states at the same time.
This has nothing to do with superposition. Dirac pointed out around 1930 that wave-particle was a trivial false dichotomy fallacy. Quanta are neither waves or particles. They are small amounts of energy. It was up to Mott in 1929 to show how small amounts of energy can produce particle tracks which falsely suggest the existence of classical particles. The wave properties of ensembles of these quanta follows from relativity. The emptiness of space leads to Lie-group symmetries of spacetime and the general representation theory of these Lie-groups involves complex exponentials, which physically behave like waves in linear media.
"If you don't like it, blame de Broglie, because it's screwy, it's completely completely screwy."
[This is amazing. Thanks!]
A beautifully clear explanation that clears up many matters.
+fewmetsiam4u Don't you mean, "A beautifully clear explanation that clears up many waves"?
But can't you get electron diffraction patterns and the double slit experiment shows the wave like properties of electrons? So it has some experimental proof in a macroscopic view.
I'm doing A2 physics in England and it's briefly mentioned, but not in any real detail - we're just given the equation to work out the wavelength of a particle from its mass and velocity.
"If you don't like it, blame de Broglie"
Best line evaaah 😂
If you have a sea of "xwater" you can't detect because it has no kinetic energy, then if you put a waterfall into it ( undetectable normally because the waterfall just has potential energy to give itself the ability to create a "drop" for xwater) , [say call it a "particle"] then you can read the energy of the "xwater" through the energy wave created as xwater falls over a particle? The waterfall / "particle" then can also be detected because the xwater flow over it creates a charge and if enough flows over it it causes a deviation in flow creating a force which registers as mass?
@MrOldprof That was REALLY good! I must say, I reckon you've got this totally mastered now. relaxed, casual, and making speaking at Brady's camera business look easy.
I don't know I might be over simplifying it but when we read about the motions associated to electrons , we know it spins,vibrates n also moves ahead like in an orbit around nucleus... so imagine a particle which is vibrating n moving ahead too... it would definitely move like a wave ..
Q: Is light a wave or a particle?
A: It is a field.
Wow!
I almost didn't watch this since I had a lot of subscription videos and I didn't know what this is about, but this is the best video I have seen this year!
That makes perfect sense to me (which probably [almost certainly] means I don't understand a lot of what it's based on ^-^ ) but no matter. What a fantastic concept, almost obvious really when you think about it.
I don't see what's so difficult to understand about this idea of particle/wave duality. It may not be intuitive, but it's not that complicated. It exhibits characteristic of both a wave and particle depending on what's being measured.
The problem stems from the indirect methods we have/use to "see" these tiny things. No method of measuring something so small can do so directly, they are all somewhat indirect methods.
While we might have perfect and accurate descriptions of the phenomenon and understand where and when it applies, that is quite different from being able to maintain some sort of mental picture of what subatomic particles are or look like.
It is limited by human intuition which requires things to have well defined shape and color. Of course nothing really has a solid shape, color or any of the attributes we are used to when we think of objects.
De Broglie's thesis didn't just postulate the existence of 'matter waves' for an electron - but to all matter objects with a velocity or momentum, including baseballs and footballs. When you look at the equation for the corresponding wavelengths of a baseball travelling at 40 mph, it is vanishingly small ( frequency is large). Thus the correspondence of similarity between matter and energy in E=mc2
Could the wave particle duality of light represent a process of continuous energy exchange that we see and feel as the flow of time?
Based on:
1. The quantum w-particle function Ψ represents the forward passage of time itself with the future coming into existence photon by photon.
2. Is that quantum uncertainty ∆×∆p×≥h/4π that is formed by the w-function is the same uncertainty we have with any future event within our own ref-frame that we can interact with turning the possible into the actual!
I love this channel.
1. Wish I was studying Physics.
2. Wish I was at Nottingham.
Ah. Finally. This is not the only video I watched, but it makes total sense now after a few months of puzzling over.
Particles have associated wavelengths. Or : you can think of wavelengths, without the particles.
Depending on what you're after and what you're looking at.
There are no particles in nature. That's just a trivial misunderstanding of physics.
@@schmetterling4477 Do you have some proof of this concept? Or some kind of theory underlying it?
@@Roscapeaux Look at a solar panel. Energy in form of light goes in, energy in form of electricity comes out. There is no tap to drain the exhausted photon particles. ;-)
You guys are really making some great enthralling and concise vids !
I remember somewhere that I read that the material a wave of water is moving through does not move in the horizontal motion .. Like a wave of water .. the ups and downs are not actually traveling in a forward velocity but the momentum of the wave still travels at a finite velocity forward. So like this wave of water, might the wave of an electron be emitted and its energy transferred while its particle traverses the vacuum separately and hence the electron being wavelike and particle like.
What you have to remember is while what an operation does to a number can be explained by language, the problem comes when trying to explain to people what the maths physically describes. Language allows explanation by comparison to something that the other person has seen, which is very difficult when nothing like this has been observed outside of quantum mechanics. We could make up a word for them, but we would just have to explain what that word meant, which puts us back to square one.
They say it's a nightmare to explain to students, but as I watch more an more of these videos, I'm beginning to get a clear picture of it, and it doesn't seem that abstract to me anymore. I think it just takes time and loads of examples to make it penetrate one's mind, for him to understand.
I like the image zoom on the microscope where you get to see the individual atoms in the picture. As I see it, the electrons smear out in their orbits, so the seem to take up the entire orbit, because the period of the wavelength reinforces the position of the particle. Yes it may be simplistic, but it helps me understand it.
excellent video. reminds me of something i read once, i forget where. wave functions might be waves of probability in a 'virtual particle field' so to speak. that would explain how electrons can pop up anywhere in the wave function when observed. we tend to think of electrons as particles, not waves. but perhaps de broglie saw them as being 'the particle associated with the wave' like how we all envision photons: a ripple in the virtual photon sea that carries energy. a very arcane notion.
Maybe I am thinking too simplistic here, but if n=1 and n=2 electrons are travelling at the same linear velocity (c), then the inner electron will make a complete orbit in less time than the outer n=2 electron, as the inner one passes the n=2 electron it will both repel and be repelled by the opposing electron causing the wave like behaviour?
I think I understand... it eventually reaches an equilibrium.
Thanks for taking the time to try and explain it.
A question- you state, (in the Bohr picture) that the wave is not "real". What is your opinion of Bohm's pilot-wave theory, in which the wave "guides" the particle? I have seen both support and refutation of the DeBroglie-Bohm pilot-wave theory.
Great camera lads, it can zoom right in on that little blue electron!!
If you were painting a picture, the grinding of the colors and refining the oils etc is necessary in principle because the precise reason for details of the elements of the picture is the relative size and positioning of information pixels.
I've come across de Broglie and QM in the same couple of months at lectures, so the concepts were equally new and important.
The expectation of perfectly constant motion in atomic clocks implies a unitary connection principle, and even if the calculation of Planck's Constant is an apparent "size" limitation, the necessity for guessing the universe is a compound of modulated Quantum Information is inevitable. (But I had been preoccupied with AM Radio-Crystal set construction and its effectiveness as an explanation of atomic-EM behaviour for many years beforehand. It seemed obvious that spacetime is timespace, modulation-demodulation, cause-effect)
_____
De Broglie's concept of the wave-package, integrated at all potential QM-Timing frequencies, is completed and continuous in the projection-drawing of a Temporal Superposition-point Singularity, in which "wave-envelopes" are the superimposed time duration connection interval/vector, by relative frequency and amplitude due to Supuerspin, (which is another name for temporal connection, Eternity-now).
"Interference", superposition, implies, in potential, (radial-linear scalar), hyper, harmonic, and hypo relative frequency generation of all phenomena transverse to here-now, a holographic projection-drawing of a real volumetric integration image in perspective positioning.
The expectations of perceived experience prejudice an Observer to see a wave-particle paradox instead of the Actuality. A merging of awareness with constant sensation in the here-now experience is suggested by "thoughtless", without expectations, Meditation that sometimes "makes the connection", of coherent-interference, and the principle rationale connecting all Information being pivotal and symmetrical/reciprocal, with formulaic Actuality.., otherwise known as "thinking about it".
Most videos on youtube are quite pointless (including most of mine), so I just wanted to thank you guys at SixtySymbols for making videos that actually make me think.
Could undetectable gravitational waves cause a fluctuation in a particles location, due to objects all around us? If anything with mass has gravity than that would make a static mess of vibrations, or waves, that seem to manifest from no where.
How is this similar/different from/to Larson's Reciprocal Systems Theory of Time & Space ?
The very curiousity of things ....
Louis De Broglie great idea that everything has wave-particle properties is one of the principles that Quantum Atom Theory is based upon. In this theory we are all made of particles but over a period of time we are waves in a process of continuous creation or change. A process that we can interact with turning the possible into the actual therefore Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle is the same uncertainty we have with any future event.
Need a video about bohmian mechanics
I was hoping this episode was going to talk about Bohmian Mechanics.
that's why we can't use the image of an orbiting electron
orbiting particles would mean acceleration, and so the electrons would constrantly emit photons and spiral into the nucleus.
the electrons are actually standing waves around the nucleus.
these waves can have 1, 2 , 3 ,4 ,5 ,6 ...n , values of a wavelenght.
so you cannot have electron in between the 1 and 2 , there is no 1.5n of an electron's energy on the K level.
this means electrons only come in discrete energy levels.
What I like to know, assuming is a question it make sense. How long is a photon? Since is a wave how many wavelengths does it contains? How long does it last? A particle hit a target instantly but a wave is absorbed. A constant wave is continuously absorbed a pulsed wave has a definite duration. ??????
@raydredX Well, it produces an image 10 times larger than the specimine, but two points within 0.5mm get blurred together.
For your first question, no. A photon is defined as a force carrier for the electromagnetic force, oversimplified this means that photons carry force between electrons.
Furthermore, one of the defining aspects of photons is that they have no mass, but as for your question, the more energy carried by a photon, the shorter the wavelength becomes. That's basically it, it doesn't acquire mass, nor does it lose the particle/wave duality.
As for your last question, I'm out of characters :D
I think of fundamental particles, in analogy, as small bits of matter that have some base frequency. The space the particle inhabits includes the effect of the frequency on the surrounding space. If the particle is an electron and gains energy, the resulting increase in the size of the surrounding wave pushes the particle into a higher (quantum) orbit. Conversely, lower energy reduces the surrounding wave envelope and lowers the orbit.
Sometimes a tuning fork/speaker experiment helps students.
this was introduced in Year 11 at my high school and than was expanded in year 12 in a lot more detail. (Melbourne Australia).
Physics at my high school was great! The only reason I'm studying Electrical Engineering today.
Waves and particles are both human interpretations of the things we see around us, normally at a macroscopic scale. At the most fundamental level light is simply light, and we apply the ideas of a wave or a particle to it to see if it fits mathematically. Although it is difficult to conceptualize the world of quantum physics behaves differently then the macroscopic level we are most familiar with
As an honest question, what if all these subatomic particles we define as being both waves and particles were simply standing waves? Similar to the Hexagonal storms found on Jupiter. The resulting sum of all the waves would manifest itself in a partcle-like manner (to continue the analogy, the fact that we can define the location of the storm as being at Jupiter's the north pole). However, this is simply an emergent property of the multiple, underlying, waves that combine to form this larger structure... I guess if it's a question there should also be a question mark at the end?
So, @3:02… (regarding your discussion here) besides symbolic-figures, what language are physicists able to explain dB’s wave theory? btw, lv ur chnl.
But the De Broglie-Bohm theorem throws out the duality thing out entirely. Particles aren't waves, they make waves in a field and then interact with the waves they just made. There's a beautiful video by Veritasium explaining it.
Actually, quantum field theory explains it all, but science popularizers avoid QFT like the plague. All particles are perturbations of a field (fields are the most basic manifestation of reality) and travel in waves.
They avoid it because they are not really sure what to say, I think, just as the practitoners of QFT don't know quite what to say either. Even if its true and everything is just a scalar field, which itself is just sort of a mathematical abstraction; there is no telling what it all actually means. Besides - gravity and dark matter/energy are sort of the elephants in the room when said practitioners try to talk about the most basic manifestation of reality with a straight face, not to mention the mass-gap and other tedious details.
Justin P Very true.
Locutus D'Borg But does QFT provide a physical interpretation of waves in its fields? For example, are the QFT waves the same as Schrodinger/Born's probability waves? What, then, would the fields be? Probability fields? Is a probability something that can actually have a field, or is this just a deeper mathematical way (to which we've attached the physical analog of a field) of calculating the probabilities associated with particles?
jdmphys Physical waves, not probability waves. If you put iron filings on a paper and put a magnet under it, you will see real, not probability, waves of the filings.
Locutus D'Borg A very satisfying answer. In the case of a magnetic field, the field has a very tangible, physical meaning ("it's a field of force").
My question is narrower than I originally stated: what does QFT say about the wave representation (the field perturbations) of a single electron that diffracts upon passing through a double slit? Physically, what more is this wave besides a set of probabilities about the electron (eg, probabilities about where the electron will materialize)?
thanks, j
Is it not better to envisage an electron (say in hydrogen) travelling in a helical spiral around a proton which is also travelling in a helical spiral but of a smaller radius? The directions of travel would be the same for both but their 'threads' would be opposite. By travelling in their seperate helical tori it would explain why electrons don't neutralise with protons. Bohr's shells would then consist of successive rings of electrons at different energy levels. The helical nature would also be wave-like. And plasma would occur when these helical rings break up into linear photons after energy levels are increased..
Wave-particle duality is covered in Unit 1 at A-Level.
no, to explain why two electrons ocuppying the same orbital must have opposite spins you can use this picture.
if you take two waves, but turn them out of sync, so that the maxima of one wave alignes with the minima of another, the two waves cancel out.
this is why electron orbitals contail 2 electrons each, of opposite spin.
the "spin" itself is a property of particles, you cannot imagine it as spinning around itself like a ball, it's just a number wich describes a state.
I wish these channels went into more detail. Like university level. Obviously, not everyone will be able to follow, but it would be nice to have something for those who can. Plus, with enough videos, people could actually learn the hard stuff through these videos.
I've always thought of wave-particles as a cloud-putty. As something that is more like a fluid than a solid. It always seemed to make interactions between particles more sensible and sort of explained why valence shells had certain shapes. The idea that an electron has a fuzzy cloud-like charge but not quite enough charge to fill the the s and p orbitals... it tries really hard but can't quite balance itself which is why 2s, and 2p are the stable ones. Don't know if this is right though.
My understanding is that, an Electron is not a wave and a particle at the same time. Depending on what experiment we are doing to see what is happening it has either, particle like behaviour or wave like behaviour. Not both at the same time.
if a wave is made of many particles then each particle is essentially moving like a wave ,or is it a particle moving in a straight line? also a photon as far as i still know has no mass so how can it be a particle? unless a particle can also be a particle without having a mass?? like a sphere of energy , to me a photon is more like a radio wave or sphere that expands outwards and it's energy is omini present
I dont get it either but my flashlight ( torch over there ) works when I flip the switch on to find my keys I dropped stumbling out of the bar ( pub ).
no , i didn't confuse the topic. Matter waves obey laws of probability just like sound but the difference would be that a particle doesn't disperse like a wave , the particle travels in a wave fashion. Just a guess :) I would like to know your point of view ....
de Broglie (the Broccoli). The de Broglie wavelength was one of the first things I learnt in IB Quantum Mechanics. Amazed and confused me at the same time.
There's a book by Johan Prins called Physics Delusions, and in it if I remember right, he addresses the screwiness by saying that all particles are actually just waves that have been scrunched together by tight boundary conditions so that they appear as defined 'point particles'.
I'd say it's a wave nature with resonant mechanisms that can interlock waves to be standing and thereby have particle like properties. the wave aspect is the only one that never goes away.
"nobody has heard of him except a small group of physicists" - Its in A-level Physics now! The de broglie wavelength is used as an example to demonstrate wave particle duality (more specifically, the wave like nature of particles).
People keep naively bashing A-levels in general, if only they did a bit of research they would see that AQA A-level physics in particular covers highly relevant material, with the only major drawback being the lack of mathematics.
I sat A-level physics a year ago.
My understanding is that electrons do not orbit the nucleus, but instead occupy all possible positions. Instead of a satellite orbiting the Earth you have an atmosphere wherein the electron occupies all possible positions around Earth at once. It is only when the electron is measured that is appears (briefly) to occupy one position.
Funny you should say that, one of my professor suggested the same thing. In German particles are called 'Teilchen' and waves are called 'Wellen', so he suggested we could call them 'Telle' or 'Weilchen'. I guess an English analogue would be 'paves' or 'warticles'. I vote for 'warticles'! ;)
God damn superpositions....
Maybe the wave-particle is actually a little screw. A photon can be circularly polarized just like screws which are like a helix. Then "it's screwy" becomes *quantum screw mechanics.*
I *think* that a wave is just something that describes how energy is transferred across a space.
e.g. a particle will oscillate up and down and transfers energy, this can be modelled as a wave.
Waves and photons are models by which we explain light and other EM radiation, they aren't physical things.
I am interested in the question of how to incorporate a random number generator into a computer simulation of quantum mechanics, which I feel is asking the obvious. We know that the Schroedinger equation is a wave equation - just look at any textbook. It also looks like a diffusion equation with an imaginary diffusion coefficient, so we should be thinking about tachyonic Brownian motion. There's enough space in the Minkowski formalism to have tachyonic Brownian motion which is strictly orthogonal to the wavelike behaviour, which is an oscillation in the other way to travel faster than light which is capable of destructive interference. If two or more detectors are trying to detect our entity, then the TBM means a broken symmetry like the broken symmetry which gives rise to the Von Karman vortex street, which we can show by computer simulation. We can at least imagine how something can be both a wave and a particle, but turning the idea into a working computer simulation won't be easy. In the case of photons, we need to model the means of detecting them.
Don't blame it on sunshine, don't blame it on moonlight, don't blame it on good times, blame it on de Broglie!
Sorry, I just had to.
Very nice video. I have a phyics exam next week but this is too advanced! Quite tough trying to understand it but that doesn't mean I don't like it!
Silicon behaves as a metal in some ways and as a non metal in other ways. We don't call silicon as both a metal and non metal at the same time. We call it a metalloid. Why don't we apply this aspect to the quantum world? This would make things less crazy
Because for quantum you use both wave and particle math, and these 2 maths are completely incompatible with one another, if you have the one you can per definition not have the other.
Electrons aren't waves or particles, it's just that it works best to describe them as particles or waves at different times
@ ReliveTheDream
Louis de Broglie was French. I am also (though not from France, but French is the first language I learned as a child and I grew up in a French-speaking milieu). And I can certify you that it is not pronounced "debroye", but "De Brogglee". Actually, the "e" in "De" is pronounced like the "a" in "a" ship" ; and the "i" in Broglie is pronounced "ee" like the "i" in "Hawaii".
Dont attack Dr. Bowley! We all love his talks/explanations, and I'm giving de Broglie a call to complain about his wavy-particle.
Do the waves stretch? That is, does the length of the orbit ever change, or is that what's quantized?
@Duodecillian re: falling through the ground, isn't that actually because of electromagnetic repulsion between electrons? I was under the impression the fermion exclusion principle only applies to the structure of the atom itself except in very high density situations, such as that thought to exist in the centre of neutron stars. I'm not a physicist though!
One day we will understand why the mathematics behind quantum mechanics works while we don't understand what the equations mean. I hope that I will live to see that day.
I think we already understand the mathematica
Is the wave aspect of electrons and photons related to their movement through time. -Where particle experiments are time stationary?
Currently doing Physics at A-level (Ages 16-18) and this was one of the first things we did. Electrons are both particles + waves. Honestly it's almost as if Physics is trying to make no-one understand it xD
Wow this is really weird, we just went over this just last month in my high school physics class. Good timing!
Could quantum potential, electrical potential and gravitational potentialbe formed by one universal process? That explains why we all have a potential future in our everyday life that is always uncertain. This is done by making ‘time’ an emergent property energy ∆E slows the rate that time ∆t flows creating a future relative to the energy and momentum of the atoms of each object or life form. We have free will because the wave particle duality of light is acting like the bits or zeros and ones of a computer. This forms an interactive process continuously forming a blank canvas that we can interact with turning the possible into the actual!
Yes, when an electron is in 'orbit' around a nucleus it must take up the form of a standing wave which can only have exact amounts of energy.
λ=h/p
The equation that combines particle properties with wave properties...
So, is the wave dynamic of an electron the reason it can only exist at certain energy levels? Like, it can only be at a certain place when the wave can completely fit? And this explains the ability for two electrons to exist in one field, the "spins" could just be the nodes, one going in, one going out.