A Better Way To Picture Atoms
Вставка
- Опубліковано 18 тра 2021
- Thanks to Google for sponsoring a portion of this video!
Support MinutePhysics on Patreon: / minutephysics
This video is about using Bohmian trajectories to visualize the wavefunctions of hydrogen orbitals, rendered in 3D using custom python code in Blender.
REFERENCES
A Suggested Interpretation of the Quantum Theory in Terms of "Hidden" Variables. I
David Bohm, Physical Review, Vol 85 No. 2, January 15, 1952
Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics
J. S. Bell
Trajectory construction of Dirac evolution
Peter Holland
The de Broglie-Bohm Causal Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics and its Application to some Simple Systems by Caroline Colijn
Bohmian Trajectories as the Foundation of Quantum Mechanics
arxiv.org/abs/0912.2666v1
The Pilot-Wave Perspective on Quantum Scattering and Tunneling
arxiv.org/abs/1210.7265v2
A Quantum Potential Description of One-Dimensional Time-Dependent Scattering From Square Barriers and Square Wells
Dewdney, Foundations of Physics, VoL 12, No. 1, 1982
Link to Patreon Supporters: www.minutephysics.com/supporters/
MinutePhysics is on twitter - @minutephysics
And facebook - / minutephysics
Minute Physics provides an energetic and entertaining view of old and new problems in physics -- all in a minute!
Created by Henry Reich - Наука та технологія
Thanks everyone - if anybody wants to help me get all of these visuals into one place (wikipedia, etc), please get in touch via patreon (or my email... it's not too hard to find)!
hey, what did you use to render these? is your Google search for Blender 2.9's geometry nodes functionality a clue? :)
It would help a lot of the visuals were published under a permissive license like CC-BY-SA
Heyy.. Love your talents man
Can you share its file
Releasing these under Creative Commons would be *amazing* - seconding the suggestion.
It would also make it possible for Wikipedia to use these visualizations, with proper attribution.
"i want answers, like where is the electron?" - okay - "or how fast is it going?" - well pal, you're gonna have to pick lmao
You're asking too many questions!
@@JerromyAugust "God doesn't play dice" Well, God also wouldn't be interacted within or made of atoms, and the uncertainty lies in their net behavior which we are literally contained within (in some sense). Wouldn't even bother comparing something that is supposed to be supernatural with the natural. It may be uncertain within our observation and in its behavior, but that does not mean it is not defined someway or another. After all, many things show behaviors of influence regardless of if we can detect or see it. i.e. Dark Matter.
It is called the uncertainty principle because within our abilities and within observation, it is an uncertain thing and not within our current ability to predict such a position. That does not imply the universe is baseline random or that it couldn't be controlled. At its fundamental meaning, there is no reason it couldn't exist within a guided universe.
It's a bound electron in an orbital, not a free moving electron. The momentum is very precisely defined by the orbital. It's position is uncertain, which gives you the "cloud". It doesn't have a speed at all -- it's actually called a stationary solution. That is, it's *not going anywhere* but is pinned to the nucleus.
@@JerromyAugust You're using a computer... if you don't believe in the findings of science how do you explain the existence of technology that is based on this knowledge? Do you understand that uncertainty is intimately tied with quantization? And without that, we'd have the "ultraviolet catastrophe" which faced physicists at the end of the 19th century.
@@JohnDlugosz a stationary state still has time evolution.
somehow the weirdest thing in this video is that google search engine needs an advertisement
upd. how do I turn off notifications on this particular comment, not on all comments completely? your replies are kind of the same, thank you
If only there were a way I could find websites with information about this "Google search engine."
@@Tim3.14 bing
Bing is rising in popularity fast and is starting to actually be a threat to Google
It's not about getting more people to know it, it's about PR. Google is losing popularity and wants people to think better of them. Hence they sponsor something we like to get us to associate google with something we like, and like google in turn.
Duck
I love all the wavefunctions for the quantum states of the hydrogen atom. Schrodinger would be proud and Bohr would be in awe of this model. You are so incredible.
Nope. Not schrodinger
Oh xome on, i cant explain? WHY AM I OUT OF ENERGY TO.EXPLAIN.
It makes so glad and thankful to see that there are people, around the globe, working hard for their specie, and they don't care on who you are, they just want to know what is the reality around us, and they work together. Thank you guys, all of you around
Leave it to Henry to use custom python code in Blender to make pretty pretty physics.
This reminds me of the VFX artists creating the black hole from Interstellar, with actual math. Nature can be really beautifu all by itself
Hi Dianna.....big fan of yours
Big Fan Mam ❤️❤️
That's a very creative use of Blender. I would love to see the code.
When two of my fave science explorers are together on the same virtual space.. I know I'm in right place
0:48 BLOBBY THING
Dude... this is beautiful. Great work!
Hi, Destin!
love yyour videos as well
The point of this video was that these things suck, and you are calling them cute, wtf, get a brain bro
lemme guess, u got this recommended from the slo mo guys?
dianna and destin drop in = you are in the right place tonight 👍🏽
Bro this was freaking epic! One you explain the concept of the orbitals and all of the technicalities with it. Two. Your graphics for this are astounding so simplistic and agreed so mesmerizing. Thanks for doing all the legwork and sharing this project with everyone.
I want to see the mesmerizing loops of these physics, for relaxation wallpapers.
Incredible, thank you so much for this visualisation. I've always had in my head what my highschool chemistry teacher said "when you start studying at university, you'll have to unlearn everything I've taught you". I never did do chemistry at uni so I've always been wondering about the shells of atoms, the orbit of electrons, and the energy levels of excited atoms. This is an amazing rendering.
There is so much encoded in these visuals that I really wish for a hourphysics episode discussing them.
60minutephysics
Let's start a petition
I agree, it is just shocking how well its done
I agree! We should definitely petition!
I watched millenniumphysics video on it and now my 2 children starved to death
Amazing video!
Finally someone has made such visualisation and done it in an understandable yet still accurate way!
Thx for the video!
As odd as it is, you can make these patterns from a helium neon gas laser by adjusting near plane parallel mirrors. They are called TEM oscillation patterns or simply transverse electric modes. That are literally projections of where the excited electrons were in the helium neon plasma inside the tube. Awesome to see.
quantum theory is bullshit, the electron actually is a 3d em standing wave, and the entire atom and any mass is just the interference pattern of many standing waves being locked in place together in a specific geometric way, which also is the source of gravity. if you want to know what atoms really look like, you have to simulate the oscillation and movement of the wave, without squaring the result.
Can you model chemical bonds with the same technique? I'd love to especially see what double and triple bonds "really" look like.
Yesss me too
that will be awesome
yessssss... please do
yess
Damn now I'm curious too
I am a retired scientist and I think this visualization is a huge step forward and very humble as well.
And I'm an uneducated slacker and I think this visualization is garbage because it is absolutely nonrepresentative
@@KeksimusMaximus ??
A scientist never gets retired... from a job, yes, but from science, no never!
@@KeksimusMaximus its as accurate of on atom as we can get
@@KeksimusMaximus i believe isn't representative the actual atom but it's the closest one
Wow! Well done! Love the visual you create. So impressive.
Can you do a video that zooms in on the H atom? It was hard to see in this video. And then.... perhaps you could go through the periodic table so we can see how they differ?
Agree... I want to know what makes for example Hydrogen atom and Helium differ. Do they have the same core? Can Helium become Hydrogen or vice versa?
@@solusbelmont The difference between hydrogen and helium is in the atomic nucleus: hydrogen has one proton (and no neutron, or one, or two), helium has two protons (and one neuton, or two).
So hydrogen can only become helium if you somehow manage to put at least an extra protron into the atomic nucleus. Or, easier, if you fuse two hydrogen nuclei.
@@bjornfeuerbacher5514 so basically the only things that make one atom differ to other is their nbr of sub atomic particles, nothing else?
@@solusbelmont What does "nbr" mean? Number? If yes, then that's basically right. And isn't that obvious? Two things can only be different from each other if some parts of them differ from each other.
dude how else do you think atoms can differ? They are not different identities or species with some external definition on them. As the atomic number(Proton number) keeps changing, the atom keeps changing too because its entire chemical and physical properties change.@@solusbelmont
"I hate how some images of atoms look like donuts. So I made them look like donuts with a million sprinkles instead."
Yeah there was some inconsistency in the hook part of the video. I love the model though, so I think it could have been introduced in a less inconsistent way.
But with motion!
@@saud2 yeah
Yeah, the only thing this model adds is that it gives a "feeling" for the angular monentum of the electrons otherwise it's exactly the same thing.
@@manmanman4825 but even that small thing makes a huge change in how easier it is to understand
It's so weird how I can finish these videos feeling like I simultaneously learned nothing but also everything.
Schrodinger's learning
Veritasium made a vid on this called "effectiveness of sci vids"
Worth a watch
Because you will not find the "true" info in any short video. Only by picking up a quantum mechanics textbook, like Griffith's or Sakurai's. As wave functions are functions, meaning they take as inputs 3D points and output a real number, they have too much data to describe with words or simple diagram, only as an equation... unless you write out the equation in words, like "the ground state electron of hydrogen is an inverse exponential as a function of radius." And then there's the often ignored time-varying component.
Because these vids only give the most basic info. Ie, it shows *how* atoms look but not *why*
For lay people that's enough, and better than not knowing how they look. But we still don't know atomic physics.
These are just INCREDIBLE. I just love that u love the subject so much
In an introductory chemistry right now…love these animations ♥️
Well this is not a good video. First of all, electrons don't orbit like planets do. Secondly, this guy claims he doesn't understand the classical diagram. If the guy at least had a look into a textbook, he would find out that orbitals are "spaces" with the biggest probability of occurrence (thats the difference between Bohr's atom and Schrödingberg who figured out that electrons dont follow a orbit, but are most likely in a certain place). Furthermore, this video shows bunch of little balls in some space and on top of that going in a certain direction! That is not very accurate and even confusing. There are TWO electrons with opposite spin "located" in the space of given orbital.
This video brought pretty pictures but are the same like diagrams used in any textbook.
huh, never heard of this "Google" thing before. I'll go check it out, sure does look interesting.
I never knew google actually sponsored videos. I don't even know what the sponsorship was for? The Google search engine?
@@Jesse_Dawg yeah right like who is their biggest competitor
@@Jesse_Dawg Something tells me it's less about the search engine and more about pushing the vaccine. It was a subtle push but annoying nonetheless.
It's just google in general. They collect your data when you use their services and sell it to advertisers
Ofc, we don't know it yet
Never heard of this Google sponsor. Maybe I’ll check them out
ill ask jeeves to find out who they are
@@hugh.g.rection5906 Cheers, tell me when you have the result
Apparently they're some fancy version of Bing. But with way more advertisement.
shill
It reminds me of the *_mold in this video_* ua-cam.com/video/cJpn0wkihWk/v-deo.html&.wrqb
"I want to know where the electron is and how fast it's going"
Heisenberg: "I've got bad news for you, son..."
Yep, that was my first thought.
Exactly.
@@oldcountryman2795 no.. uncertain..ly
It reminds me of the *_mold in this video_* ua-cam.com/video/cJpn0wkihWk/v-deo.html&.knen
It reminds me of the *_mold in this video_* ua-cam.com/video/cJpn0wkihWk/v-deo.html&.bpkz
Very nicely done..you helped me get my head around the orbital .probability wave of the electron..loved it ❤❤
Beautiful. I’d love to see the polarity represented in these models too if possible
There are many teachers who would appreciate a curated video showing an extended view of each of the models.
I, for one, would like a curated video showing an extended view of each to stare at and ponder what I'm seeing.
And students thank you.
Very much so, with some labels and different atoms
But teachers have curriculum to follow, unfortunately 🤷♂
It reminds me of the *_mold in this video_* ua-cam.com/video/cJpn0wkihWk/v-deo.html&.uepr
Would like to see a water molecule. The fact that the reason that water doesn't mix with oil is because water is polar and oil is non-polar. And, that fascinates the crap out of me.
i would like to see these two "interacting" in these model
It can with an emulsifier! Water hydrogen bonds with itself and it would need something to disturb the hydrogen bonds which are pretty strong. It’s why it takes so much energy to boil water. Soap is a really good emulsifier because it has a polar head and then non-polar tail which cleans very well. I always thought this part of biochem was very interesting.
Same tbh
@@vitoriaicassatti4546 I *think* molecules and interactions are both impossible to calculate and draw like this because of the three-body problem. technically all these wavefunctions are of the hydrogen atom because it only has two pieces
I could very likely be very wrong
@@DaMonster They aren't impossible, Comsol and other tools are able to create such molecular interactions with constraints. Just that there would always be constraints on number of particles that can be simulated realistically, etc.
These are gorgeous. They feel more like atoms that actually could make up our world too. I needed to see this today, thanks.
This is so cool, and so beautiful! I love that everything is paced for the narration and subtle background music, but I wish there was a slower paced version that would let my neurodivergent brain absorb and admire and understand at a more leisurely pace.
Well, It'd exclude the speech, but you could still do the .25x or .5x speed simply for the visuals 《_/【^.^】\_》
Henry: 1. Where is the electron ?
2. How fast is it going ?
Heisenberg: hold up...we dont do that here.
I came here to comment the exact same thing. He changed where the electron is by measuring it.
@@radtech21 How do you know without taking a simultaneous measurement of position?
@@jwadaow You don't know. That's why we call it uncertainty
Exactly
@@jorgec98 Well, if you actually measure it, then the error in the measurement would be very high.
2:40 Minutephysics: "Isn't the ground state so cute, and the excited states so..."
Me: "... EXCITING???"
Majestic.
It's a scientific therm, it's ok to lowbrainers to laugh
@@andricode Who are you calling a lowbrainer? a Master in Physics?
@@andricode If your ego was any larger you'd be crippled under the size of your own head.
@@m07z That doesn't sound exciting (laugh now because funni)
Wow, never even imagined this amount of detail! Beautiful! Thank you!
This is a humble, down-to-earth addition to the tool box of understanding for curious people like me. A great video for teachers and students. Sometimes our perceptions cannot fathom our world.
Now I want a dynamic animation in this style of how atoms form bonds. Not just the resulting orbits, but also the process of creating the bond.
+. so much +.
The resulting orbital basically is the bond. The process is just the change in the shape of the initial atomic orbitals as they come together and form a lower energy arrangement. The bond is just what we call the lower energy arrangement of electrons and nuclei that results. It's bonded together because you'd need to put energy in to pull them away from each other.
@@rredd7777 Yes, but how does the process look like? Is it a smooth slow transition, or does it "snap in"? Does it induce a wobble that settles down over time? Do the orbits deform as the atoms come closer? Does it cause a temporary collapse of the wave function?
@@PaulPaulPaulson I can't say 100% for sure, but I would expect the orbitals would sort of "ooze" from the initial to final shape. And this would be over a very brief timeframe, certainly sub-microsecond. And since the orbitals only represent the probability of an electron being at a certain point, it probably doesn't have much effect on things. Of course, this is coming from a chemist, so that would color how I see things.
@@PaulPaulPaulson Time-dependent quantum mechanics is very computationally intensive to compute and is much harder than a stationary state. So expect a lot of time and work to make that.
My science teacher is loving this video rn
My science teacher is really getting off to this video. And I caught him touching himself to an animation of gene transcription
@@cretinousswine8234 you guys have a subject called science? Biology, Physics, Chemistry all in one?
@@teekanne15 No, but I suppose you don't have a subject called "English"
@@NH-ge4vz It occurred to me that teekane15 was just making fun of SoufFC for not specifying the subject, so that's why I replied the way I did to the former
That should tell you it is wrong.
Finished college Chem this year and so much of this makes sense
Its just awesome man ! I am currently preparing for IIT JEE and and when I was learning about the atomic and molecular structures, these random questions crossed my mind but I was unable to find proper answers. But your video really helped me a lot. 🥰🥰
It's just awesome!!! One suggestion, if you permit: Instead of using dots, try to use mist density to show the probability to find the electron. If it's not right there, i think that the mist will help to understand. The dot's suggest that there is thousand of particles there. Thanks a lot for this video!
I was going to say mist . . . .
@@Lucius_Chiaraviglio Thanks! ;)
How are you supposed to see the movement with a mist
@@vedwards5027 why such a rude reply?
@@Roel922 I don't remember
Would love to see an extended video of all the various renders, maybe an hour long loop with some lo-fi music too lol
“sciency lofi as you try to defy the heisenberg principle”
Now that's music for Scientists!
we could make a religion out of this
@@MirroredReality tempted to call it Sci-Fi but dunno if that's just too confusing... maybe Lo-Sci or Sci-Lo-Fi lol *shrugs*
What would be interesting would be to show how the wave function for a single electron changes when it absorbs or emits a photon.
Thanks a lot. Was searching for visualized orbitals and finally found well explained one!!! Thasnk a million.
He: I want to see both the speed and the position.
Me: *internal scream*
He: *Writes the uncertainty principle*
Me: *screaming becomes louder and confused*
Me: Joins in screaming
Me: I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'RE YELLING ABOUT!
@@Zraknul blah blah blah we can't know position and velocity of electron at the same time blah blah blah
Seriously, I think that's where the model actually 'breaks down' because of the assumed 'absoluteness' of position with the moving representation. I honestly think that you can either get one OR the other, but not both, due to the nature of electrons in general. If physics honestly followed the model as presented, then electrons would be vastly easier to 'pin down' in their positions/presence to study. But we know that this isn't the case in practical terms.
Same
As a nuclear engineer and a visual learner I appreciate this
I really like the representation. And as much as I love it, I've got to be honest, I find then butt ugly, they make feel icky.
But that's my personal hang up. It's way better than most, so hats off.
@@khaduopha2640 Maybe if the dots were replaced with animated tv-static? The colours could be a bit more muted too. Great idea otherwise.
Loved your creativity and I was so excited to “see” the atom
This really is beautiful. Thank you
It's one of those questions where you wait a life time to get the answer.
The answer was wrong. You can't see atoms in the normal sense. You only see the interaction with photons aka absorbtion of or emission of photons.
@@pcuimac Fine, then next time you want a useful drawing of the shape of an electron orbital you can expect to get a blank sheet of paper
I don't understand the last Representation-> why two orbital are represented so close ( I mean, on same axis)
Aren't they in x y and z planes to minimize repulsion.
@@NamedSoni I'm no expert, but I'm currently in my 2nd and third quantum classes right now so I'll try my best. The m_l quantum number depends on the amount of angular momentum measured along an axis and can range from -l to l in integer values. So an electron with l=1 and m_l=1 will "orbit" one way and an electron with l=1 and m_l=-1 will "orbit" the other way to have an opposite value of angular momentum along the z-axis. This is what is shown with the two close-together orbitals. This actually does reduce repulsion in a sense because if they orbit in opposite directions they won't interact very often. The reason why we can't have another direction is because the z-angular momentum is quantized. Only 2 electrons can take each value of m_l (one for each spin) so if there was another orbital perpendicular to the other two, we would have two different orbits with m_l=0 with the same energy and the same l. This isn't allowed by quantum mechanics
@@pcuimac And not even that. What we see is a tangled mess of interactions of nerve cells in our retina that sends an electrical signal to the Visual cortex that in turn mades a lot of stuff up for us to function in the world.
Me, who can barely draw a not too oval shaped circle when I'm teaching chemistry to my students : thanks for the tip.
Its absolutely fascinating to me how these formulas so beautifully give rise to a clear visualization of each orbital!
This is quite possibly the most beautiful video I've ever seen. Thank you, and congratulations, Henry.
- Truman
Feels good whenever Henry decides to upload.
Feels ?
@Gopala krishna Murthy horrid henry
Good to know his name is henry
It says at the bottom of the description 😜
"But when he uploaded to tell his fans to vote..."
As someone who is intensely fascinated by atomic physics but can’t picture things in my mind, thank you. So much. This… is what I’ve always wanted to see.
Do you have aphantasia?
Can you please help me understand the model that he showed? I don't get it, each "droplet" he showed is just a spot where the electron has a chance of being detected. But how is the entire thing moving? Its not like the electron will move like the water droplet, it will just choose a random droplet according to its wavefunction. But didn't the probability distribution remain the same while the orbital was moving. Look at, for example, 2:43. The probability distribution isn't changing while the orbital is rotating. Or is it actually changing??
Thank you google and minute physics,
Lots of wishes for you both
I too love your gorgeous 3D representation of the atom! Beautiful.... Elegant.☺️
Yay, this was a great video! I’m really excited to play around with your visualisations once they become available- it’d probably help build intuition :)
Hello!
Loved your videos on quantum mechanics
Difinitely!
Hi universe I am from earth
Wasn't 💯% sure about this video, until I saw this: LGU's seal of approval.
next level: how would this way of picturing atoms depict a molecule such as water?
Yes... exactly what I would love to see. Make a water molecule... or carbon nano tube...
It gets complicated super quick, which is why these kind of diagrams/models always use hydrogen. Add just a few more electrons, and the orbitals begin to stack on top of each other, so you end up with a ball, roughly. A whole molecule would actually be less interesting to look at.
The water molecule would probably have a light electron distribution around the hydrogen nuclei and a heavy distribution around the oxygen atom, showing how the molecule would have ionizing properties. It would appear triangular, which suggests how snowflakes can be six-sided.
@@mjw120046 using outer occupied orbitals can be fun though and simplify these issues
If I remember by high school chemistry correctly, it would look similar to one oxygen atom with an almost 120° cloud distribution (single plane) and two hydrogen blobs almost but not fully touching either of the "arms" of oxygen. That hydrogen atom then distorts that 120° as well as the planar property because of electronegativity and all which then gives the famous ~137° tetrahedron shape of water molecule.
Amazing! Thanks for this!!!
the cat is an absolute genius
I love how you explained what Google search does as if we all had never used Google 😂😂
thats.... how a sponsorship works.
@@derovvvv well said. Greatly said. Super reply. That's how sponsorship works. Great reply.
If youd know how many grannies are out there using the default browser with the default search engine and end up with Boing.
EDIT: Meant Bing, but Im keeping the typo lol.
@@derovvvv yes except we all know this information so it’s redundant, hence funny
@@TheStoffl96 Yeah there sure are Bing using Grannies watching minutephysics.
3:50 "These are not easy to draw" ... for a second there I was really looking forward to a website that will generate these
3:47 I do like them as much as you do, thank u sm
Lovely. I'd like to see a version of these where the dots individually flicker or fade on and off to remind us that they're representing possible positions.
"Like, where is the electron? How fast is it going?"
Well, we're boned
Everyone: makes physics jokes
Me: how the f did he get a sponsor from Google!
Cuz Google needs a PR boost, and what better way to do it than to advertise on your own crummy website?
Google is currently on a campaign to teach new skills for the changing world, whether that's good or bad remains to be seen, but right now getting in with "Grow with Google" or one of their other experience growth platforms isn't a bad idea.
It also explains why there are suddenly appearing interested in minutephysics, eevlog, electroboom, among many others
Because of the kind of viewers this channel has or attracts
This paid sponsorship has made me more likely to use Google search.
Because Google needs to thwart anti-monopoly initiatives.
It's so interesting that everything (almost everything) orbits something. Great post pal, thanks for sharing.
Also Bill, your overgrown grass graphics of the electron Clouds are gorgeous
I like how Google has to sponsor themselves on a platform they own
It’s almost like they don’t believe in Ads before the video.
I need 1 hour looping videos for each of these renders in seperate videos, please. I want to watch them as a means of relaxation and/or deep-thinking stimulus.
I agree, they are satisfying to look at, a secret world. Do you look at Mandelbrot zooms? They can be relaxing and focus altering : )
@@maryrao2306 Indeed I do, but only the ones where the zoom speed is relatively low, and I watch all types of fractals. I enjoy discerning out shapes and oddities in fractals, especially in 3D ones, so when the speed is too fast I feel like I'm missing out details, and it doesn't feel relaxing anymore.
@@windwalkerrangerdm So true! I look for the slower speeds, its more absorbing? If that makes sense. But just like this wonderful picture of atoms, it's too fast, theres a lot to look at..it's everything. Mind blowing!!
Not just relaxation, but education!!!
yesss
Thank you I’ve been curious about this for a long time
First time.viewer
Love how your vids flow. Making it very easy for us simple people haha .
Also it's really coo howl you get excited while explaining it all.. going to watch more vids great job
I tutor chemistry and these visuals are a game changer for struggling students. Thank you!
Congrats you're the random person i'm going to ask. So my question is where exactly is the nucleus?
This is the reason we love the web. I am in my forties, and I can hardly remember what it was like to not be able to instantly share ideas with anyone else who may find interest.
@@deathstroke8639 The nucleus is in the center of the atom but very tiny compared to the region occupied by electrons - roughly 10,000 times smaller
@@trainjumper ooooh. Thank you for the response! I was kinda lost there lol
@@deathstroke8639 it's the powerhouse of the cell
This is the best science presentation on you tube I have ever seen. Why aren't people copying this instead of all the junk that is out there.
It should be noted that you are using dots to represent the probablistic location and speed of electrons at any given time; however, their aren’t that many does in any particule, only that many (“infinite”) possibilities for them to be measured. Human visualization, and our fated sense of sight, limits us.
Him saying that I must be interested in rainbow donuts since I stayed till the end
Me, just vibing with the music: Yeah.. obviously
One small suggested change from an art perspective:
Having one particle (electron) in the cloud highlighted with a separate colour, and making the rest of the particles semi-transparent. I imagine this would help to convey the idea that each particle represents only one of the positions the electron can be in and the highlighted electron repesents the 'real' position (if a real position can be said to exist', before the electron has been observed). You could translate this idea to 2d by having a lightly shaded colour behind the atom, whilst keeping the solid lines.
Hopefully I've understood the science correctly, otherwise feel free to discard the suggestion.
The electron exists at all the points simultaneously until it is measured, right?
@@linxuser897 I think the model is developed based on Bohmian mechanics, where particle can have definite positions
@@jithinks5405 I'll check that out. I don't know anything about modern physics to begin with, so that was just my assumption.
@@linxuser897 I think the word "potential" means, it _might be_ here. Not, _it is_ here in a way you can't understand.
Or, am I wrong about that?
If it were actually in each of those locations, then the mass would change when being observed.
No?
Color and semi transparency on wave based potential placement was exactly what I was going to say! But you beat me by about 4 months… 😄
This was so helpfullll!
These are amazing! Please make more!
I can't believe you just did that. This is not only a great physics work, but truly an art piece (pieces)
I'm really curious what these visuals would look like for molecules and different kinds of chemical bonds. That's something I've never been able to visualize in a way that I like.
Or fusion. Slam two together and watch what it turns into.
@@RDJ2 well what you just described is pretty much a chemical bond: the fusing of 2 (or more) atomic orbitals to form molecular orbitals!
@@joelabedz4216 No I mean fusion of two atoms into a new element.
@@RDJ2 Imagining the collision inside the LHC just blew my mind after seeing this video
@@RDJ2 ah my bad yeah fusion could be interesting to see how the orbitals shrink down to accommodate the new nuclear charge
These are beautiful. They also explain so much. If you showed more atoms and explained what they are. I would say they should be taught in schools.
I've been watching your videos for over a decade, and this one remains, to this day, my absolute favorite one. Thank you for creating these visualizations, they are beautiful.
I've been explaining to my son that atoms don't "look" like the planetary model, and talking about and showing him the probability maps. I really appreciate these models you've created, as nothing could have shown better. Thanks much.
Yeah, but he needs to memorize what the teacher says for the exams though. 🤷♂
Most of the things taught in school are inaccurate.
@@culturecanvas777 Would you rather have kids learn the full analytic expansion of the orbitals of the hydrogen atom? You have to learn to crawl before winning a marathon.
"I want a simpler picture of the atom" - Shows us something more complicated
Yeah, this doesn't do much for people lacking high-level particle physics knowledge.
Yep, neither of his proposals are superior to the first example. They're very pretty, but will cause more confusion and require more explanation.
@@135.samarthkala9 in the comments section you can find many people with basic knowledge getting confused.
Exactly. The reason for my downvote
@@135.samarthkala9 what exactly does each point represent then?
The best video ever!! Thank you
So simple and yet very informative.
"What does a atom look like?"
They don't.
but what if you lean in _really_ close to look at them?
It's because atom is almost empty. And the electron is at every point in a single time.
@@vigilantcosmicpenguin8721 Then you fall through
@@MrQhuin you consist of atoms, so you're mostly emptiness too
@@iMaxBlazer yeah pure emptiness af 😞
For those interested, he talks briefly about the "rainbow donuts" after the sponsor!
(as many people will leave as soon as it appears)
omg thanks! I didn't even notice!
and in the google commercial he googled blender
This is the best video regarding physics I've ever seen. Everyone should start here.
I saw this a while ago I just love this thank you so much for that
I love this so much, and wish I had it when I was in chemistry years ago. I would love to see one that shows what these look like when different atoms are bonded together.
I second this!!!
I think molecules and interactions are both impossible to calculate and draw like this because of the three-body problem. technically all these wavefunctions are of the hydrogen atom because it only has two pieces
I could very likely be very wrong
With the right software you can visualise them! If you work through the orbitals of the hydrogen atom you'll find a low energy orbital with high probability between the atoms, and a higher energy orbital with high probably on either side, and you could go higher still to see various (unpopulated) higher energy bonding modes! Something like Avogadro can do it for you, or if youre good with maths you can plot the equations yourself in 3D.
Ye, chemists just operate with quants as if they were Newtonian particles. They don't give a fuck.
I find your work here is satisfying and, yes, beautiful! As a 70+-year-old dude who hasn’t studied physics in about 50 years, and is struggling to keep up with the world and get some idea of quantum physics, this is a real help and a emotionally satisfying one! 🤓🙃😊
😎💚👊 One of the best videos on Orbitals, I've watched & I've watched a bunch... Thank You...
Thank you for this, I appreciate this so much that I just subscribed.
Atoms explaining other atoms how atoms looks like using technologies made with, you know, other atoms
That's the truely amazing thing here. Atoms arranged in the right way have emergent properties.
When google reaches out to you, do you ever go "oh hey while were at it I have a list of feedback I'd like to go over."
lmao I'm pretty sure they only reach out to an individual after being told by their spy networks and algorithms that won't happen.
I'd ask what the deal is with Thunderf00t.
@@JohnDlugosz That's simple: In his debunking videos, he plays fullscreen samples of the scams. The algorithm notices that, and even if it sort of knows, the resulting score is: half scams.
- I think that's the reason anyway. - I commented multiple times, that he should put the 'referenced' video segments into a smaller rectangle, with "debunking" written around it, so it's clear it's not a part of his message. (clear to a program as well, not just smart humans)
@@JohnDlugosz That being said, sometimes scams are not rated poorly... I think it's hard to tell for the algorithm, and it highly uses what it has determined about the channel in the past.
Thousands of companies employ unsustainable and unethical work practices and nobody bats an eye. A search engine company *does what its literally designed to do* , collect information about the world, including its users, and everybody loses their mind.
Imagine the mega corporation GOOGLE reaching out to you personally for a sponsorship💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀 insane
Amazing work! Very inspiring!
Wow, this Google company sounds great! I'd never heard of it. How do I get it on my Huawei device?
1. Recycle your Huawei device.
2. Get a proper phone.
@@stelcxantisto okay
*throws away iphone*
*gets a samsung*
@@bioniccavewoman2.31million Make sure you recycle your overpriced fanboy phone, rather then throw it into landfill.
@@stelcxantisto Not really a fangirl, plus I would rather use the parts and sell the rest
@@bioniccavewoman2.31milliongirls aren't real
This visualisation really confuses me, but at the same time it's so beautiful.
Think of each dot as a position where the electron COULD be, the more dots, the more probable an electron might be on that position.
@@NavidIsANoob I believe one of the problems is probability is based on a real atom, but these atoms are completely fictitious with physical properties.
It’s too bad this doesn’t take into account the way orbits actually work described by Schrodinger’s equation.
to clarify, this representation is a point-by-point location probability (chance) of a stationary atom.
the problems with atoms and quantum understanding is we in the physical world (reality) cannot observe/measure both the location of an atom or the energy, we are ultimately incapable of knowing both properties of them.
if we could see an atom for real with immense detail, all of these dots would not be there. as best as we can tell, there would only be a number (N) of corrosponding electrons in "orbit" and in reality, if it was at all possible, we would see their positions individually. however, "the uncertainty principle" dictates we can't see it as giant creatures by comparison to these insanely tiny objects.
if you've ever seen a macroscopic photo of a strand of hair, then you already understand the details we are incapable of seeing with just our eyes without technological help. go smaller than that and see headlice in great detail, or waterbears, these things only serve to exacerbate our inability to see the world in all the details it has to offer. now concieve the idea that each of these things are made up of trillions (1,000,000,000,000) of atoms and begin to understand the complex nature of such tiny objects. they move fast. real fast.
i'm shyte with science and math, but i think Hydrogen has but 1 electron, and the video is demonstrating Hydrogen, and all the points you see are places in which the electron might be found. once you find it, you will not know which way it's moving (spinning... whatever) and if you found which way it was spinning, you would never know where it is in that moment. so the diagram/animation serves to show us what an atom of hydrogen might look like if we could even look at it.
this goes for every atom. if you thought Hydrogen confused you, with one electron, you'd probably split your brain looking at something with 40 electrons.
by the way, the rainbowed representations, i think, are atoms with a high number of electrons, giving a visual representation of possible positions the electrons could be.
also. i failed every course and class in school. don't listen to me. however i am confident in my understanding.
And it's situations like these that I realize only in a Physics class can you get remotely close to learning about the true nature of atoms and that my education has failed me until I am able to reach that point.
I was a big fan of Lewis structures when I studied chemistry, since they made it very easy to find the structures for a lot of the most important compounds - they also made it clear why the water molecule has its seemingly arbitrary V-shape (basically, it is actually shaped like a tetrahedral molecule, but two of the arms have electron pairs).
Thanks. You cleared a lot of doubts in my head.🙂