@@kabirsingh-fz5onI still don't think we are quite there yet. I think we have to find out first what energy really is and how it really manifest itself. Is it like plasma or some thing yet unknown? Only then do I think we can know how it can form all the parts in an atom. I believe that the only thing we really know is that everything is energy in one form or another. Then another question. Is space time energy too?
I don't know if I missed something, in the Bohr model, why the electron doesn't just collapse into the nucleus by emitting radiation (even if its in descrete quantities), just like the drawback mentioned for the Rutherford model.
in bohr model, first thing: the electrons have quantized orbital levels. If this wasn't the case then yes, the electron's orbital radius should've decreased as it lost its KE to the EM field. the second thing is the electrons have their probability wave creating a standing wave within the orbital ( circular standing waves ) and as we all know the energy isn't transferred in standing waves; energy transfer occurs only in traveling waves; therefore the electron doesn't collapse into the nucleus even in quantized orbits because it is a standing wave and in standing waves energies are not transferred.
Superb presentation! Thank you. The content is so concise that it highlights how Bohr's model (a) fails to explain the lack of EM radiation from a charged electron that changes direction - he deliberately just ignored that inconvenient truth, and (b) fails to justify the specific energy levels - the balancing of orbital radius and angular velocity that you explained so well, that allows for an electron's stable "orbit" does not need to be quantized, it is perfectly amenable to an analogue treatment. Like al the other models, Bohr's is useful but ultimately not truthful.
Parth G, thanks! You have a knack for getting me to look at an old idea from a different angle. In this case, the traditional question has the problem backward: It’s not why the electron fails to emit radiation while constantly accelerating around the nucleus, but why the electrons cannot “feel” any acceleration while in an orbital. Another way of saying that is an electron in a stable orbital perceives itself as being in freefall, just like an astronaut in orbit under gravitational acceleration. Interesting! The question then becomes one of why, and how, an oddly gravity-like freefall form of acceleration emerges if, and only if, the acceleration behavior of the electron drops into the quantum realm. Must think on this one a bit!…
One extra piece of information you might add is the theory of neutron decay, because beta emission (electrons) is too high energy to come from orbits so people though the nucleus must contain electrons (plum pudding model). Fermi's theory of neutron decay explained the phenomenon and so completed the model. Though very advanced the theory was initially rejected. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi%27s_interaction
That's the guy he said bury your head in the sand and just do the maths. Einstein said that you need to understand what's actually going on and he'll be ultimately proved right. So it'll be Einstein who''ll be telling him to bog off.
He has the very same face as an old school mate of mine: Antuñano. Incidentally today in the subway a girl with also the exact same face (maybe a relative of my old friend?) sat in front of me, I didn't dare to ask if she was relative of Bohr... nor of Antuñano either. Respectfully I don't think he won, he just was onto something but never really understood it well enough. Nobody has to this very day.
Thank you for all the content you have posted so far. I was wondering that you could possibly post a video explaining how magnetism arises in materials from a quantum mechanical perspective?
wow, the more I learn, the more I realize I do not know. thank you so much for this brilliant video! might have to come back again and take notes to properly understand 💡
We need to extend Bohmian mechanics to its logical extreme... We take fields and reinterpret them as the flow vectors of a gluon like fluid substrate. Allow true outflow but to maintain system closure this must local have a reciprocal inflow. A hydrodynamic model treats spin as a true rotational component of the fluid flows. Treating the fluid as gluons, orientable, is like having a prefect dielectric where convergence creates a positive charge and divergence negative.
gluons are field bosons within the nucleus for the strong force; I'm curious to know how it would impact the orbital dynamics of an electron a LEPTON that doesn't even feel the strong force outside the nucleus ; I'd like to know more and could u structure your statements articulately too abit .. ? also, i think even in considering charges in vector fields and considering EM as fluid flows, convergence signifies ( not create ) a negative charge and divergence signifies a positive; you may want to recheck your concepts on EM vector fields.
@cadence_wav2423 all nuclear bosons, W etc are imho place holders for transitions and Bensimon this particle word obsession that's what this chasms is called.
As a physics student, it was so frustrating to learn each atomic model and then being told " oh its not quite correct " 😢 great video regardless👍
It's just like how you have to learn newtonian gravity before general relativity, and classical before quantum, that's useful right?
@@lih3391 very useful as it explains the fundamentals, but as a 14 yo it was kind of annoying
The real problem is that we don't know yet exactly how it works.
infact i foung that to be kind of interesting, how we kept getting closer and closer but we weren't finally there until we were (kinda)
@@kabirsingh-fz5onI still don't think we are quite there yet. I think we have to find out first what energy really is and how it really manifest itself. Is it like plasma or some thing yet unknown? Only then do I think we can know how it can form all the parts in an atom. I believe that the only thing we really know is that everything is energy in one form or another. Then another question. Is space time energy too?
I don't know if I missed something, in the Bohr model, why the electron doesn't just collapse into the nucleus by emitting radiation (even if its in descrete quantities), just like the drawback mentioned for the Rutherford model.
in bohr model, first thing: the electrons have quantized orbital levels. If this wasn't the case then yes, the electron's orbital radius should've decreased as it lost its KE to the EM field. the second thing is the electrons have their probability wave creating a standing wave within
the orbital ( circular standing waves ) and as we all know the energy isn't transferred in standing waves; energy transfer occurs only in traveling waves; therefore the electron doesn't collapse into the nucleus even in quantized orbits because it is a standing wave and in standing waves energies are not transferred.
Beautifully explained. I've never seen a clearer explanation of the Bohr model than this. Thank you.
Hey Parth where are you now days... waiting for your more videos!
I need a video about the argument of Einstein against Heisenberg uncertainty principle and bhor's justification to that
Superb presentation! Thank you. The content is so concise that it highlights how Bohr's model (a) fails to explain the lack of EM radiation from a charged electron that changes direction - he deliberately just ignored that inconvenient truth, and (b) fails to justify the specific energy levels - the balancing of orbital radius and angular velocity that you explained so well, that allows for an electron's stable "orbit" does not need to be quantized, it is perfectly amenable to an analogue treatment. Like al the other models, Bohr's is useful but ultimately not truthful.
Should also mention his wife Margrethe. Beautiful relationship.
Parth G, thanks! You have a knack for getting me to look at an old idea from a different angle. In this case, the traditional question has the problem backward: It’s not why the electron fails to emit radiation while constantly accelerating around the nucleus, but why the electrons cannot “feel” any acceleration while in an orbital.
Another way of saying that is an electron in a stable orbital perceives itself as being in freefall, just like an astronaut in orbit under gravitational acceleration.
Interesting! The question then becomes one of why, and how, an oddly gravity-like freefall form of acceleration emerges if, and only if, the acceleration behavior of the electron drops into the quantum realm.
Must think on this one a bit!…
One extra piece of information you might add is the theory of neutron decay, because beta emission (electrons) is too high energy to come from orbits so people though the nucleus must contain electrons (plum pudding model). Fermi's theory of neutron decay explained the phenomenon and so completed the model. Though very advanced the theory was initially rejected.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi%27s_interaction
amazing work bro , keep it up
A question if you are kind enough to answer, is the radius referred to in the video, the mean radius?
Anyone knows how those videos are made
Great video parth
seriously i love your music taste
Keep up the good work
4:24 Is there an actual experiment
demonstrating that❔ 🤔
If I had a charged sphere 🔵 💫
in microgravity orbiting another,
then would it do the same❔🧐
It's unbelievable how little science knows about static electricity.
The electron skip periodicity when take on imaginary orbits. That's why we can't localise it because no continous pathway.
HEY - GLAD YOU'RE BACK!!!
Is photon energy kinetic or potential?
That's the guy he said bury your head in the sand and just do the maths. Einstein said that you need to understand what's actually going on and he'll be ultimately proved right. So it'll be Einstein who''ll be telling him to bog off.
Bohr was a true scientist...
Einstein more Sci-fi writer...😂😂
an informative discussion between carroll and becker on, among other topics, niels bohr:
ua-cam.com/video/em7dkYZTetE/v-deo.html
♟️
hahahahaha... Bohr’s model is inevitably correct.
First comment
He has the very same face as an old school mate of mine: Antuñano. Incidentally today in the subway a girl with also the exact same face (maybe a relative of my old friend?) sat in front of me, I didn't dare to ask if she was relative of Bohr... nor of Antuñano either.
Respectfully I don't think he won, he just was onto something but never really understood it well enough. Nobody has to this very day.
Thank you for all the content you have posted so far. I was wondering that you could possibly post a video explaining how magnetism arises in materials from a quantum mechanical perspective?
wow, the more I learn, the more I realize I do not know. thank you so much for this brilliant video! might have to come back again and take notes to properly understand 💡
Sir please don't stop teaching us.....
Eagerly waiting for your next video
Parth, are you deleting comments?
We need to extend Bohmian mechanics to its logical extreme...
We take fields and reinterpret them as the flow vectors of a gluon like fluid substrate.
Allow true outflow but to maintain system closure this must local have a reciprocal inflow.
A hydrodynamic model treats spin as a true rotational component of the fluid flows.
Treating the fluid as gluons, orientable, is like having a prefect dielectric where convergence creates a positive charge and divergence negative.
gluons are field bosons within the nucleus for the strong force; I'm curious to know how it would impact the orbital dynamics of an electron a LEPTON that doesn't even feel the strong force outside the nucleus ; I'd like to know more and could u structure your statements articulately too abit .. ?
also, i think even in considering charges in vector fields and considering EM as fluid flows, convergence signifies ( not create
) a negative charge and divergence signifies a positive; you may want to recheck your concepts on EM vector fields.
@cadence_wav2423 all nuclear bosons, W etc are imho place holders for transitions and Bensimon this particle word obsession that's what this chasms is called.