Quantum Mechanics: The Structure Of Atoms
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 27 ก.ย. 2024
- / sciencereason ... Quantum Mechanics (Chapter 2): The Structure Of Atoms.
---
Please SUBSCRIBE to Science & Reason:
• / best0fscience
• / sciencetv
• / ffreethinker
---
1. A Brief History Of Quantum Mechanics
• A Brief History Of Qua...
2. The Structure Of Atoms
• Quantum Mechanics: The...
3. Wave Function And Wave-Particle Duality
• Wave Function And Wave...
4. The Uncertainty Principle
• Quantum Mechanics: The...
5. The Spin Of Fundamental Particles
6. Quantum Entanglement
---
Atomic Structure
It was during the early decades of the 19th century that the structure of atoms was coming into focus. It was known for example that a hydrogen atom contained one proton and one electron. But the scientists of the time could think of no stable arrangement of the two particles.
It was known that protons in any atom were grouped in a small central region called the nucleus and that the electrons were somehow arranged at comparatively large distances outside the nucleus. But, in hydrogen, if the electron were stationary, it would fall into the nucleus since the charges on the particles would cause them to attract one another.
Yet the electron couldnt be in an orbit circling the nucleus either. Circular motion requires constant acceleration of the circling body to keep it from flying away. But the electron has charge and charged particles radiate light when they are accelerating. So an electron in a circular orbit would radiate light and would spiral into the nucleus.
Bohr Atom
Niels Bohr proposed the first working model of the hydrogen atom. In the Bohr model, the electron circles the nucleus as if it were a planet going around the sun. And with a nod to the energy quantization that Max Planck dreamed up for solving the Ultraviolet Catastrophe, Bohr said that inside the hydrogen atom, the electron was allowed to have only discrete values of angular momentum in its orbits around the nucleus.
Translated, this means the electron can occupy orbits only at a certain distances from the nucleus. And Bohr simply dismissed the problem of the electron radiating away its energy by stating that it just didnt happen (even great scientists cheat sometimes!). He postulated that inside an atom, electrons only radiate energy when they jump from one allowable orbit to another, and the energy of this radiation, reveals the allowable orbits.
The wavelengths of light absorbed by hydrogen when white light is shined upon it, as well as the wavelengths of light when it is subsequently re-radiated had been precisely studied at the time but never explained. Here is a sample of an absorption spectrum and an emission spectrum.
By predicting the values of orbits that an electron could have, Bohrs model also predicted the wavelengths of the lines in the hydrogen spectrum. And his model was tremendously successful. It explained in exquisite detail the atomic spectra of hydrogen.
When the energy of the wavelengths of the spectral lines are compared to the energy differences in orbits allowed in the Bohr Atom they agree exactly. So the quantum approach worked well in explaining the allowable orbits, but no one was certain why only those orbits were allowed.
Particle Waves
In his doctoral dissertation in 1924, Louis de Broglie put forward a simple idea that significantly advanced the understanding of the extremely tiny (a quantum leap forward you might say). Since Einstein and Planck and Compton had firmly established that light could have characteristics of both a wave and a particle, de Broglie suggested that matter particlesprotons, electrons, atoms, billiard balls, etc. could sometimes act like waves.
And when this idea was applied to the Bohr atom, it answered many questions. First, the allowed orbits had to be exact multiples of the wavelengths calculated for the electrons. Other orbits produced destructive interference of the waves and so the electron couldnt exist there.
So the circumference of the orbit must equal the wavelength Or twice the wavelength Or 3 times the wavelength Or, for that matter, any multiple of the wavelength. Second, these orbits werent really orbits in the traditional sense. These electrons didnt travel around the nucleus in a circle. Rather they took the form of a standing wave that surrounded the nucleus entirely. The exact position and momentum of the electron particle could not be specified at any given instant.
• www.cassiopeiap...
.
Animated guy at the start couldn't handle quantum mechanics. lol
Bob Jones had Tim & Eric vibes
lmao, I remember a physics professor of mind used these videos sometimes. That bald guy made the class laugh.
oh god i hate those animations
Why?
wtf is the beginning haha
The quality of your script is top notch!
who knew Mr. Clean was a physicist??? Cool!
this video is kinda creepy
1) What's quantisation?
2) How exactly does Bohr's model explain why electrons don't collapse into the nucleus? To me, it just seems like a variation of Rutherford's model that explains atomic spectra.
3) What happens when an atomic spectra is obtained? Does an electron in a particular orbit gain energy, move out of the atom, and strike the surface of a sheet resulting in an atomic emission spectrum? Or does it move to a particular energy level given by Rydberg's equation?
Extremely confused...please help.
Bohr's model shows that the electrons CANNOT exist on paths crashing into the nucleus. Einstein's theory that certain particles were also waves explains that electrons do not move, but instead are circular loops surrounding the nucleus. That's pretty much what the video said.
Thank you so much! Really clears it up...
wtf is that guy at the beginning ... ? gtgtgtgtgtgtg
+Natalie Belle he's your true father and he loves you very much
greatsea :O HE'S MY FATHER!?! where can i contact him
+Natalie Belle you can't. He will contact you when the time is right
Misael Cifuentes ok :(
randomly found this in search of physics videos, It's weird as hell and I love it.
The animation should have, at some point at least, shown the "orbit" of the electron as a standing wave around the nucleus (as described in the narration). Kind of a major shortcoming, methinks.
@GShock112 Oh, I guess you mean inside accelerators. If the energies are high enough, then transformations do occur between a proton-electron collision. Since the electron is a lepton, it doesn't break apart but due to high energies, it can transform along with the proton into other particles. You can read about that.
i have literally never laughed harder in a science class than when my teacher decided to play this video
🤓
@@ztag5395 my 10 year old comment really made u that mad huh
@@qwertyuiop84010 🤓
One way to understand why electrons cannot exist in any orbit is to look at a stringed instrument like guitar. Natural harmonics cannot be produced anywhere, at a given string tension and length there are only certain frets at which it can produce sustained natural harmonics.
There where 2 atoms walking down the road. One atom stoped and paniced "OH GOD I THINK I LOST AN ELECTRON" The other atom replied, "are you sure?" Then the one atoms said "Im possitive"
Get it?
You're a genius
Same thing happens at small scales with the higgs bosons. They will never find it because “matter” generates itself at the smaller levels too and you always find something when you look at it because we collapse the wave functions into 3D reality. Consciousness is the computer.
Wow! 9 months later and someone delivers! Excellent detective work, AlphaCrucis! You're awesome.
I just don't get it... sorry for the n00by question... Electron and Proton have opposite charges... what happens if they collide? I suppose it doesn't happen in nature but if we made a proton and electron collide what kind of reaction would happen? Thanks!
@pfranks44 watch the later videos, if you havnt already, this is just starting with old simple models so you can understand the more accurate modern ones
Help Please anyone? Saw a possible contradiction on the vid which confused me: '@ 1.06 'yet the electron couldn't be in orbit circuling the nucleus either; circular motion requires consistent acceleration of the circling body to keep it from flying away. But the electron has change and charged particles radiate light when they are accelerating...' But then @ 1.50 'In the Bohr model the electron circles the nucleus as if it were a planet going around the sun'... Okay, so is that not the same as circular motion? And it that due to Kepler's laws on planetary motion, where the sun is only at one focus?
"AS IF IT WERE a planet going around the sun"
electron is not circling anything. Electron is not really a piece of mass even though it is represented as such.
The animation shown of Bohr's law is used to illustrate the specific energy levels an electron could exist in. Look up electron orbitals and probability. The ideas will mesh and should make sense. Also, no Kepler's law applys to the macro, like general relativity. Here we are talking quantum. I gets stranger, due to Heisenberg's uncertainty principal, an electron, even for a shortest amount of time imaginable, could exist inside the nucleus if an atom.
They have mass, but their individual mass is there only for the purposes of comprehension by the human mind. Electrons can behave like massless bosons when paired.
You reveal stupidity embedded in your brain by insisting upon a number when contemplation is required, ***** .
@weepaul666 However (continuing from my last response) an inability to detect the "spiritual" now doesn't mean we never will. It is a concept that has existed throughout mankind. I said normally it doesn't effect the physical in an empiracly measurable way, that doesn't mean in NEVER has an affect. Even if we have read the signs wrongly in the past it doesn't mean we always will. There seems to be a lot of logic to me for intelligent design to me but that can't be explained physically (yet).
@colourfulwithaU By the way, just for clarity, I thought I'd point out that I was referring to consciousness as in the "true you" or the "soul" if you like, differently from the consciousness referred to in medical or biological terms as in the opposite of "unconscious": alertness & so on.
Regards!
@GShock112 Nothing would happen. An electron is immutable (non-breakable). A proton is made a few quarks held together by gluons. If I am wrong, show me a research paper or some source.
Could we have an objective quantum mechanics if it was explained as an emergent interactive process unfolding photon by photon? This idea is based on: (E=ˠM˳C²)∞ with energy ∆E equals mass ∆M linked to the Lorentz contraction ˠ of space and time. The Lorentz contraction ˠ represents the time dilation of Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. We have energy ∆E slowing the rate that time ∆t flows as a universal process of energy exchange or continuous creation. Mass will increase relative to this process with gravity being a secondary force to the electromagnetic force. The c² represents the speed of light c radiating out in a sphere 4π of EMR from its radius forming a square c² of probability. We have to square the probability of the wave-function Ψ because the area of the sphere is equal to the square of the radius of the sphere multiplied by 4π. This simple geometrical process forms the probability and uncertainty of everyday life and at the smallest scale of the process is represented mathematically by Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle ∆×∆pᵪ≥h/4π. In such a theory we have an emergent future unfolding photon by photon with the movement of charge and flow of EM fields. This gives us a geometrical reason for positive and negative charge with a concaved inner surface for negative charge and a convexed outer surface for positive charge. The brackets in the equation (E=ˠM˳C²)∞ represent a dynamic boundary condition of an individual reference frame with an Arrow of Time or time line for each frame of reference. The infinity ∞ symbol represents an infinite number of dynamic interactive reference frames that are continuously coming in and out of existence.
we are made of tiny atoms, but in this massive universe, we are the tiny atoms.
the faster we move in cyclic momentum towards a goal or happy moment, the slower time goes by.
@davidragon1 And when you challenge their beliefs, they don't want to hear it or look to any other possibilities because they're comfortable in their belief. It's a comfort thing
@Turmoil90 As you please. Examples of scientific theories: Theory of gravity, theory of electromagnetism, theory of relativity, etc... For example the theory of gravity. A theory is a general name for a specific domain in science which has pretty much been sorted out to a point beyond reasonable doubt. Newton's LAW of gravity is only a small subset of the THEORY of gravity. It is just how scientists name things. A theory is the best we've got, it has nothing to do with opinion or subjectiveness.
thanks to enlight me about basic quantum mechanics
"It was during the early decades of the 19th century..." 20th century, actually.
Thanks! I must admit my words were heavily influenced by Asimov's essay "The Relativity of Wrong" which can easily be found via Google.
The dude at the beginning had Tim & Eric quality vibes.
This is a work of art. I can't stop laughing
wikipedia seeks to become the sum of all human knowledge by allowing people to add any article they wish, yet that article remains open to infinite human scrutiny. People add to articles, detract from them and even delete or remove them on a constant basis.
What do u call the part @ 1:19 -1:-26, like when the lil sound goes up and then down, WHAT WOULD U CALL THAT ?!!
The only way electrons can penetrate into energy clouds, energy clouds it must have energy brakes with pulsations. That is true electrons has magnetism but it doesn't have mass. If it had the mass it could of penetrate into nucleus.
Can someone tell me what's the song in this video ? Especially at the beginning
+Rich Handsome why do they always play this annoying music on every science video?
BCN=5,6,7 of periodic table 8 & 9 is O & F.
@KTK401
Someone said something, and I responded. It's not a conflict, I was just answering someone. It was not histrionic in the slightest.
Now, why do you overuse the word 'histrionic'?
I've been seing videos about something called monatomic gold. This stuff can do all sorts of miraculous stuff, according to the videos, such as renew DNA. What's the truth regarding all this?
the person at 00:05 scared the fuck out of me
if bohr came up with a theory that turned out not to be completely right, that doesn't make it a "cheat" does it? any more than newton with gravity
was thinking if we have made a way of creating a constant stream of electrons from one atom. my idea was to time with the collapse the pulse of the atom and take electrons from a natural 12 atom , using sound to thread the eye of the needle at a certain pitch stilling its pulse. after removing 8 electrons from the atom we have brought it to a criticle mass density if dark matter theory is correct by bringing it to a third of two thirds of this , my main reason the power play of the sun in three mag prongs then if we remove a 9th while pulsing sound through the core the electron should stream from the atom as it tries to fill its density , and i don't know if this has been done.but bringing that pitch to wavelengths suiting the radio telescope we may then refine a pitch of what will only be an earth like body. and various other uses that could be endless energy sauce and so on, their are more audio recognition tests that may apply other resonance gear that will open more eyes were we to get out side Pluto as well , my theory too is there is a mass function of the electron pulse that the electron gives the alien tune in its collapse , close encounters , and balance's itself within what we refer to as dark matter 8 electrons to the local system Jupiter small planets a power well of the second layer of collapse in the atom as more electrons dissapear the denser the energy on the collapse so mirrored in denser masses as planetary alignment, and the twelves to the greater masses so start to form a density wave pulse function. And there's no universal static its just the suns magnetosphere , well some but more like you would look at a radio tuning. and this our literal path of light under our feet pulsing a pitch tone all the time that when we lie we cause the pitch receptivity to change in us as we start out on the new tune.look at science politics and religion light Cameron factions head of days style love it its the third and fourth generation bollocking of war and misuse of power and the atom that we see the new path and embrace some truths.
Wow, there is so much wrong with that, I don't even know where to start ...
Just a few highlights:
-"to time with the collapse the pulse" makes no sense.
-there is no "natural 12 atom". Perhaps take a look at the periodic table?
-"after removing 8 electrons from the atom we have brought it to a criticle mass density" nope, that would just charge it 8 times. Nothing like that happens and there is no theory predicting that.
-"dark matter theory" there is no such thing
-"bringing it to a third of two thirds of this" ? That does not make any sense.
-"my main reason the power play of the sun in three mag prongs then if we remove a 9th while pulsing sound through the core the electron should stream from the atom as it tries to fill its density" absolute gibberish.
-"bringing that pitch to wavelengths suiting the radio telescope" that does nothing. It then just swings at that frequency. Sound and radiowaves are completely different things. Otherwise you could hear radio-waves without a radio-system :D
-"refine a pitch of what will only be an earth like body" doesn't make sense. Earth does not have a "pitch".
-"endless energy sauce and so on" there is no such thing as an "endless energy [source]". What you describe would also not create one. Unless you literally mean an "energy sauce". But calling that endless looks like a marketing trick to me ...
-"their are more audio recognition tests that may apply other resonance gear that will open more eyes were we to get out side Pluto as well" total gibberish.
-"mass function of the electron pulse that the electron gives the alien tune in its collapse" nope, electrons don't behave like that.
....
Sorry, but the rest is just too much to bear :D You literally have not the first clue about what is going on in reality. May I suggest reading actual science books and learning everything that is already known about these topics? It should only take you about half a decade if you are a fast learner. Even some looking up on wikipedia might have already helped you ...
If you don't want to do that, I know that one organisation that would really like to welcome you amongst them. They are very much like you. They are called the flat earth society.
@weepaul666 although i agree with most that you say, alot of science is also only supported by theories, which is why overtime, some theories are proven wrong. Alot of what science is today are theories that can't really be proven wrong by any scientists, yet.
The video is 6 minutes and 11 seconds.
If you want to understand quantum mechanics more thoroughly I would suggest doing more than clicking on short videos on youtube
What is energy?? What is an elementary particle?? does it occupy space and have weight as in the traditional sense of matter?? If an atom can be a wave or a particle , what is a wave?? when we keep going backwards trying to define the unknowable by the unknown, what makes science all that different from religion (not that I'm religious) I think the question we should be asking is what do we do with this time on the planet?? Can we make it good and safe for everyone??
no one gets paid, everyone who helps with atricles is a volunteer. Wikipedia is not-for-profit charity I believe... you could check their site.
no, some people believe that an electron travels across a "fourth spacial dimension"
I wonder if we will discover that the subatomic dimensions are as robust as our own.
Sometimes I think they (books, teachers, etc) wouldn't explain things first the easy or real way, to keep themselves at the "elite of knowledge" crazy thought, but may just happen at some point... aside, I never learned shit of chemistry as a kid for there were only numbers filling my notebook, not real concepts.
@KTK401
"Atheism is basically the belief in *only* the material & nothing beyond."
Although atheism commonly coincides with this belief, it is not synonymous with it. Atheism means only the lack of belief in a god or gods. Etymology: a (without) theism (gods).
Thanks for the kind sharing*
@Mattothee
your opinion matters as little as your life does....quantumly speaking of course...
The animations are creepy as fuck but these videos are damn informative...
very good video
@7410n0 I stand corrected.
@KTK401
"atheism/materialism"
Atheism is *NOT* materialism.
"We are basically automatons, bundles of molecules with electrical activity."
I believe consciousness is a beautiful and mysterious thing, and it certainly seems metaphysical. But until real, empirical evidence suggests that consciousness exists because of something outside of the brain, I have no reason to believe that consciousness is anything but the working of an incredibly complex organ (brain).
Many atheists share this view.
what's the music?
@KTK401
Atheists can feel love, appreciate beauty in nature, art, and people, and experience feeling. I do not believe that anything has an inherent meaning, but the meanings we assign to things (which we do, all the time) are just as important - if not more - than any meaning that any 'god' can make up.
If 'faith' means 'believing we exist', then I have faith. But, no, faith is belief despite lack of evidence. And the evidence for *our* existence is overwhelming. Just look around!
@ericmartin1968 Most scientists who deal with QM openly state that QM is a mathematical model which agrees with observation but doesn't explain what is happening. There are some very worrying philosophical problems with it.
The big difference compared to religion is that QM can be used to correctly predict outcomes of events to 10 decimal places, something which no religion has yet managed.
Wow, that was a very interesting video.
Keep it up.
Great videos
nicely done
Thanks
@whatevtube The electron clearly does have mass. However, the electron's position and momentum is described by a probability wave.
BlueStarFlower above your comment makes a great description about the wave's affects of why the electron doesn't spiral.
Also, there exist two attractive forces between the nucleus and the electron: gravity (which can be neglected), and the electromagnetic force due to their opposite charges (which attract).
@davidragon1 *applauds*
@Daavoid Everything religious can be considered only as a hypothesis if you want to speak scientifically. And I am VERY generous to place 'god' as a hypothesis. So no, Genesis shouldn't be taken into account because it's not even a theory, the big bang is a theory so yeah, it's by far more likely to be true. My own position is unbiased, because if I start taking into account information from religious books I might as well say the earth sits on pillars.
@colourfulwithaU It's not overused, come on be honest it's not used enough, when referring to you guys.
If religion bothers you, then ignore it.
regards
What's the final answer!?! TELL ME
thanks for this
@KTK401
My consciousness is me. What accounts for my consciousness? I don't know, entirely. I know that a lot of it is in the brain. But instead of claiming that it comes from the supernatural, I await a real explanation. A scientific one.
"Your insistence that medicine does not make use of 'evolution' shows a hilarious failure to understand how immunizations work. "
I actually study human biology (student in podiatry, I think I mentioned that before) I know very well how vaccines work. The theory of evolution is only vaguely relevant here.
Fundamentalists in any case accept evolution within species, not inter species evolution, so that is a non sequitur.
Medicine does not use the whole "theory of evolution" that's just silly.
also the orbitals aren't two dimensional as shown in this video
@kulyateiqbal
I mean in the way religion teaches what it thinks is the whole truth and never thinks 'well maybe we're wrong about this' whereas science always asks itself 'am I wrong?'
The digital puppet is too weird. The echo makes it seem like I'm in a cathedral trying to observe serious science.
great vid thanks
@colourfulwithaU "Atheists can feel love, appreciate beauty in nature, art, and people, & experience feeling."
In the opinion of us Believers: OF COURSE! because you DO exist & are a soul.
"If 'faith' means 'believing we exist', then I have faith."
Yes, but believing we exist other than our body. The truth is that according to atheism/materialism, then we don't *actually* exist. We are basically automatons, bundles of molecules with electrical activity.
The illusion of existence!
Peace!
@Ryan44567 But then universities... no I dare not think it.
Nice video on quantum mechanics...but...that 3d model...
Religion is actually a faith in law and order
It is presented in the form of signs of law and order
But it is not presented in the form of science
Of matter and clay for a man to become materialist
good
@Meathead36 don't you mean? "he Bhoring world of Neils Bhor"
lol @ the starting computer animated dude
the guy in the beginning freaked me out:)
cool vedeo ,thx!
@jax668 Religion is faith. Sometimes with evidence that supports it. It may or may not be true, but it's supporters believe that it is infallible. Science is based a bit on faith, (We have faith that atoms exist) but mostley on evidence. Both are necessary.
Is that john locke from Lost?
The way he wobbles!
College professors need to start teaching classes this way:
Have students log onto a secure site via the internet and let the professor teach all of their students no matter where they are.
This video made me think of that. I'm sure it's done in some schools, but I hoping one day it will be the norm.
Have the schools adapt to their target market.
its called magnetic fields. soon enough magnetic fields will be able to manipulate the orbit of the electron and therefore provide a means of computation, hence quantum computing. that's just the really dumbed down version.
By far one of the creepiest vids ever
@hcon15 a friend was telling me about that, absolutely fucked with my mind!
@colourfulwithaU Look, I respect that view, in fact since I lived in England for a very long time, most of my friends have been atheists. They are kind & loving people.
BUT on the same basis that you say that religion can lead to problems (and tragically often does), we say atheism can & does, also.
Using England as an example, since the rapid rise of atheism in England in the last 50 years crime has soared & pedophilia among other things has become horrifically common.
0.05 I almost peed myself
That intro lool
I love these videos, but they make my brain hurt.
@KTK401
First of all, I never claimed to be an atheist (I am, but I never claimed so). Second, I DO understand atheism. A-THEISM is the LACK OF BELIEF in any GODS. It has nothing to do with the existence of humans. One can be atheist, but still believe in things beyond the physical, and they would still meet the definition of 'atheist' because they do not accept the claim that any gods exist. Second...cont'
Yas
@ericmartin1968 A scientific theory is necessarily based on evidences, on SCIENTIFIC facts, always verifiable, but not necessarily reproductible. Without a se of them we have NO scientific theory. At least a hypotesis to be tested. See my other comments in this video, please.
This guy is terrifying
@charlie29321
Check out the website Desteni, under FAQ you will find your answers