Quantum Mechanics: Schrödinger's discovery of the shape of atoms
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 24 มิ.ย. 2024
- Ok physics time is over. Time for silly twittering!
/ scribblegoose
General theme
I think it could be useful if I restate the central message of the video here, for clarity:
The shape of hydrogen (and all atoms) is made up by the way the electron spreads itself, as a wave function. This wave function is a blobby shape, and often looks like spheres and donuts put next to one another. The wave function is the electron itself, in a sense. When you don't disturb it, the electron looks like that. When you do disturb it, it becomes a single hard point, and the blobby shape vanishes.
Specific notes and clarifications:
Schrödinger didn't really emphasize the shape of atoms in his discovery, instead everyone considered the big discoveries to be:
1) The Schrödinger equation
2) The total hydrogen wave function
3) The energy levels of hydrogen
But the shape of hydrogen follows immediately from the total hydrogen wave function, and since we want to look at those shapes, I figured I should focus on them in this vid.
At 1:40 I talk about the planetary model of the atom. There were actually two variations of the planetary model, the Rutherford model and the Bohr model. It was the Bohr model that made these 'very nice predictions' I mention, it gave a relation for the energy levels of hydrogen. It couldn't explain where these energy levels were coming from though, it took Schrödinger's discovery of the total hydrogen wave function to explain their origin.
There were also some other atomic models before the planetary model, for instance the cubic model, the Saturnian model and the plum-pudding model. They are now relevant only in a historic sense.
At 2:03 I simplify the discovery of wave-particle duality in electrons a bit. De Broglie was indeed the first to propose it for electrons, but he was building on previous work by Einstein. Einstein had made a formal definition of wave-particle duality in photons (light), and De Broglie was extending it to matter.
The four situations I list are also more of a hindsight-view that justify De Broglie's pitch. They are: Compton scattering between electrons and photons, the photographic-plate part of the double slit experiment, the crystal-grate part of the double slit experiment and electron free-particle behavior.
At 4:13, I draw eight orbitals of hydrogen as an example, but there are more. Strictly speaking there's an infinite amount of orbitals, of which about the first 80 are important for chemistry and physics. I picked these eight to draw simply because they make nice examples of which shapes hydrogen can take.
Many of those 80 orbitals actually look rather alike. Often you'll have several orbitals that have the same shape, just flipped 90°, or with an additional set of small blobs nested within the big blobs.
The spotty picture I draw at 5:38 of the thousand positions of the electron is somewhat simplified. I draw every position inside the three blobs -- but this is not quite correct. The blobs are what are known as "90%-probability surfaces". Basically, you have a 90% chance of finding the electron within these blobs. The remaining 10% of sightings will fall somewhat outside the blobs. Like any wave, the electron wave function decays slowly and stretches out for quite a while. I didn't want to draw these extra 10%, because I thought it would be confusing.
The argument still holds though: There really is an area in between the blobs where you cannot encounter the electron, called a nodal plane.
At 5:44 I refer to the electron's wave function as 'probability wave function'. This is a slip of the tongue on my part, the phrase is either 'probability distribution' or 'wave function'.
There is also a subtle difference between those two phrases, the probability distribution is the absolute squared of the wave function: P = |Ψ|². But, for the purpose of the video, they are both 'blobby shapes'.
The '40 years of heated debate' I mention at 6:09 was about the interpretation of quantum mechanics, and the philosophical implications. Things like teleportation, determinism and statistical randomness were discussed, leading to several different interpretations, the main ones of which were: The Copenhagen interpretation, the Many Worlds interpretation and Realism.
Einstein (who favored Realism) strongly disliked the statistical, random nature of the wave function, and he summed it up in a famous statement: "I, for one, am convinced that God does not throw dice".
His stance was ultimately disproven in a series of experiments that proved Bell's theorem.
Noooo no more room for notes :(, I have the final notes here: - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
At 7:17 this is the longest current TH-cam video focusing on Erwin Schrödinger's work that never once mentions boxes of felines and I, for one, thank you for that.
Yep, and when they do mention they always misrepresent it
1000%
I kinda love the fact, that he is doing all the maths instead of just saying that there were some calculations :D
@LowJack187 at that point you go and do the research for yourself on how the math works, or try to enroll in a college program/ major for physics and or chemistry. the proof is in the math, you just need a strong enough foundation in science to be able to extrapolate and understand it. This is also true for the rest of the universe's mysteries and quirks, discovered and understood or not. You cant always expect to have information spoon fed and simplified for you. You have to take the initiative to want to understand it for yourself. Reality does not have to be simple in order for it to work properly.
and this reply wasn't to insult you in any way. all im saying is that if you're truly interested in how these things function, you'd have to want to put in the time and effort to learn it. Either way its still incredibly tricky. Richard Feynman said it best "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics."
@LowJack187 *tips MAGA hat*
@LowJack187 ok einstein
@LowJack187 You only say that because you don't understand math. Math is the most reliable language we ever have. I can write a code doing math instructions, and run it 1 million times, and it will give me the same result every time. I can do the same instructions in many different programming languages, and get exactly the same result.
"...ended up with Einstein saying some very angry things about dice."
Love it!
I don't get it
@@Nothingeverything192 When people realized that the electron was kind of "everywhere, until it wasn't", and later the ideas of quantum entanglement emerged, Einstein frowned at the idea that atoms are inherently random. See the double slit experiment, for example.
And he supposedly said this was nonsense because "The Old man doesn't play dice!"; which is often quoted as "God doesn't play dice." He was very unhappy with the idea of randomness in the fundamental building blocks of nature.
@@Nothingeverything192 and in addition to “Monkey Business’” good answer, when he heard about Einstein’s comment, Bohr said: Tell him (Einstein) to stop telling god what to do.”
Pain - you don't get it cos its nonsense - einstein didn't offer an opinion on dice, the subject was quantum theory. Nor was he 'angry'.
@@censorthis-uu6cc - It was a short-quip allegory. Those of us familiar with the subject got it right away. Newbies were left high and dry, but that does not make it "nonsense."
man, I have a master's degree in electrical engineering, and this is the first time somebody was able to present this knowledge in the way I was searching for in the last 20 years.
Well done! This is an excellent explanation!
Hey I have this fiction film that I'm trying to write where a guy tell this theory of time as an single faced 3 dimensional object (like a Klein bottle or something?). I'm not a scientist, just interested in the stuff, I was wondering if you could give some input or whatever, you know casual.
That sounds cool! Unfortunately, I really need to decline for two reasons. First, I don't think I'd have much to add. Second, I'm really busy at the moment :'(
Good luck though!
LGU! :D
The best way to appreciate Scribblegoose's excellentwork is to SUBSCRIBE to his channel.
i agree
Just watched this video again. I'm a physicist, and this is a superb overview of QM, the best popular account I've ever seen. All the complexity is present, but the story is simply told, and beautifully illustrated. This should be required viewing in high school chemistry and physics courses.
How did the electron travel from one blob to another?
shreyansh sharma, the electron didn't travel. Those blobs are just clouds of probability which represent the only regions in which the electron can exist. These blobs are the result of the wave function which exposes the probability of finding the electron in those blobs. When the wave function collapses, the electron will appear to exist in a specific point in those blobs but nowhere in between them as you can see from the image. If anyone more experienced than me thinks I gave a wrong explanation, please correct me.
shreyansh sharma
Schrödinger made up that equation then plugged different values into it and created different models of probability. Of course everything here is theoretical - nothing is concrete. "Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality" - Nicola Tesla. Sorry its all theoretical BS.
in quantum field theory, the electron is not a little ball or point (or a particle) - it is an excitation of the electron field that permeates all of space. When you stop thinking of an electron as a physical object and think of what we call an electron as a local excitation of the electron field, then you realize that asking where the electron does not make sense.
Philip A Covington
"quantum field theory" says it all. All science fiction! Lets think up a theory then we can create a whole field of science around that theory and people can go to university and study that theory and get a PhD on it LOL. You might as well get a PhD in Harry Potter. Its an absurd waste of time. I went to University where we were using chemical equations with H2O....that's also a theory which has just recently been proven to be false. Water is a base element and does not contain hydrogen or oxygen. They teach complete BS. If you learn the BS you can pass and teach someone else the same BS. Schrödinger equation same BS. Lorenz transform more made up BS! I can go on and on. When will people realize its all a scam?
I am a teacher. I sincerely hope you are involved in the teaching profession. You strike me as the type of person that was born a teacher. Thank you !
A teacher is like a comedian. Such inspiration can strike anyone. Sometimes it may happen only once in a person's life. When it does, a good teacher "borrows" it from them and uses it to make the greatest act.
@@KWifler My physics teacher caught me sleeping and said, "XY, wake up!" I said, "I'm not sleeping, I'm concentrating on the subject." Some minutes on, he said, "XY, don't look so concentrated!"
I swear, that changed my attitude towards physics, I never slept in his class again (he was also my math teacher).
?X^|
He is! He’s taught this material to over 800k people!
@@davidstorer4200 who is he? His channel has no information….
You know you're dealing with serious stuff when the equation contains pitchforks!
I love writing psi. Schrodinger's equation looks all greek. I think psi was purposely invented by greeks to scare off non sciency people. Lol
To help us remember the wave equation my buddies and I set it to Beethoven's 'Ode to Joy'. I remember singing it on our way to the pub just before our end of year exams (Electronic Engineering course, second year I think). Amazing to think that a device like the tunnel diode only works because the electron IS a probability function and not a particle, so it can be on either side of the junction without having to cross it.
@PikPobedy Precisely! We picked the melody here, which just about fits "d2 psi by dx squared" etc. th-cam.com/video/q0EjVVjJraA/w-d-xo.html at 1:05
@Ruzaini BinYusof Oi! Oi! Oi!
Oh my gosh you explained this so well.. I mean of course it's still extremely confusing to wrap my head around, but at least I understand why
I've been searching for weeks on a video that explained the wave/particle duality of matter, and this is the only one that has made any sense at all. The others all use bizarre metaphors or mathematical equations that don't give you a satisfying visual. This video was brief and satisfying in its explanation. Well done!
This is also excellent th-cam.com/video/jlEovwE1oHI/w-d-xo.html
Story goes that Schrödinger said during a teaching lesson that electrons follow a wave function.
A student then asked:
"If they follow a wave function, where is the equation?"
In fact, up to that point noone had an equation.
So after the lesson, Schrödinger went home and developped his famous equation which he then presented at the next lesson.
This is what I call genius! 🤯
An equation that cannot be disproven because it cannot be proven. Science worship is comical.
@@pretorious700 it is tested, yanno.
@@pretorious700 huh? did you miss the whole bit on the shapes of the orbitals and how they were derived from the Schrodinger equation? that in itself is a prediction, which makes it able to be falsifiable. furthermore, if it was incorrect, or at the very least unable to make testable predictions, then how could we have derived new technology from it? do lasers work on faith? does your phone work just because you believe it does? LMAO
@@pretorious700 nice bait
@@dfb7450 to be fair, there is certainly philosophical debate to be had. Read Edmund Gettier, is justified true belief knowledge. Just because you have a theory that makes predictions, doesn't make it necessarily known. Newtonian gravity made fantastic predictions and machines were built on its principles for centuries.
Dude... This is the more human, easy explanation of orbitals ever. And even a bit more. This is high quality content! Many physics teachers should learn from this.
I have been sitting for days and nights, randomly reading and watching videos to understand this. You did it in 7 minutes. Dear Sir, I salute you!
Me too. Loads of crap and then suddenly someone makes sense!Thank you.
I've had an interest in physics for 25 years and this is the first time I've seen someone explain so well and so simply both the shape of atoms, why they are that shape and what Schrodinger had to do with it all.
Well done sir!
A tour de force! The clearest, most illustrative, most entertaining explanation of these concepts on the WEB, bar none. I subscribed to your channel solely on the basis of this video. I've watched it over and over not because the ideas don't sink in but because it is so enjoyable.
I sincerely hope you return to do more of these. This is the best and most entertaining explanation I have seen on this topic. I have shared this with my 13 year old son and he was astounded and it really has helped him at school.
That drawing of Heisenberg looks way too confident.
i don't get the joke but i know it's funny so have a like XD
😂
@@stefanwalicord2512 in case you still haven't gotten it, heisenberg has an idea named after him called the heisenberg uncertainty principle. it's funny for someone with the uncertainty principle to in fact a very certain i.e., confident person.
@@oldfrend ooh 😂
I knew about Heisenberg's uncertainty but didn't make the connection. Thanks for taking the time to explain the joke lol
His picture is weird it’s blurry when I’m reading the name but when I’m starring at his face the name is unreadable
Hey mate can you please continue to make videos, 'cause this is absolutely amazing!!
0:04 You lost me at "We all know about quantum mechanics." 😄
@@hrsmp don't/be rude.
@@hrsmp And you aren't welcomed.
@@StefanConstantinDumitrache Thank you, Stefan.
I loved this video so much!! You have a very unique way of explaining things so that the complexity is apparent but one can still understand. Thank you very much! I'm looking forward to see more videos like this.
You can find a lot about quantum mechanics on the internet. A lot of crap. But this little flick is in fact a precious perl for understanding.
Except he uncritically adopted the copehnagen theory of qm
@@deadmeat1471 : Hey, it's a 7-minute video; give him a break. :-)
@@Milesco didnt mean to shit on the video, its a good video.
WHY HAS HE ONLY DONE ONE VIDEO LIKE CMONNNNN
It's not an easy topic
@Skip why don't you tell that to the main comment and not me. Also my response is still accurate
Man your video was just great, i cant believe your understanding of physics is so bright and your video, the way you drew all those faces and the way you solved the equation is freakin good
"Here, let me just quickly bust out accurate sketches of all these great people!"
That was excellent! Great job!
Wow... just wow. What a talent, in explaining and drawing (and writing). It must have cost agest to make some of these drawings. You have got a new subscriber. I just missed the cat.
Great job indeed. If you enjoyed that have you heard of the Minute Physics channel? He does the same thing. You may like it. Best wishes!
True story
Tnx, I will look into it.
Ronald de Rooij
The cat had nothing to do with the Schrödinger equation. It was just a product of Schrödinger's criticism against Born, who interpreted his wave function as a way to find the probability of the electron quite ironically.
Read the story, it's quite interesting
..and Lenny Susskind had a blackboard. :)
This is a GREAT visual demonstration of science going from a Bohr model understanding to a quantum mechanical understanding of the atom. THANK YOU! My chemistry students love it
Can u answer a question about Bohr model plz
As someone who has at times forgot where I was and what I was there for, I'd like to suggest that electrons are simply senile.
That's a good one.
I would counter by arguing that there's no such thing as a particle, and waves are merely the behaviors of a perturbation in a medium.
@@mytharak but you must have faith. Every time someone stops believing an isotope decays and dies.
@@davebox588 thank you for illustrating the point of faith and therefore religion. You can worship the particle and see it as the ultimate and absolute core of all things. You can believe in the God particle of you want to. I'm more interested in a practical and usable model of understanding the core and essence of life, the universe, and everything.
@@mytharak UNBELIEVER!
Bow down before the Lord thy boson lest he fuck you up mightily in his wisdom.
Besides, Life, Universe, Everything has been done hasn't it? I seem to recall a Nobel Prize for 'Pataphysics, no?
I just discovered your channel with this video in my recommendations, your job is absolutely perfect. It's sad to see you only got 7K subscribers since 2013...
This is probably the best explanation I've ever seen.
This was well done. And credit where credit is due. Thank You, very much
Really nice work. I hope you make more of these!
"Mr. Scribblegoose, Thank you very much!"
Super well done! Kudos to whomever did the drawings and graphics!
Came across different videos and sites on this topic and still, I couldn't understand the slightest bit about the equation. UNTIL I WATCHED YOUR VIDEO!!! Thank you so much. ❤️ More power to you and your channel! Subbed :)
You are a legend ! Very nice stuff ! Keep making these please.
Good explanation! No BS, no liquid, just bare minimal well-explained. Hats off!
I can't imagine how many hours it took to produce this. Outstanding job. Thank you.
This is amazing. After years of high school chemistry, I think I finally understand what orbitals are :D
I too "learned" this in college chem, before I took physics! I believe that was the wrong order of instruction. Should have had all math (calc, DiffEq, matrix, etc) first, then physics, then chemistry. Still great refresher, fabulous presentation!
i dont agree. if u do the math first, you have no clue what you are learning. when you learn about the results beforehand, you can keep track more easily and know the goal, so the journey is easier
@@Gytiss93 i dont agree
great arguement.
Honestly unless you're a nuclear chemist you don't care too much about the math behind the orbitals, rather we care about the overlaps (as a bond is an overlapping of orbitals) and thus the general shape as well as what atoms get what orbitals that said it is useful for making predictions on the stability of compounds and the likely of certain reactions but at that point tou start getting into high end research territory.
That was amazing! Clear, nicely done/drawn :) Thank you!
I'll watch more videos like this one, a-plenty.
This is by far the best visual explanation that I've ever seen of quantum mechanics. Thank you so much for this, I finally understand things a little bit better now.
scribblegoose we need more from you!!!!
Very informative, very funny, a creative and 'feel-good' way to explain the subject. A pleasure to watch.
Seriously great video presentation! Thanks for taking the time!
This was flabbergasting!! For the lack of a better word. I truly admire you effort, without fancy animation skills, you did better with pencil and a blackboard than the greatest channels that explain physics in a coherent way!! I much appreciate you
Thank you so much for this video! Trying to teach quantum mechanics and orbitals to high school chemistry is proving to be much more difficult than anticipated. This video helped them to understand explaining in a different way than myself or the text.
Cynthia Dieterle I like to point out that there are no electrons skipping from one orbit to another. There are areas of vibrating energy that seems like an electron when the atom is interacted with. We know the nature of electrons is wave-like before there is an interaction.
I think about it kind of like a lightning strike. Big areas of energy in the clouds and areas of earthing that coalesces into a lightning bolt that looks and measures quite like its own phenomena separate from all that energy spread out in a larger area.
such a nice explanation...I now regret watching many videos on quantum mechanics...this one was sufficient!!
Hi, thanks for this brilliantly explained video. I immediately subscribed, only to be slightly disappointed that you only have three videos, and this being the only science one. May I say, that you can really have an exciting and successful TH-cam channel focused on more such videos, if it ever interests you enough. Either way, thanks again!
This is a superb video!!! I'm amazed by the presentation -- it's graphics, pacing, efficiency, effectiveness -- as well as the subject matter. Great job, and I too am subscribing now that I happened upon this. Thanks
You touched that quantuum-mechanics-wave-stuff topic from the side I've never encountered :) shame that video is from year ago, and I suppose we won't see more of them. Anyway, it was interesting, thanks for that :)
Very good explanation
This is a really well made and enjoyable educational video. Is there any chance there could be more content like this in the future as well? It's really nice watching you draw these things :D
Absolutely brilliant explanation and video - Thankyou so much - I hope this is the beginning of something great on your TH-cam channel
This was one of the most mind blowing physics trivia I've came across in a long time...
So, basically....it's almost like an electron is like a pattern of waves in the sea...this is where the "field" idea probably is coming from too, the electron is midway between the water drop and the sea waves..
they should have named it as the field function rather than wave function because in reality nothing is waving there.
"If you think you understand quantum physics you don't"- Richard Feynman
This video is beyond amazing, it is just simple and complicated at the same time. I real badly want more videos from this same person. Why did you stop making them? :'(
Sir, I just hope there's a high probability of your wave function collapsing and dropping some more sweet vids like these. This was superb!
This is great! More videos like this please. :)
HOLY SHIT.. after watching this video it all came together..
im just as confused as i was when i started watching it
Incredible drawings and excellent explanation. Thank you so very for presenting their work in clear, concise and understandable way.
Sterling explanation!! I hope of more new videos from you!
IF YOURE ALIVE PLEASE POST MORE CHEM VIDEOS. This was a superb explanation.
This is such a cliffhanger. Like, I'm still wondering if they teleport to the other blobs or what :S
This channel is underrated!! Excellent explanation and drawing !!
Excellent content. Light-hearted, informative, not very dense. Excellent as an introductory point for those curious about quantum mechanics. My first contact with this field, which I love despite not being very good at maths myself, was very involved with the mathematical part. I have struggled for years, unable to access a comprehensive, more pallatable and friendly picture of the whole field. That you took the time to think it through and provide your viewers with that, I am very grateful.
Anyone watching in 2020 and still saying, "say what"?
He didn't explain wave function very well at all.
Kids these days know all these things.
@Tyler Wilson atheist scientist? You moron, science doesn't care whether you're atheist or not. Great minds like Einstein were theist!
Amazing effort in the 7 mins you give your self.
Best quantum physics explanation I’ve ever seen. I’ve learned this several times but this video made understand even the basic concepts at a more fundamental level - thanks!
Before watching this, I wouldn't have thought it possible to condense this subject into just about 7 minutes and still make sense. Great job!
At some point in the future.... a scientist will inevitably say.... "no, it's not that at all".
It would likely be an extension to the mechanics (or even a completely different field) rather than replacing them entirely.
oh my godddddd i have to click like to this video, not because how mathmatically helpful it is, but becuase how cute it is!!!!!!! Mr. Schribblegoose, thank you very much
Excellent. I've been looking for this explanation of the wave function and orbitals for a very long time.
Seriously, amazing explanation, and fun visuals. Super helpful way to keep people's attention
This is the first video on this subject that actually explains this in a clear and concise manner. Mad props to you dude, this is very well made!
More physics please!! This is brilliant.
We need to do something about the planet first, have you seen what plastic does to sea turtles?
Just discovered this. Brilliant video, brilliant channel. Thank you. Subscribed!
Omg I finally understood wtf is an orbital...wew.... U seriously deserve a lot of views.....
Terrific overview. A pleasure to watch.
This is such a great video, bridging years of my schooling which never really linked the various disciplines so clearly.
Please make another video about the gaps between the probability clouds!
I love your presentation style. Great video!
good presentation
I am just amazed by the fact that these scientists were students like us then how in the world did they do all this.
They were not just like us, they benefitted from a much higher standard of education. For example, they could form short sentences without grammatical mistakes, eg 'I am just amazed by the fact these scientists were students like us. How in the world did they do all this?'
Nowdays you will find very few 'students' that have been educated to such a basic level - even people that write articles for a living are liable to turn out gibberish. The elites decided decades ago to continually & incrementally reduce educational quality as higher education became more available to the masses. They want clock-punchers and conformists, not intellectual rivals.
Great video! Hope to find more of your work.
Makes me so excited to learn science and all of its implications. Amazing video, sir!
Let me join the chorus of praise, as your explanation finally put it all together for me. One minor caveat, however, is that you used a philosophical term incorrectly: "begging the question" is a term reserved for a specific type of faulty logic, although lately it is being misused quite often that it may cease to be so. It is better to say, it "raises" the question.
which /begs the question/: if more people know a term for its incorrect use than its correct use, at which point does it become colloquially valid usage? /literally/
When you sum all wave functions of the hydrogen you got a symetric form of a ball. This is really important fact! There is no space preference.
Wow you literally helped explain this concept to me in 10 minutes than my inorganic chemistry who spent an entire semester confusing me more about orbital shapes and quantum mechanics. Thank you!
Dude, this a beautiful video and explanation.
Congratulations on being so good in explaining things.
Very nice video explanation, just one question that seems to me to be left unanswered: so how does the electron "travel" between blobby areas?
One way to explain it is there are dimensions that we cannot see. The areas would all be touching but are just touching in other dimensions.
Doesn’t need to - those are just regions where you won’t find an electron, the other ‘blobs’ are where an electron is likely to be - it doesn’t need to travel...
Double slit experiment says hello! There are no electrons until detection, just a wave#like phenomena. IOW, there are areas of energetic vibrations that can seem like an electron when interacted with. Oxygen has enough energy in its electron clouds to seem like 5 electrons, etc.
AMAZING!!!!! God bless you
Thanks for taking the time to make this 🙏🏼😊
What a superb explanation. You cartoons are really first class, both amusing and informative.
WANTED: Schrodinger's cat, dead and alive.
You mean dead and alive?
Schrodingers Cat was a thought experiment thought by Schrodinger, explaining how, like a quantam state, if you leave a cat unobersved in a box, which through something like a decay of the atom the cat would die from a poisonous flask. After a while, the cat would be in a state in which it would be both dead and alive, but once observed the quantam state would collapse, leaving the cat either dead or alive.
Yeah, I know.
No matter what, that cat died ages ago.
...or did he?
And this is why I join Heisenberg's and Shroedinger's ghosts laughing when I hear some news report that someone has photographed/imaged an atom.
Well it's of course a simplification for the masses. What they actually shoot is output of electron flow from electron microscope, but that would be boring.
How do you define an image? There are many imaging techniques that can see individual atoms.
@@thecsslife No you can't, the best you can get is an atomic force microscope and it only measures the repulsive field of the electrons or a tunnelling electron microscope that only measures the areas of electrical potential to build an image.
Not to mention that you are seeing those areas blurred because of Heisenberg and natural oscillation
Michael Clark it’s still an image though, don’t really see the problem! We “photograph” nebulas in space as well by combining different measurements, they of course don’t look like that IRL, but like thecsslife said, all about definition I guess
Thing is, on a level of atoms there is nothing but atoms. So yeah, whatever image by whichever means is obtained - those are clearly atoms.
This is the best video on the topic at this level that I have ever seen. Good job!
Holy crap this is fantastic! Please do more!
Can u do more??? PLease
we need moooooaar
You are incredibly skilled in sketching and math at the same time...It's awesome!!
Your video has given me so many ideas. So many interesting thoughts. I have a few ideas now about what is actually happening and I will try to find some equations.
Interestingly, Schrödinger's cat both was, and wasn't in this video.
Yeah, that people naturally need and don't need atomic studies. There's a toughy. Though, it can be applied first research has made Schrodinger's equation and it is the only way to see atomics. So, this is one sided as a debate from the very start, which defines the debate, and at the ratio descales the debate limiting the answer on the whole considerably. You will always get a less than 1% answer of any put query. A math picture, this made an original comment.
I noticed Schrodinger's smile was very... feline. Subtle, but I believe intentional
It was true before I watched the video. I watched the video, and the cat isn't in :(