Seeing Subatomic Particles With the Naked Eye | Earth Science
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 10 เม.ย. 2017
- With some ingenuity, you can see subatomic particles with the naked eye. All you need is a water bottle, some alcohol, dry ice...and a radioactive source.
Subscribe to Earth Science for more fascinating science videos - bit.ly/SubscribeToEarthLab
All the best Earth Science videos bit.ly/EarthLabOriginals
Best of BBC Earth videos bit.ly/TheBestOfBBCEarthVideos
Professor Brian Cox is going in search of the best of British science. Introducing his science heroes, Brian visits the places where they made their discoveries, recreating their experiments and examining their legacy to their scientific descendants.
Here at BBC Earth Science we answer all your curious questions about science in the world around you. If there’s a question you have that we haven’t yet answered or an experiment you’d like us to try let us know in the comments on any of our videos and it could be answered by one of our Earth Science experts. - บันเทิง
I think that experiment might've been the single most coolest thing I've ever seen in my life!
juuonse me 2
Agreed!
agreed
Have u ever seen a pzzy
@@sosadagod6963 AHAHAHAA HAHAHA-HAA..!!!🤣
This is one of the finest videos I have ever seen on TH-cam!!!!
this guy made me fall in love with cox
Thats uhh... you know theres a site for that stuff ;///
Wow such simplicity. I've nver understood any other explanations because everyone out there is trying to sound smart but this has got in covered in less than 4min. Brilliant!
I had a similar interaction with som particles, I was on my back on the floor outside and as I was looking to the clouds I could see small particles clashing with each other at a rapid paste. I try to focus dead center to see if I could get a foto graphic picture with my brain. But still they was so fast.
Did the particles looked like small circulars lights?
@@TheYoli182 yes round but at the same time it look like small sparkles just crashing with each other.
It might have been white blood cells flowing past the retina.
I see them everytime. Just googled
Deep thought . This explains why we as Humans look for a reaction from others and if we are ignored especially as kids , it bothers us , we feel a discomfort as our energy is not received in a loving way (Love must be an noble gas element) and we feel as if we don’t exist without the reaction of another Towards us. A parents energy , given to a kid changes their chemistry or their nucleus .. so i think , a soul needs a chemical reaction with another soul. And that’s why humans turn to an invisible God and then become devoted to this Spirit become when we look to God our chemistry changes as our neutrons collide with Gods hydrogen
Hmm!
This is good
It's even simpler: Human beings experience something and their minds find a reason for or explanation for it from the things man already knows and/or the closest resembling idea or thing. In this case, as in many others like it if not all, of course the commonest one is God...or angels, or ufos, or demons, or fairies, or hallucination, drug effects, etc. etc. That's it. And perhaps they are right, but without an explanation at all, the human being's mind still subconsciously or on its own say, files the unknown into a known category. Makes sense as well, doesn't it? ☺
"If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration."
Waves.
😂If the Universe held even one secret, in the truest sense of the word, do you think anyone of us would be able to find it, that the Universe would even hand it over, not keep it a secret...my point is the Universe has no secrets.
you can observe subatomitic particles if you look into a deep blue sky it looks like bright micro lights that dance and are spinning i have seen it for years your eyes can observe the electrosphear 300 volts is a consistant pattern unless there is low pressure it drops to 150 then 75 then 25 then 0 thats the sticky feeling you get before a storm....
I just thought I had bad eyes like when people see floaters. I wonder if floaters are subatomic particles
i can see them when i allow my eyes not to converge by looking watching the waves they are just like the video except more brilliant what does it mean?
@@Oakly1152 they're literally your veins and capillaries in your eyes. and the circles could be explained as cells?
Seen it too
You can also if you steady your eyes and body and look at pure white snow in the cold - particles 'appear' to pop in and shoot out like in this video
Diana Ross's 'Chain Reaction' popped into my head at the end haha
Is this experiment really true? Can believe it. But it is facinating.
Thank you for the understanding , Prof Cox ,
plz continue .
If you stare to the sky on a 60 degree angle and adjust your focus... I know I can see tiny blue particles almost looking like blue microscopic sparkles floating around everywhere. Its cool but most people think you're crazy when you tell them.
On a sunny day you can see them floating in the air . But to see them I have to keep my eyes open for longer than 20 seconds then I start to see them
is that dust particles, a cool thing is ice particles
Dust
Energy is fascinating
Dear BBC Earth Lab, there seem to be two videos here. One about Ernest Rutherford's experiments, the consciousness of which will incite thought in multiple directions. If you end it at 2:23 we can discuss the phenomenon and process in the cloud chamber without having to focus on how these observations were harnessed. Perhaps the longer version can screen under a new and separate title that refers specifically to uranium, barium and krypton. Beautifully produced.
He's cute. Interesting
Groovy!
I can see water particles when it's very close to my eye
Really? How so?
@@josuepena8284 at shower water on the eyelashes look into the lamp and focus
@@RatChad those are definitely water drops bro... there are plenty of water molecules in them
soo cooll man
Why does a cloud chamber even work? Arent't subatomic particles too small to interact with the vapor in the chamber.
They are! This is just lies!! What you see is their tracks. We will *never ever* be able to see the subatomic particles directly, sub-atomic particles are mental constructs obtained by physicists with thinking on the observations of their presence, what we see with our detection equipment are the effects of the presence of sub-atomic particles. With everything in the micro micro micro world of sub-atomic particles, it is seeing through their effect in the environment, we devise to in a way place the sub-atomic particles into, and we observe then their result i.e. effect supposedly caused by their presence in the environment. One theory states that the resolution required to "see" subatomic particles is very high (
I see cox, I click.
Anyone who reads or sees this, just know: TROLL😂
How did he know what he was seeing was a single particle? since subatomic particles are billions of times smaller than is possible to see with the naked eye.
and how did he know one from another?
Agreed, But god forbid if we challenge mainstream dogma..Op. I mean science
@@Bruvva_initiate Science by it's very nature has no dogma. Experiments are always being challenged and have to be replicated to become accepted by other scientists. Only then does it become mainstream.
@@soupbonep I can certainly see your point and I agree, my comment was rather narrow. Thank you sir
@@Bruvva_initiate You are very welcome!🙂
This is just lies!! What you see is their tracks. We will *never ever* be able to see the subatomic particles directly, sub-atomic particles are mental constructs obtained by physicists with thinking on the observations of their presence, what we see with our detection equipment are the effects of the presence of sub-atomic particles. With everything in the micro micro micro world of sub-atomic particles, it is seeing through their effect in the environment, we devise to in a way place the sub-atomic particles into, and we observe then their result i.e. effect supposedly caused by their presence in the environment. One theory states that the resolution required to "see" subatomic particles is very high (
Cox leave BBC... go private on TH-cam
Prof Cox ::: Snape
I think he's talking about simulating not actually seeing an atom with naked eye.
I BELIEVE, THAT, THE HUMAN MIND, CAN FIND TIME TRAVEL MORE FEASIBLE. CAN HARFLY WAIT TIL Q-PHYSICS WILL CONQUER LEVITATION AND AIR TRANSPORT.
This looks like the same particles me and my husband seen the other morning with the bright sun up, and it was very cold outside, can you tell me what we were looking at?
urm water vapor?
I can see this with my naked eye when I want too
Astigmatism? Cause I have server astigmatism and I also can see particles in the air when I’m not ignoring them.
@@heroicflows9691 the Buddha saw it. It's called kalapas.
@@heroicflows9691 mainstream loves to give you a sickness and subscribe to pills that destroy your inner temple
@@phenomsmithjr they are referring to chemistry and optics, not religion. Remember: It's not science if you involve religion into it.
@@sackofwetmice428 what? Truth is above all religion. I said nothing about religion. You aren't aware of who you're talking to and what I Know and have seen. Educate yourself.
radioactive sauce. mmmmmmm
when are u gonna find aliens brian
Kunt Fart
He already did but we are not ready for it yet
when I was a child playing outside. I stared at the sun once for a little bit. When I looked away in front of me, I was able to see those. I told my brother and he just looked at me and asked how did I know what they were. I told I had saw it a few days later on a science magazine commercial. 🤷🏾♂️ Strange….never was able to do it again.
Why fission use natural log. Ln.
viva españa
Which means that matter is in a continual flux state.
Guys i've been trying to search video about looking particle with my own eyes. Cuz i feel like my eyes can see cell or atom or so little structural when theres a light come straight to my eyes, it worked like a microscope. But i never find a video that discuss things about this.
It happens to everyone , they are not subatomic particles , they are called eye floaters , this happens when very small part of tissue or a rbc comes in front of our retina within our eye and we can see it when we get direct light in our eyes. At this point our eyes somewhat do act like microscope but they are no where as powerful as to see subatomic particles
If you want more information just search eye floaters on youtube
You can its not a floater
see a psychiatrist, wacko
I have seen them with the naked eye. I'll just say, yes it's possible, but rare...yet not worth much but a really cool experience, or a story to tell your friends. Eye floaters are black or greyish, whereas Light is rainbow-colored, just one difference fyi😊
Here we go ! Naked
What was the radioactive source in this experiment? Is it safe to buy?
You can buy Thorium online, although it's very expensive, and only in limited quantities as foil or wire.
Thoriated tungsten welding rod. Cheap, easily available commodity item.
And the experiment is nothing but lies!! What you see is their tracks. We will *never ever* be able to see the subatomic particles directly, sub-atomic particles are mental constructs obtained by physicists with thinking on the observations of their presence, what we see with our detection equipment are the effects of the presence of sub-atomic particles. With everything in the micro micro micro world of sub-atomic particles, it is seeing through their effect in the environment, we devise to in a way place the sub-atomic particles into, and we observe then their result i.e. effect supposedly caused by their presence in the environment. One theory states that the resolution required to "see" subatomic particles is very high (
Sooo we actually haven’t seen an electron after all. Got it
If it's such a pain in the ass to observe particles colliding why not pace radio active particles in the chamber at a distance from each other so that there is an increase in the probability of a particle collision.
Fraud
Shame that all the fragments were Krypton, Barium... whilst these are most likely from all the options, there are so many options that most times the fission fragments differ. (Not contradictory). This is one reason why the waste product of fission is tough to deal with.
It's also the principle behind nuclear power. Why did you go to atomic weapons as an example instead of the safest, most sustainable form of green power? How do you think your impact would be different is you had instead promoted beneficial technology? Please consider this next time you teach it.
jordana309 better shows the amount of energy released. I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying just suggesting why they may have took that route
Thanks for your suggestion. It is more impressive to see tons of energy released in seconds than over a year...good point.
Still, the psychological impact is not wonderful. I'm a nuclear engineering student, and so I'm very sensitive to how such a perception of nuclear is killing off the most helpful energy innovation in the history of man (the reason I got into nuclear engineering).
jordana309 I'm not sure you can really call it green energy since the waste takes so long to decay to safe activity levels. I'm much more of a fan of wind power, however storage is obviously a big issue for it. Alternatively, fusion is pretty clean, once we get that working, and has probably got far more potential than fission does, I would argue.
But granted, the bomb wasn't the most pleasant example that could have been given.
andymcl92, OneBagTravel
First, if you look at the waste generated producing solar panels and wind turbines, the spent fuel that's thrown away in nuclear is pretty on par, or even better, yet we still call those "green". Wind and solar require a lot of exotic materials (rare earths, nearly 1000 pounds of neodymium magnets for one turbine) which are so toxic and harmful to refine that only one place on earth is willing to destroy their environment to do so. And solar panels? We have mountains of dead panels (they only last 10-20 years) just sitting around, leaching toxic elements into the water because nobody thought of an end game for them.
Nuclear thought of an end game, and we have several really effective ones, but we aren't allowed to use them. For example, we can build reactors (called "fast" reactors) that use the water reactor's spent fuel as it's fuel, and the time to safe decay for the spent fuel from those reactors is around 300 years, with almost no transuranics. The spent fuel also produces a lot of heat, which can be used to generate power in other ways (like as an augmentation for thermal updraft towers). The fact that we waste an incredible amount of heat baffles me. Additionally, we can be using reactors to breed useful elements, like radioactive elements for medicine, food treatment, sanitation, sensing, etc, but we don't because people are so afraid of radiation that they turn to chemical solutions with unknown long-term effects or very expensive alternatives. In fact, we have a cure for many cancers called targeted alpha therapy that is the cancer cure stuff of dreams. But nobody is willing to build a reactor that can produce the needed isotopes, so we rely on chemotherapy and thousands needlessly suffer.
Any problems in nuclear are not technical ones, you can trust me on that one.
Fusion is a moonshot, and can't come close to competing with fission due to efficiency (energy in vs energy out). The problem is we've been obsessed with water-based reactors for too long. They are the absolute worst reactor technology we could have adopted for civilian power, and yet even so they are still the best thing for energy that exists in terms of power out to waste produced. But politics won't allow better alternatives to be built in the US.
Now don't get me wrong--I'm not anti-solar or wind. But when you look at the entire life cycle, not just one aspect, nothing competes with nuclear. People often just focus on a single aspect--the generation capabilities of wind or solar, for example, with no regard for manufacture, disposal, or the nightmare of integrating them into the grid. Or of the spent fuel for nuclear, without any regard to the incredible amounts of steady, reliable, emissions-free power it produces. We need to consider the entire life cycle of the production method.
jordana309 I'm by no means an expert in any of these areas, and will happily bow to your superior knowledge on (especially) fission. However, here in Scotland we have wind pretty well embedded in the grid and I believe we were fairly recently running entirely on wind for a day or so. To my knowledge, the initial footprint isn't as terrible as you seem to suggest and the upkeep is relatively small, and it also leaves vast areas of land largely free for flora and fauna to flourish. [Try saying that 10times fast!] Whitelee Windfarm (near me) is a gigantic moor that can't be built upon for housing etc. and so the wildlife is protected.
And at the moment, I know fusion isn't efficient enough, but it does have great potential, and I believe the Jet reactor is coming close to being efficient (though for tiny periods of time). Plus, a byproduct is Helium which also has the potential to be immensely useful in medicine, and is at present a finite resource.
What is the guy name?
Feynman diagram, is what I see.
0:50
Lies!! What you see is their tracks. We will *never ever* be able to see the subatomic particles directly, sub-atomic particles are mental constructs obtained by physicists with thinking on the observations of their presence, what we see with our detection equipment are the effects of the presence of sub-atomic particles. With everything in the micro micro micro world of sub-atomic particles, it is seeing through their effect in the environment, we devise to in a way place the sub-atomic particles into, and we observe then their result i.e. effect supposedly caused by their presence in the environment. One theory states that the resolution required to "see" subatomic particles is very high (
😂I can see causes.
Whoa surprise ending. And the FBI just rang my doorbell.
Tell them to wait until CIA guy arrive, they are on the way
Big chungus
???
So instead of a bomb, how about converting trash to energy and renewable materials. :D
Coby Randal depends on the relative binding energy of the nuclei involved. Generally speaking.... not gonna work.
Best option for future energy generation is fusion (search: ITER) - waste product is Helium
murk1e
fusion reactors are not that clean, at least with our current technologies. I think the future is thorium, fairly abundant and chance of meltdown is nearly zero
maelgugi they are much, much cleaner than fission. Orders of magnitude cleaner - and like fission, no CO2
(For anyone not in the know, the reactor vessel is irradiated - much lower volume of material than for fission)
A couple days after you guys posted, this new article on Fusion came up. I thought you might like to see it:
www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/04/12/the-future-of-energy-isnt-fossil-fuels-or-renewables-its-nuclear-fusion/#f27b7673beeb
Its not wave huhh...
My idea
British jerk wad
What happened to john wick.
twost
First!
Bodell91 Congratulations! A member of the team will be along shortly with your prize.
Justin bieber