I have no idea how this guy isn’t more popular in the TH-cam community. Absolutely fantastic at breaking down complex concepts into an easy-to-digest form.
Wow... That speech right there, is what all my science teachers been missing to tell me. Now I am more open minded and don't question the constants in science. As it is, what it is.
My new favorite Quantum guy!! Quantum physics is tough enough to put your head around, but there are some physicists who seem to intentionally make it sound like Russian, Greek, Japanese and Aramaic all rolled into one!!! Dave is easy to listen to and make his ideas understandable!!!
Lmao did not expect to go through an existential crisis and questioning my reality when I was only here to learn about Chemistry. I appreciate it though. Thanks Dave!
This is honestly the best explanatory description, relating to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, that I have ever seen!! Thank you for your knowledge and time! 😊☺️
Damn, that last part of the video should be seen by everyone on the planet. Thanks for doing such a good job Dave! You kind of saved me through my chem course :D
thank you thank you thank you!!! for discussing the bigger picture. my teacher glosses over these really rich concepts and spends 4 hours doing plug and chug equations. there's no appreciation for reality. i knew something was up. Youre right, mathematics is the window unto an otherwise un-observable reality.
I'm a biochemistry student, I just have a random question in my mind. Question is "What goes on when a photon of light is absorbed by the electron revolving around a nucleus in a atom?" It becomes part of electron? or it causes the electron to move fast? or anything else? please if you can make it somewhat clear. This thing is the corner stone that electrons may probably go to higher shells, orbitals or at least they may become excited after absorbing radiations, tell me more basic, what goes on at ultra-subatomic level.
+Usman Ali it's a good question, as best i can say, the photon is absorbed by the electron, as the photon has no mass, only kinetic energy, so the kinetic energy of the photon is transformed into additional potential energy of the electron, which is why it will move up some number of shells. to say anything more fundamental than that would require some heavy duty physics knowledge!
Professor Dave Explains But I'm not able to comprehend the weird fact associated with photon, having no mass it should not possess any amount of kinetic energy but who knows what is going on there.
There is a need for common sense in all cases :) But I get your point of course. In the world of the small things, things are largely different. Well explained! Thank you!
No, they aren't different. Quantum mechanical effects are NOT restricted to "small thing" and the usual notions of physics (energy, momentum, angular momentum and charge) work exactly the same.
Shrodinger was brilliant and came up with the wave equation as Einstein came up with Relativity but he, Shrodinger, did NOT invent quantum mechanics. There were many others who contributed significantly to its development. Shrodinger is just a voice in a chorus of other great physicists who can sing the words to the song of Quantum Theory. You said many good things that were very thought provoking.
Professor Dave, Thanks for the videos. I'm a mathematician/physicist searching TH-cam to see how people teach QM to laymen. Nature is most definitely not governed by mathematical equations. If you're a Theist or Deist, nature is governed by God. If you're a materialist, nature's laws just are, without explanation. Mathematical equations are a way for a conscious observer to understand how nature operates. Mathematical formulas are abstract, they are not agents and completely incapable of governing anything.
I beg to differ. If the gravitational force drops off by the inverse of the square of the distance, that's a mathematical relationship that's inherent in the universe. The symbols we use to express that relationship in the form of an equation is man-made, but the mathematics being represented is natural. An alien civilization would reach the same conclusion, because gravity behaves this way regardless of who or what is observing. Even in the case of a deist, you can believe that god created the math, but either way, the math is there, and exists in a real sense whether anyone is there to observe it or not. If a mathematical equation predicts the behavior of a system flawlessly, to high degrees of precision, how can it not have a deep correlation with reality? Also, check out my modern physics series for a much more thorough QM investigation. This one is for chemistry students.
Using the baseball analogy. If you took a photo and saw a baseball in the air, you wouldnt know if it was from playing catch, just got hit by a batter, or of a fan threw it on the field, or if the catcher was throwing it to the pitcher, or the ump throwing it back to a pitcher.
Professor, question to Louis de Broglie 's equation What velocity is used into calculation. How the ball get ramda when it has no move compare to the earth (velocity = 0 m/s).
i think what you're asking is what is the wavelength of a particle at rest? good question! since wavelength does indeed depend on momentum and therefore velocity. if velocity was zero, the wavelength would be undefined, so the short answer is that no real particle can be truly and completely at rest! there must be some momentum. at least that's my best attempt!
Professor, in your example when you calculate the wave length of the ball, what value of velocity being used? Thank you. BTW, I promised to go through all your vdo and some content I entertained it more than 2 times, Keep sharing your knowledge!!!
I have a question. What happens if the wavelength is shorter than the Planck length. The Planck length is the shortest possible distance in the universe. Does it just not have a wavelength at this point? What exactly happens here?
WPD is something I've always struggled to understand not really because I don't comprehend what it could be but rather I'm confused on what exactly it means. Is a 'probability density function' simply a wave, a gradient of the probability of where a discrete particle may be found within at any given time, or is it that the 'particle' itself exists as a gradient of influence, a wave? The existence of particles as probability densities and waves is so ubiquitous in quantum mechanics, but how exactly, how that fits together, I feel like varying degrees of watered-down explanations really confuse things. Things really get muddled when you get into things like quantum entanglement and tunneling, for example.
There are no particles. Quanta are small amounts of energy. When we detect one we get a "click" in a detector. The "clicks", i.e. when and where these detectors absorb a small amount of energy seem random. We therefor start to collect statistical information (histograms) about them. In the limit of large numbers these histograms become probability distributions. The theory predicts these probability distributions as the product between a wave function, its conjugate complex and a Hermitian projection operator that represents the absorption spectrum of a physical measurement system (the detector). What happens is that almost nobody who makes these videos actually knows WHY the formalism looks the way it looks. For that you would have to read Heisenberg's matrix mechanics papers, where this is somewhat laid out in a language that still relates to physics and that will give you a bit of physics intuition about what is happening. A few years later a mathematician called von Neuman generalized the relatively straight forward physics and math in Heisenberg's papers to an abstract mathematical formalism that comes from functional analysis (the mathematics of linear operators and function spaces). At that point the connection to measured quanta of energy disappears from the textbooks and is replaced with a general notion of "quantum mechanical state". You also lose a sense that this "state" means the state of a quantum mechanical ensemble, i.e. an infinite repetition of the same experiment. Instead it starts looking like as if the wave function relates to an individual system. That is complete nonsense. It was never constructed that way, neither by Heisenberg nor by von Neumann. It's just easy to loose sight of the translation between physical measurements ("clicks") and mathematical formulas.
Why do you say that it is a fundamental property of matter to obey the uncertainty principal? It makes sense that if we have equipment that has to disturb something in order to measure it, that would be the cause if the uncertainty would it not? also, if you say that matter is a wave, what is it a wave of? Based off of ky understanding of waves, a wave is representation of a repetitive change in state measured from reference state, such as the compression and decompression of air(sound) or the change in height of water.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains Ah, that makes sense. Thanks, I'll have to dig around your channel some more. I didn't realize you had so much more content on this topic (Insert embarrassed emoji here)
Haha don't be embarrassed about not understanding quantum mechanics! It's incredibly difficult to understand. I don't really understand it either. But someone is helping me make more in depth content on the subject now so I am learning.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains Yeah I saw that. I saw you are going over the Schrodinger equation in your Modern Physics series. that's really cool because a lot of the strange notation seems to scare people off of these kinds of topics (that was once me) and other explanations from other sources require lots of prerequisite knowledge for the explainer is under the impression you already know another piece of information. You seem to have already placed the building blocks for understanding it. I'll definitely dig around your channel more often.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains Oh, and I knew I was forgetting something.... Thank you so much. You are very much appreciated. Im sure you hear that a lot but like, seriously.
I was just meditating now. I don't think an electron is both a particle and a wave, I would rather carefully say it has both particle and wave characteristics. It could however be something different . One way we might be able to find this out is if we open our minds to other possibilities rather than allow ourselves to be led continuously to a door that may never open
our mathematical symbolism, yes, but nature abides by mathematical relationships, and we discover them, so it would be foolish to pretend that mathematics came into existence only with our need to communicate these relationships. a mere semantic issue, it seems.
well the wave function describes a quantum system, it's not a wave itself. if by matter wave you mean something like a wave of water, that's not a quantum system at all.
it's a good question, and it really comes down to quantum mechanical calculations. in a qualitative way, it's just that s orbitals are spherical and will be closer to the nucleus than p or d orbitals of the same energy level, which are lobes that extend outwards, and it just happens to be that the 4s is slightly lower in energy than the 3d orbitals.
I'm still angry at my middle school chemistry teacher telling me that electrons don't have mass. I spent *so* much time trying to wrap my head around that and what that could mean conceptually. Years later I saw reference to the mass of an electron in a science populariser book, and I was like, "What? Elections don't have mass. That's the whole point!"
@@shrimpflea Surely, an electron has a mass! But for now it seems quite meaningless to assign a structure to it. An electron is most often described as a point object, but what is a point in physics or reality? A point is a pure mathematical concept.
@@hpp6116 I don't disagree with that. IMO it's a wave not a point object, even when the wave function collapses it's still a wave with a degree of uncertainty. Stay safe.
Im not one to question math, but in light of a topic as complex as the nature of an electron, is not stating "only believe the math," just a simple cop out to avoid having to answer the question in more serious detail?
My answer would be sort of. We can simultaneously acknowledge that the mathematics is correct but question what is the mechanism that causes those mathematical relationships. Newton himself figured out that gravity follows an inverse square law but he admitted that he could not explain what causes that inverse square law to occur. He had no idea what generated the force or how/if the force could be transmitted instantly. It wasn't until Einstein that we had a physical mechanism that explains how gravity works, where the inverse square law falls out of it. If we had chosen to just stop at what Newton did and "accept the math" then we wouldn't gain a greater level of understanding of the universe. With Quantum Mechanics it isn't as simple as finding a better theory that makes more sense to us though. Even though there stands to be better models in the future, it has throughly been proven that the universe doesn't operate in ways that intuitively make sense to us. Thanks to Bell's theorem and experiments that followed from it, physicists have abandoned local realism. The idea that things like photons and particles have definite values before they are measured or experience certain interactions. That idea is deeply disturbing at first and sounds absurd but that's what the overwhelming evidence points to.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains But in reality, a particle is actually at a given (smallest possible) moment in time at one place only, correct? But then how is it not a particle? Doesn't a wave-like nature mean that the particle is actually NOT at one place only? But that couldn't be correct, or could it?
A particle is often treated like a point or small sphere but in reality it's more like a wave and only takes on point-like properties when it interacts with something or is measured. In quantum mechanics the wavelike nature of the particle is represented by a wave function and it tells you the probability that you'll measure the position of the particle over some interval or area in space at a given time. That's not even the weirdest part though. The truly bizarre thing is that a particle isn't actually anywhere before it is measured or it experiences some interaction. The interaction causes the wave function to collapse (according to the Copenhagen interpretation) and take on a single position. This is called the Orthodox position (or Copenhagen Interpretation) of Quantum Mechanics and it was proven by John Bell in the 1960's. Einstein and other physicists believed that particles take on definite quantities such as position, momentum and others, outside of the limitations of what we could know from Quantum Mechanics. These quantities were called local hidden variables and Bell's theorem showed mathematically that there are no local hidden variable theories that are compatible with Quantum Mechanics, meaning that these variables don't take on definite values until the particle is measured. This has experimentally been shown to be necessity with quantum entanglement. If a positron is entangled with an electron, for example, changing the spin state of one of the particles will instantly change the spin state of the other particle. Therefore either the information travels faster than the speed of light and violates relativity or the act of measurment forces the entangled particles to take on definite spin states. Before Bell's theorems was derived and experiments were done to corroborate it, Physicists had three stances on Quantum Mechanics. Einstein and others took the Realist position where the particle does have a position before measurment, Quantum Mechanics just isn't able to predict it. Bohr and other physcists that kickstarted Quantum Mechnaics took the Orthodx position I already metnioned. And if push comed to shove in an argument, some physicist would abandon the Orthodox positon and take on the Agonistic position. This position essentially argued, "the position of the particle before a measurment is made is outside the rhealm of observation and therefore science." It was considered a metaphysical concern not a scientific one and therefore wasn't worth serious discussion. However Bell proved this to be false. Either the Realists were right and Quantum Mechnaics is wrong or the Realists are wrong and Quantum Mechanics is correct. Experiment supported Qunatum Mechanics over Classical assumptions, so Bohr's side ended of the argument ended up being right, at least empirically. Other interpretations of Quantum Mechanics exist such as the many world interpretation but most of the ones taken seriously by physicists today all follow the same mathematical model as the Copenhagen interpretation in it's modern form.@@manafro2714
electron diffraction is another way to refer to the wave nature of electrons, yes, however it can also refer to a technique whereby electrons are fired at something and the resulting interference pattern is observed.
@@schmetterling4477 Sweetie, I don't have to be a scholar of the history of science to know generally what happened. Heliocentrism fit the data better, and we all know why. End of story.
I like your videos, the content is very easy to understand, but the childish intro doesn't match the university mathematics and physics content. The intro should be a bit more mature I guess
![ลองสั่งของจากแอพ temu ถูกจริงหรอ?? ( part : 1/2 ) [โกงไหมครับ ep.89 ] | DOM](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/RTcZSQTiDZw/mqdefault.jpg)
i came here for chemistry, dave gave me chemistry, physics, and philosophy. now I am searching for a math that can explain my life.
exactly👌
I just took Diff Eq, I can confirm there is no explanation of life there. Only pain and suffering
@@Henry-ep6qy and purpose☝️😌✨
You appeared lost in your life
😀
damn dave i came here for my chemistry homework and am now questioning reality
Welcome to Quantum Mechanics.
I have no idea how this guy isn’t more popular in the TH-cam community. Absolutely fantastic at breaking down complex concepts into an easy-to-digest form.
yep... sipping on my coffee at 1 a.m. the night before the exam. it's all coming together now
Wow... That speech right there, is what all my science teachers been missing to tell me. Now I am more open minded and don't question the constants in science. As it is, what it is.
Where do you live
Yln
That was beautiful
My new favorite Quantum guy!! Quantum physics is tough enough to put your head around, but there are some physicists who seem to intentionally make it sound like Russian, Greek, Japanese and Aramaic all rolled into one!!! Dave is easy to listen to and make his ideas understandable!!!
loved your speech! really opens up new perspectives for people to learn with a greater mindset. keep doing what you do!
He is the jesus of science
lololl
armyyyyyy
what an isult to dave
Lmao did not expect to go through an existential crisis and questioning my reality when I was only here to learn about Chemistry. I appreciate it though. Thanks Dave!
This is honestly the best explanatory description, relating to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, that I have ever seen!! Thank you for your knowledge and time! 😊☺️
Damn, that last part of the video should be seen by everyone on the planet. Thanks for doing such a good job Dave! You kind of saved me through my chem course :D
Man that last speech was so beautiful!
5.0/5.0 on rate my profs from me!
6 out of 5
100000000000/5
THIS WAS SO SO GOOD i loved the way you depicted the ending
The ending was magical👌🏻👌🏻
thank you professor dave it's really interesting
this is one of the finest videos I have seen, pro!
Damn … 2:25 and on hit hard. Great speech !
V clear and simple.... easy to understand.... great
nice!!!, so clear
thank you thank you thank you!!! for discussing the bigger picture. my teacher glosses over these really rich concepts and spends 4 hours doing plug and chug equations. there's no appreciation for reality. i knew something was up. Youre right, mathematics is the window unto an otherwise un-observable reality.
Im lucky to have found your videos, muchas gracias
Thank you professor
Very nice video!
3/10 for pronunciation, 10/10 for content
seriously the ö is there for a reason
Thanks!
superb explanation ! thx a lot.
I always like your videos Prof. Today it was exceptional
I'm a biochemistry student, I just have a random question in my mind.
Question is "What goes on when a photon of light is absorbed by the electron revolving around a nucleus in a atom?"
It becomes part of electron? or it causes the electron to move fast? or anything else? please if you can make it somewhat clear.
This thing is the corner stone that electrons may probably go to higher shells, orbitals or at least they may become excited after absorbing radiations, tell me more basic, what goes on at ultra-subatomic level.
+Usman Ali it's a good question, as best i can say, the photon is absorbed by the electron, as the photon has no mass, only kinetic energy, so the kinetic energy of the photon is transformed into additional potential energy of the electron, which is why it will move up some number of shells. to say anything more fundamental than that would require some heavy duty physics knowledge!
Professor Dave Explains Thanks
Professor Dave Explains But I'm not able to comprehend the weird fact associated with photon, having no mass it should not possess any amount of kinetic energy but who knows what is going on there.
it has relativistic mass E=mc^2
Wow so brilliant
There is a need for common sense in all cases :) But I get your point of course. In the world of the small things, things are largely different. Well explained! Thank you!
No, they aren't different. Quantum mechanical effects are NOT restricted to "small thing" and the usual notions of physics (energy, momentum, angular momentum and charge) work exactly the same.
You have great content!
Thank you
Easy understanding
"actual size" at 1:02 confused me because we have to consider it dimensionless, but theoretically it does have a negligible size, right?
thank you
you saved my grade-- E.C
ill recommend you to my friends 10/10
I love the intro
me too fam
^_^
vid goes hard 🔥 🔥 🔥
Shrodinger was brilliant and came up with the wave equation as Einstein came up with Relativity but he, Shrodinger, did NOT invent quantum mechanics. There were many others who contributed significantly to its development. Shrodinger is just a voice in a chorus of other great physicists who can sing the words to the song of Quantum Theory. You said many good things that were very thought provoking.
Professor Dave, Thanks for the videos. I'm a mathematician/physicist searching TH-cam to see how people teach QM to laymen. Nature is most definitely not governed by mathematical equations. If you're a Theist or Deist, nature is governed by God. If you're a materialist, nature's laws just are, without explanation. Mathematical equations are a way for a conscious observer to understand how nature operates. Mathematical formulas are abstract, they are not agents and completely incapable of governing anything.
I beg to differ. If the gravitational force drops off by the inverse of the square of the distance, that's a mathematical relationship that's inherent in the universe. The symbols we use to express that relationship in the form of an equation is man-made, but the mathematics being represented is natural. An alien civilization would reach the same conclusion, because gravity behaves this way regardless of who or what is observing. Even in the case of a deist, you can believe that god created the math, but either way, the math is there, and exists in a real sense whether anyone is there to observe it or not. If a mathematical equation predicts the behavior of a system flawlessly, to high degrees of precision, how can it not have a deep correlation with reality?
Also, check out my modern physics series for a much more thorough QM investigation. This one is for chemistry students.
1:45 bm
Using the baseball analogy. If you took a photo and saw a baseball in the air, you wouldnt know if it was from playing catch, just got hit by a batter, or of a fan threw it on the field, or if the catcher was throwing it to the pitcher, or the ump throwing it back to a pitcher.
Professor, question to Louis de Broglie 's equation
What velocity is used into calculation. How the ball get ramda when it has no move compare to the earth (velocity = 0 m/s).
i think what you're asking is what is the wavelength of a particle at rest? good question! since wavelength does indeed depend on momentum and therefore velocity. if velocity was zero, the wavelength would be undefined, so the short answer is that no real particle can be truly and completely at rest! there must be some momentum. at least that's my best attempt!
Professor, in your example when you calculate the wave length of the ball, what value of velocity being used? Thank you.
BTW, I promised to go through all your vdo and some content I entertained it more than 2 times, Keep sharing your knowledge!!!
oh i don't recall, i think it was just an average velocity for a ball having been thrown by a person or something like that. thanks for watching!
He jst looks like Ranbir Kapoor,no?😂
Btw,Way he explained this theory got me feel mechanics...Thanks!
I have a question. What happens if the wavelength is shorter than the Planck length. The Planck length is the shortest possible distance in the universe. Does it just not have a wavelength at this point? What exactly happens here?
Great conclusion saying "Math lets us transcend beyond our five senses"
WPD is something I've always struggled to understand not really because I don't comprehend what it could be but rather I'm confused on what exactly it means.
Is a 'probability density function' simply a wave, a gradient of the probability of where a discrete particle may be found within at any given time, or is it that the 'particle' itself exists as a gradient of influence, a wave?
The existence of particles as probability densities and waves is so ubiquitous in quantum mechanics, but how exactly, how that fits together, I feel like varying degrees of watered-down explanations really confuse things.
Things really get muddled when you get into things like quantum entanglement and tunneling, for example.
Go to the latter half of my modern physics series for rigorous quantum mechanics tutorials.
There are no particles. Quanta are small amounts of energy. When we detect one we get a "click" in a detector. The "clicks", i.e. when and where these detectors absorb a small amount of energy seem random. We therefor start to collect statistical information (histograms) about them. In the limit of large numbers these histograms become probability distributions. The theory predicts these probability distributions as the product between a wave function, its conjugate complex and a Hermitian projection operator that represents the absorption spectrum of a physical measurement system (the detector).
What happens is that almost nobody who makes these videos actually knows WHY the formalism looks the way it looks. For that you would have to read Heisenberg's matrix mechanics papers, where this is somewhat laid out in a language that still relates to physics and that will give you a bit of physics intuition about what is happening. A few years later a mathematician called von Neuman generalized the relatively straight forward physics and math in Heisenberg's papers to an abstract mathematical formalism that comes from functional analysis (the mathematics of linear operators and function spaces). At that point the connection to measured quanta of energy disappears from the textbooks and is replaced with a general notion of "quantum mechanical state". You also lose a sense that this "state" means the state of a quantum mechanical ensemble, i.e. an infinite repetition of the same experiment. Instead it starts looking like as if the wave function relates to an individual system. That is complete nonsense. It was never constructed that way, neither by Heisenberg nor by von Neumann. It's just easy to loose sight of the translation between physical measurements ("clicks") and mathematical formulas.
bless u Dave
“Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.”
Hey Professor David, explain Chemical Evolution theory
hmm, what's that?
Hmm, seems we have a fan of Kent Hovind.
Dam man, you're amazing!
Next time a new ager tells me about their wavelength, I'm going to sit down and calculate it for them using these methods.
Why do you say that it is a fundamental property of matter to obey the uncertainty principal? It makes sense that if we have equipment that has to disturb something in order to measure it, that would be the cause if the uncertainty would it not? also, if you say that matter is a wave, what is it a wave of? Based off of ky understanding of waves, a wave is representation of a repetitive change in state measured from reference state, such as the compression and decompression of air(sound) or the change in height of water.
Electrons are waves of probability density. Check out my modern physics series for more information.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains Ah, that makes sense. Thanks, I'll have to dig around your channel some more. I didn't realize you had so much more content on this topic (Insert embarrassed emoji here)
Haha don't be embarrassed about not understanding quantum mechanics! It's incredibly difficult to understand. I don't really understand it either. But someone is helping me make more in depth content on the subject now so I am learning.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains Yeah I saw that. I saw you are going over the Schrodinger equation in your Modern Physics series. that's really cool because a lot of the strange notation seems to scare people off of these kinds of topics (that was once me) and other explanations from other sources require lots of prerequisite knowledge for the explainer is under the impression you already know another piece of information. You seem to have already placed the building blocks for understanding it. I'll definitely dig around your channel more often.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains Oh, and I knew I was forgetting something....
Thank you so much. You are very much appreciated. Im sure you hear that a lot but like, seriously.
I was just meditating now.
I don't think an electron is both a particle and a wave, I would rather carefully say it has both particle and wave characteristics. It could however be something different . One way we might be able to find this out is if we open our minds to other possibilities rather than allow ourselves to be led continuously to a door that may never open
That doesn't really mean anything.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains well why did you say so. I was thinking of sending you an email to ask some questions anyway
FINALLYYYY TYSM
Reality governed by mathematics? Huh.
Mathematics is our way to practically operate with reality's laws, nothing more.
our mathematical symbolism, yes, but nature abides by mathematical relationships, and we discover them, so it would be foolish to pretend that mathematics came into existence only with our need to communicate these relationships. a mere semantic issue, it seems.
Hey proffesor could you help in sorting my doubt about Difference between Wave function and matter waves.
well the wave function describes a quantum system, it's not a wave itself. if by matter wave you mean something like a wave of water, that's not a quantum system at all.
3:21 Should have said, "Allow me to quote Neil DeGrasse Tyson"
Um, no. I write my own words.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains Like a badass
HEy professor dave, How was your first LSD experience. Did you experience Cognitive Dissonance?
+John Ferdon oh my, yes.
it's a good question, and it really comes down to quantum mechanical calculations. in a qualitative way, it's just that s orbitals are spherical and will be closer to the nucleus than p or d orbitals of the same energy level, which are lobes that extend outwards, and it just happens to be that the 4s is slightly lower in energy than the 3d orbitals.
I'm still angry at my middle school chemistry teacher telling me that electrons don't have mass. I spent *so* much time trying to wrap my head around that and what that could mean conceptually. Years later I saw reference to the mass of an electron in a science populariser book, and I was like, "What? Elections don't have mass. That's the whole point!"
Is there notes for the lecture to revise afterwards
I invite you to consult (simple atomic oscillator) and (Atomos de Santa Cruz)
hey professor dave ,can u please a make a video on quark and meson
a clip on the standard model of particle physics is coming soon! watch my modern physics tutorials as i release them for more about these particles.
thnx professor....
I’m just getting started I’m only 11 this is really
1:04 - An electron does not have a size (at least as far physics can tell right now)!
It has mass and that can be measured.
@@shrimpflea Surely, an electron has a mass! But for now it seems quite meaningless to assign a structure to it. An electron is most often described as a point object, but what is a point in physics or reality? A point is a pure mathematical concept.
@@hpp6116 I don't disagree with that. IMO it's a wave not a point object, even when the wave function collapses it's still a wave with a degree of uncertainty. Stay safe.
Hi Professor,
Would you please let me know if you have posted any videos on nodes?
COOL AND SEEK TO LEARN MORE.
u can teach me in 4 minutes what my teacher cant teach me in 4 days
Im not one to question math, but in light of a topic as complex as the nature of an electron, is not stating "only believe the math," just a simple cop out to avoid having to answer the question in more serious detail?
Not really.
My answer would be sort of. We can simultaneously acknowledge that the mathematics is correct but question what is the mechanism that causes those mathematical relationships. Newton himself figured out that gravity follows an inverse square law but he admitted that he could not explain what causes that inverse square law to occur. He had no idea what generated the force or how/if the force could be transmitted instantly. It wasn't until Einstein that we had a physical mechanism that explains how gravity works, where the inverse square law falls out of it. If we had chosen to just stop at what Newton did and "accept the math" then we wouldn't gain a greater level of understanding of the universe.
With Quantum Mechanics it isn't as simple as finding a better theory that makes more sense to us though. Even though there stands to be better models in the future, it has throughly been proven that the universe doesn't operate in ways that intuitively make sense to us. Thanks to Bell's theorem and experiments that followed from it, physicists have abandoned local realism. The idea that things like photons and particles have definite values before they are measured or experience certain interactions. That idea is deeply disturbing at first and sounds absurd but that's what the overwhelming evidence points to.
Ooh baby I love your waves,
I Wanna tell you I love your waves,
I Wanna oscillate night and day
So you are telling us that no matter what, we will never be able measure a particle with precise location and momentum at the same time?
correct! that would defy its wave-like nature.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains But in reality, a particle is actually at a given (smallest possible) moment in time at one place only, correct? But then how is it not a particle? Doesn't a wave-like nature mean that the particle is actually NOT at one place only? But that couldn't be correct, or could it?
A particle is often treated like a point or small sphere but in reality it's more like a wave and only takes on point-like properties when it interacts with something or is measured. In quantum mechanics the wavelike nature of the particle is represented by a wave function and it tells you the probability that you'll measure the position of the particle over some interval or area in space at a given time. That's not even the weirdest part though. The truly bizarre thing is that a particle isn't actually anywhere before it is measured or it experiences some interaction. The interaction causes the wave function to collapse (according to the Copenhagen interpretation) and take on a single position.
This is called the Orthodox position (or Copenhagen Interpretation) of Quantum Mechanics and it was proven by John Bell in the 1960's. Einstein and other physicists believed that particles take on definite quantities such as position, momentum and others, outside of the limitations of what we could know from Quantum Mechanics. These quantities were called local hidden variables and Bell's theorem showed mathematically that there are no local hidden variable theories that are compatible with Quantum Mechanics, meaning that these variables don't take on definite values until the particle is measured. This has experimentally been shown to be necessity with quantum entanglement. If a positron is entangled with an electron, for example, changing the spin state of one of the particles will instantly change the spin state of the other particle. Therefore either the information travels faster than the speed of light and violates relativity or the act of measurment forces the entangled particles to take on definite spin states.
Before Bell's theorems was derived and experiments were done to corroborate it, Physicists had three stances on Quantum Mechanics. Einstein and others took the Realist position where the particle does have a position before measurment, Quantum Mechanics just isn't able to predict it. Bohr and other physcists that kickstarted Quantum Mechnaics took the Orthodx position I already metnioned. And if push comed to shove in an argument, some physicist would abandon the Orthodox positon and take on the Agonistic position. This position essentially argued, "the position of the particle before a measurment is made is outside the rhealm of observation and therefore science." It was considered a metaphysical concern not a scientific one and therefore wasn't worth serious discussion. However Bell proved this to be false. Either the Realists were right and Quantum Mechnaics is wrong or the Realists are wrong and Quantum Mechanics is correct. Experiment supported Qunatum Mechanics over Classical assumptions, so Bohr's side ended of the argument ended up being right, at least empirically. Other interpretations of Quantum Mechanics exist such as the many world interpretation but most of the ones taken seriously by physicists today all follow the same mathematical model as the Copenhagen interpretation in it's modern form.@@manafro2714
Which type of wave an electron wave is!! I am confused 😞
Usually as a standing wave...but don't worry, literally everyone is confused by this.
The Messiah to lift up our fallen scores
😭😭😂😂😂
that was deeeeep math= truth
Earth doesn't go around the sun. The sun and Earth orbit a common COM.
Yeah, I would say we didn't evolve to understand the nature of an electron.. that would be a lot to ask. :D
This is also called the electron diffraction right?
electron diffraction is another way to refer to the wave nature of electrons, yes, however it can also refer to a technique whereby electrons are fired at something and the resulting interference pattern is observed.
Me taking General Chemistry before Physics 1 be like:
make iit jee videos
Poetic
türkçe altyazı lütfenn
It wasn't the math that forced us to accept, e.g., heliocentrism--it was the evidence. Scientists are empiricists, not rationalists.
The math was the evidence.
@@schmetterling4477 Why would I do that?
@@schmetterling4477 Um, you don't have a "case". 500 years have passed. Everyone understands heliocentrism.
@@schmetterling4477 Sweetie, I don't have to be a scholar of the history of science to know generally what happened. Heliocentrism fit the data better, and we all know why. End of story.
@@schmetterling4477 it’s not “lack of curiosity” to not have read every book ever. Take your sanctimony elsewhere, jackass.
reminds me of doublethink xD
मैले त सबै बुझे ।
Thank god i know who heisenberg us now..
Are You Joe Allen?
no, i'm professor dave.
im not sure that we only have 5 senses we have more
like what?
Common sense use common man and mathematics sense use the scientists. That is different between scientists and common sensed men
But do we?. . .
I like your videos, the content is very easy to understand, but the childish intro doesn't match the university mathematics and physics content. The intro should be a bit more mature I guess
Imagine if Flat Earthers understood math! There would be no flat Earthers.
Is netflix watching ?????
Jesus teaching chemistry hmm. Must be a holy subject
*NO*
You hate Heisenberg don't you
Nah, he was dope.
You are a Flatard you hate all Science. Facts scare you.
Bull! All particles should be described as partical/waves by observing the particles you are merely over looking there waves
This clip describes the wavelengths of particles, so I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
are you jewish
nope
"What it's doing", lol, if you don't know, then don't teach
If you didn't understand what I said, watch again instead of criticizing a perfectly good explanation.
proof of God
Waltuh