I can't believe the number of times we still see the old animations of electrons "orbiting" anround the nucleus, often with the comment "like planets around the sun" And often from explainers who surely know better. I could pull my hair out if I had any left. Thanks for your careful explanations
Electrons inside an atom occupy a standing spherical wave piece-wise exponentially decaying. This is a fair illustration of how it looks like. ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S000926140901015X-gr1.jpg
And actually this is true, with a caveat. Remember the states you are presented are but a basis, an actual state is a superposition of them. In particular, some superpositions of states with large enough n and l give a wave packet orbiting around the nucleus, that is, the amplitude of the wave function is appreciable in a small moving region of space. This is the correspondence principle from which Heisenberg, Jordan, and Born deduced their matrices mechanics.
@@clmasse & imho this won't be the end of the line... or model. I'd love to see an average educated human from about 4000 years in the future taking a look at this state of the art model (8)
I always thought it funny that the same people would write that particles are point objects of zero size, then, two chapters later tell you that it doesn't make sense to speak of things smaller than the plank length. Also, ditto on the hair thing.
The Bohr atomic model was taught to us throughout freshman and sophomore year in high school and it was only in junior year that we stopped using that model.
This is how to communicate science. By explicitly stating the simplifications you enable the student to a) understand the limit of their new knowledge, and b) know what to study to extend that knowledge. Well done Sabine, as always.
Wel actually Sabine was close to making it even much better. At 6:00 into the video Sabine mentions that the wave function avoids divergence for r=0 rather like we see in singularities. Well, let's actually go this path (as per Einstein's equivalence principle). Let's for a moment suggest at the core of EVERY atom there is indeed a micro-singularity. If so, then from academic simulations (Karas, Kapacek e.a. 2012) we next know what happens to straight EM fieldines around rotating micro-singulities; the get bend, folded and this fold next get wrapped in orthogonal spirals with finite windings, the number of which relating to the energy (momentum) involved. At their farthest point (energy wise) these spiral end folds cross the micro event horizon into our ST world where they discharge as a double (a fold always has two intersections) energy charge we observe as 'electron'. After this the EM fielding would unwind and wind up anti clockwise at the other side, causing the next double discharge at the other side of the electron orbit. This is actually photographed at the Max Planck Institute Heidelberg with a He atom. Crucially our oblique view of this wound up spiraled EM fieldline would appear to us as an INTGER or 'quanta' of windings. This provides a perfect explanation for the century old issue of what quanta are. Finally, we should notice that the spiraling of individual fieldines, will cause their orthogonal straight form to contract to provide the material. If we accept that EM fieldlines in their straight orthogonal form are tangible spacetime fieldlines that we now have an explanation for ST contraction caused by atoms; the oscillating 'quantized EM spirals' always cause a net shrinkage of the orthogonal ST fielding. leading to the sensation we call 'gravity'. As such we may notice the the spin 1/2 of the electron will appear spin 1: 1/2 =spin 2 form this orthogonal ST contraction viewpoint. Graviton anyone? It would appear with all these pieces of the puzzle coming together that indeed this is the tangible physical setup that belongs to the mathematical description of this video...
Yeah, I really wanted to understand this, so I plotted the equation on desmos with manipulable quantum numbers. The next step I’m trying to take is making it 3D.
I love this video as I am a graduate student in Quantum Chemistry! Quantum mechanics allows chemists to simulate reactions mechanisms and compute properties such as free energy, enthalpy, entropy, equilibrium constants, etc. Due to difficulty of running precise computations, only recently, with the improvement of our approximations, traditional experimental chemists started to be interested on what quantum chemistry can offer.
This was the most fascinating part about chemistry for me. Then it got all about hydrocarbons and I got bored. Probably should have gone into particle physics, lol
Not only. You also study things like excited states,NMR (which depends on ALL the electrons), core-valence excitations and photoionizations (due to high energy photons) and a long etc.
@@lucianomatrix Thanks. I do try. Full creds for that. But I've known really smart people. I wouldn't trade who I am and be them but a few more smarts would be nice. In the mean time I'll keep listening. Thanks for encouraging.
I just want to add that calculating properties of molecules has gotten so important that nearly every chemistry phd student has to do it at least once during their studies. Even if they are experimentalists
The quality of the calculations for useful systems increased drastically in the last 20 years. Experimentalists didn't care about 10 atoms systems most of the time. But now, you can reproduce the measurements for 10-100 atom systems of NMR, IR, X-ray spectroscopy, even if there's a few heavy elements. And that's not just interesting, it's really important. These spectroscopies are used to identify or verify products. If you know the true spectrum, that's easy, but figuring out the structure from spectrum is complicated, mostly were done by a specialist. 20 years before accessing to spectrums were expensive, or impossible if nobody measured that. Now you can simulate a lot of things on a desktop with a GPU.
@Science Revolution seriously? The foundation of chemistry (atomic and molecular structure) is probably the most understood part of physics. If you really do your homework you find explanation for all these questions. Even experiments. You need to go back to middle school science and carefully study atomic models. I hate to be that guy and say "you need to study" but yeah you do need. The questions are valid, but believing the whole chemistry and physics is wrong because of them is delusional.
Loved the video Sabine. Especially the part when you said "I love it because it never would have occurred to me". We're all approaching the topic from a different levels of understanding and you nail the delivery 💛
Fantastic! I can't tell you how long I've waited for such a video that relates Schrödinger's equation with spherical harmonics to explaining bulk plasma resonance with GR. Thank you Sabine.
This is a great video, explaining in clear terms the mathematical description of the atom orbiting electron in its various states. But Sabine was close to making it even much better. At 6:00 into the video Sabine mentions that the wave function avoids divergence for r=0 rather like we see in singularities. Well, let's actually go this path (as per Einstein's equivalence principle). Let's for a moment suggest at the core of EVERY atom there is indeed a micro-singularity. If so, then from academic simulations (Karas, Kapacek e.a. 2012) we next know what happens to straight EM fieldines around rotating micro-singulities; they get bend, folded and this fold next get wrapped in orthogonal spirals with finite windings, the number of which relating to the energy (momentum) involved. At their farthest point (energy wise) these spiral end folds cross the micro event horizon into our ST world where they discharge as a double (a fold always has two intersections) energy charge we observe as 'electron'. After this the EM fieldline would unwind and wind up anti-clockwise at the other side, causing the next double discharge at the other side of the electron orbit. This is actually photographed at the Max Planck Institute Heidelberg with a He atom. Crucially our oblique view of this wound up spiraled EM fieldline would appear to us as an INTEGER or 'quanta' of windings. This provides a perfect explanation for the century old issue of what quanta are. Finally, we should notice that the spiraling of individual fieldines, will cause their orthogonal straight form to contract to provide the material. If we accept that EM fieldlines in their straight orthogonal form are tangible spacetime fieldlines than we now have an explanation for ST contraction caused by atoms; the oscillating 'quantized EM spirals' always cause a net shrinkage of the orthogonal ST fielding. leading to the sensation we call 'gravity'. As such we may notice the spin 1/2 of the electron will appear spin 1: 1/2 =spin 2 from this orthogonal ST contraction viewpoint. Graviton anyone? It would appear with all these pieces of the puzzle coming together that indeed this is the tangible physical setup that belongs to the mathematical description of this video...
Sabine, I want to say a massive thank you. Thank you for having a healthy respect for the intelligence and curiosity of your audience. Thank you for not dumbing your explanations down to the point they're inaccurate. And thank you for taking a stand to fight against the shameful amount of BS and pseudoscience that exists online. You get straight to the point and I come away feeling like I've actually LEARNT something - it's a breath of fresh air, and as I hope I've made clear already; I can't thank you enough.
I was so upset that I couldn't find a really good explanation about the quantum properties of these interactions. I just added ur name to the search and I couldn't be more satisfied with the results. You are the best. ❤
The visualizations are very helpful, the explanation clear and concise, mentioning the complications and what issues arise makes it more interesting. Great video.
Back in high school, they taught the "planetary" atomic model. That was in the 1980s. But even then, the quantum model was already ubiquitous. I didn't learn about the quantum model until many years later. I feel like I missed out.
Indeed. You missed nothing. Physicists did not progress. They refuse to admit atoms are nothing but oscillating Tiny Kerr singularisties, with the ISCO defining te minimal orbital distance for individual ME fieldlines to get wrapped around...
7:56 "Calculating atomic energy levels was a frontier research a century ago. Now, it's just a practice for Physics students" This fact in itself tells about the great advancements in science and technology we have had in the past century. It's Great! 👍🏻
Excellent picture as the real operations of scientific theory,like watching a car being built in a manufacturing plant versus seeing the same car at a dealers lot,fab.Thanks Again We used to see in the Wizard of Oz,his thundering voice,and you are the person who is revea ling the Wizard as just a plain person hiding behind the curtain,thanks for pulling the mystery of Science into the light of day from that old Science Magic.Great stuff.
So well explained. I truly don’t have a clue. Given the complexity of our known “world”, we have a loooooooooooong way to go before we can begin understanding what we’re really have to work with! Cheers, Doctor.
That was very interesting even though I only understood a small part. The gold sent me searching for the answer in wiki, it was an eye opener article as relativistic effects are much more important than I could fathom. Gold is discussed at length as are other interesting metal properties, like the apparent fact that 10V of the 12V output of an acid/lead battery are due to relativistic effects. Thank you Sabine, your videos are always inspiring.
Those were 2D representations as a Chemist would see them in The Real Plane. A Physicist would prefer the 3D representation involving the complex axis as well. Seeing where the 'electron' might be measured is truly more interesting in 3D :-)
how do special directions appear in the non spherical solution? The orginal equation has spherical symmetry, no? Do you need to introduce an arbitrary coordinated system and thereby choose some special directions?
Thanks for the great explanation and also the clarification as to what are the more complications that have been overlooked. There is a mismatch in what the screen shows and the audio at 7:21. m=-+2.
Sorry professor! I am dumb when it comes to maths. It was OTH for me. But caught one Sabinesque statement at 9.10: “ Without special relativity, gold would not look gold!”
Sabine, thank you so much for your incredible videos. Clearing the fog about a lot of things I am not able to understand and evaluate myself. If you have a teaching position, your students are very lucky. If not - shame on the university system.
As always, I learned something new from Sabine. I guess it is obvious, but I had never understood that the energy levels predicted for electrons get more broad and less defined as the radius from the center increases. Plus the zinger on top that large atoms with high energy levels for the outermost electrons require Special Relativity corrections! Wow!
Not really irony, but logical. In a sense the universe is a quantum computer I guess, so it just follows naturally that you need a quantum computer to simulate it.
Your student was so smart! I'm not sure if you were joking there or not but either way, you regularly make me laugh. Thank you for all you do sabine! ❤❤
I've never tried any of these actual calculations myself. But, when I was doing a third-year chemistry course (many years ago), the moment the lecturer mentioned ab initio molecular orbital calculations, those who already knew the term seemed to share a collective "oh, no..." moment.
The whole story of the Periodic table of why it exists, how it came to be and how it is controlled is amazing, yet we all take it for granted. Even the very way a proton fuses with a proton to form deuterium in itself alone is miraculous.
Dear Sabi, Schroeder equation is a way to explain how the wave function behaves, but it's solutions acts as quantum exchange of energy. While no expression found to explain the paths of electron jumps from one level to another in atom. If we say that no paths because electron is somewhere, that is nonsense. I think solutions may be found in hidden variables, may be or may be not of Boehm mechanics interpretation.
I don't understand how they come up with an equation like the one at 2:38...I understand how you come up with a linear function if you plot some data in a x,y-plot...the slope...where it intersects the y-axis ect. etc....But formulas like the one in the video...How?
I like it. One question is how are computers/PDE engines or whatever used in QM research and education past , present and future. What are some programs that could be afforded by amateurs or students who have limited resources. How are "super" computers different. What is the future role of technology speculated to be. Some of this is covered here, but I would guess there is a lot more within your experience and skill on this topic. I think computational machines as a topic also raises the question in a natural way of what is being worked on at the conceptual level to better understand observations, experiments and applications.
TY Sabine - excellent answers to questions that I've been curious about for years ! ( and was about to recreate the wheel for some parts of - and may yet 😊 ) And Re: Q:Why (re)calculate equations we already know the answers to ? I think substitute "calculate" for "create" in Feynman's quote below also answers that question here >> "What I cannot create, I do not understand." - Richard Feynman
I'm so glad to find Sabine creating this video, as I've searched visual aids about the "true orbitals" long time, and this video is a great start for me to understand the behavior of the atoms. (Also, The Science Asulym posted similar video, about the dynamics of the orbitals. Is it a coincidence?) My hope is to find a time-based animation of few orbitals, maybe even during some chemical process. I don't know if they exist, as I'm not that educated about the subject.
Dr. Hossenfelder, thanks for your good explanation about the subject. However, the layman, like myself, still don't understand what the shown exhibits are all about. It would be good if you could point to the exhibits on that wall and explain what the dark and bright patches really are. Why are there different patterns? what is causing the different patterns? If the electrons are actually not circulating the nucleus then what is the electron actually doing? they exist in a probability state defined by the wave function? The question remains that if the electrons are not circulating, then what is their form of existence around the nucleus?
That is pretty exciting. In my thought model electrons are energy loops that emanate from their nucleus proton and which bunch to a particle like wave form as it reacts with the static energy field. Lines of magnetic force also emanate from the nucleus so passing magnetic field energy lines of force directed through the nucleus increase the energy level in a proton and can cause an electron loop to detach. In this model it is the one property of the reaction of dynamic energy with static energy which produces all of the force effects. They are all one and the same including gravity just perceived in different ways due to the particular way the energy reacts. The notion that a broad space static energy field pushes particles together better explains the strand and hub nature of the universe’s structure.
A long time ago i watched a video explaining the principals lasers are based on. In that video it was said that electrons that transition to to a lower energy level by emiting a photon immediately "teleport" there. Its rather wiered because the energy levels are actually somewhat overlapping zones, so it doesn't seem like a change in location is needed to change the energy level. My question is whether or not the electron needs to change its location to change energy levels or only other properties like momentum.
It is an outdated picture (1925). During the transition, the state is a superposition of the initial and the final state. There is no intermediary state, but there do exist a mixed state. The superposition of the two states creates beats whose frequency is precisely the frequency of the photon, that is, the difference of frequency between the two states. In, QM the frequency is the same as the energy for a single particle.
@@clmasse You are talking about the time dependent oscillation of the probability density in a two level energy system with a frequency equal to the frequency(energy) difference between the two levels? How does this relate to the emission of a photon?
Neat! Have been missing 2 terms: Eigenfunction and basis set. When calculating the fall of an object we also always calculate the "same" equation. But when weight, height or wind change we have to calculate again ... baffling!
Materials science, i.e the behavior of electrons vibrating around multiple nuclei, is endlessly fascinating. It doesn't get enough respect in the press.
Dear Sabine, I would be very excited to see a video from you on the following citation from Weinberg: Steinberg, who has had “a seeming obsession” with the tunneling-time question since he was a graduate student in the 1990s, explained that the trouble stems from the peculiar nature of time. Objects have certain characteristics, like mass or location. But they don’t have an intrinsic “time” that we can measure directly. “I can ask you, ‘What is the position of the baseball?’ but it makes no sense to ask, ‘What is the time of the baseball?’” Steinberg said. “The time is not a property any particle possesses.” Instead, we track other changes in the world, such as ticks of clocks (which are ultimately changes in position), and call these increments of time. But in the tunneling scenario, there’s no clock inside the particle itself. So what changes should be tracked? Physicists have found no end of possible proxies for tunneling time. All your videos are wonderful and inspiring.
So an actual image of an electron would just look like a very asymmetrical heat map bounded by a sphere? Or do some electrons push further out creating peaks and valleys in the surface of these heat maps? Would the probability show that the heat map had a solid face on sphere (3D shape of whatever shape)?
Sabine, what are the units you use for r in your graph at 5:16 for the probability distributions for different N values? Is it picometers? And what are the approximate r values of the max peeks for N=1 and N=2)? Looks like close to 1.5 and 5.5?
Let me ask something, in an atomic nuclei, for example in a proton, does gluon (which keeps the quarks inside the proton) or the higgs bozon are responsible for the energy state of the proton? What happens in a Bose Einstein condensate, at nearly 0K with the energy state? Will it become nearly 0 too? Is it possible to measure it?
I don't know what you mean by "energy state of the proton". In any case, I have explained here what generates the mass atoms backreaction.blogspot.com/2015/08/the-origin-of-mass-or-pions-pr-problem.html
@@SabineHossenfelder ok, never mind Anyway, I will look after it more in detail, I will do my own research on it, and try to take up the question in an understandable way for you. I read about particle physics and quantum physics years ago, I found them interesting and a lot of unique and crazy questions formulated in me, I should refresh my thoughts about them. :)
The mass of the proton is a very difficult problem because the strong interaction (chromo dynamics) is nonlinear. The calculation is made numerically on a lattice, and we can't speak about a state. The Higgs boson gives mass to the constituent quarks, but it is marginal. An example of a Bose-Einstein condensate near 0 K is a laser ray. There is then a single state for all the photons (third principle of thermodynamics.) . We can loosely define a temperature for a system with several particles, but not so much. But a quark-gluon plasma is at a high temperature, it is produced in relativistic energy collisions of heavy ions (or atoms.) At 0 K, or for a nucleus in its ground state, the quarks are confined in the nucleons (to the best of our knowledge, they don't wear a mask.)
2:03 but how does a particle in space not experience any forces? Bit gravity and electromagnetism have invinite range and so nowhere in space will either field be zero. Additionally in space there is not a complete vacuum, so any particle will interact with other particles
Nice presentation. It would be instructive to put a minus sign in front of the Coulomb potential. This makes explicit the existence of negative energy solutions you discuss after that.
So if we can calculate energy spectrum of a possible abstract molecules quickly, than we can predict or confirm its molecular behavior, thus leading the way to super conductors or even bots ?
Hi, thank you, A question: How do scientists in CERN detach electron from proton and seperate them from each other under controle, so that they can shoot electrones to the protones, or protones to protones? How is the mechanical proceesion?'the process'?
you can rip off electrons from the nucleus by giving them enough energy, for example by heating or with an electric field (or both). it's not hard to do in principle, every old tube-based TV or computer monitor has an electron gun inside.
@@w0ttheh3ll Hi, thank you very much, may be I can alter the form of question: I meant : In CERN , do the scientists shoot electron one by one and make them 'colid' with another particle , or they just put so much energy to a substance so that a fluid of electron shoots towards the substance which is going to be protone or nutron or a normal atom?
can a photon of a specific energy/wavelength be absorbed by an atom's electron or electrons causing them to increase their energy..i.e . jumping to a higher energy shell? how does this happen? thank you..
Id like to see if rigging up several chladni plates in a geometric pattern combining different frequencies to make things out of thin air isn't too far off of plausible
Reminds me of a John A. Wheeler quote: "Paper in white the floor of the room, and rule it off in one-foot squares. Down on one's hands and knees, write in the first square a set of equations conceived as able to govern the physics of the universe. Think more overnight. Next day put a better set of equations into square two. Invite one's most respected colleagues to contribute to other squares. At the end of these labors, one has worked oneself out into the doorway. Stand up, look back on all those equations, some perhaps more hopeful than others, raise one's finger commandingly, and give the order "Fly!" Not one of those equations will put on wings, take off, or fly. Yet the universe "flies"."
Fun fact, one of the most popular records of Spanish musician Joaquin Sabina it's called 'Fisica y Quimica' (Physics & Chemistry), a phrase which was inspired by a famous sentence said by the Spanish Physician Severo Ochoa who said textually that "Love is physics and chemistry".
Noob question here. Is it possible a quantum particle that is fluctuating in an energy level to create a "harmonic distortion" like an RF wave to the other energy levels?
The moment I hear "slow moving particle" is the one where am I am immediately being jolted back to the reality where we know that there is sound connection between quantum mechanics and relativity! BTW: at the microscopic scales there should be no "particles" but waves of field and nothing should "moving" Ok, I know, I am supposed to supt and start computing/calculating ...
I would like to see the lobular tridimensional shape of the orbitals. It is so strange and counter-intuitive to see how the electrons distribute themselves in separate "probability clouds" around the nucleus instead orbits with a definite trajectory...
Yeah, me too.. I actually think the second time is much more important than the first, first a broad exposure to the ideas, second make sense of all the stuff.. even with good material such as this..
@@nfarnell1 ok so I think I finally get it. First: quantum mechanics is weird. At first glance, to me, it just reminds me of math. What I mean is quantum mechanics says energy comes in tiny indivisible discrete chunks that we call quanta. It also says that all things behave like particles _and_ waves. Now imagine taking one of these particles and confining it. (Lets think 1-dimensionally so the particle has only 1 degree of freedom, forward and backwards). So this particle is in between two points on a line, probabilistically, essentially bouncing off from wall to wall like a beam of light. I watched these videos, old videos probably recorded in the 70's, here on youtube and these dudes talk about how the laser works and simple harmonic motion...anyways I think that's how it works. In this video she explains _that..._ only the particles here are electrons and the cavity they're confined by is the charge of the nucleus and it's all happening 3-dimensionally. _And_ in the circles 6:15 what I think we are seeing is a cross-section of this confined space passing from one side of the sphere through the core(nucleus) and out the other side.
Thx for very brilliant Vid. Yes, I suspected for a long time that there isn't really matter. All is made of vibrations, interference, fields and processes ...
A simple question. Where it comes the energy of quarks? Or if they produce their own energy than how? We know plants produce their own energy. Use sun light (photon) to produce sugar.
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
I can't believe the number of times we still see the old animations of electrons "orbiting" anround the nucleus, often with the comment "like planets around the sun" And often from explainers who surely know better. I could pull my hair out if I had any left. Thanks for your careful explanations
Electrons inside an atom occupy a standing spherical wave piece-wise exponentially decaying. This is a fair illustration of how it looks like. ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S000926140901015X-gr1.jpg
And actually this is true, with a caveat. Remember the states you are presented are but a basis, an actual state is a superposition of them. In particular, some superpositions of states with large enough n and l give a wave packet orbiting around the nucleus, that is, the amplitude of the wave function is appreciable in a small moving region of space. This is the correspondence principle from which Heisenberg, Jordan, and Born deduced their matrices mechanics.
@@clmasse & imho this won't be the end of the line... or model.
I'd love to see an average educated human from about 4000 years in the future taking a look at this state of the art model (8)
I always thought it funny that the same people would write that particles are point objects of zero size, then, two chapters later tell you that it doesn't make sense to speak of things smaller than the plank length.
Also, ditto on the hair thing.
The Bohr atomic model was taught to us throughout freshman and sophomore year in high school and it was only in junior year that we stopped using that model.
This is how to communicate science. By explicitly stating the simplifications you enable the student to
a) understand the limit of their new knowledge, and
b) know what to study to extend that knowledge.
Well done Sabine, as always.
That graph at 5:30 is a brilliant visual way to show that electron “shells” are much more spread out than we’re taught. Thank you!
yes , i feel all the simplified rubbish most have been dealt hasn`t helped at all .
👏📉 nice
Wel actually Sabine was close to making it even much better. At 6:00 into the video Sabine mentions that the wave function avoids divergence for r=0 rather like we see in singularities. Well, let's actually go this path (as per Einstein's equivalence principle). Let's for a moment suggest at the core of EVERY atom there is indeed a micro-singularity. If so, then from academic simulations (Karas, Kapacek e.a. 2012) we next know what happens to straight EM fieldines around rotating micro-singulities; the get bend, folded and this fold next get wrapped in orthogonal spirals with finite windings, the number of which relating to the energy (momentum) involved. At their farthest point (energy wise) these spiral end folds cross the micro event horizon into our ST world where they discharge as a double (a fold always has two intersections) energy charge we observe as 'electron'. After this the EM fielding would unwind and wind up anti clockwise at the other side, causing the next double discharge at the other side of the electron orbit. This is actually photographed at the Max Planck Institute Heidelberg with a He atom. Crucially our oblique view of this wound up spiraled EM fieldline would appear to us as an INTGER or 'quanta' of windings. This provides a perfect explanation for the century old issue of what quanta are. Finally, we should notice that the spiraling of individual fieldines, will cause their orthogonal straight form to contract to provide the material. If we accept that EM fieldlines in their straight orthogonal form are tangible spacetime fieldlines that we now have an explanation for ST contraction caused by atoms; the oscillating 'quantized EM spirals' always cause a net shrinkage of the orthogonal ST fielding. leading to the sensation we call 'gravity'. As such we may notice the the spin 1/2 of the electron will appear spin 1: 1/2 =spin 2 form this orthogonal ST contraction viewpoint. Graviton anyone? It would appear with all these pieces of the puzzle coming together that indeed this is the tangible physical setup that belongs to the mathematical description of this video...
@@RWin-fp5jn woah!! That’s a bit mind melting. Thanks for the references. I need to look Into this!
Yeah, I really wanted to understand this, so I plotted the equation on desmos with manipulable quantum numbers. The next step I’m trying to take is making it 3D.
I love this video as I am a graduate student in Quantum Chemistry! Quantum mechanics allows chemists to simulate reactions mechanisms and compute properties such as free energy, enthalpy, entropy, equilibrium constants, etc. Due to difficulty of running precise computations, only recently, with the improvement of our approximations, traditional experimental chemists started to be interested on what quantum chemistry can offer.
Chemistry is just the physics of the valence electrons.
In a very general approximation. But it's a lot more than that.
This was the most fascinating part about chemistry for me. Then it got all about hydrocarbons and I got bored. Probably should have gone into particle physics, lol
There is also chemical thermodynamics. Huge in chemistry.
Not only. You also study things like excited states,NMR (which depends on ALL the electrons), core-valence excitations and photoionizations (due to high energy photons) and a long etc.
@@KilgoreTroutAsf IR-spectroscopy, UV-VIS-spectroscopy, chromatography, organic chemistry, Inorganic chemistry, Physical chemistry.......
I don't have a clue what she's talking about but I keep listening and listening.
at least you're honest
I’m hoping it will all drop into place eventually! Anyway, it’s the way she tells it. 😂
Don't be so modest. Your interest shows at least willingless to understand this tough subject.
@@lucianomatrix Thanks. I do try. Full creds for that. But I've known really smart people. I wouldn't trade who I am and be them but a few more smarts would be nice. In the mean time I'll keep listening. Thanks for encouraging.
Same, I'm in my 50s and just started to want to learn quantum mechanics. It just seems cool.
I just want to add that calculating properties of molecules has gotten so important that nearly every chemistry phd student has to do it at least once during their studies. Even if they are experimentalists
That's interesting; I had no idea!
This is where I really wish if P were equal to NP or if we had Quantum Computers!
@Wacky Venky Well, I wish. Cuz we're not gonna get a good enough Quantum Computer anytime soon. I don't have a hope to see that in my lifetime.
The quality of the calculations for useful systems increased drastically in the last 20 years. Experimentalists didn't care about 10 atoms systems most of the time. But now, you can reproduce the measurements for 10-100 atom systems of NMR, IR, X-ray spectroscopy, even if there's a few heavy elements. And that's not just interesting, it's really important. These spectroscopies are used to identify or verify products. If you know the true spectrum, that's easy, but figuring out the structure from spectrum is complicated, mostly were done by a specialist. 20 years before accessing to spectrums were expensive, or impossible if nobody measured that. Now you can simulate a lot of things on a desktop with a GPU.
@Science Revolution seriously? The foundation of chemistry (atomic and molecular structure) is probably the most understood part of physics. If you really do your homework you find explanation for all these questions. Even experiments. You need to go back to middle school science and carefully study atomic models. I hate to be that guy and say "you need to study" but yeah you do need. The questions are valid, but believing the whole chemistry and physics is wrong because of them is delusional.
Loved the video Sabine. Especially the part when you said "I love it because it never would have occurred to me". We're all approaching the topic from a different levels of understanding and you nail the delivery 💛
These videos are my favorite part of Saturday morning! (East coast US)
Thanks Sabine, that was great. I took Physical Chemistry 50 years ago, so I'm not totally lost, but it sure brought out how much I've forgotten.
Fantastic! I can't tell you how long I've waited for such a video that relates Schrödinger's equation with spherical harmonics to explaining bulk plasma resonance with GR. Thank you Sabine.
This is a great video, explaining in clear terms the mathematical description of the atom orbiting electron in its various states. But Sabine was close to making it even much better. At 6:00 into the video Sabine mentions that the wave function avoids divergence for r=0 rather like we see in singularities. Well, let's actually go this path (as per Einstein's equivalence principle). Let's for a moment suggest at the core of EVERY atom there is indeed a micro-singularity. If so, then from academic simulations (Karas, Kapacek e.a. 2012) we next know what happens to straight EM fieldines around rotating micro-singulities; they get bend, folded and this fold next get wrapped in orthogonal spirals with finite windings, the number of which relating to the energy (momentum) involved. At their farthest point (energy wise) these spiral end folds cross the micro event horizon into our ST world where they discharge as a double (a fold always has two intersections) energy charge we observe as 'electron'. After this the EM fieldline would unwind and wind up anti-clockwise at the other side, causing the next double discharge at the other side of the electron orbit. This is actually photographed at the Max Planck Institute Heidelberg with a He atom. Crucially our oblique view of this wound up spiraled EM fieldline would appear to us as an INTEGER or 'quanta' of windings. This provides a perfect explanation for the century old issue of what quanta are. Finally, we should notice that the spiraling of individual fieldines, will cause their orthogonal straight form to contract to provide the material. If we accept that EM fieldlines in their straight orthogonal form are tangible spacetime fieldlines than we now have an explanation for ST contraction caused by atoms; the oscillating 'quantized EM spirals' always cause a net shrinkage of the orthogonal ST fielding. leading to the sensation we call 'gravity'. As such we may notice the spin 1/2 of the electron will appear spin 1: 1/2 =spin 2 from this orthogonal ST contraction viewpoint. Graviton anyone? It would appear with all these pieces of the puzzle coming together that indeed this is the tangible physical setup that belongs to the mathematical description of this video...
Mr. Win:
Thank you very much for your knowledgeable comments above. It is more appreciated than you might realize.
The patterns always remind me of the Chladni plate resonance demonstrations. Interesting to look at.
Sabine, I want to say a massive thank you. Thank you for having a healthy respect for the intelligence and curiosity of your audience. Thank you for not dumbing your explanations down to the point they're inaccurate. And thank you for taking a stand to fight against the shameful amount of BS and pseudoscience that exists online. You get straight to the point and I come away feeling like I've actually LEARNT something - it's a breath of fresh air, and as I hope I've made clear already; I can't thank you enough.
Best channel on RUclips.
I like Closer to Truth better because it discusses philosophy of mathematics
@@johntavers6878 Never heard of him. I'll check it out.
Agreed! Though I must say it is shared with kurzgesagt
I was so upset that I couldn't find a really good explanation about the quantum properties of these interactions. I just added ur name to the search and I couldn't be more satisfied with the results. You are the best. ❤
The visualizations are very helpful, the explanation clear and concise, mentioning the complications and what issues arise makes it more interesting. Great video.
Back in high school, they taught the "planetary" atomic model. That was in the 1980s. But even then, the quantum model was already ubiquitous. I didn't learn about the quantum model until many years later. I feel like I missed out.
trust me you did not, since both are wrong and/or not the complete picture.
Indeed. You missed nothing. Physicists did not progress. They refuse to admit atoms are nothing but oscillating Tiny Kerr singularisties, with the ISCO defining te minimal orbital distance for individual ME
fieldlines to get wrapped around...
@M Bacon Sorry bacon. Just like your face diaper; you are quite unaware of the actual science behind it.
7:56
"Calculating atomic energy levels was a frontier research a century ago. Now, it's just a practice for Physics students"
This fact in itself tells about the great advancements in science and technology we have had in the past century. It's Great! 👍🏻
Sounds great, until you try that trick and you notice that it's actually not that simple. It's still not a homework exercise for physics students. :-)
Excellent picture as the real operations of scientific theory,like watching a car being built in
a manufacturing plant versus seeing the same car at a dealers lot,fab.Thanks Again
We used to see in the Wizard of Oz,his thundering voice,and you are the person who is revea
ling the Wizard as just a plain person hiding behind the curtain,thanks for pulling the mystery of Science into the light of day from that old Science Magic.Great stuff.
So well explained. I truly don’t have a clue. Given the complexity of our known “world”, we have a loooooooooooong way to go before we can begin understanding what we’re really have to work with! Cheers, Doctor.
Thank you so much for your work and helping to share this. I greatly appreciate this entire series.
That was very interesting even though I only understood a small part. The gold sent me searching for the answer in wiki, it was an eye opener article as relativistic effects are much more important than I could fathom. Gold is discussed at length as are other interesting metal properties, like the apparent fact that 10V of the 12V output of an acid/lead battery are due to relativistic effects. Thank you Sabine, your videos are always inspiring.
Thank you for the 3D representation. I had always wondered... and mostly still do, but that was helpful.
Those were 2D representations as a Chemist would see them in The Real Plane. A Physicist would prefer the 3D representation involving the complex axis as well. Seeing where the 'electron' might be measured is truly more interesting in 3D :-)
This is worth a view ruclips.net/video/DvRzdCnsiYw/видео.html
how do special directions appear in the non spherical solution? The orginal equation has spherical symmetry, no?
Do you need to introduce an arbitrary coordinated system and thereby choose some special directions?
It is amazing how much mileage scientists get out of the Hydrogenic States. Interesting video.
Thanks for the great explanation and also the clarification as to what are the more complications that have been overlooked. There is a mismatch in what the screen shows and the audio at 7:21. m=-+2.
Sorry 7:20 to be more precise
Yes, sorry, what's in the image is correct, what I say is wrong. I meant to add this in the info, but forgot, thanks for pointing out.
Sorry professor! I am dumb when it comes to maths. It was OTH for me. But caught one Sabinesque statement at 9.10: “ Without special relativity, gold would not look gold!”
The visuals are very helpful, they really helped me get a very basic understanding of how it all works.
I'm addicted to Quantum Theory . Excellent Professor , God Bless and Thank You . 💖
Great visualisations of the Schrödinger equation. Thank you
Sabine, thank you so much for your incredible videos. Clearing the fog about a lot of things I am not able to understand and evaluate myself. If you have a teaching position, your students are very lucky. If not - shame on the university system.
THANK YOU SO MUCH SABINE
As always, I learned something new from Sabine. I guess it is obvious, but I had never understood that the energy levels predicted for electrons get more broad and less defined as the radius from the center increases. Plus the zinger on top that large atoms with high energy levels for the outermost electrons require Special Relativity corrections! Wow!
The irony of needing to make a quantum computer is to understand it’s own quantum behavior.
Not really irony, but logical. In a sense the universe is a quantum computer I guess, so it just follows naturally that you need a quantum computer to simulate it.
@@alienzenx Es ist sinnlos dass ein Quantencomputer einen Quantencomputer simuliert.
So sinnlos sind auch alle eure Wertungen der Realität.
@@giordanobruno5650 Wow. Where did that come from? lol
Your student was so smart! I'm not sure if you were joking there or not but either way, you regularly make me laugh. Thank you for all you do sabine! ❤❤
I've never tried any of these actual calculations myself. But, when I was doing a third-year chemistry course (many years ago), the moment the lecturer mentioned ab initio molecular orbital calculations, those who already knew the term seemed to share a collective "oh, no..." moment.
Brillant you. That was incredible. A forbidden arcane given to the masses of -perhaps not too much- ignorant common people like me.
Great explanations ...
Another great video Sabine! Great outfit too!
Dealing with atoms, for the students one of the hardest topic to understand is the mean field approach and Hartree-Fock method.
The whole story of the Periodic table of why it exists, how it came to be and how it is controlled is amazing, yet we all take it for granted. Even the very way a proton fuses with a proton to form deuterium in itself alone is miraculous.
Fantastic, Sabine! Thank you! 😊
Stay safe there with your family! 🖖😊
Dear Sabi, Schroeder equation is a way to explain how the wave function behaves, but it's solutions acts as quantum exchange of energy. While no expression found to explain the paths of electron jumps from one level to another in atom. If we say that no paths because electron is somewhere, that is nonsense. I think solutions may be found in hidden variables, may be or may be not of Boehm mechanics interpretation.
Great Sabine.
Thank you Sabine!
Excellent explanation. So much more informative than the other stuff on youtube for a general audience.
How long will electrons stay in a given energy level? What causes electrons to drop back down to lower energy levels?
Entropy increase, basically. They will drop if they can. (The can't if the level is occupied.) Probability depends on the temperature.
I don't understand how they come up with an equation like the one at 2:38...I understand how you come up with a linear function if you plot some data in a x,y-plot...the slope...where it intersects the y-axis ect. etc....But formulas like the one in the video...How?
Awesome video Sabine!
I like it. One question is how are computers/PDE engines or whatever used in QM research and education past , present and future. What are some programs that could be afforded by amateurs or students who have limited resources. How are "super" computers different. What is the future role of technology speculated to be. Some of this is covered here, but I would guess there is a lot more within your experience and skill on this topic. I think computational machines as a topic also raises the question in a natural way of what is being worked on at the conceptual level to better understand observations, experiments and applications.
Grüße aus Brasilien. Ich empfehle meinen Studierenden deine videos. Einfach superb. Vielen Dank!
TY Sabine - excellent answers to questions that I've been curious about for years ! ( and was about to recreate the wheel for some parts of - and may yet 😊 )
And Re: Q:Why (re)calculate equations we already know the answers to ? I think substitute "calculate" for "create" in Feynman's quote below also answers that question here >>
"What I cannot create, I do not understand."
- Richard Feynman
I'm so glad to find Sabine creating this video, as I've searched visual aids about the "true orbitals" long time, and this video is a great start for me to understand the behavior of the atoms. (Also, The Science Asulym posted similar video, about the dynamics of the orbitals. Is it a coincidence?) My hope is to find a time-based animation of few orbitals, maybe even during some chemical process. I don't know if they exist, as I'm not that educated about the subject.
Dr. Hossenfelder, thanks for your good explanation about the subject. However, the layman, like myself, still don't understand what the shown exhibits are all about. It would be good if you could point to the exhibits on that wall and explain what the dark and bright patches really are. Why are there different patterns? what is causing the different patterns? If the electrons are actually not circulating the nucleus then what is the electron actually doing? they exist in a probability state defined by the wave function? The question remains that if the electrons are not circulating, then what is their form of existence around the nucleus?
Amazing video, love the visuals of the solutions! 🤩
Love seeing your videos pop up in my feed
Amazing thankyou! I especially enjoyed your clear explanation of all the limitations of this model and how we have improved on it over time :)
at around 4:55 -> is t not the absolute value squared that gives you the probability of finding a particle?
Yes. It is called Born rule.
@@frun I know, that is why I was confused :D
That is pretty exciting. In my thought model electrons are energy loops that emanate from their nucleus proton and which bunch to a particle like wave form as it reacts with the static energy field. Lines of magnetic force also emanate from the nucleus so passing magnetic field energy lines of force directed through the nucleus increase the energy level in a proton and can cause an electron loop to detach. In this model it is the one property of the reaction of dynamic energy with static energy which produces all of the force effects. They are all one and the same including gravity just perceived in different ways due to the particular way the energy reacts. The notion that a broad space static energy field pushes particles together better explains the strand and hub nature of the universe’s structure.
Great video Sabine!!!
A long time ago i watched a video explaining the principals lasers are based on.
In that video it was said that electrons that transition to to a lower energy level by emiting a photon immediately "teleport" there.
Its rather wiered because the energy levels are actually somewhat overlapping zones, so it doesn't seem like a change in location is needed to change the energy level.
My question is whether or not the electron needs to change its location to change energy levels or only other properties like momentum.
It is an outdated picture (1925). During the transition, the state is a superposition of the initial and the final state. There is no intermediary state, but there do exist a mixed state. The superposition of the two states creates beats whose frequency is precisely the frequency of the photon, that is, the difference of frequency between the two states. In, QM the frequency is the same as the energy for a single particle.
@@clmasse
Thanks!
@@clmasse You are talking about the time dependent oscillation of the probability density in a two level energy system with a frequency equal to the frequency(energy) difference between the two levels? How does this relate to the emission of a photon?
Neat! Have been missing 2 terms: Eigenfunction and basis set.
When calculating the fall of an object we also always calculate the "same" equation. But when weight, height or wind change we have to calculate again ... baffling!
Materials science, i.e the behavior of electrons vibrating around multiple nuclei, is endlessly fascinating. It doesn't get enough respect in the press.
Dear Sabine,
I would be very excited to see a video from you on the following citation from Weinberg:
Steinberg, who has had “a seeming obsession” with the tunneling-time question since he was a graduate student in the 1990s, explained that the trouble stems from the peculiar nature of time. Objects have certain characteristics, like mass or location. But they don’t have an intrinsic “time” that we can measure directly. “I can ask you, ‘What is the position of the baseball?’ but it makes no sense to ask, ‘What is the time of the baseball?’” Steinberg said. “The time is not a property any particle possesses.” Instead, we track other changes in the world, such as ticks of clocks (which are ultimately changes in position), and call these increments of time.
But in the tunneling scenario, there’s no clock inside the particle itself. So what changes should be tracked? Physicists have found no end of possible proxies for tunneling time.
All your videos are wonderful and inspiring.
Time is for events, not objects. So is space too.
Very good introduction the atomic problem from a quantum perspective.
Sabine Hossenfelder is to advanced physics as Sabine Schmitz is to driving cars. Amazing!
So an actual image of an electron would just look like a very asymmetrical heat map bounded by a sphere? Or do some electrons push further out creating peaks and valleys in the surface of these heat maps? Would the probability show that the heat map had a solid face on sphere (3D shape of whatever shape)?
Sabine, what are the units you use for r in your graph at 5:16 for the probability distributions for different N values? Is it picometers? And what are the approximate r values of the max peeks for N=1 and N=2)? Looks like close to 1.5 and 5.5?
I had not heard your description of the nucleus before. I pictured the one found in standard chemistry.
Let me ask something, in an atomic nuclei, for example in a proton, does gluon (which keeps the quarks inside the proton) or the higgs bozon are responsible for the energy state of the proton? What happens in a Bose Einstein condensate, at nearly 0K with the energy state? Will it become nearly 0 too? Is it possible to measure it?
I don't know what you mean by "energy state of the proton". In any case, I have explained here what generates the mass atoms
backreaction.blogspot.com/2015/08/the-origin-of-mass-or-pions-pr-problem.html
@@SabineHossenfelder In the quark gluon plasma, quarks are moving with nearly the speed of light. Are their movement slow down at nearly 0K?
@@Matt33318 I don't know what temperature you are talking about. Temperature is not a quantity that makes sense for single particles.
@@SabineHossenfelder ok, never mind
Anyway, I will look after it more in detail, I will do my own research on it, and try to take up the question in an understandable way for you. I read about particle physics and quantum physics years ago, I found them interesting and a lot of unique and crazy questions formulated in me, I should refresh my thoughts about them. :)
The mass of the proton is a very difficult problem because the strong interaction (chromo dynamics) is nonlinear. The calculation is made numerically on a lattice, and we can't speak about a state. The Higgs boson gives mass to the constituent quarks, but it is marginal. An example of a Bose-Einstein condensate near 0 K is a laser ray. There is then a single state for all the photons (third principle of thermodynamics.)
.
We can loosely define a temperature for a system with several particles, but not so much. But a quark-gluon plasma is at a high temperature, it is produced in relativistic energy collisions of heavy ions (or atoms.) At 0 K, or for a nucleus in its ground state, the quarks are confined in the nucleons (to the best of our knowledge, they don't wear a mask.)
A great lesson in being taught precisely what it is I don't know. The complete opposite of dumbed down.
Finally getting the answers to some of the questions I've had so long! :D
Dear Sabine your the best educator & presenter just one question What are you going to name the baby ?
Loved this! Thanks Sabine, (second).
Great video! Stay safe Sabine.
Well done !
Thank you for a wonderful explanations of the e- orbitals
2:03 but how does a particle in space not experience any forces? Bit gravity and electromagnetism have invinite range and so nowhere in space will either field be zero. Additionally in space there is not a complete vacuum, so any particle will interact with other particles
Nice presentation. It would be instructive to put a minus sign in front of the Coulomb potential. This makes explicit the existence of negative energy solutions you discuss after that.
Great educational video. Could have mentioned Chladni plates are a simple 2D analogue to Hydrogen.
So if we can calculate energy spectrum of a possible abstract molecules quickly, than we can predict or confirm its molecular behavior, thus leading the way to super conductors or even bots ?
Hi, thank you,
A question: How do scientists in CERN detach electron from proton and seperate them from each other under controle, so that they can shoot electrones to the protones, or protones to protones? How is the mechanical proceesion?'the process'?
you can rip off electrons from the nucleus by giving them enough energy, for example by heating or with an electric field (or both). it's not hard to do in principle, every old tube-based TV or computer monitor has an electron gun inside.
@@w0ttheh3ll Hi, thank you very much, may be I can alter the form of question: I meant : In CERN , do the scientists shoot electron one by one and make them 'colid' with another particle , or they just put so much energy to a substance so that a fluid of electron shoots towards the substance which is going to be protone or nutron or a normal atom?
Is the electron inside the atom different than electron outside the atom, such as have more energy or other?
I Like what you said at the end Sabine !!! 💙😎
can a photon of a specific energy/wavelength be absorbed by an atom's electron or electrons causing them to increase their energy..i.e . jumping to a higher energy shell? how does this happen? thank you..
Id like to see if rigging up several chladni plates in a geometric pattern combining different frequencies to make things out of thin air isn't too far off of plausible
Reminds me of a John A. Wheeler quote: "Paper in white the floor of the room, and rule it off in one-foot squares. Down on
one's hands and knees, write in the first square a set of equations conceived as able to govern the physics of the universe. Think more overnight. Next day put a better set of equations into square two. Invite one's most respected colleagues to contribute to other squares. At the end of these labors, one has worked oneself out into the doorway. Stand up, look back on all those equations, some perhaps more hopeful than others, raise one's finger commandingly, and give the order "Fly!" Not one of those equations will put on wings, take off, or fly. Yet the universe "flies"."
Fun fact, one of the most popular records of Spanish musician Joaquin Sabina it's called 'Fisica y Quimica' (Physics & Chemistry), a phrase which was inspired by a famous sentence said by the Spanish Physician Severo Ochoa who said textually that "Love is physics and chemistry".
I can believe Sabina did it, he ruins everything.😁
How can you tell at the scale, size of the nucleus, that it's not a perfect sphere? Isn't it essentially like a point?
Once again, these are superb!
Noob question here. Is it possible a quantum particle that is fluctuating in an energy level to create a "harmonic distortion" like an RF wave to the other energy levels?
What is the physics formula to calculate out the result "science just works"?
Thank you for your content. It's extremely interesting and informative.
The moment I hear "slow moving particle" is the one where am I am immediately being jolted back to the reality where we know that there is sound connection between quantum mechanics and relativity!
BTW: at the microscopic scales there should be no "particles" but waves of field and nothing should "moving"
Ok, I know, I am supposed to supt and start computing/calculating ...
I would like to see the lobular tridimensional shape of the orbitals. It is so strange and counter-intuitive to see how the electrons distribute themselves in separate "probability clouds" around the nucleus instead orbits with a definite trajectory...
I'm a little thick, so I'veve got to listen a second time.
Dummy thick
That's what makes a smart person smart. When you get it, it will be a concrete fundamental understanding that holds true throughout your life.
I am putting the video in a loop, might have to learn QM to know when I probably understand it!
Yeah, me too.. I actually think the second time is much more important than the first, first a broad exposure to the ideas, second make sense of all the stuff.. even with good material such as this..
@@nfarnell1 ok so I think I finally get it.
First:
quantum mechanics is weird. At first glance, to me, it just reminds me of math. What I mean is quantum mechanics says energy comes in tiny indivisible discrete chunks that we call quanta. It also says that all things behave like particles _and_ waves.
Now imagine taking one of these particles and confining it. (Lets think 1-dimensionally so the particle has only 1 degree of freedom, forward and backwards). So this particle is in between two points on a line, probabilistically, essentially bouncing off from wall to wall like a beam of light. I watched these videos, old videos probably recorded in the 70's, here on youtube and these dudes talk about how the laser works and simple harmonic motion...anyways I think that's how it works.
In this video she explains _that..._ only the particles here are electrons and the cavity they're confined by is the charge of the nucleus and it's all happening 3-dimensionally. _And_ in the circles 6:15 what I think we are seeing is a cross-section of this confined space passing from one side of the sphere through the core(nucleus) and out the other side.
Wonderful breakdown, I appreciate this video!
Awesome, Sabine.
Good one.
Thx for very brilliant Vid. Yes, I suspected for a long time that there isn't really matter. All is made of vibrations, interference, fields and processes ...
A simple question. Where it comes the energy of quarks? Or if they produce their own energy than how? We know plants produce their own energy. Use sun light (photon) to produce sugar.