Great man!! I always had problems with understanding this, i asked my teachers , friends but they never were able to satisfy me, they were confined to books, and my friends said why to go so deep, just memorize. This video helped me a lot.
It's not even about going "that deep" for me, I guess I'm stupid, but I literally can't understand something unless i can picture it in my head. I'm like wtf are orbitals, please show them to me with at least a theoretic model.
same bro .. i even used to teach children taking sun and planet example as electron and nucleus. i even used to understand the same way b myself. thanks for uploader for good work
Yes. Thank you God. A quick, clear and visual answer. Instead of reading tons of pages of wannabe physicists "trying" to be clear. Thank you. Thank you.
This is not how they move!!! It's an elegant but WRONG model, just like the Bohr model. The real one is quantum orbitals, where there are certain "clouds" of probability where electrons most likely are, but their motion is very chaotic.
This is just mindblowing..for 2 years, I have been struggling to understand this model...I always wanted to know how atom along with all the moving electrons would look like...none of the teachers could give a satisfying explanation... This video completely washed of all my doubts...now I am feeling super fresh...thanks to you!💫
I've watched many videos here about electron movement. And it's been explained that electrons behave as a particle and a wave. And that electrons can be anywhere and anytime around the nucleus. And that because of the speed of their movement they could possibly be at the same place at the same time. I'm just curious to know if these animations are still accurate since this was made 6 years ago. This video really helped me understand how electrons move but has this model of electron movement changes since then?
@@davelordyso what do they do? I'm really curious. I used to think that spinning of electrons means something like rotating on their exis like the earth. This animation has given me a different way to visualise it. I really wanna know if this isn't accurate then what more there is to know.
@@blackpink5937 _"so what do they do?"_ This sounds like an excuse, but in reality there is no common language that easily describes what electrons 'do', for the very simple reason that our language evolved to describe the classical world, so an explanation tends to sound counterintuitive. Electrons do not move in the traditional sense (as in classical mechanics), they exist in an orbital, but at not moving within that orbital. _"I used to think that spinning of electrons means something like rotating on their exis like the earth."_ Yeah, that's a common mistake, but electrons don't spin, they _can't_ spin, they are dimensionless 'point particles', for something to spin it would need an 'extent' (essentially a size) - this misunderstanding about 'spin' comes from the first attempts to understand the electron's magnetic moment (they act like a tiny bar magnet) it was thought to derive from the spin of their electrical charge (moving electric fields = magnetic fields), but this turned out to not be the case.
@@blackpink5937 _"so any explanation for their magnetic properties"_ You have to consider this . . . at some point, as you drill down increasingly further into the underlying nature of things you can either accept one of two things, either infinite regress (things are always underpinned by something else, you can carry on drilling down forever, it never stops, everything can be 'explained' - or at least described - by something more fundamental that underpins whatever you are looking at), the other option (which most science points toward) is that there is a fundamental level, with nothing underpinning it, so for example an electron is not made of anything 'smaller', if you take this second option, that there are fundamental things, then you have to except that some things 'just are' . . . electrons have an innate magnetic moment, because this is fundamental to electrons, with nothing underpinning, so it's simply the nature of electrons . . . hope that makes sense !
Why are the electron's movements perfectly synchronized, why would they be synced and not just randomly disordered? Even for the most complicated example, the Ne atom - it's like they all fall the nucleus at around the same time and then they are Lorentz-deflected. Those electrons all interact not only with the nucleus (attraction and free-fall), but also among themselves (same charge repelling).When all those electrons are close to the nucleus, this should create a lot of repelling. I guess those orbit trajectories were calculated for a simplified model where only electron-nucleus interaction is taken into account and thus the orbits are nice, regular, smooth, but if one takes electron-electron interaction into account, then the orbits might be disturbed, more irregular. Also, thinking about the simple case of He, with two electrons - since they repell and will tend to stay further apart to minimize their energy, then when one is close to the nucleus, the other should be furthest away.. so synchronized movement but with a phase shift to minimize the total energy of the system. Btw, did Gryzinski mention something about multiple electron's spin alignment allowing them to get closer together?
Chris Szerenos if you think about the property of attractive force, it's not only clear why they have specific orbit but kinda the only orbit. It's like joining 2 magnets, the sides with perfectly align because it has to align.
Yea...I'm looking at this model...and it is not 100% accurate but its a good model to start on. There are however lots of sub-atomic forces that we don't one hundred percent understand.
I could be wrong but I think they illustrated the movements like that to give us an idea how the electron movement shapes the atom. As far as I know you're absolutely correct that they move more in random waves rather than synchronized orbits.
I guess they are just one very particular and simplified way of moving. There would be myriads of way. Also possibly including an approximation of adding Gryzinski H orbitals similar as with the simplified wave functions of He, by adding the H's ones with variance. But what is fundamental for me here was to realize that Lorentz forces allow a lot of atomic electron movements without nuclear collapse and stable. Maybe someone will figure out all the possible movements and they will together also average into the wave function probabilities.
If I understand the current theories correctly, they do not move at all. I mean if they moved this way a greater problem would be that they lose their energy to acceleration and fall into the nucleus, no? The wave occupies the whole orbital all at once. Am I missing something or does this theory explain something else?
Well, no, that's not at all what an atom 'looks' like really. The electron's movements are actually quantum mechanical and are more of a cloud of probability, not solid particles moving around the nucleus. There are some good diagrams out there of how the probability clouds line up around the nucleus with various combinations of electrons.
I remember learning about electron orbitals in highschool and understanding that some elements have a "happy number" of electrons and don't react (re: noble gasses) while other substances (like Florine, as example) are very reactive and really want that extra electron. I knew that was the case but not really why. Your video with the visualization made it plainly clear how alkaline metals or halogen gasses lik e Fl would be sort of polar and obviously looking to even out. Connected some dots for me, random thing I learned today, much thanks.
One important thing this video didn't make clear: the free-fall atomic model is a classical approximation of electron orbital clouds, it's not actually intended to be a theoretical rival to quantum mechanics. It was developed by Michael Gryzinski in order to make better approximations for atomic scattering experiments. Since it's a classical model it's easier than using quantum mechanics to compute solutions for experiments, and it makes more accurate scattering predictions than the earlier classical Bohr atomic model.
I am impressed by my educators, this is pretty close to how I was taught electron "shells", and probability clouds at the age of 16 in 1967. Must have been pretty cutting edge at the time. I have had a lifetime career dealing with those pesky little electrons ever since.
According to the video, in p-orbital 2 electrons move in 2 half dumbbells and make a p-orbital full dumbbell shaped. So what will happen in d-orbital? How do 2 electrons move in 4 half dumbbells? Confused 😢
Very well made! But since I'm a chemistry teacher, I have to say that there's some mistakes that deeply bugged me... First : after 4 electrons (element Be), the others electrons added (until Ne) form what we call "p orbitals". Those have 2 lobes, not only one like shown. However, they can be represented with only one if they are hybridized (when elements form chemical bonds with others). But in that case, they would have a different geometry that what is shown. Indeed, since electrons have a negative charge, there is important electrostatic repulsion within the atom which make the electrons want to be the farthest from each other.
The comments are hilarious. I don't know if all of them are first year chemistry students, but this visualization is not in agreement with even early 20th century electrodynamics, let alone quantum mechanics from which the orbitals are attained.
I am in 11th standard and don't understand what some legendary men have asked in the comment section like about lobes and all but this video brought me to a satisfactory position . I wanted to visualise electrons revolving with the concept of s p d f sub shells and the vdo did it. Thanks!!
devendra narain That is shown wrong in video. 1 electron in P orpital cover the whole Px/Py/Pz lobe, not just one part of lobe. So yes. They pass from one lobe to another of their orbital.
Yes, I thought the same, p orbitals are symmetric. Anyway, this animation is based in a model that is itself just an approximation, electrons would move this way IF the electromagnetic field wasn't quantized.
IIRC, yes they can pass from one lobe to the other. The three P-orbitals are numbered p¹, p², and p³, and can each contain two electrons, one spin-up and one spin-down. Since the two electrons in each orbital otherwise have the same values for their other three quantum properties, the spin up/down difference puts both electrons in compliance with the Pauli Exclusion Principle, and enables both to share the same quantum wave function that is the orbital they both share. And the electrons can tunnel across from one lobe to the other as a consequence. So while probabilistically unlikely, you can if you were able to observe on short enough time scales, catch both electrons hanging out together in the same lobe of the same orbital. :)
While this is for a model different than the quantum model, and I think people in the comments really need to realize this because the default model that we currently use is the quantum model and this animation might be misleading for those that are trying to learn the default, but that is the viewer's responsibility to see that the title says "Gryzinski's free-fall atomic models" , other than that the animation is pretty cool!
I saw latest Semi classical pictures of electrons orbital 3D vedio by 2 times .....but understanding not pass the benchmark...after watching this video every picture is crystal clear.....
Yes, you are right, a p orbital is made up of two 'lobes' . . . a single p orbital looks like a "dumbbell" . . . you can't have half a p orbital (like in this video).
Hey Barthek88 what program was this made in? Do you know of any programs or applications that will illustrate the movement of electrons in molecules this way? Thanks.
I thought orbitals we'ren't "orbits" at all, but a zone within which there is a high probability of the electron being "observed". That they do not "spin" or "orbit" around the nucleus, but instead make quantum appearances when observed.
Fascinating, wonderful presentation. I recall learning about orbitals in highschool chemistry, would have helped to see your video back then! Many thanks, VERY enjoyable to watch :)
I don't know what problems do the teachers have when they teach in the class , I mean do they don't know what electron spin actually it they just don't tell us...they was the best video it cleared most of my doubts , I appreciate the creater of this video👏👏
Show us your mathematical model, i.e. the differential equations, or whatever equations you THINK these particles obey, Michael Gryzinski. For WHAT REASON would the electrons move in the manner animated here?
__yes yes lex mathematicalyy_phisics not is it in video clip and not prezent or other date phisics numeric with valory energy of atom of ellectron of or all other date_ _egzample valory mass or valory sarcine ellectric in coulombous and speed_fast ellectron smin around nuclleu s with third of quatre from speed_fast light _ __why__??? __archaicxn lord
i think what ever the animation shown from boron onwards in which they shown only one lobe for every electron from boron to nitrogen...is wrong..its not correctly shown...for p-orbital two lobes should be there even for one electron in one orbital also
Yep, pretty much everything in this video is wrong in some way . . . but yeah, like you say you can't have half a p orbital, there is no such thing, this would be like have half an s orbital (a hemisphere) . . a p orbital always has 2 lobes.
Thank for posting this dynamic model. I like the simplicity and the use of the Lorentz force, which bends the trajectory of the free falling electron, due to the EM field of the atom and the existence of the spin of the electron. I only wonder why it hasn't got more attention. Either it has been excluded from main stream ideas, or it has been disproved.
Well I think it comes to the Copenhagen (idealist) Vs the Bohmian (realist dialectical materialist) interpretation of quantum mechanics. Copenhagen's founder thought of stuff on the microscopic scale as fuzzy probabilistic mathematical wavefunction only, unfortunately this interpretation is philosophically bad or idealist. Bohmian mechanics says there's a real particle(or beables) which are guided by the wave function, i.e a real quantum field, magnetic field, electronic field etc. This is a more philosophically sound interpretation unfortunately it's not the mainstream (but close to second). Both interpretations r able to predict the outcomes of quantum mechanical experiments. Bohmian can explain the macroscopic and microscopic in one Theory, Copenhagen can't. If we assume the locations all the particles to be real (as bohiman does but Copenhagen orthodoxy doesn't) this is an accurate Bohmian(pilot wave theory) interpretation of atoms, which funny enough I think this is probably what the person who did this work was inspired by.
Some quick googling yields that Gryzinski's model makes predictions that disagree with experiment. See www.scienceforums.net/topic/51199-any-comments-about-gryzinski-free-fall-atomic-model/?page=3
@@rodrigoappendino I dont think so that the uncertainty principle is the explanation. This principle is based on the fact we can't measure both position and velocity simultaneously with absolute certainty, since the measurement itself interferes with the motion. I think the problem lies in the acceleration of the electron near the nucleus. This would lead to photon emission. In a hydrogen atom with two electrons the emission of a photon by the accelerating electron could be absorbed by the other electron, which slows down. In other words the two orbits are coupled. For a single electron around a hydrogen this is problematic, or the photon is absorbed by the nucleus, since we see no outside radiation.
I always doubted quantum mechanics as a fundamental description of what was really happening - it doesn't actually say anything except calculus wise- and was always thinking about a force repelling the electron nearby the nucleus allowing classical interpretations of different kind of stable "orbits" without nuclear collapse. Now, I'm sure Gryzinski's model is closer to what is really happening than Bohr's or QMs'. I predict this becoming the standard in the future. Although QMs would still be used to simplify calculations, it's Gryzinski's or similar theory that will solve the problems with QMs. Thank you sooo much, Barthek for something I have been looking for for whole my adult life (43 now)!! I'd kiss you! :-)
Very nice video. Thank you. I have learned on university but not only this one. I must say that all entities(elements, molucules, object, planets, galaxies) are particles and a wave in the same time. So here is a nice example. Imagine a complex entity like a human, exactly surfer on board. He acts as a particle. But he is a wave too cause he can surf on a wave. A very good analogy is a soundwave. So imagination come from a scale or an object, that we can compare it to our particle and make a decision what is look like. A wave or a particle. And this is a relativity.
If an electron is a particle but it just moved up and down like a wave so doesn't it mean it's still a particle. If it is a wave then it should be on the form of an energy. Right?
Hey Guys! We modelised the HYDROGEN :
ruclips.net/video/SFobgbe5GLk/видео.html
Tell me what you think of it?
ruclips.net/video/NMCKyHsr-HQ/видео.html&ab_channel=Barthek88
@@Barthek88can you please make one model of radioactive material it will help
what have we done to be so blessed to see this with a click in a phone
Compreender o comportamento do nosso universo e aplicar o que encontramos
SCIENCE
Truly,,I am so grateful 💕💕
Along with the music this is the most intense video I have watched on such a subject
Great man!! I always had problems with understanding this, i asked my teachers , friends but they never were able to satisfy me, they were confined to books, and my friends said why to go so deep, just memorize. This video helped me a lot.
Same here
Same here 😞😞
Same here (3)😅🤝
Same Bhai aaj Jake samajh gua
It's not even about going "that deep" for me, I guess I'm stupid, but I literally can't understand something unless i can picture it in my head. I'm like wtf are orbitals, please show them to me with at least a theoretic model.
Entire my life,I thought electon moves around the nucleolus like the earth or other planets move around the ☀.
Now I'm clear.
Me too
You thought that is correct, search ATOM model gif then you understand..it's wrong in video
hats off to the man who uploaded this video....
my whole life was a lie... I thought it moves around like the planets move around the sun
same bro .. i even used to teach children taking sun and planet example as electron and nucleus. i even used to understand the same way b myself.
thanks for uploader for good work
MrYousifmen also the planets don't move around the sun as you think😂
don't they teach this in high school? I learned this when i was 16
No, but this video isn't right either.
The truth is that nobody knows how the electrons move around an atom. We don't even know if an electron is a particle or a wave.
Perfect choice of music, thank you.
is it!
What I witnessed here was something I've never seen before... It's really amazing specially with the music
Yes. Thank you God. A quick, clear and visual answer. Instead of reading tons of pages of wannabe physicists "trying" to be clear. Thank you. Thank you.
After 40 years this make my concept clear. Though i watched 100 videos on this. Buy this is the best
Finally got cleared.
From a long time I was in doubt.
Prachi Rahate I still have a doubt.Why the electron of hydrogen atom doesn't get collided to the nucleus
Prachi Rahate
me too
Same here!!!! From my high school days!!!
shivam verma : you're trying to apply Newtonian physics to the subatomic world. That doesn't work.
This is not how they move!!! It's an elegant but WRONG model, just like the Bohr model. The real one is quantum orbitals, where there are certain "clouds" of probability where electrons most likely are, but their motion is very chaotic.
A symphony of freedom, you made a masterpiece even still remained all its values
This is just mindblowing..for 2 years, I have been struggling to understand this model...I always wanted to know how atom along with all the moving electrons would look like...none of the teachers could give a satisfying explanation...
This video completely washed of all my doubts...now I am feeling super fresh...thanks to you!💫
I've watched many videos here about electron movement. And it's been explained that electrons behave as a particle and a wave. And that electrons can be anywhere and anytime around the nucleus. And that because of the speed of their movement they could possibly be at the same place at the same time. I'm just curious to know if these animations are still accurate since this was made 6 years ago. This video really helped me understand how electrons move but has this model of electron movement changes since then?
_"[are] these animations are still accurate"_
No, they are nonsense. Electrons do not 'move' within their orbital.
@@davelordyso what do they do? I'm really curious. I used to think that spinning of electrons means something like rotating on their exis like the earth. This animation has given me a different way to visualise it. I really wanna know if this isn't accurate then what more there is to know.
@@blackpink5937 _"so what do they do?"_
This sounds like an excuse, but in reality there is no common language that easily describes what electrons 'do', for the very simple reason that our language evolved to describe the classical world, so an explanation tends to sound counterintuitive.
Electrons do not move in the traditional sense (as in classical mechanics), they exist in an orbital, but at not moving within that orbital.
_"I used to think that spinning of electrons means something like rotating on their exis like the earth."_
Yeah, that's a common mistake, but electrons don't spin, they _can't_ spin, they are dimensionless 'point particles', for something to spin it would need an 'extent' (essentially a size) - this misunderstanding about 'spin' comes from the first attempts to understand the electron's magnetic moment (they act like a tiny bar magnet) it was thought to derive from the spin of their electrical charge (moving electric fields = magnetic fields), but this turned out to not be the case.
@@davelordy so any explanation for their magnetic properties.
@@blackpink5937 _"so any explanation for their magnetic properties"_
You have to consider this . . . at some point, as you drill down increasingly further into the underlying nature of things you can either accept one of two things, either infinite regress (things are always underpinned by something else, you can carry on drilling down forever, it never stops, everything can be 'explained' - or at least described - by something more fundamental that underpins whatever you are looking at), the other option (which most science points toward) is that there is a fundamental level, with nothing underpinning it, so for example an electron is not made of anything 'smaller', if you take this second option, that there are fundamental things, then you have to except that some things 'just are' . . . electrons have an innate magnetic moment, because this is fundamental to electrons, with nothing underpinning, so it's simply the nature of electrons . . . hope that makes sense !
Amazing video! I couldn't understand the concept of how two atoms move in the same orbit but this video cleared it up
Very useful illustration. cleared doubts regarding electron movement never understood studying textbooks correctly.
Solute man after 6 hours of searching got you❤❤🔥
Why are the electron's movements perfectly synchronized, why would they be synced and not just randomly disordered? Even for the most complicated example, the Ne atom - it's like they all fall the nucleus at around the same time and then they are Lorentz-deflected. Those electrons all interact not only with the nucleus (attraction and free-fall), but also among themselves (same charge repelling).When all those electrons are close to the nucleus, this should create a lot of repelling. I guess those orbit trajectories were calculated for a simplified model where only electron-nucleus interaction is taken into account and thus the orbits are nice, regular, smooth, but if one takes electron-electron interaction into account, then the orbits might be disturbed, more irregular. Also, thinking about the simple case of He, with two electrons - since they repell and will tend to stay further apart to minimize their energy, then when one is close to the nucleus, the other should be furthest away.. so synchronized movement but with a phase shift to minimize the total energy of the system. Btw, did Gryzinski mention something about multiple electron's spin alignment allowing them to get closer together?
Chris Szerenos if you think about the property of attractive force, it's not only clear why they have specific orbit but kinda the only orbit. It's like joining 2 magnets, the sides with perfectly align because it has to align.
Yea...I'm looking at this model...and it is not 100% accurate but its a good model to start on. There are however lots of sub-atomic forces that we don't one hundred percent understand.
I could be wrong but I think they illustrated the movements like that to give us an idea how the electron movement shapes the atom. As far as I know you're absolutely correct that they move more in random waves rather than synchronized orbits.
I guess they are just one very particular and simplified way of moving. There would be myriads of way. Also possibly including an approximation of adding Gryzinski H orbitals similar as with the simplified wave functions of He, by adding the H's ones with variance. But what is fundamental for me here was to realize that Lorentz forces allow a lot of atomic electron movements without nuclear collapse and stable. Maybe someone will figure out all the possible movements and they will together also average into the wave function probabilities.
If I understand the current theories correctly, they do not move at all. I mean if they moved this way a greater problem would be that they lose their energy to acceleration and fall into the nucleus, no?
The wave occupies the whole orbital all at once.
Am I missing something or does this theory explain something else?
Finally, this is the greatest video about electron spin so far . Easy to understand. Now I can rest peacefully with no regret
This video is gold for anyone who ever wondered what an atom actually looks lik
Well, no, that's not at all what an atom 'looks' like really. The electron's movements are actually quantum mechanical and are more of a cloud of probability, not solid particles moving around the nucleus. There are some good diagrams out there of how the probability clouds line up around the nucleus with various combinations of electrons.
Yeah mostly but the real atom is more beautiful and mysterious than this near approximation
This video is more than perfect
Great I was in a search of such kind of content since long and eventually I got it thanky so much for making such kind of 3D visualizing graphics 🙂
well, this ease up my studies a lot, thanks for the video :)
I remember learning about electron orbitals in highschool and understanding that some elements have a "happy number" of electrons and don't react (re: noble gasses) while other substances (like Florine, as example) are very reactive and really want that extra electron. I knew that was the case but not really why. Your video with the visualization made it plainly clear how alkaline metals or halogen gasses lik e Fl would be sort of polar and obviously looking to even out. Connected some dots for me, random thing I learned today, much thanks.
A Masterpiece! Be nice to see this continued right the way throughout the periodic table.
It's going to get messy when d- and f- orbitals are introduced imo
Best animation and explains us all about subshell, orbitals and electrons
It's amazing I have searched alot and watched plenty of videos but I didn't understand subsidiary quantum numbers but now I understand them quite well
This video is more helpful than other videos thank you a lot!
Funeral for Queen Mary, by Henry Purcell. Most famously heard in A Clockwork Orange.
One important thing this video didn't make clear: the free-fall atomic model is a classical approximation of electron orbital clouds, it's not actually intended to be a theoretical rival to quantum mechanics. It was developed by Michael Gryzinski in order to make better approximations for atomic scattering experiments. Since it's a classical model it's easier than using quantum mechanics to compute solutions for experiments, and it makes more accurate scattering predictions than the earlier classical Bohr atomic model.
This is what i was looking for a year
Great video❤❤❤
Absolutely brilliant. Helped me a lot
I am impressed by my educators, this is pretty close to how I was taught electron "shells", and probability clouds at the age of 16 in 1967. Must have been pretty cutting edge at the time. I have had a lifetime career dealing with those pesky little electrons ever since.
I love how these orbits found by this scientist match the orbits that can be obtained from schrodingers equation
Finally cleared doubt after 2 years
After many trails I understand it. Very excellent.
Thanks for making it.
🙏
I also want to see d and f orbitals.
I just learned about this new orbitals today... was confused during the class but after watching this, have a great confident...
I love the epic battle music right next to the electeon moving
This is exactly what I was looking for thanks a lot sir thanks a lot
Super bro i did not find with this much clarity explanation
Most satisfying video until now!!
interesting video . it really demonstrates clearly how the atom actaully works
If each electron added was in a different color, it would have been unbeatably splendid
Beautyfull video, is wonderfull
Amazing
I didn't know Electrons could be so interesting and menacing at the same time.
Amazing projection 👍👌👏
According to the video, in p-orbital 2 electrons move in 2 half dumbbells and make a p-orbital full dumbbell shaped.
So what will happen in d-orbital? How do 2 electrons move in 4 half dumbbells?
Confused 😢
At first I thought the clockwork orange music was a bad choice. Within moments I realized how wrong I was. Everything about this is amazing.
Very well made! But since I'm a chemistry teacher, I have to say that there's some mistakes that deeply bugged me... First : after 4 electrons (element Be), the others electrons added (until Ne) form what we call "p orbitals". Those have 2 lobes, not only one like shown. However, they can be represented with only one if they are hybridized (when elements form chemical bonds with others). But in that case, they would have a different geometry that what is shown. Indeed, since electrons have a negative charge, there is important electrostatic repulsion within the atom which make the electrons want to be the farthest from each other.
Thanks man, was going to comment same. You elaborated perfectly.
But in this u should have used spdf orbitals names with them ...and the movement seems not random in orbitals it seems certain
The comments are hilarious. I don't know if all of them are first year chemistry students, but this visualization is not in agreement with even early 20th century electrodynamics, let alone quantum mechanics from which the orbitals are attained.
I was not satisfied with the all explanations and just searched and searched and searched then at last got this masterpiece I'm satisfied with.
from hydrogen to beryllium what ever animation is created is very very nice marvelous...thanks for animator and creator
I am in 11th standard and don't understand what some legendary men have asked in the comment section like about lobes and all but this video brought me to a satisfactory position . I wanted to visualise electrons revolving with the concept of s p d f sub shells and the vdo did it.
Thanks!!
Hey!!! Same
Best video on utube ever👌
Awesome video but scary music 😂
You're wrong
In first orbital electron only rotates in circle not in dumb bell
I understand now. When I was in college I couldn't picture this in my mind. Because of the animation I see.
Great video to understand, but I have query . In p orbital do electron revolve in one lobe only. Can they pass from one lobe to other?
devendra narain That is shown wrong in video. 1 electron in P orpital cover the whole Px/Py/Pz lobe, not just one part of lobe. So yes. They pass from one lobe to another of their orbital.
*Following for answers
devendra narain
Read my statement. Coz this is total bullshit.
Yes, I thought the same, p orbitals are symmetric. Anyway, this animation is based in a model that is itself just an approximation, electrons would move this way IF the electromagnetic field wasn't quantized.
IIRC, yes they can pass from one lobe to the other. The three P-orbitals are numbered p¹, p², and p³, and can each contain two electrons, one spin-up and one spin-down. Since the two electrons in each orbital otherwise have the same values for their other three quantum properties, the spin up/down difference puts both electrons in compliance with the Pauli Exclusion Principle, and enables both to share the same quantum wave function that is the orbital they both share. And the electrons can tunnel across from one lobe to the other as a consequence. So while probabilistically unlikely, you can if you were able to observe on short enough time scales, catch both electrons hanging out together in the same lobe of the same orbital. :)
Great it cleared my all doubts
Thank you so much barthek88
Very transparency in this video for orbit and orbital....nice
A Clockwork Orange theme, fantastic.
THANK YOU SO MUCH, IT TOOK ME A MILLION YEARS TO UNDERSTAND HOW ELECTRONS "SPIN"!!
Hats off to the camerman who became the size of nucleus to shoot this video for us
While this is for a model different than the quantum model, and I think people in the comments really need to realize this because the default model that we currently use is the quantum model and this animation might be misleading for those that are trying to learn the default, but that is the viewer's responsibility to see that the title says "Gryzinski's free-fall atomic models" , other than that the animation is pretty cool!
with this i can finally say my lifes mission of understanding life is complete. thank you 4minute youtube video with dracula music
omg night before a chem test ofc i come across this just NOW!!
It was a great video on electron movement in orbital..
Very helpfull...
Thank you forever❤❤
Great JOB. Nice Video.
I saw latest Semi classical pictures of electrons orbital 3D vedio by 2 times .....but understanding not pass the benchmark...after watching this video every picture is crystal clear.....
That is one of the most incredible revelations I have ever seen, simply amazing, and thank you so very much for that!
It is the best video of the youtube. Thanks a million .
This is called true use of technology to make us understand easily 🎉🎉
This is fantastic it clears doubts
It is a wrong model where is p orbital double dumble shape 🙏
Yes, you are right, a p orbital is made up of two 'lobes' . . . a single p orbital looks like a "dumbbell" . . . you can't have half a p orbital (like in this video).
Hearted thanks to creators
Hey Barthek88 what program was this made in? Do you know of any programs or applications that will illustrate the movement of electrons in molecules this way? Thanks.
I thought orbitals we'ren't "orbits" at all, but a zone within which there is a high probability of the electron being "observed". That they do not "spin" or "orbit" around the nucleus, but instead make quantum appearances when observed.
Fascinating, wonderful presentation. I recall learning about orbitals in highschool chemistry, would have helped to see your video back then! Many thanks, VERY enjoyable to watch :)
I don't know what problems do the teachers have when they teach in the class , I mean do they don't know what electron spin actually it they just don't tell us...they was the best video it cleared most of my doubts , I appreciate the creater of this video👏👏
Thank you sir, no one has explained this to me. Thank you 🙏🙏
It's crazy to think this basic motion makes up such an complex universe.
Good choice of music man... is that from Clockwork Orange?
It was indeed
A clockwork atom
Amazing post. Thank you
Thanks! It helped a lot! Cleared all my Misconceptions..
The fact that none of them collide amazes me.
Show us your mathematical model, i.e. the differential equations, or whatever equations you THINK these particles obey, Michael Gryzinski.
For WHAT REASON would the electrons move in the manner animated here?
__yes yes lex mathematicalyy_phisics not is it in video clip and not prezent or other date phisics numeric with valory energy of atom of ellectron of or all other date_ _egzample valory mass or valory sarcine ellectric in coulombous and speed_fast ellectron smin around nuclleu s with third of quatre from speed_fast light _ __why__??? __archaicxn lord
i think what ever the animation shown from boron onwards in which they shown only one lobe for every electron from boron to nitrogen...is wrong..its not correctly shown...for p-orbital two lobes should be there even for one electron in one orbital also
Yes bro
Yep, pretty much everything in this video is wrong in some way . . . but yeah, like you say you can't have half a p orbital, there is no such thing, this would be like have half an s orbital (a hemisphere) . . a p orbital always has 2 lobes.
👍from 2 yrs i hv been trying to find out how electron move in orbital, what does orbital look alike. Thnx it helped a lot.
Thank for posting this dynamic model. I like the simplicity and the use of the Lorentz force, which bends the trajectory of the free falling electron, due to the EM field of the atom and the existence of the spin of the electron. I only wonder why it hasn't got more attention. Either it has been excluded from main stream ideas, or it has been disproved.
Galileosays I wondered that too! Anyone?
Well I think it comes to the Copenhagen (idealist) Vs the Bohmian (realist dialectical materialist) interpretation of quantum mechanics. Copenhagen's founder thought of stuff on the microscopic scale as fuzzy probabilistic mathematical wavefunction only, unfortunately this interpretation is philosophically bad or idealist. Bohmian mechanics says there's a real particle(or beables) which are guided by the wave function, i.e a real quantum field, magnetic field, electronic field etc. This is a more philosophically sound interpretation unfortunately it's not the mainstream (but close to second). Both interpretations r able to predict the outcomes of quantum mechanical experiments. Bohmian can explain the macroscopic and microscopic in one Theory, Copenhagen can't. If we assume the locations all the particles to be real (as bohiman does but Copenhagen orthodoxy doesn't) this is an accurate Bohmian(pilot wave theory) interpretation of atoms, which funny enough I think this is probably what the person who did this work was inspired by.
This violate the uncertainty principle
Some quick googling yields that Gryzinski's model makes predictions that disagree with experiment. See www.scienceforums.net/topic/51199-any-comments-about-gryzinski-free-fall-atomic-model/?page=3
@@rodrigoappendino I dont think so that the uncertainty principle is the explanation. This principle is based on the fact we can't measure both position and velocity simultaneously with absolute certainty, since the measurement itself interferes with the motion.
I think the problem lies in the acceleration of the electron near the nucleus. This would lead to photon emission. In a hydrogen atom with two electrons the emission of a photon by the accelerating electron could be absorbed by the other electron, which slows down. In other words the two orbits are coupled. For a single electron around a hydrogen this is problematic, or the photon is absorbed by the nucleus, since we see no outside radiation.
Hey droogies, Atoms of Clockwork Orange music striking my eardrums
that isn't atoms, that's transfer of kinetic energy
Revolution of planets example used to show different energy levels and ya books are in 2d. But this person cleared our minds.Thanks nice video
interesting. best model i've ever seen.
but
why do some electrons go from level to level and what causes to be a boundary in the first place?
I always doubted quantum mechanics as a fundamental description of what was really happening - it doesn't actually say anything except calculus wise- and was always thinking about a force repelling the electron nearby the nucleus allowing classical interpretations of different kind of stable "orbits" without nuclear collapse. Now, I'm sure Gryzinski's model is closer to what is really happening than Bohr's or QMs'. I predict this becoming the standard in the future. Although QMs would still be used to simplify calculations, it's Gryzinski's or similar theory that will solve the problems with QMs. Thank you sooo much, Barthek for something I have been looking for for whole my adult life (43 now)!! I'd kiss you! :-)
because of this my concept is cleared . thanks a lotttttttttttttttt
Very nice video. Thank you.
I have learned on university but not only this one.
I must say that all entities(elements, molucules, object, planets, galaxies) are particles and a wave in the same time.
So here is a nice example. Imagine a complex entity like a human, exactly surfer on board. He acts as a particle. But he is a wave too cause he can surf on a wave. A very good analogy is a soundwave. So imagination come from a scale or an object, that we can compare it to our particle and make a decision what is look like. A wave or a particle. And this is a relativity.
If an electron is a particle but it just moved up and down like a wave so doesn't it mean it's still a particle. If it is a wave then it should be on the form of an energy. Right?
this was simply amazing!!