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.
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 !
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
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.
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.
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.
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. :)
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 😢
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 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.
If electron moves around atom core with any trajectory than it's speed is changing and therefor it's shooting out braking radiation and will fall into the core in a fraction of a microsecond. Is there an explanation of this for that model?
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!!
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.
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.
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!
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).
Im sorry about this question Are electrons from carbon the same as electrons from oxygen or like hydrogen? What keeps the electron attracted to its atom as it seems to be repelled and then comes back for more abuse in orbit?
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 :)
Some questions: 1. When the video refers to electron spin (at 1:23), I presume that means spinning of the electron on its own axis? So assuming I'm right with that, does "not perpendicular to trajectory" mean the same as saying parallel to trajectory? 2. Also, do the electrons go right through the nucleus? Shouldn't they be going faster when they're closer to the nucleus? 3. In the case of lithium, it seems to be that it's the same electron each time that is the one that goes into the outer shell. Would I be right in saying that that is the electron that is changing energy levels (& not the other two)? and that it changes E levels randomly; with there being a higher probability of it being in the higher E level? 4. Taking boron as an example; if you were to measure its electron cloud over a short period of time, would it appear darker on one side? (due to the lobe sticking out of it)? And would I be right in saying that you'd have to keep taking measurements of the electron position within boron over a longer period of time that it would the darkness of the electron cloud eventually average out?
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.....
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! :-)
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 am confused. If electrons orbit like this, then they are constantly changing shells right? They do it in a discrete manner though right ( The first few seconds of video showed them hopping around in discrete fashion then for sake of simplicity went to an analog motion model I guess). So does this mean atoms are constantly absorbing and emitting energy (photons/electromagnetic radiation etc.). I heard that when an electron changes shells energy is released. Sorry for my questions.. just barely getting into this subject .. watched a few videos on quantum mechanics.
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👏👏
Wieso gibt es ab lithium diese blauen schalen? Wieso bewegen sich die elektronen in den blauen schalen nicht einfach in den selben schalen wie die elektronen in der lilanen schale?
Does the electron in p orbital does not revolve around the nucleus. Because in that video the first electron in p orbital is only moving inside the lobes which was first shown. Can anyone clear this briefly
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.
But as I study e- in hydrogen atom it moves in a circular way as theta varies to 0 to π. And phi varies to 0 to 2π.I doesn't understand what you show thats 120°
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.
hats off to the man who uploaded this video....
Perfect choice of music, thank you.
is it!
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!💫
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
What I witnessed here was something I've never seen before... It's really amazing specially with the music
After 40 years this make my concept clear. Though i watched 100 videos on this. Buy this is the best
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 !
A symphony of freedom, you made a masterpiece even still remained all its values
Amazing video! I couldn't understand the concept of how two atoms move in the same orbit but this video cleared it up
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.
Finally, this is the greatest video about electron spin so far . Easy to understand. Now I can rest peacefully with no regret
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.
Very useful illustration. cleared doubts regarding electron movement never understood studying textbooks correctly.
well, this ease up my studies a lot, thanks for the video :)
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?
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
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.
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
Solute man after 6 hours of searching got you❤❤🔥
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 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 🙂
Thanks a billion billion! I was so confused about how electron moves around the nucleus! Now, I am so clear that I can teach anyone.
This video is more than perfect
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
But suppose to be px and py why i don't see them i mean like isnt suppose to be vertical for px and py
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 😢
This video is more helpful than other videos thank you a lot!
Best animation and explains us all about subshell, orbitals and electrons
This is what i was looking for a year
Great video❤❤❤
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.
But in this u should have used spdf orbitals names with them ...and the movement seems not random in orbitals it seems certain
If each electron added was in a different color, it would have been unbeatably splendid
I love how these orbits found by this scientist match the orbits that can be obtained from schrodingers equation
I just learned about this new orbitals today... was confused during the class but after watching this, have a great confident...
Absolutely brilliant. Helped me a lot
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.
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.
If electron moves around atom core with any trajectory than it's speed is changing and therefor it's shooting out braking radiation and will fall into the core in a fraction of a microsecond. Is there an explanation of this for that model?
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
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.
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.
interesting video . it really demonstrates clearly how the atom actaully works
Super bro i did not find with this much clarity explanation
from hydrogen to beryllium what ever animation is created is very very nice marvelous...thanks for animator and creator
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.
It is the best video of the youtube. Thanks a million .
This is exactly what I was looking for thanks a lot sir thanks a lot
THANK YOU SO MUCH, IT TOOK ME A MILLION YEARS TO UNDERSTAND HOW ELECTRONS "SPIN"!!
Amazing projection 👍👌👏
10Q. could p sub level had more than 3 orbital? i confused by this
Same here bro it is wrong model bcz there is p orbital double dumble shape mention 🤔
Finally cleared doubt after 2 years
Best video on utube ever👌
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!
After many trails I understand it. Very excellent.
Thanks for making it.
🙏
I also want to see d and f orbitals.
Great it cleared my all doubts
Thank you so much barthek88
I didn't know Electrons could be so interesting and menacing at the same time.
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).
It was a great video on electron movement in orbital..
Very helpfull...
Thank you forever❤❤
Im sorry about this question
Are electrons from carbon the same as electrons from oxygen or like hydrogen? What keeps the electron attracted to its atom as it seems to be repelled and then comes back for more abuse in orbit?
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 :)
Most satisfying video until now!!
Great JOB. Nice Video.
I love the epic battle music right next to the electeon moving
Some questions:
1. When the video refers to electron spin (at 1:23), I presume that means spinning of the electron on its own axis? So assuming I'm right with that, does "not perpendicular to trajectory" mean the same as saying parallel to trajectory?
2. Also, do the electrons go right through the nucleus? Shouldn't they be going faster when they're closer to the nucleus?
3. In the case of lithium, it seems to be that it's the same electron each time that is the one that goes into the outer shell. Would I be right in saying that that is the electron that is changing energy levels (& not the other two)? and that it changes E levels randomly; with there being a higher probability of it being in the higher E level?
4. Taking boron as an example; if you were to measure its electron cloud over a short period of time, would it appear darker on one side? (due to the lobe sticking out of it)? And would I be right in saying that you'd have to keep taking measurements of the electron position within boron over a longer period of time that it would the darkness of the electron cloud eventually average out?
Funeral for Queen Mary, by Henry Purcell. Most famously heard in A Clockwork Orange.
Can you please upload d orbital also??
Hats off to the camerman who became the size of nucleus to shoot this video for us
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?
That is one of the most incredible revelations I have ever seen, simply amazing, and thank you so very much for that!
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.....
I understand now. When I was in college I couldn't picture this in my mind. Because of the animation I see.
Very transparency in this video for orbit and orbital....nice
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!!
This is fantastic it clears doubts
Is there any proof for that electrons moment?
why the electrons not colliding with the nucleus as it is going near to it
Aruntej Thatipamula it's going behind it
it can collide. it does that very often but there are so many atoms that it doesn't make a difference
Aruntej Thatipamula The nucleus and electron is smaller than what you're watching. It's *SUPER* small
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle proves why electron cannot exist inside the nucleus
what makes electrons take a different orbits even tho they have same proprietes please ?
The pink ones are turning around the blue or they spinning around a nucleus that is being attracted?
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! :-)
how did we snapshot its path? with what kind of camera? x ray camera will shoot it off course..
Is the nucleus spinning? If not, why is there precession? Do the electrons in the first two shells always orbit in same plane?
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
Thanks! It helped a lot! Cleared all my Misconceptions..
isn't orbital theory replaced with probability cloud?
I am confused. If electrons orbit like this, then they are constantly changing shells right? They do it in a discrete manner though right ( The first few seconds of video showed them hopping around in discrete fashion then for sake of simplicity went to an analog motion model I guess). So does this mean atoms are constantly absorbing and emitting energy (photons/electromagnetic radiation etc.). I heard that when an electron changes shells energy is released. Sorry for my questions.. just barely getting into this subject .. watched a few videos on quantum mechanics.
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👏👏
It's crazy to think this basic motion makes up such an complex universe.
Wieso gibt es ab lithium diese blauen schalen? Wieso bewegen sich die elektronen in den blauen schalen nicht einfach in den selben schalen wie die elektronen in der lilanen schale?
Does the electron in p orbital does not revolve around the nucleus. Because in that video the first electron in p orbital is only moving inside the lobes which was first shown. Can anyone clear this briefly
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.
Good choice of music man... is that from Clockwork Orange?
It was indeed
Amazing post. Thank you
But as I study e- in hydrogen atom it moves in a circular way as theta varies to 0 to π. And phi varies to 0 to 2π.I doesn't understand what you show thats 120°
so why is it that electrons do not once in a while clash into each other....(even if they repel afterwards)?
Bartek88 - this is excellent. Would you please tell us the equations you used or refer us to a paper?
The fact that none of them collide amazes me.