Thanks everyone - if anybody wants to help me get all of these visuals into one place (wikipedia, etc), please get in touch via patreon (or my email... it's not too hard to find)!
Releasing these under Creative Commons would be *amazing* - seconding the suggestion. It would also make it possible for Wikipedia to use these visualizations, with proper attribution.
@@JerromyAugust "God doesn't play dice" Well, God also wouldn't be interacted within or made of atoms, and the uncertainty lies in their net behavior which we are literally contained within (in some sense). Wouldn't even bother comparing something that is supposed to be supernatural with the natural. It may be uncertain within our observation and in its behavior, but that does not mean it is not defined someway or another. After all, many things show behaviors of influence regardless of if we can detect or see it. i.e. Dark Matter. It is called the uncertainty principle because within our abilities and within observation, it is an uncertain thing and not within our current ability to predict such a position. That does not imply the universe is baseline random or that it couldn't be controlled. At its fundamental meaning, there is no reason it couldn't exist within a guided universe.
It's a bound electron in an orbital, not a free moving electron. The momentum is very precisely defined by the orbital. It's position is uncertain, which gives you the "cloud". It doesn't have a speed at all -- it's actually called a stationary solution. That is, it's *not going anywhere* but is pinned to the nucleus.
@@JerromyAugust You're using a computer... if you don't believe in the findings of science how do you explain the existence of technology that is based on this knowledge? Do you understand that uncertainty is intimately tied with quantization? And without that, we'd have the "ultraviolet catastrophe" which faced physicists at the end of the 19th century.
somehow the weirdest thing in this video is that google search engine needs an advertisement upd. how do I turn off notifications on this particular comment, not on all comments completely? your replies are kind of the same, thank you
It's not about getting more people to know it, it's about PR. Google is losing popularity and wants people to think better of them. Hence they sponsor something we like to get us to associate google with something we like, and like google in turn.
It makes so glad and thankful to see that there are people, around the globe, working hard for their specie, and they don't care on who you are, they just want to know what is the reality around us, and they work together. Thank you guys, all of you around
Because you will not find the "true" info in any short video. Only by picking up a quantum mechanics textbook, like Griffith's or Sakurai's. As wave functions are functions, meaning they take as inputs 3D points and output a real number, they have too much data to describe with words or simple diagram, only as an equation... unless you write out the equation in words, like "the ground state electron of hydrogen is an inverse exponential as a function of radius." And then there's the often ignored time-varying component.
Because these vids only give the most basic info. Ie, it shows *how* atoms look but not *why* For lay people that's enough, and better than not knowing how they look. But we still don't know atomic physics.
The resulting orbital basically is the bond. The process is just the change in the shape of the initial atomic orbitals as they come together and form a lower energy arrangement. The bond is just what we call the lower energy arrangement of electrons and nuclei that results. It's bonded together because you'd need to put energy in to pull them away from each other.
@@rredd7777 Yes, but how does the process look like? Is it a smooth slow transition, or does it "snap in"? Does it induce a wobble that settles down over time? Do the orbits deform as the atoms come closer? Does it cause a temporary collapse of the wave function?
@@PaulPaulPaulson I can't say 100% for sure, but I would expect the orbitals would sort of "ooze" from the initial to final shape. And this would be over a very brief timeframe, certainly sub-microsecond. And since the orbitals only represent the probability of an electron being at a certain point, it probably doesn't have much effect on things. Of course, this is coming from a chemist, so that would color how I see things.
@@PaulPaulPaulson Time-dependent quantum mechanics is very computationally intensive to compute and is much harder than a stationary state. So expect a lot of time and work to make that.
Incredible, thank you so much for this visualisation. I've always had in my head what my highschool chemistry teacher said "when you start studying at university, you'll have to unlearn everything I've taught you". I never did do chemistry at uni so I've always been wondering about the shells of atoms, the orbit of electrons, and the energy levels of excited atoms. This is an amazing rendering.
@@NH-ge4vz It occurred to me that teekane15 was just making fun of SoufFC for not specifying the subject, so that's why I replied the way I did to the former
As odd as it is, you can make these patterns from a helium neon gas laser by adjusting near plane parallel mirrors. They are called TEM oscillation patterns or simply transverse electric modes. That are literally projections of where the excited electrons were in the helium neon plasma inside the tube. Awesome to see.
quantum theory is bullshit, the electron actually is a 3d em standing wave, and the entire atom and any mass is just the interference pattern of many standing waves being locked in place together in a specific geometric way, which also is the source of gravity. if you want to know what atoms really look like, you have to simulate the oscillation and movement of the wave, without squaring the result.
Yeah there was some inconsistency in the hook part of the video. I love the model though, so I think it could have been introduced in a less inconsistent way.
Yay, this was a great video! I’m really excited to play around with your visualisations once they become available- it’d probably help build intuition :)
Would like to see a water molecule. The fact that the reason that water doesn't mix with oil is because water is polar and oil is non-polar. And, that fascinates the crap out of me.
It can with an emulsifier! Water hydrogen bonds with itself and it would need something to disturb the hydrogen bonds which are pretty strong. It’s why it takes so much energy to boil water. Soap is a really good emulsifier because it has a polar head and then non-polar tail which cleans very well. I always thought this part of biochem was very interesting.
@@vitoriaicassatti4546 I *think* molecules and interactions are both impossible to calculate and draw like this because of the three-body problem. technically all these wavefunctions are of the hydrogen atom because it only has two pieces I could very likely be very wrong
@@DaMonster They aren't impossible, Comsol and other tools are able to create such molecular interactions with constraints. Just that there would always be constraints on number of particles that can be simulated realistically, etc.
Can you do a video that zooms in on the H atom? It was hard to see in this video. And then.... perhaps you could go through the periodic table so we can see how they differ?
@@solusbelmont The difference between hydrogen and helium is in the atomic nucleus: hydrogen has one proton (and no neutron, or one, or two), helium has two protons (and one neuton, or two). So hydrogen can only become helium if you somehow manage to put at least an extra protron into the atomic nucleus. Or, easier, if you fuse two hydrogen nuclei.
@@solusbelmont What does "nbr" mean? Number? If yes, then that's basically right. And isn't that obvious? Two things can only be different from each other if some parts of them differ from each other.
dude how else do you think atoms can differ? They are not different identities or species with some external definition on them. As the atomic number(Proton number) keeps changing, the atom keeps changing too because its entire chemical and physical properties change.@@solusbelmont
This is the reason we love the web. I am in my forties, and I can hardly remember what it was like to not be able to instantly share ideas with anyone else who may find interest.
I don't understand the last Representation-> why two orbital are represented so close ( I mean, on same axis) Aren't they in x y and z planes to minimize repulsion.
@@NamedSoni I'm no expert, but I'm currently in my 2nd and third quantum classes right now so I'll try my best. The m_l quantum number depends on the amount of angular momentum measured along an axis and can range from -l to l in integer values. So an electron with l=1 and m_l=1 will "orbit" one way and an electron with l=1 and m_l=-1 will "orbit" the other way to have an opposite value of angular momentum along the z-axis. This is what is shown with the two close-together orbitals. This actually does reduce repulsion in a sense because if they orbit in opposite directions they won't interact very often. The reason why we can't have another direction is because the z-angular momentum is quantized. Only 2 electrons can take each value of m_l (one for each spin) so if there was another orbital perpendicular to the other two, we would have two different orbits with m_l=0 with the same energy and the same l. This isn't allowed by quantum mechanics
@@pcuimac And not even that. What we see is a tangled mess of interactions of nerve cells in our retina that sends an electrical signal to the Visual cortex that in turn mades a lot of stuff up for us to function in the world.
I saw a thing ages ago called "The Flow" which tried to do this, starting at a tiny scale with speculation on string theory, zooming out to quarks, then to protons and neutrons, then electron clouds and finally ending up at a cell which is probably the smallest thing most people think they understand, so they stopped there. I was trying to find it again and found this, which is also great and probably more helpful than The Flow.
I need 1 hour looping videos for each of these renders in seperate videos, please. I want to watch them as a means of relaxation and/or deep-thinking stimulus.
@@maryrao2306 Indeed I do, but only the ones where the zoom speed is relatively low, and I watch all types of fractals. I enjoy discerning out shapes and oddities in fractals, especially in 3D ones, so when the speed is too fast I feel like I'm missing out details, and it doesn't feel relaxing anymore.
@@windwalkerrangerdm So true! I look for the slower speeds, its more absorbing? If that makes sense. But just like this wonderful picture of atoms, it's too fast, theres a lot to look at..it's everything. Mind blowing!!
I really like the representation. And as much as I love it, I've got to be honest, I find then butt ugly, they make feel icky. But that's my personal hang up. It's way better than most, so hats off.
As someone who is intensely fascinated by atomic physics but can’t picture things in my mind, thank you. So much. This… is what I’ve always wanted to see.
Can you please help me understand the model that he showed? I don't get it, each "droplet" he showed is just a spot where the electron has a chance of being detected. But how is the entire thing moving? Its not like the electron will move like the water droplet, it will just choose a random droplet according to its wavefunction. But didn't the probability distribution remain the same while the orbital was moving. Look at, for example, 2:43. The probability distribution isn't changing while the orbital is rotating. Or is it actually changing??
The most interesting part of this video was how this man was able to get sponsored by GOOGLE among all the millions and billions of people on this platform... Just proves how amazing his channel is...... Well done..
I'm really curious what these visuals would look like for molecules and different kinds of chemical bonds. That's something I've never been able to visualize in a way that I like.
This is the umberllas they used for the decapited rooster thats why the rooster curve arm gave the double V finger as they have a thick angle croc jaw behind it
He: I want to see both the speed and the position. Me: *internal scream* He: *Writes the uncertainty principle* Me: *screaming becomes louder and confused*
Seriously, I think that's where the model actually 'breaks down' because of the assumed 'absoluteness' of position with the moving representation. I honestly think that you can either get one OR the other, but not both, due to the nature of electrons in general. If physics honestly followed the model as presented, then electrons would be vastly easier to 'pin down' in their positions/presence to study. But we know that this isn't the case in practical terms.
I love all the wavefunctions for the quantum states of the hydrogen atom. Schrodinger would be proud and Bohr would be in awe of this model. You are so incredible.
It gets complicated super quick, which is why these kind of diagrams/models always use hydrogen. Add just a few more electrons, and the orbitals begin to stack on top of each other, so you end up with a ball, roughly. A whole molecule would actually be less interesting to look at.
The water molecule would probably have a light electron distribution around the hydrogen nuclei and a heavy distribution around the oxygen atom, showing how the molecule would have ionizing properties. It would appear triangular, which suggests how snowflakes can be six-sided.
If I remember by high school chemistry correctly, it would look similar to one oxygen atom with an almost 120° cloud distribution (single plane) and two hydrogen blobs almost but not fully touching either of the "arms" of oxygen. That hydrogen atom then distorts that 120° as well as the planar property because of electronegativity and all which then gives the famous ~137° tetrahedron shape of water molecule.
I've been explaining to my son that atoms don't "look" like the planetary model, and talking about and showing him the probability maps. I really appreciate these models you've created, as nothing could have shown better. Thanks much.
@@culturecanvas777 Would you rather have kids learn the full analytic expansion of the orbitals of the hydrogen atom? You have to learn to crawl before winning a marathon.
My son is studying quantum physics in University. We had a discussion recently about electron “orbits”. I have orbits in quotes because apparently they don’t orbit?? And it’s just a probability of where the electron is at any one moment. But if a series of moments on an atom show the probability of the electron being in different locations doesn’t that suggest movement? And if an electron is moving around doesn’t that suggest an orbit? I’m confused. But I think this video helped a bit. I’m very visual. And these images are fantastic!!!
In quantum mechanics things really don't work the same as they do on the macro scale. Things don't work deterministically, rather there is inherent randomness built into every aspect of the particles. They exist EVERYWHERE within that bubble at the same time, until you measure it, where it chooses one point to exist in. Its weird, but not too bad if you start to think of it as just a bundle of probabilities.
The problem with such "discussions" is that both parties are usually using the wrong language. An "electron" is a quantum of energy, momentum, angular momentum and charge. If we were to actually measure "an electron" in an atom, then we would destroy the atom. It would not exist after the measurement any longer. This can be done, e.g. with scattering experiments with a high energy beam (of photons, electrons or even other atoms). The result of such a measurement is a scattering angle distribution from which we can reconstruct the wave function (at least partially). We can't do this on a single atom, though. We would need many independent atoms, each of which would be destroyed by the beam interaction. So, at most, we can measure the ensemble average over many atoms. That's NOT ONE electron in motion. That's MANY electrons modifying the beam used to measure them.
@@lepidoptera9337 I appreciate where you are coming from. Where I am coming from is that I have never studied this. My education is in the arts, and while I can appreciate and understand basic physics and science, but when it gets so advanced it just boggles my mind. My education of the atom is high school science and then anything I’ve learned from watching educational videos since then. And while I can’t speak for the majority of the world, I can say pretty confidently MOST of the world does not have the education to truly understand what people who study quantum physics grasp. So, I think “discussions” are really important between people who understand it and those who don’t. Most of the world needs things presented in a way that they can draw upon current knowledge and make inferences or models of something that actually makes sense. Big things get scaled down. Small things get scaled up. Fast things get scaled down to slower so we can understand the mechanics. This video is great because it gives a picture of something complicated but presented in a way that a layman can digest. And THAT was s my real point here. Education. With the rise of misinformation these days, like climate change being a hoax, or the earth being flat, to the age of the earth being in question it’s important to have difficult topics made digestible to larger audiences. So, no I don’t see a problem with having discussions that are not technically accurate to an expert, but at least it gets more and more people leaning in the right direction.
It's just awesome!!! One suggestion, if you permit: Instead of using dots, try to use mist density to show the probability to find the electron. If it's not right there, i think that the mist will help to understand. The dot's suggest that there is thousand of particles there. Thanks a lot for this video!
If youd know how many grannies are out there using the default browser with the default search engine and end up with Boing. EDIT: Meant Bing, but Im keeping the typo lol.
I find your work here is satisfying and, yes, beautiful! As a 70+-year-old dude who hasn’t studied physics in about 50 years, and is struggling to keep up with the world and get some idea of quantum physics, this is a real help and a emotionally satisfying one! 🤓🙃😊
Google is currently on a campaign to teach new skills for the changing world, whether that's good or bad remains to be seen, but right now getting in with "Grow with Google" or one of their other experience growth platforms isn't a bad idea. It also explains why there are suddenly appearing interested in minutephysics, eevlog, electroboom, among many others
One small suggested change from an art perspective: Having one particle (electron) in the cloud highlighted with a separate colour, and making the rest of the particles semi-transparent. I imagine this would help to convey the idea that each particle represents only one of the positions the electron can be in and the highlighted electron repesents the 'real' position (if a real position can be said to exist', before the electron has been observed). You could translate this idea to 2d by having a lightly shaded colour behind the atom, whilst keeping the solid lines. Hopefully I've understood the science correctly, otherwise feel free to discard the suggestion.
@@linxuser897 I think the word "potential" means, it _might be_ here. Not, _it is_ here in a way you can't understand. Or, am I wrong about that? If it were actually in each of those locations, then the mass would change when being observed. No?
@@JohnDlugosz That's simple: In his debunking videos, he plays fullscreen samples of the scams. The algorithm notices that, and even if it sort of knows, the resulting score is: half scams. - I think that's the reason anyway. - I commented multiple times, that he should put the 'referenced' video segments into a smaller rectangle, with "debunking" written around it, so it's clear it's not a part of his message. (clear to a program as well, not just smart humans)
@@JohnDlugosz That being said, sometimes scams are not rated poorly... I think it's hard to tell for the algorithm, and it highly uses what it has determined about the channel in the past.
Thousands of companies employ unsustainable and unethical work practices and nobody bats an eye. A search engine company *does what its literally designed to do* , collect information about the world, including its users, and everybody loses their mind.
I love this so much, and wish I had it when I was in chemistry years ago. I would love to see one that shows what these look like when different atoms are bonded together.
I think molecules and interactions are both impossible to calculate and draw like this because of the three-body problem. technically all these wavefunctions are of the hydrogen atom because it only has two pieces I could very likely be very wrong
With the right software you can visualise them! If you work through the orbitals of the hydrogen atom you'll find a low energy orbital with high probability between the atoms, and a higher energy orbital with high probably on either side, and you could go higher still to see various (unpopulated) higher energy bonding modes! Something like Avogadro can do it for you, or if youre good with maths you can plot the equations yourself in 3D.
@@NavidIsANoob I believe one of the problems is probability is based on a real atom, but these atoms are completely fictitious with physical properties.
to clarify, this representation is a point-by-point location probability (chance) of a stationary atom. the problems with atoms and quantum understanding is we in the physical world (reality) cannot observe/measure both the location of an atom or the energy, we are ultimately incapable of knowing both properties of them. if we could see an atom for real with immense detail, all of these dots would not be there. as best as we can tell, there would only be a number (N) of corrosponding electrons in "orbit" and in reality, if it was at all possible, we would see their positions individually. however, "the uncertainty principle" dictates we can't see it as giant creatures by comparison to these insanely tiny objects. if you've ever seen a macroscopic photo of a strand of hair, then you already understand the details we are incapable of seeing with just our eyes without technological help. go smaller than that and see headlice in great detail, or waterbears, these things only serve to exacerbate our inability to see the world in all the details it has to offer. now concieve the idea that each of these things are made up of trillions (1,000,000,000,000) of atoms and begin to understand the complex nature of such tiny objects. they move fast. real fast. i'm shyte with science and math, but i think Hydrogen has but 1 electron, and the video is demonstrating Hydrogen, and all the points you see are places in which the electron might be found. once you find it, you will not know which way it's moving (spinning... whatever) and if you found which way it was spinning, you would never know where it is in that moment. so the diagram/animation serves to show us what an atom of hydrogen might look like if we could even look at it. this goes for every atom. if you thought Hydrogen confused you, with one electron, you'd probably split your brain looking at something with 40 electrons. by the way, the rainbowed representations, i think, are atoms with a high number of electrons, giving a visual representation of possible positions the electrons could be. also. i failed every course and class in school. don't listen to me. however i am confident in my understanding.
And it's situations like these that I realize only in a Physics class can you get remotely close to learning about the true nature of atoms and that my education has failed me until I am able to reach that point.
So, these beautiful computer generated depictions of the electron represent one electron in each energy state? Must get pretty darn clouded, I mean crowded, in the heavier elements like uranium, seeing as electrons are mass and cannot occupy the same space. Or do they all just kinda mix? Great visual btw, very helpful, but my feeble brain still has a question mark on this topic.
@@emerther5843 Furthermore, the concept of an "atom" as we know it is a Scientific Fiction. Nils Bohr, a Danish physicist in the early 1900's, known as The Father of Atomic Theory, modeled his concept of the atom from the design of the Solar System. Hence, at first it was known as the Planetary Theory of Atoms. Before that was what physicists called the Cookie Dough Atomic Theory. 100 years from now, people may well be saying that we were all Morons for thinking about basic atom structure the way that we do.
The electron's position is not super finite. You just have the highest probability of finding it at specific locations which are based on the principle quantum number and the azimuthal quantum number.
@Butwhy for all intents and purposes (ie. assuming that calculus works for distances), an electron can exist at an infinite number of positions, since an infinite number of points exist in any space of non-zero measure. However, this infinity is an 'uncountable' infinity (kind of like a smooth gradient) whereas the infinity of energy states, which correspond to the probabilities of finding the electron at a given point in space, is 'countable' (like a staircase).
@Butwhy the position CAN be narrowed down to a pretty precise point, but then its momentum would be highly uncertain because the high frequency of the wave that would be used to ascertain the position of the electron could give the electron a very fierce bump into some uncertain direction at high velocity.
@@rufusstanier8893 I'm not sure if physicists think that. Some definitely have the view that space and time itself are quantized and so it would not be an uncountable infinity.
A way I like to think of it (but which is itself a possibly inaccurate oversimplification) is that if two parallel universes are identical in every way except for the position of a quantum particle (like an electron) the two parallel universes are the same universe, with there being an x% chance of it being one or the other. With this can be somewhat observed to be true, with the electron being at all possible positions "at once" in some circumstances. But, if you "measure" the exact position of an electron, it can only be in one spot at once, so now the x% of being in any universe where the electron was in any other position drops to 0%, for the moment of the measurement.
The whole speck in a body of water analogy is one of the most appropriate analogies I’ve ever heard of. In my multiple year in a physics bachelor I have never heard of it.
It's called Bohmian mechanics, or the pilot wave interpretation. It is not very popular among physicists as I understand it because nobody has gone deeper into quantum electrodynamics within this framework. Sabine Hossenfelder has some excellent videos about the subject
Strangely enough, Everett's many worlds interpretation would not be much different. Each different speck would be a different "world" in which the electron exists. Also when you have multiple particles, the different number of worlds multiply... though with interaction factors. Of course, the true picture is more of a continuum for both interpretations.
@@moscanaveia The other reason physicists aren't too keen on it is because Bohmian Mechanics requires hidden variables, and we're rather quite almost mostly certain that there are no hidden variables.
@@moscanaveia Yeah it is niche and quite rightfully so if Wolfram's physics project leads anywhere. As an interesting aside have you looked at Wolfram's physics project? It's a very different approach as it treats the universe as an evolving Turing machine acting on a informational network array but one of its fascinating prospects is how in the large scale limit emergence of both general relativity and the Feynman path integral formulation of quantum mechanics within the same framework with the latter quantum mechanical part being a space of all possible configurations or "branches" which the system can evolve, similar to but not identical to the "Many Worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics. Things look weird to us in these dimensions perhaps in part because we are analogous to flatlanders only ever seeing the combined projections of these dimensions (or equivalently an "observation" can be considered a specific reference frame shift a branchial acceleration "kicking" us into a different frame or reference with a different projection) Point is the Feynman Path integral's convergence towards the lowest action becomes equivalent to gravity's convergence of matter to the lowest energy configuration i.e. stuff attracts stuff and the guiding equation of Bohmian mechanics becomes the branchial component of the metric tensor. Incidentally you may be able to see where this model deviates from the Many Worlds interpretation as without sufficient energy to resist the branchial pull of gravity the branching (aka quantum measurement) is going to necessarily fall back down in the absence of something to stabilize the split state against collapse(aka collision?) . Yeah its weird.... This is obviously far from settled as a model in big part because dimension in this model is not a fixed quantity but a dynamic state variable dependent on the properties of the network as space is an emergent bulk property and currently there is no developed formulation of mathematics to account for this type of break down in the concept of well defined dimensions and space at "small" scales. Heck as writing this I realized we don't even have the language to describe such a variation. For now it is just a curiosity to keep an eye on but with the way things have developed so far that might change within a couple or years or less.
The probability in quantum physics isn't really about the probability of the electron _being there._ It would be more accurate to say it is the probability of _detecting_ the electron there.
That's the same difference, really; what I think you _meant_ to say was that the atomic orbitals don't mean that the electrons are somehow "smeared" over space, as I had some teachers sometimes express back in college
@@thstroyur well they kind of are smeared though until they are measured. Up until measurement they are best defined as being those cloudy probability wave function abstract vector cloud things in hilbert whatever
@@AkamiChannel : It is different because, kind of as you said, we can’t talk about the position of an electron until measurement. Quantum mechanics tell us it is accurate to say the electrons are in _all_ of those spots at the same time and that they pick one of the eigenstates (thanks Wikipedia) once they are measured. One of the spots, to make it simple. It’s a little like the Shrödinger’s cat experiment. Only difference being it wouldn’t work with a cat in real life, because its size is much bigger than its De Broglie wavelength, so applying quantum mechanics to such a macroscopic system would be faulty.
Its just awesome man ! I am currently preparing for IIT JEE and and when I was learning about the atomic and molecular structures, these random questions crossed my mind but I was unable to find proper answers. But your video really helped me a lot. 🥰🥰
@@deidara_8598 and nature’s also isn’t infinite, because it has a limit on the amount of atoms and time it can work with Nothing that exists is infinite I will say though, if infinite doesn’t exist (it can’t), that means man invented the concept of infinite
It's because natural language can be clumsy and bulky for describing nature. This is clear in ancient mathematics books, which didn't have the concept of mathematical symbols or equations, and instead stated everything with words, like Euclid's elements. For example, consider this passage: "if a first magnitude and a third are equal multiples of a second and a fourth, and a fifth and a sixth are equal multiples of the second and fourth, then the first magnitude and fifth, being added together, and the third and the sixth, being added together, will also be equal multiples of the second and the fourth, respectively."
@@asdfasdfasdf1218 sounds to me like when you bracket your multiplications. i thought the like first second third etc refered to odd and even numbers at first but i read it as such: if a = nb, c= nd, g=xb, h=xd; a+g=(n+x)b, c+h=(n+x)d i think this is correct.
I'm a casual enthusiast of physics and chemistry and find these types of videos so amazing. I have my own ideas of the more complex workings of what is known in these fields, but these kind of videos provide a deeper understanding, that allows me to more accurately define my thoughts. Thank you!
Well this is not a good video. First of all, electrons don't orbit like planets do. Secondly, this guy claims he doesn't understand the classical diagram. If the guy at least had a look into a textbook, he would find out that orbitals are "spaces" with the biggest probability of occurrence (thats the difference between Bohr's atom and Schrödingberg who figured out that electrons dont follow a orbit, but are most likely in a certain place). Furthermore, this video shows bunch of little balls in some space and on top of that going in a certain direction! That is not very accurate and even confusing. There are TWO electrons with opposite spin "located" in the space of given orbital. This video brought pretty pictures but are the same like diagrams used in any textbook.
See, the thing with electron diagrams is that they're not intended to portray how electrons in atoms actually are, and that's entirely necessary because when not being interacted with, electrons don't really "orbit" the nucleus at all, and they don't really have a definite location at any point in time. The wavefunction diagrams don't show where electrons likely are, they show where the electrons are likely to be when they are interacted with. Thus, even they don't provide an accurate representation of the structure of an atom.
A common misconception of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is that these are unanswerable questions. Actually they are very answerable, but just as a function spread rather than a single value. The uncertainty principle is about the standard deviations of those functions.
I was a big fan of Lewis structures when I studied chemistry, since they made it very easy to find the structures for a lot of the most important compounds - they also made it clear why the water molecule has its seemingly arbitrary V-shape (basically, it is actually shaped like a tetrahedral molecule, but two of the arms have electron pairs).
Bro this was freaking epic! One you explain the concept of the orbitals and all of the technicalities with it. Two. Your graphics for this are astounding so simplistic and agreed so mesmerizing. Thanks for doing all the legwork and sharing this project with everyone.
I'm sure this has already been said, but these would make the most fantastic screen savers. Also, you made me feel like I understand. My brain nopes out when I see equations like that, but your visual representation and brief explanation were deeply informative somehow. Tied some fuzzy concepts together for me.
Thank you. I've been longing for this kind of visualization since 1983 when I took chemistry in college and the (mental) models we used that made titrations and equations simpler seemed to me to limit our ability to think. The map is not the landscape. Wonderful.
5 seconds in and you've lost me: "Thanks to google for supporting small businesses" is the weirdest shit I've heard today - And I've been watching youtube for 3 hours
@@zolikoff "Gotta appease the google overlords" True, but they are not the only ones. :P In every society you have these types of conducts and behaviors. Ever heard of the concept of "patron", the guys with the money? First the Pharaoh, then the kings, then the guys who have the bombs, the multi nationals and now the Chinese that owns everything. Is it surprising? Nah, just the same old cock sucking behavior that we had repeated since the beginning of time.... It's not rocket science, anyway....:3
I truly REALLY loved a lot this explanation An alternative I use for muy high school students is placing a little bit of talcum inside a balloon, fill it and shake it while placing a lamp underneath. As much as the "orbital" seems like an enclosure for the powder, I like to tell them it is the light itself the orbital, with the powder specks being some of the infinite possibilities of the electron's position. Then those same models are translated to sigma and pi bonding VSEPR etc. (since I am very clumsy using 3D animation and programming)
As an Inorganic chemist who has spent a lot of time thinking about orbitals and there overlap in chemical bonds, I agree these are gorgeous animations and the show orbital nodes well however fundamentally they don't seem that different from the static orbitals you see drawn in chemistry text books.
Great job. This looks amazing. I wish there was a website that showed these atomic orbit patterns. Then, user could interact with the atoms. They could change orbits, atoms, collide, fuse, or separate atoms.
Thanks everyone - if anybody wants to help me get all of these visuals into one place (wikipedia, etc), please get in touch via patreon (or my email... it's not too hard to find)!
hey, what did you use to render these? is your Google search for Blender 2.9's geometry nodes functionality a clue? :)
It would help a lot of the visuals were published under a permissive license like CC-BY-SA
Heyy.. Love your talents man
Can you share its file
Releasing these under Creative Commons would be *amazing* - seconding the suggestion.
It would also make it possible for Wikipedia to use these visualizations, with proper attribution.
0:48 BLOBBY THING
Dude... this is beautiful. Great work!
Hi, Destin!
love yyour videos as well
The point of this video was that these things suck, and you are calling them cute, wtf, get a brain bro
lemme guess, u got this recommended from the slo mo guys?
dianna and destin drop in = you are in the right place tonight 👍🏽
Leave it to Henry to use custom python code in Blender to make pretty pretty physics.
This reminds me of the VFX artists creating the black hole from Interstellar, with actual math. Nature can be really beautifu all by itself
Hi Dianna.....big fan of yours
Big Fan Mam ❤️❤️
That's a very creative use of Blender. I would love to see the code.
When two of my fave science explorers are together on the same virtual space.. I know I'm in right place
"i want answers, like where is the electron?" - okay - "or how fast is it going?" - well pal, you're gonna have to pick lmao
You're asking too many questions!
@@JerromyAugust "God doesn't play dice" Well, God also wouldn't be interacted within or made of atoms, and the uncertainty lies in their net behavior which we are literally contained within (in some sense). Wouldn't even bother comparing something that is supposed to be supernatural with the natural. It may be uncertain within our observation and in its behavior, but that does not mean it is not defined someway or another. After all, many things show behaviors of influence regardless of if we can detect or see it. i.e. Dark Matter.
It is called the uncertainty principle because within our abilities and within observation, it is an uncertain thing and not within our current ability to predict such a position. That does not imply the universe is baseline random or that it couldn't be controlled. At its fundamental meaning, there is no reason it couldn't exist within a guided universe.
It's a bound electron in an orbital, not a free moving electron. The momentum is very precisely defined by the orbital. It's position is uncertain, which gives you the "cloud". It doesn't have a speed at all -- it's actually called a stationary solution. That is, it's *not going anywhere* but is pinned to the nucleus.
@@JerromyAugust You're using a computer... if you don't believe in the findings of science how do you explain the existence of technology that is based on this knowledge? Do you understand that uncertainty is intimately tied with quantization? And without that, we'd have the "ultraviolet catastrophe" which faced physicists at the end of the 19th century.
@@JohnDlugosz a stationary state still has time evolution.
Imagine the mega corporation GOOGLE reaching out to you personally for a sponsorship💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀 insane
somehow the weirdest thing in this video is that google search engine needs an advertisement
upd. how do I turn off notifications on this particular comment, not on all comments completely? your replies are kind of the same, thank you
If only there were a way I could find websites with information about this "Google search engine."
@@Tim3.14 bing
Bing is rising in popularity fast and is starting to actually be a threat to Google
It's not about getting more people to know it, it's about PR. Google is losing popularity and wants people to think better of them. Hence they sponsor something we like to get us to associate google with something we like, and like google in turn.
Duck
There is so much encoded in these visuals that I really wish for a hourphysics episode discussing them.
60minutephysics
Let's start a petition
I agree, it is just shocking how well its done
I agree! We should definitely petition!
I watched millenniumphysics video on it and now my 2 children starved to death
I am a retired scientist and I think this visualization is a huge step forward and very humble as well.
And I'm an uneducated slacker and I think this visualization is garbage because it is absolutely nonrepresentative
@@KeksimusMaximus ??
A scientist never gets retired... from a job, yes, but from science, no never!
@@KeksimusMaximus its as accurate of on atom as we can get
@@KeksimusMaximus i believe isn't representative the actual atom but it's the closest one
It makes so glad and thankful to see that there are people, around the globe, working hard for their specie, and they don't care on who you are, they just want to know what is the reality around us, and they work together. Thank you guys, all of you around
It's so weird how I can finish these videos feeling like I simultaneously learned nothing but also everything.
Schrodinger's learning
Veritasium made a vid on this called "effectiveness of sci vids"
Worth a watch
Because you will not find the "true" info in any short video. Only by picking up a quantum mechanics textbook, like Griffith's or Sakurai's. As wave functions are functions, meaning they take as inputs 3D points and output a real number, they have too much data to describe with words or simple diagram, only as an equation... unless you write out the equation in words, like "the ground state electron of hydrogen is an inverse exponential as a function of radius." And then there's the often ignored time-varying component.
Because these vids only give the most basic info. Ie, it shows *how* atoms look but not *why*
For lay people that's enough, and better than not knowing how they look. But we still don't know atomic physics.
Now I want a dynamic animation in this style of how atoms form bonds. Not just the resulting orbits, but also the process of creating the bond.
+. so much +.
The resulting orbital basically is the bond. The process is just the change in the shape of the initial atomic orbitals as they come together and form a lower energy arrangement. The bond is just what we call the lower energy arrangement of electrons and nuclei that results. It's bonded together because you'd need to put energy in to pull them away from each other.
@@rredd7777 Yes, but how does the process look like? Is it a smooth slow transition, or does it "snap in"? Does it induce a wobble that settles down over time? Do the orbits deform as the atoms come closer? Does it cause a temporary collapse of the wave function?
@@PaulPaulPaulson I can't say 100% for sure, but I would expect the orbitals would sort of "ooze" from the initial to final shape. And this would be over a very brief timeframe, certainly sub-microsecond. And since the orbitals only represent the probability of an electron being at a certain point, it probably doesn't have much effect on things. Of course, this is coming from a chemist, so that would color how I see things.
@@PaulPaulPaulson Time-dependent quantum mechanics is very computationally intensive to compute and is much harder than a stationary state. So expect a lot of time and work to make that.
Never heard of this Google sponsor. Maybe I’ll check them out
ill ask jeeves to find out who they are
@@Hugh.G.Rectionx Cheers, tell me when you have the result
Apparently they're some fancy version of Bing. But with way more advertisement.
shill
It reminds me of the *_mold in this video_* ruclips.net/video/cJpn0wkihWk/видео.html&.wrqb
Incredible, thank you so much for this visualisation. I've always had in my head what my highschool chemistry teacher said "when you start studying at university, you'll have to unlearn everything I've taught you". I never did do chemistry at uni so I've always been wondering about the shells of atoms, the orbit of electrons, and the energy levels of excited atoms. This is an amazing rendering.
There are many teachers who would appreciate a curated video showing an extended view of each of the models.
I, for one, would like a curated video showing an extended view of each to stare at and ponder what I'm seeing.
And students thank you.
Very much so, with some labels and different atoms
But teachers have curriculum to follow, unfortunately 🤷♂
It reminds me of the *_mold in this video_* ruclips.net/video/cJpn0wkihWk/видео.html&.uepr
My science teacher is loving this video rn
My science teacher is really getting off to this video. And I caught him touching himself to an animation of gene transcription
@@cretinousswine8234 you guys have a subject called science? Biology, Physics, Chemistry all in one?
@@teekanne15 No, but I suppose you don't have a subject called "English"
@@NH-ge4vz It occurred to me that teekane15 was just making fun of SoufFC for not specifying the subject, so that's why I replied the way I did to the former
That should tell you it is wrong.
Feels good whenever Henry decides to upload.
Feels ?
@Gopala krishna Murthy horrid henry
Good to know his name is henry
It says at the bottom of the description 😜
"But when he uploaded to tell his fans to vote..."
As odd as it is, you can make these patterns from a helium neon gas laser by adjusting near plane parallel mirrors. They are called TEM oscillation patterns or simply transverse electric modes. That are literally projections of where the excited electrons were in the helium neon plasma inside the tube. Awesome to see.
quantum theory is bullshit, the electron actually is a 3d em standing wave, and the entire atom and any mass is just the interference pattern of many standing waves being locked in place together in a specific geometric way, which also is the source of gravity. if you want to know what atoms really look like, you have to simulate the oscillation and movement of the wave, without squaring the result.
[citation needed]
"I hate how some images of atoms look like donuts. So I made them look like donuts with a million sprinkles instead."
Yeah there was some inconsistency in the hook part of the video. I love the model though, so I think it could have been introduced in a less inconsistent way.
But with motion!
@@saud2 yeah
Yeah, the only thing this model adds is that it gives a "feeling" for the angular monentum of the electrons otherwise it's exactly the same thing.
@@manmanman4825 but even that small thing makes a huge change in how easier it is to understand
"I want to know where the electron is and how fast it's going"
Heisenberg: "I've got bad news for you, son..."
Yep, that was my first thought.
Exactly.
@@oldcountryman2795 no.. uncertain..ly
It reminds me of the *_mold in this video_* ruclips.net/video/cJpn0wkihWk/видео.html&.knen
It reminds me of the *_mold in this video_* ruclips.net/video/cJpn0wkihWk/видео.html&.bpkz
Can you model chemical bonds with the same technique? I'd love to especially see what double and triple bonds "really" look like.
Yesss me too
that will be awesome
yessssss... please do
yess
Damn now I'm curious too
Thanks!
Henry: 1. Where is the electron ?
2. How fast is it going ?
Heisenberg: hold up...we dont do that here.
I came here to comment the exact same thing. He changed where the electron is by measuring it.
@@radtech21 How do you know without taking a simultaneous measurement of position?
@@jwadaow You don't know. That's why we call it uncertainty
Exactly
@@jorgec98 Well, if you actually measure it, then the error in the measurement would be very high.
Yay, this was a great video! I’m really excited to play around with your visualisations once they become available- it’d probably help build intuition :)
Loved your videos on quantum mechanics
Difinitely!
Hi universe I am from earth
Wasn't 💯% sure about this video, until I saw this: LGU's seal of approval.
It reminds me of the *_mold in this video_* ruclips.net/video/cJpn0wkihWk/видео.html&.lapi
These renderings should be in school curriculums everywhere in the world. Please release them as CC licensed files.
Would like to see a water molecule. The fact that the reason that water doesn't mix with oil is because water is polar and oil is non-polar. And, that fascinates the crap out of me.
i would like to see these two "interacting" in these model
It can with an emulsifier! Water hydrogen bonds with itself and it would need something to disturb the hydrogen bonds which are pretty strong. It’s why it takes so much energy to boil water. Soap is a really good emulsifier because it has a polar head and then non-polar tail which cleans very well. I always thought this part of biochem was very interesting.
Same tbh
@@vitoriaicassatti4546 I *think* molecules and interactions are both impossible to calculate and draw like this because of the three-body problem. technically all these wavefunctions are of the hydrogen atom because it only has two pieces
I could very likely be very wrong
@@DaMonster They aren't impossible, Comsol and other tools are able to create such molecular interactions with constraints. Just that there would always be constraints on number of particles that can be simulated realistically, etc.
Would love to see an extended video of all the various renders, maybe an hour long loop with some lo-fi music too lol
“sciency lofi as you try to defy the heisenberg principle”
Now that's music for Scientists!
we could make a religion out of this
@@MirroredReality tempted to call it Sci-Fi but dunno if that's just too confusing... maybe Lo-Sci or Sci-Lo-Fi lol *shrugs*
Can you do a video that zooms in on the H atom? It was hard to see in this video. And then.... perhaps you could go through the periodic table so we can see how they differ?
Agree... I want to know what makes for example Hydrogen atom and Helium differ. Do they have the same core? Can Helium become Hydrogen or vice versa?
@@solusbelmont The difference between hydrogen and helium is in the atomic nucleus: hydrogen has one proton (and no neutron, or one, or two), helium has two protons (and one neuton, or two).
So hydrogen can only become helium if you somehow manage to put at least an extra protron into the atomic nucleus. Or, easier, if you fuse two hydrogen nuclei.
@@bjornfeuerbacher5514 so basically the only things that make one atom differ to other is their nbr of sub atomic particles, nothing else?
@@solusbelmont What does "nbr" mean? Number? If yes, then that's basically right. And isn't that obvious? Two things can only be different from each other if some parts of them differ from each other.
dude how else do you think atoms can differ? They are not different identities or species with some external definition on them. As the atomic number(Proton number) keeps changing, the atom keeps changing too because its entire chemical and physical properties change.@@solusbelmont
I tutor chemistry and these visuals are a game changer for struggling students. Thank you!
Congrats you're the random person i'm going to ask. So my question is where exactly is the nucleus?
This is the reason we love the web. I am in my forties, and I can hardly remember what it was like to not be able to instantly share ideas with anyone else who may find interest.
@@deathstroke8639 The nucleus is in the center of the atom but very tiny compared to the region occupied by electrons - roughly 10,000 times smaller
@@trainjumper ooooh. Thank you for the response! I was kinda lost there lol
@@deathstroke8639 it's the powerhouse of the cell
2:40 Minutephysics: "Isn't the ground state so cute, and the excited states so..."
Me: "... EXCITING???"
Majestic.
It's a scientific therm, it's ok to lowbrainers to laugh
@@dwdadevil Who are you calling a lowbrainer? a Master in Physics?
@@dwdadevil If your ego was any larger you'd be crippled under the size of your own head.
@@m07z That doesn't sound exciting (laugh now because funni)
It's one of those questions where you wait a life time to get the answer.
The answer was wrong. You can't see atoms in the normal sense. You only see the interaction with photons aka absorbtion of or emission of photons.
@@pcuimac Fine, then next time you want a useful drawing of the shape of an electron orbital you can expect to get a blank sheet of paper
I don't understand the last Representation-> why two orbital are represented so close ( I mean, on same axis)
Aren't they in x y and z planes to minimize repulsion.
@@NamedSoni I'm no expert, but I'm currently in my 2nd and third quantum classes right now so I'll try my best. The m_l quantum number depends on the amount of angular momentum measured along an axis and can range from -l to l in integer values. So an electron with l=1 and m_l=1 will "orbit" one way and an electron with l=1 and m_l=-1 will "orbit" the other way to have an opposite value of angular momentum along the z-axis. This is what is shown with the two close-together orbitals. This actually does reduce repulsion in a sense because if they orbit in opposite directions they won't interact very often. The reason why we can't have another direction is because the z-angular momentum is quantized. Only 2 electrons can take each value of m_l (one for each spin) so if there was another orbital perpendicular to the other two, we would have two different orbits with m_l=0 with the same energy and the same l. This isn't allowed by quantum mechanics
@@pcuimac And not even that. What we see is a tangled mess of interactions of nerve cells in our retina that sends an electrical signal to the Visual cortex that in turn mades a lot of stuff up for us to function in the world.
I saw a thing ages ago called "The Flow" which tried to do this, starting at a tiny scale with speculation on string theory, zooming out to quarks, then to protons and neutrons, then electron clouds and finally ending up at a cell which is probably the smallest thing most people think they understand, so they stopped there. I was trying to find it again and found this, which is also great and probably more helpful than The Flow.
I need 1 hour looping videos for each of these renders in seperate videos, please. I want to watch them as a means of relaxation and/or deep-thinking stimulus.
I agree, they are satisfying to look at, a secret world. Do you look at Mandelbrot zooms? They can be relaxing and focus altering : )
@@maryrao2306 Indeed I do, but only the ones where the zoom speed is relatively low, and I watch all types of fractals. I enjoy discerning out shapes and oddities in fractals, especially in 3D ones, so when the speed is too fast I feel like I'm missing out details, and it doesn't feel relaxing anymore.
@@windwalkerrangerdm So true! I look for the slower speeds, its more absorbing? If that makes sense. But just like this wonderful picture of atoms, it's too fast, theres a lot to look at..it's everything. Mind blowing!!
Not just relaxation, but education!!!
yesss
As a nuclear engineer and a visual learner I appreciate this
I really like the representation. And as much as I love it, I've got to be honest, I find then butt ugly, they make feel icky.
But that's my personal hang up. It's way better than most, so hats off.
@@khaduopha2640 Maybe if the dots were replaced with animated tv-static? The colours could be a bit more muted too. Great idea otherwise.
As someone who is intensely fascinated by atomic physics but can’t picture things in my mind, thank you. So much. This… is what I’ve always wanted to see.
Do you have aphantasia?
Can you please help me understand the model that he showed? I don't get it, each "droplet" he showed is just a spot where the electron has a chance of being detected. But how is the entire thing moving? Its not like the electron will move like the water droplet, it will just choose a random droplet according to its wavefunction. But didn't the probability distribution remain the same while the orbital was moving. Look at, for example, 2:43. The probability distribution isn't changing while the orbital is rotating. Or is it actually changing??
The most interesting part of this video was how this man was able to get sponsored by GOOGLE among all the millions and billions of people on this platform... Just proves how amazing his channel is...... Well done..
Me, who can barely draw a not too oval shaped circle when I'm teaching chemistry to my students : thanks for the tip.
I can't believe you just did that. This is not only a great physics work, but truly an art piece (pieces)
I'm really curious what these visuals would look like for molecules and different kinds of chemical bonds. That's something I've never been able to visualize in a way that I like.
Or fusion. Slam two together and watch what it turns into.
@@RDJ2 well what you just described is pretty much a chemical bond: the fusing of 2 (or more) atomic orbitals to form molecular orbitals!
@@hypnosum No I mean fusion of two atoms into a new element.
@@RDJ2 Imagining the collision inside the LHC just blew my mind after seeing this video
@@RDJ2 ah my bad yeah fusion could be interesting to see how the orbitals shrink down to accommodate the new nuclear charge
This is the umberllas they used for the decapited rooster thats why the rooster curve arm gave the double V finger as they have a thick angle croc jaw behind it
He: I want to see both the speed and the position.
Me: *internal scream*
He: *Writes the uncertainty principle*
Me: *screaming becomes louder and confused*
Me: Joins in screaming
Me: I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'RE YELLING ABOUT!
@@Zraknul blah blah blah we can't know position and velocity of electron at the same time blah blah blah
Seriously, I think that's where the model actually 'breaks down' because of the assumed 'absoluteness' of position with the moving representation. I honestly think that you can either get one OR the other, but not both, due to the nature of electrons in general. If physics honestly followed the model as presented, then electrons would be vastly easier to 'pin down' in their positions/presence to study. But we know that this isn't the case in practical terms.
Same
"Like, where is the electron? How fast is it going?"
Well, we're boned
I love all the wavefunctions for the quantum states of the hydrogen atom. Schrodinger would be proud and Bohr would be in awe of this model. You are so incredible.
Nope. Not schrodinger
Oh xome on, i cant explain? WHY AM I OUT OF ENERGY TO.EXPLAIN.
Finished college Chem this year and so much of this makes sense
next level: how would this way of picturing atoms depict a molecule such as water?
Yes... exactly what I would love to see. Make a water molecule... or carbon nano tube...
It gets complicated super quick, which is why these kind of diagrams/models always use hydrogen. Add just a few more electrons, and the orbitals begin to stack on top of each other, so you end up with a ball, roughly. A whole molecule would actually be less interesting to look at.
The water molecule would probably have a light electron distribution around the hydrogen nuclei and a heavy distribution around the oxygen atom, showing how the molecule would have ionizing properties. It would appear triangular, which suggests how snowflakes can be six-sided.
@@mjw120046 using outer occupied orbitals can be fun though and simplify these issues
If I remember by high school chemistry correctly, it would look similar to one oxygen atom with an almost 120° cloud distribution (single plane) and two hydrogen blobs almost but not fully touching either of the "arms" of oxygen. That hydrogen atom then distorts that 120° as well as the planar property because of electronegativity and all which then gives the famous ~137° tetrahedron shape of water molecule.
I like how Google has to sponsor themselves on a platform they own
It’s almost like they don’t believe in Ads before the video.
I've been explaining to my son that atoms don't "look" like the planetary model, and talking about and showing him the probability maps. I really appreciate these models you've created, as nothing could have shown better. Thanks much.
Yeah, but he needs to memorize what the teacher says for the exams though. 🤷♂
Most of the things taught in school are inaccurate.
@@culturecanvas777 Would you rather have kids learn the full analytic expansion of the orbitals of the hydrogen atom? You have to learn to crawl before winning a marathon.
My son is studying quantum physics in University. We had a discussion recently about electron “orbits”. I have orbits in quotes because apparently they don’t orbit?? And it’s just a probability of where the electron is at any one moment. But if a series of moments on an atom show the probability of the electron being in different locations doesn’t that suggest movement? And if an electron is moving around doesn’t that suggest an orbit? I’m confused. But I think this video helped a bit. I’m very visual. And these images are fantastic!!!
In quantum mechanics things really don't work the same as they do on the macro scale.
Things don't work deterministically, rather there is inherent randomness built into every aspect of the particles. They exist EVERYWHERE within that bubble at the same time, until you measure it, where it chooses one point to exist in.
Its weird, but not too bad if you start to think of it as just a bundle of probabilities.
The problem with such "discussions" is that both parties are usually using the wrong language. An "electron" is a quantum of energy, momentum, angular momentum and charge. If we were to actually measure "an electron" in an atom, then we would destroy the atom. It would not exist after the measurement any longer. This can be done, e.g. with scattering experiments with a high energy beam (of photons, electrons or even other atoms). The result of such a measurement is a scattering angle distribution from which we can reconstruct the wave function (at least partially). We can't do this on a single atom, though. We would need many independent atoms, each of which would be destroyed by the beam interaction. So, at most, we can measure the ensemble average over many atoms. That's NOT ONE electron in motion. That's MANY electrons modifying the beam used to measure them.
@@lepidoptera9337 I appreciate where you are coming from. Where I am coming from is that I have never studied this. My education is in the arts, and while I can appreciate and understand basic physics and science, but when it gets so advanced it just boggles my mind. My education of the atom is high school science and then anything I’ve learned from watching educational videos since then. And while I can’t speak for the majority of the world, I can say pretty confidently MOST of the world does not have the education to truly understand what people who study quantum physics grasp. So, I think “discussions” are really important between people who understand it and those who don’t. Most of the world needs things presented in a way that they can draw upon current knowledge and make inferences or models of something that actually makes sense. Big things get scaled down. Small things get scaled up. Fast things get scaled down to slower so we can understand the mechanics. This video is great because it gives a picture of something complicated but presented in a way that a layman can digest. And THAT was s my real point here. Education. With the rise of misinformation these days, like climate change being a hoax, or the earth being flat, to the age of the earth being in question it’s important to have difficult topics made digestible to larger audiences. So, no I don’t see a problem with having discussions that are not technically accurate to an expert, but at least it gets more and more people leaning in the right direction.
It's just awesome!!! One suggestion, if you permit: Instead of using dots, try to use mist density to show the probability to find the electron. If it's not right there, i think that the mist will help to understand. The dot's suggest that there is thousand of particles there. Thanks a lot for this video!
I was going to say mist . . . .
@@Lucius_Chiaraviglio Thanks! ;)
How are you supposed to see the movement with a mist
@@vedwards5027 why such a rude reply?
@@Roel922 I don't remember
I love how you explained what Google search does as if we all had never used Google 😂😂
thats.... how a sponsorship works.
@@derovvvv well said. Greatly said. Super reply. That's how sponsorship works. Great reply.
If youd know how many grannies are out there using the default browser with the default search engine and end up with Boing.
EDIT: Meant Bing, but Im keeping the typo lol.
@@derovvvv yes except we all know this information so it’s redundant, hence funny
@@TheStoffl96 Yeah there sure are Bing using Grannies watching minutephysics.
huh, never heard of this "Google" thing before. I'll go check it out, sure does look interesting.
I never knew google actually sponsored videos. I don't even know what the sponsorship was for? The Google search engine?
@@Jesse_Dawg yeah right like who is their biggest competitor
@@Jesse_Dawg Something tells me it's less about the search engine and more about pushing the vaccine. It was a subtle push but annoying nonetheless.
It's just google in general. They collect your data when you use their services and sell it to advertisers
Ofc, we don't know it yet
I find your work here is satisfying and, yes, beautiful! As a 70+-year-old dude who hasn’t studied physics in about 50 years, and is struggling to keep up with the world and get some idea of quantum physics, this is a real help and a emotionally satisfying one! 🤓🙃😊
Everyone: makes physics jokes
Me: how the f did he get a sponsor from Google!
Cuz Google needs a PR boost, and what better way to do it than to advertise on your own crummy website?
Google is currently on a campaign to teach new skills for the changing world, whether that's good or bad remains to be seen, but right now getting in with "Grow with Google" or one of their other experience growth platforms isn't a bad idea.
It also explains why there are suddenly appearing interested in minutephysics, eevlog, electroboom, among many others
Because of the kind of viewers this channel has or attracts
This paid sponsorship has made me more likely to use Google search.
Because Google needs to thwart anti-monopoly initiatives.
For those interested, he talks briefly about the "rainbow donuts" after the sponsor!
(as many people will leave as soon as it appears)
omg thanks! I didn't even notice!
and in the google commercial he googled blender
3:50 "These are not easy to draw" ... for a second there I was really looking forward to a website that will generate these
Awesome! Love everything - the effort to present it in the simple terms, the humor, and the visual appeal
"What does a atom look like?"
They don't.
but what if you lean in _really_ close to look at them?
It's because atom is almost empty. And the electron is at every point in a single time.
@@vigilantcosmicpenguin8721 Then you fall through
@@MrQhuin you consist of atoms, so you're mostly emptiness too
@@iMaxBlazer yeah pure emptiness af 😞
One small suggested change from an art perspective:
Having one particle (electron) in the cloud highlighted with a separate colour, and making the rest of the particles semi-transparent. I imagine this would help to convey the idea that each particle represents only one of the positions the electron can be in and the highlighted electron repesents the 'real' position (if a real position can be said to exist', before the electron has been observed). You could translate this idea to 2d by having a lightly shaded colour behind the atom, whilst keeping the solid lines.
Hopefully I've understood the science correctly, otherwise feel free to discard the suggestion.
The electron exists at all the points simultaneously until it is measured, right?
@@linxuser897 I think the model is developed based on Bohmian mechanics, where particle can have definite positions
@@jithinks5405 I'll check that out. I don't know anything about modern physics to begin with, so that was just my assumption.
@@linxuser897 I think the word "potential" means, it _might be_ here. Not, _it is_ here in a way you can't understand.
Or, am I wrong about that?
If it were actually in each of those locations, then the mass would change when being observed.
No?
Color and semi transparency on wave based potential placement was exactly what I was going to say! But you beat me by about 4 months… 😄
Wow, this Google company sounds great! I'd never heard of it. How do I get it on my Huawei device?
1. Recycle your Huawei device.
2. Get a proper phone.
@Gg Alberto Make sure you recycle your overpriced fanboy phone, rather then throw it into landfill.
@bioniccavewomanoogabo4661girls aren't real
When you're so smart that even Google sponsors you.
Show off.
When google reaches out to you, do you ever go "oh hey while were at it I have a list of feedback I'd like to go over."
lmao I'm pretty sure they only reach out to an individual after being told by their spy networks and algorithms that won't happen.
I'd ask what the deal is with Thunderf00t.
@@JohnDlugosz That's simple: In his debunking videos, he plays fullscreen samples of the scams. The algorithm notices that, and even if it sort of knows, the resulting score is: half scams.
- I think that's the reason anyway. - I commented multiple times, that he should put the 'referenced' video segments into a smaller rectangle, with "debunking" written around it, so it's clear it's not a part of his message. (clear to a program as well, not just smart humans)
@@JohnDlugosz That being said, sometimes scams are not rated poorly... I think it's hard to tell for the algorithm, and it highly uses what it has determined about the channel in the past.
Thousands of companies employ unsustainable and unethical work practices and nobody bats an eye. A search engine company *does what its literally designed to do* , collect information about the world, including its users, and everybody loses their mind.
I love this so much, and wish I had it when I was in chemistry years ago. I would love to see one that shows what these look like when different atoms are bonded together.
I second this!!!
I think molecules and interactions are both impossible to calculate and draw like this because of the three-body problem. technically all these wavefunctions are of the hydrogen atom because it only has two pieces
I could very likely be very wrong
With the right software you can visualise them! If you work through the orbitals of the hydrogen atom you'll find a low energy orbital with high probability between the atoms, and a higher energy orbital with high probably on either side, and you could go higher still to see various (unpopulated) higher energy bonding modes! Something like Avogadro can do it for you, or if youre good with maths you can plot the equations yourself in 3D.
Ye, chemists just operate with quants as if they were Newtonian particles. They don't give a fuck.
This visualisation really confuses me, but at the same time it's so beautiful.
Think of each dot as a position where the electron COULD be, the more dots, the more probable an electron might be on that position.
@@NavidIsANoob I believe one of the problems is probability is based on a real atom, but these atoms are completely fictitious with physical properties.
It’s too bad this doesn’t take into account the way orbits actually work described by Schrodinger’s equation.
to clarify, this representation is a point-by-point location probability (chance) of a stationary atom.
the problems with atoms and quantum understanding is we in the physical world (reality) cannot observe/measure both the location of an atom or the energy, we are ultimately incapable of knowing both properties of them.
if we could see an atom for real with immense detail, all of these dots would not be there. as best as we can tell, there would only be a number (N) of corrosponding electrons in "orbit" and in reality, if it was at all possible, we would see their positions individually. however, "the uncertainty principle" dictates we can't see it as giant creatures by comparison to these insanely tiny objects.
if you've ever seen a macroscopic photo of a strand of hair, then you already understand the details we are incapable of seeing with just our eyes without technological help. go smaller than that and see headlice in great detail, or waterbears, these things only serve to exacerbate our inability to see the world in all the details it has to offer. now concieve the idea that each of these things are made up of trillions (1,000,000,000,000) of atoms and begin to understand the complex nature of such tiny objects. they move fast. real fast.
i'm shyte with science and math, but i think Hydrogen has but 1 electron, and the video is demonstrating Hydrogen, and all the points you see are places in which the electron might be found. once you find it, you will not know which way it's moving (spinning... whatever) and if you found which way it was spinning, you would never know where it is in that moment. so the diagram/animation serves to show us what an atom of hydrogen might look like if we could even look at it.
this goes for every atom. if you thought Hydrogen confused you, with one electron, you'd probably split your brain looking at something with 40 electrons.
by the way, the rainbowed representations, i think, are atoms with a high number of electrons, giving a visual representation of possible positions the electrons could be.
also. i failed every course and class in school. don't listen to me. however i am confident in my understanding.
And it's situations like these that I realize only in a Physics class can you get remotely close to learning about the true nature of atoms and that my education has failed me until I am able to reach that point.
So, these beautiful computer generated depictions of the electron represent one electron in each energy state?
Must get pretty darn clouded, I mean crowded, in the heavier elements like uranium, seeing as electrons are mass and cannot occupy the same space. Or do they all just kinda mix? Great visual btw, very helpful, but my feeble brain still has a question mark on this topic.
this is beautiful! Thank you
it's also complete nonsense and pseudoscience
@@emerther5843 Furthermore, the concept of an "atom" as we know it is a Scientific Fiction. Nils Bohr, a Danish physicist in the early 1900's, known as The Father of Atomic Theory, modeled his concept of the atom from the design of the Solar System. Hence, at first it was known as the Planetary Theory of Atoms. Before that was what physicists called the Cookie Dough Atomic Theory. 100 years from now, people may well be saying that we were all Morons for thinking about basic atom structure the way that we do.
@@emerther5843 How so?
@@Akhin they say atoms are never in one place at any given time; there is zero evidence for this. But they act like it has been proven.
so the orbits are flat lol
"I want a simpler picture of the atom" - Shows us something more complicated
Yeah, this doesn't do much for people lacking high-level particle physics knowledge.
Yep, neither of his proposals are superior to the first example. They're very pretty, but will cause more confusion and require more explanation.
@@135.samarthkala9 in the comments section you can find many people with basic knowledge getting confused.
Exactly. The reason for my downvote
@@135.samarthkala9 what exactly does each point represent then?
Him saying that I must be interested in rainbow donuts since I stayed till the end
Me, just vibing with the music: Yeah.. obviously
This is the best science presentation on you tube I have ever seen. Why aren't people copying this instead of all the junk that is out there.
I'm not sure I understood - is there really only so few positions electrons can be in or was the graph a simplification?
The electron's position is not super finite. You just have the highest probability of finding it at specific locations which are based on the principle quantum number and the azimuthal quantum number.
@Butwhy for all intents and purposes (ie. assuming that calculus works for distances), an electron can exist at an infinite number of positions, since an infinite number of points exist in any space of non-zero measure. However, this infinity is an 'uncountable' infinity (kind of like a smooth gradient) whereas the infinity of energy states, which correspond to the probabilities of finding the electron at a given point in space, is 'countable' (like a staircase).
@Butwhy the position CAN be narrowed down to a pretty precise point, but then its momentum would be highly uncertain because the high frequency of the wave that would be used to ascertain the position of the electron could give the electron a very fierce bump into some uncertain direction at high velocity.
@@rufusstanier8893 I'm not sure if physicists think that. Some definitely have the view that space and time itself are quantized and so it would not be an uncountable infinity.
A way I like to think of it (but which is itself a possibly inaccurate oversimplification) is that if two parallel universes are identical in every way except for the position of a quantum particle (like an electron) the two parallel universes are the same universe, with there being an x% chance of it being one or the other. With this can be somewhat observed to be true, with the electron being at all possible positions "at once" in some circumstances. But, if you "measure" the exact position of an electron, it can only be in one spot at once, so now the x% of being in any universe where the electron was in any other position drops to 0%, for the moment of the measurement.
The whole speck in a body of water analogy is one of the most appropriate analogies I’ve ever heard of. In my multiple year in a physics bachelor I have never heard of it.
It's called Bohmian mechanics, or the pilot wave interpretation. It is not very popular among physicists as I understand it because nobody has gone deeper into quantum electrodynamics within this framework. Sabine Hossenfelder has some excellent videos about the subject
Strangely enough, Everett's many worlds interpretation would not be much different. Each different speck would be a different "world" in which the electron exists. Also when you have multiple particles, the different number of worlds multiply... though with interaction factors. Of course, the true picture is more of a continuum for both interpretations.
@@moscanaveia Also, Looking Glass Universe has some great videos! I recommend it.
@@moscanaveia The other reason physicists aren't too keen on it is because Bohmian Mechanics requires hidden variables, and we're rather quite almost mostly certain that there are no hidden variables.
@@moscanaveia Yeah it is niche and quite rightfully so if Wolfram's physics project leads anywhere.
As an interesting aside have you looked at Wolfram's physics project? It's a very different approach as it treats the universe as an evolving Turing machine acting on a informational network array but one of its fascinating prospects is how in the large scale limit emergence of both general relativity and the Feynman path integral formulation of quantum mechanics within the same framework with the latter quantum mechanical part being a space of all possible configurations or "branches" which the system can evolve, similar to but not identical to the "Many Worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics. Things look weird to us in these dimensions perhaps in part because we are analogous to flatlanders only ever seeing the combined projections of these dimensions (or equivalently an "observation" can be considered a specific reference frame shift a branchial acceleration "kicking" us into a different frame or reference with a different projection)
Point is the Feynman Path integral's convergence towards the lowest action becomes equivalent to gravity's convergence of matter to the lowest energy configuration i.e. stuff attracts stuff and the guiding equation of Bohmian mechanics becomes the branchial component of the metric tensor.
Incidentally you may be able to see where this model deviates from the Many Worlds interpretation as without sufficient energy to resist the branchial pull of gravity the branching (aka quantum measurement) is going to necessarily fall back down in the absence of something to stabilize the split state against collapse(aka collision?) . Yeah its weird....
This is obviously far from settled as a model in big part because dimension in this model is not a fixed quantity but a dynamic state variable dependent on the properties of the network as space is an emergent bulk property and currently there is no developed formulation of mathematics to account for this type of break down in the concept of well defined dimensions and space at "small" scales. Heck as writing this I realized we don't even have the language to describe such a variation.
For now it is just a curiosity to keep an eye on but with the way things have developed so far that might change within a couple or years or less.
The probability in quantum physics isn't really about the probability of the electron _being there._ It would be more accurate to say it is the probability of _detecting_ the electron there.
Good point!
That's the same difference, really; what I think you _meant_ to say was that the atomic orbitals don't mean that the electrons are somehow "smeared" over space, as I had some teachers sometimes express back in college
And why is that different?
@@thstroyur well they kind of are smeared though until they are measured. Up until measurement they are best defined as being those cloudy probability wave function abstract vector cloud things in hilbert whatever
@@AkamiChannel : It is different because, kind of as you said, we can’t talk about the position of an electron until measurement. Quantum mechanics tell us it is accurate to say the electrons are in _all_ of those spots at the same time and that they pick one of the eigenstates (thanks Wikipedia) once they are measured. One of the spots, to make it simple.
It’s a little like the Shrödinger’s cat experiment. Only difference being it wouldn’t work with a cat in real life, because its size is much bigger than its De Broglie wavelength, so applying quantum mechanics to such a macroscopic system would be faulty.
Its just awesome man ! I am currently preparing for IIT JEE and and when I was learning about the atomic and molecular structures, these random questions crossed my mind but I was unable to find proper answers. But your video really helped me a lot. 🥰🥰
No way anyone doesn't interpret that as atoms having a ton of electrons.
I'd make it more of a textured cloud than discrete dots
My exact thoughts! It is probably more accurate than what we have now, but still confusing.
@@RaiAuri Electron*s* - plural - are myths. There's only one electron in the whole universe and it's everywhere all at once.
@@sentinel76 Wheelers hypothesis doesn't hold up because it doesn't account for why we observe so many more electrons than positrons.
"Nature's imagination is so much greater than man's"
- Richard Feynman
@@oakpope Man's imagination is not infinite, it is limited by their experiences. All ideas are parodies of past experiences and memories.
@@deidara_8598 and nature’s also isn’t infinite, because it has a limit on the amount of atoms and time it can work with
Nothing that exists is infinite
I will say though, if infinite doesn’t exist (it can’t), that means man invented the concept of infinite
It's because natural language can be clumsy and bulky for describing nature. This is clear in ancient mathematics books, which didn't have the concept of mathematical symbols or equations, and instead stated everything with words, like Euclid's elements. For example, consider this passage: "if a first magnitude and a third are equal multiples of a second and a fourth, and a fifth and a sixth are equal multiples of the second and fourth, then the first magnitude and fifth, being added together, and the third and the sixth, being added together, will also be equal multiples of the second and the fourth, respectively."
@@asdfasdfasdf1218 sounds to me like when you bracket your multiplications. i thought the like first second third etc refered to odd and even numbers at first but i read it as such:
if a = nb, c= nd, g=xb, h=xd;
a+g=(n+x)b, c+h=(n+x)d
i think this is correct.
@@jonathanodude6660 Yes, that's how you write it with symbols as an equation.
Atoms explaining other atoms how atoms looks like using technologies made with, you know, other atoms
That's the truely amazing thing here. Atoms arranged in the right way have emergent properties.
Holy shit imagine getting sponsored by Google
The visuals are stunning. I'm left in awe. Thank you.
Feel free to make a part two where the renderings are left up there longer.
I'm a casual enthusiast of physics and chemistry and find these types of videos so amazing. I have my own ideas of the more complex workings of what is known in these fields, but these kind of videos provide a deeper understanding, that allows me to more accurately define my thoughts. Thank you!
simply brilliant !!!
The mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell.
I'm a History major student and idk what I'm doing here ? Lol
I'm not entirely sure why, but I'm tearing up laughing at this comment. This was HILARIOUS LMAO!!!
Emia, meaning presence in blood....
In an introductory chemistry right now…love these animations ♥️
Well this is not a good video. First of all, electrons don't orbit like planets do. Secondly, this guy claims he doesn't understand the classical diagram. If the guy at least had a look into a textbook, he would find out that orbitals are "spaces" with the biggest probability of occurrence (thats the difference between Bohr's atom and Schrödingberg who figured out that electrons dont follow a orbit, but are most likely in a certain place). Furthermore, this video shows bunch of little balls in some space and on top of that going in a certain direction! That is not very accurate and even confusing. There are TWO electrons with opposite spin "located" in the space of given orbital.
This video brought pretty pictures but are the same like diagrams used in any textbook.
See, the thing with electron diagrams is that they're not intended to portray how electrons in atoms actually are, and that's entirely necessary because when not being interacted with, electrons don't really "orbit" the nucleus at all, and they don't really have a definite location at any point in time.
The wavefunction diagrams don't show where electrons likely are, they show where the electrons are likely to be when they are interacted with. Thus, even they don't provide an accurate representation of the structure of an atom.
This guy and his 3D renderings need to get a room
It reminds me of the *_mold in this video_* ruclips.net/video/cJpn0wkihWk/видео.html&.ikur
It reminds me of the *_mold in this video_* ruclips.net/video/cJpn0wkihWk/видео.html&.vpsw
1. Where is the electron
2. How fast is it moving
Oh no
I guess we're abit uncertain about that..
angry Heisenberg noises
is that a dead cat? yes it is. or is it?
A common misconception of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is that these are unanswerable questions. Actually they are very answerable, but just as a function spread rather than a single value. The uncertainty principle is about the standard deviations of those functions.
I was a big fan of Lewis structures when I studied chemistry, since they made it very easy to find the structures for a lot of the most important compounds - they also made it clear why the water molecule has its seemingly arbitrary V-shape (basically, it is actually shaped like a tetrahedral molecule, but two of the arms have electron pairs).
Bro this was freaking epic! One you explain the concept of the orbitals and all of the technicalities with it. Two. Your graphics for this are astounding so simplistic and agreed so mesmerizing. Thanks for doing all the legwork and sharing this project with everyone.
I want to see the mesmerizing loops of these physics, for relaxation wallpapers.
I'm sure this has already been said, but these would make the most fantastic screen savers. Also, you made me feel like I understand. My brain nopes out when I see equations like that, but your visual representation and brief explanation were deeply informative somehow. Tied some fuzzy concepts together for me.
Thank you. I've been longing for this kind of visualization since 1983 when I took chemistry in college and the (mental) models we used that made titrations and equations simpler seemed to me to limit our ability to think. The map is not the landscape. Wonderful.
It reminds me of the *_mold in this video_* ruclips.net/video/cJpn0wkihWk/видео.html&.poag
This really is beautiful. Thank you
5 seconds in and you've lost me: "Thanks to google for supporting small businesses" is the weirdest shit I've heard today - And I've been watching youtube for 3 hours
Gotta appease the google overlords
It reminds me of the *_mold in this video_* ruclips.net/video/cJpn0wkihWk/видео.html&.zixm
It reminds me of the *_mold in this video_* ruclips.net/video/cJpn0wkihWk/видео.html&.dcdg
@Science Revolution Have you heard of the strong nuclear force? Have you read anything about quantum field theory?
@@zolikoff
"Gotta appease the google overlords" True, but they are not the only ones. :P
In every society you have these types of conducts and behaviors. Ever heard of the concept of "patron", the guys with the money? First the Pharaoh, then the kings, then the guys who have the bombs, the multi nationals and now the Chinese that owns everything.
Is it surprising? Nah, just the same old cock sucking behavior that we had repeated since the beginning of time....
It's not rocket science, anyway....:3
I truly REALLY loved a lot this explanation
An alternative I use for muy high school students is placing a little bit of talcum inside a balloon, fill it and shake it while placing a lamp underneath. As much as the "orbital" seems like an enclosure for the powder, I like to tell them it is the light itself the orbital, with the powder specks being some of the infinite possibilities of the electron's position. Then those same models are translated to sigma and pi bonding VSEPR etc.
(since I am very clumsy using 3D animation and programming)
nice method
Can any one help me to find what I see yesterday. Is it atom or something else?
ruclips.net/video/imgwx5NLX-Y/видео.html
@@vitoriaicassatti4546 Can any one help me to find what I see yesterday. Is it atom or something else?
ruclips.net/video/imgwx5NLX-Y/видео.html
As an Inorganic chemist who has spent a lot of time thinking about orbitals and there overlap in chemical bonds, I agree these are gorgeous animations and the show orbital nodes well however fundamentally they don't seem that different from the static orbitals you see drawn in chemistry text books.
you should change the title of the video to how to visualize the probability of the locations of subatomic particles
It's Friday night, I'm drunk and after finding this video all I want to say is: "Shut up and gibs me a ten hour loop of these renderings!!!"
Honestly, I'm unclear on what's being improved here. Is it just supposed to make it more clear how electron orbits actually work?
No - orbitals, not orbits (which don't really exist). Just different patterns for the different energy levels that an electron can take.
It shows the movement and probability. Places where dots are more dense are a more likely place for electron to be.
Henry: aren't these diagrams BEAUTIFUL?
Me: it's a giant eye. oh god, it's watching me. it sees into my very soul
Since this is sponsored by Google, that's a very apt feeling.
Rainbow donuts everywhere OR projectile vomit everywhere
After hours of searching online and ytube; this is the best visual by far; thank you.
It's everything we love about minutephysics. No idea what's happening but it's fun to watch!
The best part of these are seeing the patterns that emerge on the atom, in a similar way that materials create patterns by sound.
I would LOVE to see this in VR 3D all around me! 🔥Stop by our steam group's "CHAT" if you want to be a tester or help
Anyone wanna help test it out?
I don’t know….🤷🤷🤷🤷
POV: You are a nucleus
@@JoinUsInVR I'd be down!
Yeah yeah
3:43 wait but are electrons the size of those dots or are they smaller
Great job. This looks amazing. I wish there was a website that showed these atomic orbit patterns. Then, user could interact with the atoms. They could change orbits, atoms, collide, fuse, or separate atoms.