I’m so glad you did the math with historical commentary. Great job! My teacher in Modern Physics did all the same math but without the historical motivation. Showing how the sausage was actually made helps young scientists understand how to approach the scientific process better. Every undergrad physics/engineering major should watch your series. Thanks.
One of the biggest hurdles that made my mind blocks physics in the colledge was why on earth did these famous ones think about what they were working on. If I knew the historical background, many seemingly non logical aspects of physics would have come clear and smooth. I do not claim I understood everything thing you mentioned, but I really wish I had a teacher like you. Thank you for the video and the explanation included therein.
I love how down to earth the explanations are for quantum physics. I thought that they were all these crazy ideas pulled out of nowhere, but watching this channel showed me just how logical and relatively easy the explanations are to follow
Our freshman chemistry professor did this derivation for us many years ago. It really struck home to the class the amazing feat that a theoretician could derive the experimentally determined Rydberg constant. A well-deserved Nobel.
Another great video! Hilarious how Fowler tried to be skeptical because of a small decimal difference, but it did end up to Bohr correcting his math and getting it even better!
Read "Mr Feynman, You Must be Joking". Feynman made a prediction that was more precise than the measurements. When he heard that a more precise measurement had been made, he sweated bullets until the paper was published that showed that the new measurement was closer to his prediction than the earlier measurement, rather than farther from it. Theory always has to be shown experimentally to gain traction.
Fowler was only doing his work and in the end forced bohr to revise his calculus and to realized that he had missed something. It is science working at it's best.
Thank you for all the time you put into this explanation, truly clear and effective. Of all Copenaghen School bunch of Scientists, in my opinion, Bohr was the most profound in the inception of new scientific objects. His ability to match elements from different sector of Science, was unmatched as it was unique...
Glad you liked it. I hope the math wasn't too fast - it is so hard to get the pace right when you have printed equations instead of writing them but I am left handed and so when I write it covers over my words.
Great work! I've always appreciated my physics teachers who take the time to explain the historical concepts of the things we learn in our classes. Keep up the great content and thanks for what you do.
Wow, Kathy. That was a fantastic video. It brought back so many memories of my undergrad physics class in spectroscopy. That's where I first encountered the Bohr theory of the atom formally. I'd read about it in high school, but didn't understand the math. My spec instructor was a very practical guy who worked in one of the physics labs for Dow Chemical in Midland, MI. I learned so much from him.
I am honored to be in the same category as your undergrad teacher who obviously was an inspiration. I think we don't talk about spectroscopy enough - it is completely magical and deeply important in physics, chemistry and astronomy. So cool.
Thank you so much for this explanation of the math behind the Bohr's model of the atom. I saw the main concepts in high school, but I never thought that I would understand their logic and the story of how the physicists developed these mathematical formulas. 😊
Thanks Kathy! (Btw minor typo at 8:41, a missing "2" square on the v. The math does work out implying the 2 is still there, it just didn't show on the display.)
Back in 1965 or 66, at the beginning of a chemistry course, we were introduced to the Bohr model. I didn't understand why at the time since the mini-solar system model of atoms was out of fashion. Only now with your videos do I realize what an amazing achievement it was.
Wow! Nice walk through the math of Bore's model! Unfortunately the derivations went too fast for an old guy who's math is a bit weak, but I was able to follow the main line of logic. Thanks! Bore was truly amazing. I also appreciate the back story of his relationship with his wife, who was obviously a full partner. We often think of creative scientists as existing in some sort of vacuum and splendid isolation! I would submit that is seldom, if ever true!
Thanks I am just an amateur with a PHD in Political Science -- these help me get a notion of the basics and inspiration from the ups and downs of the efforts by great names in Physics
It is always welcome, having a complex topic able to be made understandable by someone with the right knowledge - thank you. It has always puzzled why the electron remains where it is and fails to lose energy and does not fall into the nucleus, because of the proton-electron attraction. The satellites we send to space are powered to remain in orbit; when they are old and lose the energy and the means to correct/re-establish a proper orbit, they fall to Earth and the atmosphere has the final say. Electrons do not have on-board systems to correct/maintain an orbit yet there they are.
Glad you liked it and sorry you had some sub-par professors in college (one of my professors actually apologized years later for how bad he was, so I sympathize)
Just to mention , I live in Denmark and his son Aage Bohr did also achieved a Nobel price in physics. And frankly thycho Brahe were also danish. But as usual a very enlightening story about how physic evolved especially around the beginning of the the last century. And happy new year 😊🎸. I just wish I was so much better doing math. But I think I understand some of the bigger picture but quantum physics is so hard to get and Richard Feynmans quote does tell that everyone gets a bit dizzy trying to understand quantum physics. 🇩🇰🎸
First day in freshman chemistry here's the derivation of the equation for the Bohr model of the hydrogen atom. Memorize it. Test to reproduce it next week. It was a tough school and only got harder from there. 4 of the most grueling years of mental work in my life and worth every second of it. This quantum jump comes up over and over again especially in electrical engineering. It's one piece of evidence for a possible additional dimension we can't sense.
While I'm not the greatest with math, I might be able to reproduce your most of your frames, you didn't skip something. Thanks for making this more accessible.
Thanks, that one was really fun one to prepare for because it’s been a long time since I used my physics brain but total pain to film because I have no idea how to use my program to show equations
@@Kathy_Loves_Physics Kathy, why don't you make video explaining unitary evolution of Schrodinger's wave function, its possible algorithm and how stars, planets, black holes be made from quantum states. In short how we can get coherence from decoherence?
I had most of this in high school (not Pickering though, what a jerk), and admittedly was taught well. But I do wish these videos had been around! Of course, this was 30 years bY (before RUclips 😁). Thank you!
Thanks Kathy for another excellent video. I love your videos on science and the founders of modern physics. I think that Fowler was quite right to question the slight difference between observation and theoretical prediction. That is one way in which theories are tested, improved or changed. I wonder what nuclear mass Bohr used when calculating the efffective mass for the electron in Helium.
Great video! Kathy is what happens when Miss Frizzle meets Einstein! I have intended to do something like this for a while but looks like Kathy is more energetic then me. This issue has bothered me for a while since I read through Bohr's original paper. All of the intro textbooks get this wrong, claiming that Bohr quantized the angular momentum which lead to his result. I think it is enlightening to read the paper and realize that Bohr basically pulled the "average angular frequency" out of thin air and then concluded that the angular momentum is quantized.
Note that with quantum mechanics, the values are all discrete so they all belong to the set of Rational numbers (can be equated to the discrete sequence 0, 1, 2, 3, ...) as far as going from one to the next one. This means that the scenarios that create these results are also discrete (completely separate from their nearest neighbors). This result implies that if there is a multiverse interpretation of these rules (Everett "Many Worlds" interpretation), then each universe of this multiverse is completely separate from all others, too. They are thus not points on a line with no visible boundaries between such points, as in the infinitely larger set of Real numbers. This not only changes the results, but the concepts on which these results are based and is one of the basic differences between quantum physics and all forms of non-quantum physics (Classical, all forms of Relativity, etc.).
Thanks for the video. It was really insightful but I guess I will need to study a bit to digest everything here. What I found interesting is the Rydberg mass for a system formula is a harmonic mean. Well now I am curious as to what practical uses are for geometric mean
I love these videos! History provides so much interesting context. One point on this one however.... I would use the word "Revolving" rather than "Rotating" in assumption 5 b). The acceleration that was expected to produce classical radiation is centripetal -- like a cyclotron. Rotation implies spin which wasn't a consideration in Bohr's model.
10:39 in my NY accent, 'not' and 'naught' are not pronounced the same. nought = 'nawt.' i knew saying cawfee, dawter, and dawg would eventually come in handy.
I love this video and your other videos! I’m sorry to be a nit-picker on terminology, but I feel that in this model the electron “revolves” around the nucleus, it does not “rotate” or “spin.” I think this distinction is important if you are writing a book on quantum physics, as spin is another concept :)
"Discrete" is a magic word. Old-timers knew about all kinds of phase changes and evaporation, sublimation, condensation is pretty magical, unless you know what holography is in relative-timing ratio-rates density-intensity nodes separated by dimensionality spaces as in 0-1-2-ness GD&P parallel coexistence. Which is the job of the next generation to explain, "teaching by undoing" phase-locked e-Pi-i sync-duration resonances. So I'll check in again later.
Can you make a video on Bohr-Sommerfeld model pls? I'd like to know more about the so called "old quantum machanics" and what they came up with those things. By the way I just descovered this channel and it is INCREDIBLE. The only thing I'd like more is the possibility of looking at some sources, maybe putting some more links in the description?
1/lambda is called wavenumber, designated usually with nu bar or nu tilde. The effective mass is called the reduced mass. Discrete energy levels were supposed around 50 years earlier by some spectroscopists and they were called terms.
How is the work needed to set the electron free from the atom equal to the difference between it's potential and kinetic energy? Can anyone give me an explanation for that?
Please enlighten me. One can consider 'electron motion in an atom' from two perspectives, classical and quantum. The quantum picture relies on a statistical formula, the Schrödinger equation. It comes up with maximum 'entropy' solutions for the statistical shapes of the orbitals. The classical approach needs to take the quantum idea of somehow canceling the radiation from the electrons in their orbits. Then it is left with the task of solving ordinary differential equations including the effects of electron spin: a hopeless task, considering that the solutions are most likely deterministically chaotic. Is there any mathematical way of checking whether those chaotic solutions might have statistical properties that could be compared with the Schrödinger maximum 'entropy' solutions? Please enlighten me.
I don’t view Planck’s E = hν as really quantized, as E and ν are continuous variables, unrestricted until Bohr introduced quantum jumps that match the Balmer (and Lyman?) series. It’s been a long time since graduate schools
Actually did bohr imagine his model of atom just as two dimensional?According to his model does all the orbits exist in one plane (Its always shown in a plane)?
8:55 Velocity v = 2πr/T . You then say "the frequency is 1/T" and replace 1/T by ω. I think it should be 1/T = v(nu). This would make Bohr's idea W = nhω/2 to W = nhv/2 which is in accordance with Planck's E = hv.
Thank you...I don't know math very well...but the way they figured this out is exciting. Isn't this what gave Einstein the idea how to create a laser light? Do you have a video on lasers??
Glad you like my video. Einstein was inspired by four to make up his theory of admission and absorption of light which led to the invention of the MASER (microwave amplification by stimulated emission of radiation) which led to the LASER. I am planning on making these videos but it won’t be for a while, sorry.
What really amazes me is the elaborated model, sometimes called "the old quantum theory", that Bohr and Sommerfeld developed, in which they started introducing elliptical orbits with the same principal quantum number and different angular momenta. What specifically fascinates me about it is that they would have been able to take it much further than they did had all of their angular momenta not been off by one unit of hbar! It was a mistake that was easy to make because of the energy degeneracy of different angular momentum states for hydrogen-like atoms, and maybe the idea of an electron with ZERO orbital angular momentum and an orbit that bobs in and out, right through the nucleus, was just too absurd for Bohr and Sommerfeld to contemplate. Once wave theory arrived it wasn't quite so absurd. It was maybe the most significant off-by-one error in physics, one that contributed to further progress, since it led physicists to abandon "the old quantum theory" with quantized orbits earlier than they might have otherwise.
Two physicists meet in the hallway. Quantum physicist: What’s up with your area? Classical physicist: Negative Del dot g, like always. What’s new with you? Quantum physicist: E over h, as usual.
@@225rip I think you can check out the hydrogen spectral series (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_spectral_series), there they give it in nm but since it's light you can turn that into corresponding frequencies. I think they end up in the petaHertz range (www.chemguide.co.uk/atoms/properties/hspectrum.html)
chuvzzz Thank you for getting back to me with an answer and a source to look into. I am thankful for people like you that can come along and fill in the gaps for me. Thanks again!
Great video. As an update, some inventors under patent have demonstrated electron states of 1/2 and 1/3 electron orbital states. Some physicists claim this is not possible even though it works. We have to break out of the faulty disinformation Einsteinian physic theories once and for all!!
"An infinitely big Nucleus", that would be a ONE-INFINITY Singularity Universe of Logarithmic Time, in which deterministic pure-math relative-timing ratio-rate quantization is the fundamental self-defining Holographic Principle Reciproction-recirculation manifestation of all physical phenomena, such as been illuminated, made real-time Actuality.., so well in this video.
So a zero is a naught but nothing is a different naught? BTW I am more familiar with "ought" for zero as in the rifle cartridge 30-06 which is usually pronounced "thirty ought six"
Love your channel. However, Potential energy in a closed system always equals Kinetic energy in that same system when converted. Law of conservation of energy. What I see above is someone in history not accepting the nucleolus to also be revolving around the electron with the same energy as the electron is sweeping around the nucleolus.
This channel has to be hands down my most favourite channel. The greatest stories almost no one knows.
I’m so glad you did the math with historical commentary. Great job! My teacher in Modern Physics did all the same math but without the historical motivation. Showing how the sausage was actually made helps young scientists understand how to approach the scientific process better. Every undergrad physics/engineering major should watch your series. Thanks.
One of the biggest hurdles that made my mind blocks physics in the colledge was why on earth did these famous ones think about what they were working on. If I knew the historical background, many seemingly non logical aspects of physics would have come clear and smooth. I do not claim I understood everything thing you mentioned, but I really wish I had a teacher like you. Thank you for the video and the explanation included therein.
I love how down to earth the explanations are for quantum physics. I thought that they were all these crazy ideas pulled out of nowhere, but watching this channel showed me just how logical and relatively easy the explanations are to follow
Our freshman chemistry professor did this derivation for us many years ago. It really struck home to the class the amazing feat that a theoretician could derive the experimentally determined Rydberg constant. A well-deserved Nobel.
Another great video! Hilarious how Fowler tried to be skeptical because of a small decimal difference, but it did end up to Bohr correcting his math and getting it even better!
I purposely cut the Fowler stuff from my math-light video on the history of Bohr's model and I am now mad at myself. It is very dramatic, isn't it?
Read "Mr Feynman, You Must be Joking". Feynman made a prediction that was more precise than the measurements. When he heard that a more precise measurement had been made, he sweated bullets until the paper was published that showed that the new measurement was closer to his prediction than the earlier measurement, rather than farther from it. Theory always has to be shown experimentally to gain traction.
Fowler was only doing his work and in the end forced bohr to revise his calculus and to realized that he had missed something. It is science working at it's best.
Thank you for all the time you put into this explanation, truly clear and effective.
Of all Copenaghen School bunch of Scientists, in my opinion, Bohr was the most profound in the inception of new scientific objects. His ability to match elements from different sector of Science, was unmatched as it was unique...
Wowza! That was a lot of work! Great video! I'm going to have to watch that a few times.
Glad you liked it. I hope the math wasn't too fast - it is so hard to get the pace right when you have printed equations instead of writing them but I am left handed and so when I write it covers over my words.
@@Kathy_Loves_Physics I know what you mean. When I was teaching at university, my students complained about that. I never did solve it.
Great work! I've always appreciated my physics teachers who take the time to explain the historical concepts of the things we learn in our classes. Keep up the great content and thanks for what you do.
Glad you enjoyed it!
Wow, Kathy. That was a fantastic video. It brought back so many memories of my undergrad physics class in spectroscopy. That's where I first encountered the Bohr theory of the atom formally. I'd read about it in high school, but didn't understand the math. My spec instructor was a very practical guy who worked in one of the physics labs for Dow Chemical in Midland, MI. I learned so much from him.
I am honored to be in the same category as your undergrad teacher who obviously was an inspiration. I think we don't talk about spectroscopy enough - it is completely magical and deeply important in physics, chemistry and astronomy. So cool.
Thank you so much for this explanation of the math behind the Bohr's model of the atom. I saw the main concepts in high school, but I never thought that I would understand their logic and the story of how the physicists developed these mathematical formulas. 😊
This is a beautiful exposition. Wonderful!
Aww thanks
Thanks Kathy!
(Btw minor typo at 8:41, a missing "2" square on the v. The math does work out implying the 2 is still there, it just didn't show on the display.)
Aaaaarg, so sorry about that! Thank you for catching it.
Not sure if YT still supports annotations, but that would be an easy fix if so. And, where does the squared go as it becomes eq#3?
@@LFTRnow At 9:12 it gets canceled out when dividing both sides by 'v'. You can see the stroke over the non-displayed '2'.
Even Maxwell had some incorrections in his maths. According to a peer scientist.
she is unmatched, For every one of us that teach STEM, take her as your gold standard.
Thank you. ❤️
Great presentation! Made me nostalgic of my college physics days .Keep up the good work Ms Kathy. .Looking forward to more. .Thanks & keep safe.
Back in 1965 or 66, at the beginning of a chemistry course, we were introduced to the Bohr model. I didn't understand why at the time since the mini-solar system model of atoms was out of fashion. Only now with your videos do I realize what an amazing achievement it was.
I used to wonder why we studied it in physics too.
Wow! Nice walk through the math of Bore's model! Unfortunately the derivations went too fast for an old guy who's math is a bit weak, but I was able to follow the main line of logic. Thanks! Bore was truly amazing. I also appreciate the back story of his relationship with his wife, who was obviously a full partner. We often think of creative scientists as existing in some sort of vacuum and splendid isolation! I would submit that is seldom, if ever true!
Really awesome! You are doing a great job! Physics community is lucky to have you on board! :)
Your channel is a treasure trove! So much physics and history.
Thanks
Found this channel few days ago, and can’t stop watching so many great content. Awesome job, Kathy!
Thanks.
Thanks I am just an amateur with a PHD in Political Science -- these help me get a notion of the basics and inspiration from the ups and downs of the efforts by great names in Physics
Probably the best video series on quantum mechanics that I have ever seen
Truly outstanding video. I’m so impressed by your work, and thank you for sharing with us.👏
It is always welcome, having a complex topic able to be made understandable by someone with the right knowledge - thank you.
It has always puzzled why the electron remains where it is and fails to lose energy and does not fall into the nucleus, because of the proton-electron attraction. The satellites we send to space are powered to remain in orbit; when they are old and lose the energy and the means to correct/re-establish a proper orbit, they fall to Earth and the atmosphere has the final say. Electrons do not have on-board systems to correct/maintain an orbit yet there they are.
I wish I had professors with your clarity of presentation during my undergraduate years. I might have gotten my money's worth from all that tuition.
Glad you liked it and sorry you had some sub-par professors in college (one of my professors actually apologized years later for how bad he was, so I sympathize)
Just to mention , I live in Denmark and his son Aage Bohr did also achieved a Nobel price in physics. And frankly thycho Brahe were also danish. But as usual a very enlightening story about how physic evolved especially around the beginning of the the last century. And happy new year 😊🎸. I just wish I was so much better doing math. But I think I understand some of the bigger picture but quantum physics is so hard to get and Richard Feynmans quote does tell that everyone gets a bit dizzy trying to understand quantum physics. 🇩🇰🎸
Jai kan forestarr goot.
Is faere a sunis rapid mathematics.
Bru pause et 0.75 speed.
Kai ha glemt mine Danske a snagger medvdi.
Med di.
Hilsen fra Irland
This channel gives us a root insight in the legislative process in modern physics.
Ok, that was convincing! So you are really good at physics, not just at storytelling! Good job!
My physics skills were a little creaky, but they are still there.
Physics, History, Mathematics and fun intreludes. Hurray for Kathy.
Finally got an explanation! Thank you very very much ma'am!
Mam you are great .you do lots of work and explore , explain us the reality of historical inventions . Thanks mam 🙏🌿🌎
Glad you liked it
@@Kathy_Loves_Physics 😊😊😊🙏🙏🌿🌿🌿🙏
First day in freshman chemistry here's the derivation of the equation for the Bohr model of the hydrogen atom. Memorize it. Test to reproduce it next week. It was a tough school and only got harder from there. 4 of the most grueling years of mental work in my life and worth every second of it. This quantum jump comes up over and over again especially in electrical engineering. It's one piece of evidence for a possible additional dimension we can't sense.
While I'm not the greatest with math, I might be able to reproduce your most of your frames, you didn't skip something. Thanks for making this more accessible.
I think there is a mistake in 8:41 to 9:16. The equation should have the term mv^2 instead of mv.
Excellent, I will be rewatching this too
Beautiful step by step deduction of the Bohr model of the atom. All credit to Kathy.
Thanks, that one was really fun one to prepare for because it’s been a long time since I used my physics brain but total pain to film because I have no idea how to use my program to show equations
@@Kathy_Loves_Physics Kathy, why don't you make video explaining unitary evolution of Schrodinger's wave function, its possible algorithm and how stars, planets, black holes be made from quantum states. In short how we can get coherence from decoherence?
They looked great Kathy
Kathy’s storytelling is next level.
Thanks 😊
Even after 3.5k views there is no dislike
Right viewer meets right information
This video is such a treasure. Thank you for it!
Your explanation gives me the odd feeling that I might that I might understand equations. Thank you.
Great video Kathy!
Not a Bohring moment.
I’m sorry… low hanging nuclei.
I had most of this in high school (not Pickering though, what a jerk), and admittedly was taught well. But I do wish these videos had been around! Of course, this was 30 years bY (before RUclips 😁).
Thank you!
Wow! I am blown over. Thank for very much for your commendable efforts. I learned a lot.
Enjoyed your excitement. Trying to follow.
Thanks Kathy for another excellent video. I love your videos on science and the founders of modern physics. I think that Fowler was quite right to question the slight difference between observation and theoretical prediction. That is one way in which theories are tested, improved or changed. I wonder what nuclear mass Bohr used when calculating the efffective mass for the electron in Helium.
Great video! Kathy is what happens when Miss Frizzle meets Einstein!
I have intended to do something like this for a while but looks like Kathy is more energetic then me. This issue has bothered me for a while since I read through Bohr's original paper. All of the intro textbooks get this wrong, claiming that Bohr quantized the angular momentum which lead to his result. I think it is enlightening to read the paper and realize that Bohr basically pulled the "average angular frequency" out of thin air and then concluded that the angular momentum is quantized.
yay - thank-you so much for jamming through these theories and equations.
Note that with quantum mechanics, the values are all discrete so they all belong to the set of Rational numbers (can be equated to the discrete sequence 0, 1, 2, 3, ...) as far as going from one to the next one. This means that the scenarios that create these results are also discrete (completely separate from their nearest neighbors). This result implies that if there is a multiverse interpretation of these rules (Everett "Many Worlds" interpretation), then each universe of this multiverse is completely separate from all others, too. They are thus not points on a line with no visible boundaries between such points, as in the infinitely larger set of Real numbers. This not only changes the results, but the concepts on which these results are based and is one of the basic differences between quantum physics and all forms of non-quantum physics (Classical, all forms of Relativity, etc.).
Thank you for this wonderful explanation!
Love this deep dive!
Thanks for the video. It was really insightful but I guess I will need to study a bit to digest everything here.
What I found interesting is the Rydberg mass for a system formula is a harmonic mean. Well now I am curious as to what practical uses are for geometric mean
Oh my word. Physics is beautiful
I love these videos! History provides so much interesting context. One point on this one however.... I would use the word "Revolving" rather than "Rotating" in assumption 5 b). The acceleration that was expected to produce classical radiation is centripetal -- like a cyclotron. Rotation implies spin which wasn't a consideration in Bohr's model.
this is absolutely riveting! TIME TO LEARNNNNNN
You GO girl.
Thanks for the smiles.
Good stuff 👍👍
Thanks
10:39 in my NY accent, 'not' and 'naught' are not pronounced the same. nought = 'nawt.' i knew saying cawfee, dawter, and dawg would eventually come in handy.
I love this video and your other videos!
I’m sorry to be a nit-picker on terminology, but I feel that in this model the electron “revolves” around the nucleus, it does not “rotate” or “spin.” I think this distinction is important if you are writing a book on quantum physics, as spin is another concept :)
Show! Thanks for the explanation
"Discrete" is a magic word. Old-timers knew about all kinds of phase changes and evaporation, sublimation, condensation is pretty magical, unless you know what holography is in relative-timing ratio-rates density-intensity nodes separated by dimensionality spaces as in 0-1-2-ness GD&P parallel coexistence.
Which is the job of the next generation to explain, "teaching by undoing" phase-locked e-Pi-i sync-duration resonances.
So I'll check in again later.
Brilliant channel, thanks Kathy
Can you make a video on Bohr-Sommerfeld model pls? I'd like to know more about the so called "old quantum machanics" and what they came up with those things.
By the way I just descovered this channel and it is INCREDIBLE. The only thing I'd like more is the possibility of looking at some sources, maybe putting some more links in the description?
Kathy list her sources in the bibliography of her fascinating book.: ' The Lightening Tamers'
1/lambda is called wavenumber, designated usually with nu bar or nu tilde. The effective mass is called the reduced mass.
Discrete energy levels were supposed around 50 years earlier by some spectroscopists and they were called terms.
Do you have any reference or names for the discrete energies ... sounds interesting.. that would be well before Planck.
@@blancaroca8786
Molecular Spectra Vol I
by Herzberg,Gerhard.
Best episode yet…
Nice colors…
Lighting 🚀🚀🚀,
Make -up 👀
Subject matter interesting..🐦🐦🐦
Nought, in current Britiah English still means nothing, and is used for "zero" eg "0.5" is generally spoken as "nought point five"
How is the work needed to set the electron free from the atom equal to the difference between it's potential and kinetic energy? Can anyone give me an explanation for that?
Please enlighten me. One can consider 'electron motion in an atom' from two perspectives, classical and quantum. The quantum picture relies on a statistical formula, the Schrödinger equation. It comes up with maximum 'entropy' solutions for the statistical shapes of the orbitals. The classical approach needs to take the quantum idea of somehow canceling the radiation from the electrons in their orbits. Then it is left with the task of solving ordinary differential equations including the effects of electron spin: a hopeless task, considering that the solutions are most likely deterministically chaotic. Is there any mathematical way of checking whether those chaotic solutions might have statistical properties that could be compared with the Schrödinger maximum 'entropy' solutions? Please enlighten me.
Im loving these videos..
As always, excellent!
This is great 👍
Super! Thank you for the nice explanation. This was one of my favorites :)
I don’t view Planck’s E = hν as really quantized, as E and ν are continuous variables, unrestricted until Bohr introduced quantum jumps that match the Balmer (and Lyman?) series. It’s been a long time since graduate schools
Wish to meet with you near future .mam one question ,are ASSUMPTION, CONVENTION and IDeal nature oppose the reality 🤔🤔🧐🌿
Very good. Please continue to load similar videos frequently. Thanks and Regards 😊🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏
Actually did bohr imagine his model of atom just as two dimensional?According to his model does all the orbits exist in one plane (Its always shown in a plane)?
He used the math of 2D model but said that it would work for 3D.
8:55 Velocity v = 2πr/T . You then say "the frequency is 1/T" and replace 1/T by ω. I think it should be 1/T = v(nu). This would make Bohr's idea W = nhω/2 to W = nhv/2 which is in accordance with Planck's E = hv.
Typos are easy to occur especially when you're excited creating this content.May
\
ω in my non quantum universe represented 2πf. The f in Hz.
@@joekavanagh5708 Yes and f = v (greek letter nu)
Thank you...I don't know math very well...but the way they figured this out is exciting. Isn't this what gave Einstein the idea how to create a laser light? Do you have a video on lasers??
Glad you like my video. Einstein was inspired by four to make up his theory of admission and absorption of light which led to the invention of the MASER (microwave amplification by stimulated emission of radiation) which led to the LASER. I am planning on making these videos but it won’t be for a while, sorry.
Awesome, Thanks
excellent video
[Ze] is also the chemical symbol for the element zenc.
thank you! My head is spinning!
Great videos. Please make a video on Lise Meitner.
Thanx!🙂👍
What really amazes me is the elaborated model, sometimes called "the old quantum theory", that Bohr and Sommerfeld developed, in which they started introducing elliptical orbits with the same principal quantum number and different angular momenta. What specifically fascinates me about it is that they would have been able to take it much further than they did had all of their angular momenta not been off by one unit of hbar! It was a mistake that was easy to make because of the energy degeneracy of different angular momentum states for hydrogen-like atoms, and maybe the idea of an electron with ZERO orbital angular momentum and an orbit that bobs in and out, right through the nucleus, was just too absurd for Bohr and Sommerfeld to contemplate. Once wave theory arrived it wasn't quite so absurd.
It was maybe the most significant off-by-one error in physics, one that contributed to further progress, since it led physicists to abandon "the old quantum theory" with quantized orbits earlier than they might have otherwise.
Very decent explanation. None know everything, but it's good to be correct in the little one knows. 😊
But rotating electrons radiate energy between retrograde motion connected with gravity waves.
This is awesome!
Two physicists meet in the hallway.
Quantum physicist: What’s up with your area?
Classical physicist: Negative Del dot g, like always. What’s new with you?
Quantum physicist: E over h, as usual.
Fantastic
What is the frequency of rotation in such a small atom? Can you give an example? Great video.
Jr cary thomas glad you liked it. Frequency of rotation meaning how often the electron circled the nucleus
Kathy Loves Physics & History Are you talking about megahertz, kilohertz, etc can you give an estimate for hydrogen?
@@225rip I think you can check out the hydrogen spectral series (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_spectral_series), there they give it in nm but since it's light you can turn that into corresponding frequencies. I think they end up in the petaHertz range (www.chemguide.co.uk/atoms/properties/hspectrum.html)
chuvzzz Thank you for getting back to me with an answer and a source to look into. I am thankful for people like you that can come along and fill in the gaps for me. Thanks again!
Great video, thanks :)
I would love to watch this video. Could you re-shoot this and keep your hands on your table?
Naw... Love the hands and arms. It shows passion in whats she is saying.
Great video. As an update, some inventors under patent have demonstrated electron states of 1/2 and 1/3 electron orbital states. Some physicists claim this is not possible even though it works. We have to break out of the faulty disinformation Einsteinian physic theories once and for all!!
Huh???
"An infinitely big Nucleus", that would be a ONE-INFINITY Singularity Universe of Logarithmic Time, in which deterministic pure-math relative-timing ratio-rate quantization is the fundamental self-defining Holographic Principle Reciproction-recirculation manifestation of all physical phenomena, such as been illuminated, made real-time Actuality.., so well in this video.
So a zero is a naught but nothing is a different naught? BTW I am more familiar with "ought" for zero as in the rifle cartridge 30-06 which is usually pronounced "thirty ought six"
Thnx granny for the video..
Love your channel. However, Potential energy in a closed system always equals Kinetic energy in that same system when converted. Law of conservation of energy. What I see above is someone in history not accepting the nucleolus to also be revolving around the electron with the same energy as the electron is sweeping around the nucleolus.
Great stuff. Thanks for the math. I suppose you folded part 5 into part 4 there.
Hey there Kathy!
Hi there
Do you offer any certificate of attendance for all these your lectures?
When is the Kathy Physics Exam?
It seems the idea it is in orbit is in the calculation, and yet is this the quantum interpretation of the position of an electron?