Various work is being done to establish whether fundamental particles have a more basic structure. String theory is part of that. But so far the standard model assumes that electrons, quarks and neutrinos are fundamental particles with no internal structure.
Hello, I'm quite new in this channel, I've studied molecular biology and i'm only very curious about physic. I like your work very much because i find that it fills a hole between the simple divulgative approach and the pure formal mathematical one. If I can suggest a theme for the future i'd like to see a lecture about entanglement. At the next video then :) Bye bye thanks
An electron which is orbiting the nucleus is subject to acceleration simply because it is changing direction. It may well be travelling at a constant speed.
My homework was to watch this 3-part series and take notes. I can see now why my physics teacher chose you! I am soooo lost in class but watching your videos I can now understand the concepts. Keep doing what you're doing.
Excellent videos! You explain everything in a clear, logical and concise way, making it very easy to follow and understand. Thank you very much for the videos.
Great video, but I have a question: Are electrons really as fundamental as we think they are? I'm pretty sure electrons can be further divided into spinons, holons and orbitons.
Great video. Question: Why the electron needs to accelerate? Can´t it just keep a constant speed, hence not loosing energy? Or, is it that experimentally electrons actually do emit radiowaves? Thanks a lot.
Hi there, very much enjoying the videos. Quick question on this one. Why did Rutherford assume that the atom itself was largely empty space (and thereby ruling out the plum pudding model) rather than there being large gaps between atoms? Also, why was it assumed back then that the negative particles orbited, why couldn't the heavy positive particles orbit with a central negative nucleus?
I dare say Rutherford did consider a number of options but all would have been subject to experimental results and the arrangement he came up with was the one which would accord with what was observed experimentally
dr, is it true every spinning mass has gravity? thus the nuclues is also applying a gravitational force on the electron.... why doesnt it get affected by the gravitational force at all?
+Lavuguishi 77 Yes. Every mass (whether spinning or not) exerts a gravitational force. So yes, there is a gravitational force between nucleus and electron. But if you calculate the size of this force compared with the Coulomb force you will find the gravitational force is about 40 orders of magnitude smaller. i.e. utterly insignificant.
In multiple videos you reference the fact that protons and electrons annihilate, however in my physics courses I was taught that only anti-particles annihilate with particles. Meaning that positrons and not protons would annihilate electrons. Is this consistent with current particle theories?
Yes you are right, that for pure annihilation resulting in gamma rays you need a matter to collide with antimatter. But if an electron spiralled into the nucleus of a hydrogen atom, it would pretty much finished the atom off.
Why are atoms considered neutral? When the electron orbits the nuclei, wouldn't it make sense that at any one point the nuclei would be at a different distance away from you than the electron. According to the inverse square relationship, a test charge placed outside of the atom would feel the positive and negative charge differently. Or am I completely wrong, and it does have a small effect and because electrons always move it would change the effect and instead of, for example attracting a positive test charge when the electron is closer to it than the nuclei (for a 1 electron atom) it will repel it the next moment. And this will result in 0 displacement??
First, its important to note that electrons don't "orbit" the nuclei; that is an outdated model that has been replaced by quantum mechanics, so the negative charges are spread out all the time. So, a single atom can't have such a charge different, or what physics calls a "dipole" (a positive pole and a negative pole at different places.) However, such dipole effects can arise in molecules that are otherwise considered neutral -- water, for example, has a small dipolar effect because the O atom tends to be "more negative" than the H atoms due to how the bonds work.
Surely, if Marsden and Geiger detected a small number of particles after re positioning the detector, then Rutherford should have seen a small discrepancy when the gold leaf was present as opposed to when it was not present ( ? ).
Various work is being done to establish whether fundamental particles have a more basic structure. String theory is part of that. But so far the standard model assumes that electrons, quarks and neutrinos are fundamental particles with no internal structure.
Fascinating the way you describe it so eloquently.
Hello, I'm quite new in this channel, I've studied molecular biology and i'm only very curious about physic. I like your work very much because i find that it fills a hole between the simple divulgative approach and the pure formal mathematical one. If I can suggest a theme for the future i'd like to see a lecture about entanglement. At the next video then :) Bye bye thanks
An electron which is orbiting the nucleus is subject to acceleration simply because it is changing direction. It may well be travelling at a constant speed.
why is electron orbiting ?
My homework was to watch this 3-part series and take notes. I can see now why my physics teacher chose you! I am soooo lost in class but watching your videos I can now understand the concepts. Keep doing what you're doing.
Wow I can see why no one dislike this video. Explains everything so clearly compared to everything else...
Excellent videos! You explain everything in a clear, logical and concise way, making it very easy to follow and understand. Thank you very much for the videos.
Simply beautifull lessons! Even the math in them is made understandable. Thank you for all!
I'm literally touched by your awesome lectures. Great job!
at 7:20 , why do accelerating charges emit radiation?
EXCELLENT ONCE AGAIN
Great video, but I have a question: Are electrons really as fundamental as we think they are? I'm pretty sure electrons can be further divided into spinons, holons and orbitons.
can you explain how an accelerating electron will emit electromagnetic wave?
Great video. Question: Why the electron needs to accelerate? Can´t it just keep a constant speed, hence not loosing energy? Or, is it that experimentally electrons actually do emit radiowaves? Thanks a lot.
Are you here
@@user-vq3lk ?
Hi there, very much enjoying the videos. Quick question on this one. Why did Rutherford assume that the atom itself was largely empty space (and thereby ruling out the plum pudding model) rather than there being large gaps between atoms? Also, why was it assumed back then that the negative particles orbited, why couldn't the heavy positive particles orbit with a central negative nucleus?
I dare say Rutherford did consider a number of options but all would have been subject to experimental results and the arrangement he came up with was the one which would accord with what was observed experimentally
DrPhysicsA Most of this is GCSE Physics.
Man .. just subscribed to your lessons.. hopefully one day u will be part of the khan academy.. food for thought.. awesome stuff man :D
dr, is it true every spinning mass has gravity? thus the nuclues is also applying a gravitational force on the electron.... why doesnt it get affected by the gravitational force at all?
+Lavuguishi 77 Yes. Every mass (whether spinning or not) exerts a gravitational force. So yes, there is a gravitational force between nucleus and electron. But if you calculate the size of this force compared with the Coulomb force you will find the gravitational force is about 40 orders of magnitude smaller. i.e. utterly insignificant.
In multiple videos you reference the fact that protons and electrons annihilate, however in my physics courses I was taught that only anti-particles annihilate with particles. Meaning that positrons and not protons would annihilate electrons. Is this consistent with current particle theories?
Yes you are right, that for pure annihilation resulting in gamma rays you need a matter to collide with antimatter. But if an electron spiralled into the nucleus of a hydrogen atom, it would pretty much finished the atom off.
Why are atoms considered neutral? When the electron orbits the nuclei, wouldn't it make sense that at any one point the nuclei would be at a different distance away from you than the electron. According to the inverse square relationship, a test charge placed outside of the atom would feel the positive and negative charge differently. Or am I completely wrong, and it does have a small effect and because electrons always move it would change the effect and instead of, for example attracting a positive test charge when the electron is closer to it than the nuclei (for a 1 electron atom) it will repel it the next moment. And this will result in 0 displacement??
First, its important to note that electrons don't "orbit" the nuclei; that is an outdated model that has been replaced by quantum mechanics, so the negative charges are spread out all the time. So, a single atom can't have such a charge different, or what physics calls a "dipole" (a positive pole and a negative pole at different places.) However, such dipole effects can arise in molecules that are otherwise considered neutral -- water, for example, has a small dipolar effect because the O atom tends to be "more negative" than the H atoms due to how the bonds work.
how did rutherford build the detector
Surely, if Marsden and Geiger detected a small number of particles after re positioning the detector, then Rutherford should have seen a small discrepancy when the gold leaf was present as opposed to when it was not present ( ? ).
Good point, I'm not sure though
Thank you. This is amazing video.
wow great video explaining quantum physics, Thanks!
Thanks for explaining 🆓 free 😇😇
your videos are very very good :)))
Thank you teacher I would like
To meet you one day and I will
super mr doctor
Great!
keep up
Ow
neoplatonic slime