de Broglie Waves - Sixty Symbols

[@Some_Awe]

Einstein casually walking in at 20seconds

[@BharatPatel-bb6lj]

Hahaha

[@sexybeast7728]

0:20 For lazy bastards.

[@paradox8836]

Fucc it's an anime character

[@NormadYT]

kotomi ichinose nhhhhhhhh

[@katiekatie6289]

He's a time traveller!

[@benplus2053]

if you are not sure whether a person deserves a doctorate and Nobel price just ask Einstein.

[@jefferylubinski528]

If einstein needs help figuring out how to make something work he called Charles "Proteus" Steinmetz . Whom many still dont know about. And act like tesla is the only one that was excluded by edison...

[@kareldegreef3945]

@@jefferylubinski528 at least de Broglie saw the other end of the coin but it's still a coin not head or tails (particle or wave) !!! it's a field ;-D pffff => i'm not the smartest person in the world but these scientists today dig too much of a rabbit hole themselves if you ask me :-D

[@DinarAndFriends]

He deserved neither.

[@zf164]

Jeffery Lubinski The concept of phasors alone introduced by Steinmetz was revolutionary in the world of electrical engineering. With it engineering can make use of Tesla’s AC technology

[@ishworshrestha3559]

Ok

[@bxyify]

Pitty he didn't explain why it's so important that the electron is a wave at the atom. With this idea of de Broglie physic was able to understand why elements emit or absorb only certain wavelengths of light and also explain, why the electron is not crashing into the core. One might say, well it's in an orbit so it moves fast enough around the core not to crash in because electromagnetic pull and circular force equal out. The problem is just that moving charged particles, what electrons are, emitt radiation and that radiation equals an energy that would be taken from the electron and cause it crash into the proton. However with the de Brogli waves it becomes clear why this doesn't happen: The wave can only be located at certain energy levels defined by the frequency so that the wave connects on itself. And these discrete energy levels are also equal to the frequency an electron can emitt or absorb. Therefore this idea of de Broglie explains so much, why we see spectral lines, why lasers and LEDs work and why Planck had to assume that energy is always emitted in packets.

[@DanFrederiksen]

+bxyify does it really explain the lack of collapse though? I'm not intimately familiar with it, just wondering. It makes sense that the funky self resonance of the wave makes things discrete but why not a discrete step into collapse then? particularly given how extremely strong the electric force is. I suppose it does constantly collapse but that the energy left behind is of such nature as to be reabsorbed and reestablish the 'orbit' again. That the collapse energy is not on a form that will emit from a neutron? maybe

[@samknott5419]

+Dan Frederiksen They thought it would collapse because the electrons lost energy via electromagnetic waves since they were, in Bohr's model, accelerating charge particles. In a wave function, nothing is accelerating so no energy is lost by the electron and nothing collapses.

[@bxyify]

Dan Frederiksen It happens, that an electron "falls" into the nucleus, it's called "electron capturing" and releases a gamma photon and an electron-neutrino and happens in unstable cores that have a surplus of protons. The force in action here however is the weak interaction and not electromagnetic. Please keep also in mind, that the electron-wave modell is also just a modell that can explain discrete energy levels in emission and absorption. No model explains quantummechanic processes completed because it always matters how and what you observe. The shell-model with electrons as particles on orbits is still used in chemical models because it often can explain chemical reactions well enough but fails at explaining structures of molecules where the orbital configuration as amplitudes of the wave function matters again.

[@DanFrederiksen]

+bxyify, interesting. Are you a physicist?

[@DanFrederiksen]

+Sam Knott "In a wave function, nothing is accelerating so no energy is lost by the electron and nothing collapses." But isn't that really odd. 1) that an electron is a wave at all and 2) the oscillation doesn't count as accelerated charge. I'm not fully educated in QM so it might just be partially ignorance but it seems to me that this wave nature strongly demands and explanation which is a window to everything else. It has been suggested that gravity/mass inertial field has a wave aspect to it. An inherent frequency nature. Which could be used to affect it. I hunch that resonance in some fashion is super fundamental. That all interaction is of a funky frequency nature and resonance is the coupling aspect. That you can 'dial in' anything and affect everything at arbitrary distance. Including coupling with the earth's gravity and pay energy to it to rise up in the air. Correct me if I'm wrong but everything we see has a wave aspect? so it stands to reason that mass and space and time also have it in a form we have yet to identify. And I don't mean gravity waves like in ligo. Maybe there is a different type of oscillation we haven't yet identified. So much yet to discover.

[@XanderMarjoram]

I don't know if it's a coincidence or not, but after most physics lessons, I come home and there is a video with the exact topic we studied! We studied de Broglie waves yesterday :) Thanks for the video :)

[@mauroprovatos]

quantum mechanics 101 : "It's screwy"

[@volta2aire]

Maybe the wave-particle is actually a little screw. A photon can be circularly polarized just like screws which are like a helix. Then "it's screwy" becomes *quantum screw mechanics.*

[@dyanpanda7829]

de Broglie opened the field by making waves.

[@DaveRoberts308]

“It’s screwy.” Now, I don’t feel so bad about my failure to wrap my head around this concept in my undergraduate physics classes.

[@gekolvr0734]

call it a 'wavicle'!

[@godiamcrazydude]

gekolvr0734 underrated comment

[@vidarton]

Many use 'wavelet' actually.

[@michaeltebele3305]

Richard Feynman said it first

[@crackedemerald4930]

Waluigi would call it "wahvicle" Although "parve" might be more french-friendly

[@edwardlewis1963]

Is a tsunami a particle or a wave?

[@aretorta]

I already knew de Broglie's work and I find it wonderful, strange yet wonderful. I am ashamed of some physicists who have put this argument aside without even trying to analyze its fundamental idea.

[@sixtysymbols]

@crabid thank you... Glad you chose to watch it!!!

[@njimko23]

@biain93 - The charge is fixed. The particle does not have an exact position or path. The wave aspect is that waves can cancel in some locations and reinforce in other locations.So an electron is likely to interact with something else in positions that are described by equations that describe interference patterns. They won't appear in places you would expect a particle to be.

[@yusukeshinyama]

The professor's explanation is so screwy that it is refreshing. This is a video that makes a viewer daydream about their universe... Definitely one of the best sixty videos!

[@meguinlia]

Wouldn't the way to look at how it is both a particle and a wave be explained by the fact that the electron is the viewed as a marble when time is removed/viewed in an instant where as it is behaving like a wave when viewed over a period of time?

[@TheAncientScholar]

De Broglie's paper was also unique in that it was so well written in terms of getting to the point with a minimal amount of "fluff."

[@TheAncientScholar]

@G3org3Master; unfortunately, it depends on the experiment. Some experiments indicate a wave, while others indicate a particle. The wavefunction is a different concept that relates to electrons in atoms. Most people believe the wavefunction has no "physical" meaning.

[@emilwibergh1014]

2:54 and the "particle" starts rolling away, jiggling in a wave pattern. That's hysterical.

[@exxzxxe]

As always with these Sixty Symbol gentlemen-physicists- clear, concise and well said.

[@life42theuniverse]

I remember somewhere that I read that the material a wave of water is moving through does not move in the horizontal motion .. Like a wave of water .. the ups and downs are not actually traveling in a forward velocity but the momentum of the wave still travels at a finite velocity forward. So like this wave of water, might the wave of an electron be emitted and its energy transferred while its particle traverses the vacuum separately and hence the electron being wavelike and particle like.

[@NoActuallyGo-KCUF-Yourself]

@pilotwave That is Schrodinger's idea: that the wave is wave of probability. The "particle" is measured at the location where the probability function "collapses" - when you stop measuring, the waving continues. Seems easier to think in terms of fields - there is an electron field. It has a probability function associated with it, and when you poke at it, it converges on the poking and appears point-like . . .

[@Mutantcy1992]

4:55 He means antinodes, right?

[@Ten37Jim]

What you have to remember is while what an operation does to a number can be explained by language, the problem comes when trying to explain to people what the maths physically describes. Language allows explanation by comparison to something that the other person has seen, which is very difficult when nothing like this has been observed outside of quantum mechanics. We could make up a word for them, but we would just have to explain what that word meant, which puts us back to square one.

[@tobsmonster2]

I love this channel. 1. Wish I was studying Physics. 2. Wish I was at Nottingham.

[@RyanDB]

I'm doing A2 physics in England and it's briefly mentioned, but not in any real detail - we're just given the equation to work out the wavelength of a particle from its mass and velocity.

[@tejasviization]

And special thanks to Sixty Symbols, Brady, All the professors and the team behind the videos (if not only Brady). Thanks for all the videos, they explain a lot and have a credible source.

[@StarSong936]

I like the image zoom on the microscope where you get to see the individual atoms in the picture. As I see it, the electrons smear out in their orbits, so the seem to take up the entire orbit, because the period of the wavelength reinforces the position of the particle. Yes it may be simplistic, but it helps me understand it.

[@BRAIDERMAN]

De Broglie's thesis didn't just postulate the existence of 'matter waves' for an electron - but to all matter objects with a velocity or momentum, including baseballs and footballs. When you look at the equation for the corresponding wavelengths of a baseball travelling at 40 mph, it is vanishingly small ( frequency is large). Thus the correspondence of similarity between matter and energy in E=mc2

[@TeslaRifle]

There's a book by Johan Prins called Physics Delusions, and in it if I remember right, he addresses the screwiness by saying that all particles are actually just waves that have been scrunched together by tight boundary conditions so that they appear as defined 'point particles'.

[@tripnoticstudio]

I absolutely love how this professor explains it.

[@Stupidiusity]

They say it's a nightmare to explain to students, but as I watch more an more of these videos, I'm beginning to get a clear picture of it, and it doesn't seem that abstract to me anymore. I think it just takes time and loads of examples to make it penetrate one's mind, for him to understand.

[@JaySyzdek]

lol, "They roll away if they're particles!"

[@sidewaysfcs0718]

that's why we can't use the image of an orbiting electron orbiting particles would mean acceleration, and so the electrons would constrantly emit photons and spiral into the nucleus. the electrons are actually standing waves around the nucleus. these waves can have 1, 2 , 3 ,4 ,5 ,6 ...n , values of a wavelenght. so you cannot have electron in between the 1 and 2 , there is no 1.5n of an electron's energy on the K level. this means electrons only come in discrete energy levels.

[@fewmetsiam4u]

A beautifully clear explanation that clears up many matters.

[@joshuajurgensmeier4534]

+fewmetsiam4u Don't you mean, "A beautifully clear explanation that clears up many waves"?

[@drins.ishmaku9483]

no , i didn't confuse the topic. Matter waves obey laws of probability just like sound but the difference would be that a particle doesn't disperse like a wave , the particle travels in a wave fashion. Just a guess :) I would like to know your point of view ....

[@ShannonMacca]

"If you don't like it, blame de Broglie, because it's screwy, it's completely completely screwy." [This is amazing. Thanks!]

[@aikimark1955]

I think of fundamental particles, in analogy, as small bits of matter that have some base frequency. The space the particle inhabits includes the effect of the frequency on the surrounding space. If the particle is an electron and gains energy, the resulting increase in the size of the surrounding wave pushes the particle into a higher (quantum) orbit. Conversely, lower energy reduces the surrounding wave envelope and lowers the orbit. Sometimes a tuning fork/speaker experiment helps students.

[@crabid]

Wow! I almost didn't watch this since I had a lot of subscription videos and I didn't know what this is about, but this is the best video I have seen this year! That makes perfect sense to me (which probably [almost certainly] means I don't understand a lot of what it's based on ^-^ ) but no matter. What a fantastic concept, almost obvious really when you think about it.

[@PTNLemay]

I think I understand... it eventually reaches an equilibrium. Thanks for taking the time to try and explain it.

[@DanFrederiksen]

I'd say it's a wave nature with resonant mechanisms that can interlock waves to be standing and thereby have particle like properties. the wave aspect is the only one that never goes away.

[@jeebersjumpincryst]

@MrOldprof That was REALLY good! I must say, I reckon you've got this totally mastered now. relaxed, casual, and making speaking at Brady's camera business look easy.

[@Sparkygravity]

I've always thought of wave-particles as a cloud-putty. As something that is more like a fluid than a solid. It always seemed to make interactions between particles more sensible and sort of explained why valence shells had certain shapes. The idea that an electron has a fuzzy cloud-like charge but not quite enough charge to fill the the s and p orbitals... it tries really hard but can't quite balance itself which is why 2s, and 2p are the stable ones. Don't know if this is right though.

[@kevinfairweather3661]

My understanding is that, an Electron is not a wave and a particle at the same time. Depending on what experiment we are doing to see what is happening it has either, particle like behaviour or wave like behaviour. Not both at the same time.

[@Dyslexic-Artist-Theory-on-Time]

Could the wave particle duality of light represent a process of continuous energy exchange that we see and feel as the flow of time? Based on: 1. The quantum w-particle function Ψ represents the forward passage of time itself with the future coming into existence photon by photon. 2. Is that quantum uncertainty ∆×∆p×≥h/4π that is formed by the w-function is the same uncertainty we have with any future event within our own ref-frame that we can interact with turning the possible into the actual!

[@Fr4g0n]

Waves and particles are both human interpretations of the things we see around us, normally at a macroscopic scale. At the most fundamental level light is simply light, and we apply the ideas of a wave or a particle to it to see if it fits mathematically. Although it is difficult to conceptualize the world of quantum physics behaves differently then the macroscopic level we are most familiar with

[@sidewaysfcs0718]

no, to explain why two electrons ocuppying the same orbital must have opposite spins you can use this picture. if you take two waves, but turn them out of sync, so that the maxima of one wave alignes with the minima of another, the two waves cancel out. this is why electron orbitals contail 2 electrons each, of opposite spin. the "spin" itself is a property of particles, you cannot imagine it as spinning around itself like a ball, it's just a number wich describes a state.

[@itsMinuteMaid]

Most videos on youtube are quite pointless (including most of mine), so I just wanted to thank you guys at SixtySymbols for making videos that actually make me think.

[@greenmario3011]

I think of particles as blobs that bend and deform like waves, but bounce off thing and shrink into points when you measure them.

[@joha7559]

Actually what I said in the first section is a bit wrong; if a wave has a higher frequency,it is physically SHORTER, rather than longer as I originally said, hence the wave we're talking about that's around our atom gets longer when its frequency is reduced.

[@XxJ4R7xX]

the idea is mentioned in high school and basic math operation are covered on it, it's not as if it's anywhere near as complex, but it is a bit weird yeah

[@8bit_pineapple]

@raydredX Well, it produces an image 10 times larger than the specimine, but two points within 0.5mm get blurred together.

[@Edge0fPain]

I *think* that a wave is just something that describes how energy is transferred across a space. e.g. a particle will oscillate up and down and transfers energy, this can be modelled as a wave. Waves and photons are models by which we explain light and other EM radiation, they aren't physical things.

[@Hythloday71]

You guys are really making some great enthralling and concise vids !

[@BlueCosmology]

It's not a physical substance that is waving, it's a wave of probability density. For instance the wave function of position is just an oscillating probability density, becoming more likely then less like in different positions.

[@joha7559]

If you cut away one of the crests, I suppose you could think of it as decreasing the frequency, and therefor the energy, hence the dropping to a lower energy state.

[@thishasgottobecrazy]

Wow this is really weird, we just went over this just last month in my high school physics class. Good timing!

[@billymole958]

Wave-particle duality is covered in Unit 1 at A-Level.

[@joha7559]

That's kinda what happens. As you said, when the electron jumps to a lower energy level, that 'extra' energy it did have is emitted as radiation. The thing with waves is that the higher their frequency, the more energy they have; if a wave has a higher frequency, it must be longer in physical length because the speed of light is constant and c=frequency/wavelength.

[@GoatzAreEpic]

Both particle and wave at the same time is actually a common misconception. It is impossible to be two different states at one instance in time. Instead we say it is in superposition. It could be either this or that, but never both states at the same time.

[@schmetterling4477]

This has nothing to do with superposition. Dirac pointed out around 1930 that wave-particle was a trivial false dichotomy fallacy. Quanta are neither waves or particles. They are small amounts of energy. It was up to Mott in 1929 to show how small amounts of energy can produce particle tracks which falsely suggest the existence of classical particles. The wave properties of ensembles of these quanta follows from relativity. The emptiness of space leads to Lie-group symmetries of spacetime and the general representation theory of these Lie-groups involves complex exponentials, which physically behave like waves in linear media.

[@Roscapeaux]

Ah. Finally. This is not the only video I watched, but it makes total sense now after a few months of puzzling over. Particles have associated wavelengths. Or : you can think of wavelengths, without the particles. Depending on what you're after and what you're looking at.

[@schmetterling4477]

There are no particles in nature. That's just a trivial misunderstanding of physics.

[@Roscapeaux]

@@schmetterling4477 Do you have some proof of this concept? Or some kind of theory underlying it?

[@schmetterling4477]

@@Roscapeaux Look at a solar panel. Energy in form of light goes in, energy in form of electricity comes out. There is no tap to drain the exhausted photon particles. ;-)

[@VTM_rp]

So, is the wave dynamic of an electron the reason it can only exist at certain energy levels? Like, it can only be at a certain place when the wave can completely fit? And this explains the ability for two electrons to exist in one field, the "spins" could just be the nodes, one going in, one going out.

[@mythofechelon]

@Nitelurker1 Ah yes, even though it's off-subject, in "The Walking Dead" the main character tries to describe his immediate immersion into a zombie apocalypse but fails and another character explains this by simply saying "Words can be meagre things. Sometimes they fall short" meaning that if it's out of the everyday experience, it can be physically hard to put into words. I think that's what you were trying to say, yes?

[@BlueCosmology]

Yes, when an electron is in 'orbit' around a nucleus it must take up the form of a standing wave which can only have exact amounts of energy.

[@garathon66]

Great camera lads, it can zoom right in on that little blue electron!!

[@FoValentine]

For your first question, no. A photon is defined as a force carrier for the electromagnetic force, oversimplified this means that photons carry force between electrons. Furthermore, one of the defining aspects of photons is that they have no mass, but as for your question, the more energy carried by a photon, the shorter the wavelength becomes. That's basically it, it doesn't acquire mass, nor does it lose the particle/wave duality. As for your last question, I'm out of characters :D

[@8bit_pineapple]

@raydredX After a quick google search a prototype neutron microscope was made 6 years ago, but it only had a 0.5mm resolution and a 10x magnification.

[@ProfessorEGadd]

Firstly, metals have like, loads of electrons. Like loads and loads, really. The second point is that electrons are charged. Usually the photoelectric effect is demonstrated with a negatively charged sample, i.e. one with an excess of electrons, so the the electrons that are released are sent far from the surface. Related to the charge is that once a metal loses electrons it is positively charged so will attract more electrons, either one's just released or from the rest of the environment.

[@mellyhong9434]

"If you don't like it, blame de Broglie" Best line evaaah 😂

[@HotelEarth]

My understanding is that electrons do not orbit the nucleus, but instead occupy all possible positions. Instead of a satellite orbiting the Earth you have an atmosphere wherein the electron occupies all possible positions around Earth at once. It is only when the electron is measured that is appears (briefly) to occupy one position.

[@tejasviization]

this was introduced in Year 11 at my high school and than was expanded in year 12 in a lot more detail. (Melbourne Australia). Physics at my high school was great! The only reason I'm studying Electrical Engineering today.

[@milind006]

This is the confusion I always had when I studied about the electron wave long ago. I thought waves were basically disturbances in a medium. Sound is a disturbance in the air, light a disturbance in the EM field, earthquakes being disturbances in the Earth's crust. So electron is a wave, what exactly is it a disturbance in?

[@RavemastaJ]

I didn't see the photon one, and I also didn't realize graphene was actually useful to people who aren't creating stuff on the scale of meta-materials and carbon nano-tubes. Kudos to you if you can actually explain that stuff to kids. The maths behind meta-materials boggles my mind, even if I can understand the concept...

[@PTNLemay]

When a photon strikes a surface (say metal) it pushes an electron out. That's the usual example given when introducing photon particle/wave duality. What I don't understand is how do those electrons get back into the metal? I get that a metal block is going to have a lot of electrons sitting in it, but if you leave a big block of metal out in the sun all day (getting bombarded by countless photons) all it does is get hot... it never actually runs out of electrons. So how does it work?

[@ericl8743]

I wasn't expecting him to pronounce the name correctly. That's exciting to hear 😅

[@jyangers24]

de Broglie (the Broccoli). The de Broglie wavelength was one of the first things I learnt in IB Quantum Mechanics. Amazed and confused me at the same time.

[@Dyslexic-Artist-Theory-on-Time]

Louis De Broglie great idea that everything has wave-particle properties is one of the principles that Quantum Atom Theory is based upon. In this theory we are all made of particles but over a period of time we are waves in a process of continuous creation or change. A process that we can interact with turning the possible into the actual therefore Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle is the same uncertainty we have with any future event.

[@FrumpleJames]

It would be interesting if they dropped something in about Bohm's Pilot Wave interpretation of QM. While I don't necessarily agree with it, it is based on an interesting premise, that being that the de Broglie wave is basically a path which determines the path the particle in question follows. It's certainly an interesting debate to have.

[@sidewaysfcs0718]

the only abstract thing is the electron itself it's quite hard to imagine a wave, like a water wave, that can magically collapse into a single particle when it's detected via a photon gun (detector) , and then re-emerge as this spread out wave. it's wasy to prove it happens, but quite hard to image the actual electron itself, as being both a 0-dimensional particle sometimes, and a spread-out 3d wave other times.

[@Zepheriah]

It doesn't make sense to expect them to be particles or waves. A 'wave' is motions in a fluid, and a 'particle' is something like a pool ball or a planet that's made of atoms and bonks around. We're describing subatomic entities by comparing them to familiar things around us. It's like having never seen a hippo, and saying "it's like a cow" -sure it's LIKE a cow, but we should remember it's NOT a cow, and not be surprised if sometimes it acts like a duck, or acts like nothing else on earth.

[@sporkafife]

@ben9345 I do A-level physics, and although you we do learn the basics of wave-particle duality, I think it's safe to say we do not fully understand it. I can't remember who it was that said this (it might have even been one of the lecturers on here), but if you think you've completely understood quantum physics, then you probably haven't understood it at all.

[@SillyEddyPhotography]

From what I've read, and the impression that has been given, the wave-particle business is just part of a probability function. There is a particle, and it appears somewhere on the wave, but until you look for its location, it's effectively everywhere - Like an electron cloud around the nucleus. Is that a fair representation?

[@TaufikAkbar7]

I felt screwed when i was learning these modern physics in high school but now I feel that these are wonderful things

[@AndorianBlues]

@Duodecillian re: falling through the ground, isn't that actually because of electromagnetic repulsion between electrons? I was under the impression the fermion exclusion principle only applies to the structure of the atom itself except in very high density situations, such as that thought to exist in the centre of neutron stars. I'm not a physicist though!

[@xja85mac]

There's also to say that wave-particle duality proved true also for fullerene C60: someone actually managed to diffract a beam of fullerenes.

[@FalcoGer]

4:29 hold it right there in my physics class in school i leraned that a particle with a charge chaning it's velocity emits em-waves (like smashing electrons in copper in a xray device, or the syncrotron radiation of circular acelerators) so if electrons circle around like you show why don't we detect the radiation all around us? doesn't quantum mechanics say that that "orbit" is a field of proberbility where the electron MAY be and as long as we don't know it's everywhere in a superposition?

[@zainabmehdi6380]

I don't know I might be over simplifying it but when we read about the motions associated to electrons , we know it spins,vibrates n also moves ahead like in an orbit around nucleus... so imagine a particle which is vibrating n moving ahead too... it would definitely move like a wave ..

[@ryansmore]

But can't you get electron diffraction patterns and the double slit experiment shows the wave like properties of electrons? So it has some experimental proof in a macroscopic view.

[@raydredX]

As anyone tried proton microscopes for the increased image quality? I see problems but I was wondering about it. They are probably harder to "eject" into an object and they may be too destructive. What about neutrons? I don't know how you'd observe the neutrons but oh well.

[@mattkratzer7533]

not exactly, it still remains a wave-particle duality, just like photons of light, it has properties of both so therefore is both. all matter on a quantum scale has both wavelike and particle like properties.

[@garfieldcatgc]

This topic of duality is relatively complicated it led to like uncertainty principle. The way we see electron can be both particle and wave there is mathematic equation for each behaviour. However the confusing part is how come when me observe it, electron can never be both?

[@LeftFootofEnki]

Would the wavelengths or their properties actually show up on a still image then? If you think of a wave, you likely portray something that is distinguishable by how it behaves rather than how it 'looks'. Now, I know the question shouldn't be about w/n the image displays waves, but rather: how are the eventual properties of wavelike momentum viewable, eg. the aftermath of something having been in motion?

[@casacara]

Imagine making your PHD paper so advanced they need Einstein to understand it

[@MicrosoftsourceCode]

@jawayetti Which waves are you talking about? What I am saying is light has properties that can be associated with water waves but has many properties of it's own. I just find it annoying when they tell you something that one already understand is very had to explain. IE I know the sky looks blue because of light refraction of water vapour in the atmosphere. But to hear these guys say understanding why the sky is blue is not easy sounds annoying and patronising if you already know answer.

[@DougBanks470]

Currently doing Physics at A-level (Ages 16-18) and this was one of the first things we did. Electrons are both particles + waves. Honestly it's almost as if Physics is trying to make no-one understand it xD

[@nonchalant-turtle]

@Films4You Which part specifically? The electron 'orbiting' the nucleus? The wave existing around it?

[@raydredX]

@SilvonesProductions Using a particle model which would fail but it would be able to explain that if you forget the minor minor detail that no atom would last more than a tiny tiny fraction of a second?

[@ohwhererehwho]

What if the particle was merely composed of a nodal-shell of the very medium (space-time) in which the wave is propagating? Shell structures can have extreme strength. Also, time is not a constant (time's arrow varies in speed and direction), perhaps at the "surface" of the particle, time is "timeless" - giving a particle an exhorbitant half-life. I am very comfortable with "skrewy - counterintuitive" notions. It's another realm of existence, and much preferred!

[@mycount64]

it looks different based on your perspective. Perhaps its a wave when it interacts with itself and a particle when it interacts with other objects perhaps not.

[@biain93]

when you mean moves as a wave, do you mean the charge moves around the nucleus as a wave or that the charge is waved shaped?

[@sidewaysfcs0718]

the profesoor is simply showing how the old picture of Bohr was, Bohr used this orbit picture simply to describe certain properties, he said that electrons don't spiral in simply because "they don't" well , our new picture now shows why they don't, because they don't actually orbit, electrons are standing waves around the nucleus. when electrons leave an atom, they behave as particles, or as waves, depending how you measure them.

[@brucebpetit6374]

If you have a sea of "xwater" you can't detect because it has no kinetic energy, then if you put a waterfall into it ( undetectable normally because the waterfall just has potential energy to give itself the ability to create a "drop" for xwater) , [say call it a "particle"] then you can read the energy of the "xwater" through the energy wave created as xwater falls over a particle? The waterfall / "particle" then can also be detected because the xwater flow over it creates a charge and if enough flows over it it causes a deviation in flow creating a force which registers as mass?

[@suzesiviter6083]

Maybe I am thinking too simplistic here, but if n=1 and n=2 electrons are travelling at the same linear velocity (c), then the inner electron will make a complete orbit in less time than the outer n=2 electron, as the inner one passes the n=2 electron it will both repel and be repelled by the opposing electron causing the wave like behaviour?