A Brief History Of Atom | Democritus to Quantum | Atomic Models

[@SandipChakrabortty-nc5zl]

You are great Klonusk . I keep watching ur video Everytime. Pls pin me

[@fundamental_laws]

@@SandipChakrabortty-nc5zl he explains fundamentaly

[@chrissmith5778]

Wholesome pin

[@bbarwik]

I am fan of channels like Veritasium and Kurzgesagt and today I've found a new amazing channel like this. Love it! I hope your number of subscribers will skyrocket soon ;)

[@Klonusk]

🙏

[@hsimmortal]

The knowledge I gained from this experience far surpassed what I could have acquired through traditional classroom instruction.

[@cliftongaither6642]

yes, especially in murica.

[@Rico_Gd]

The heisenberg picture swap made my day🙌🏼

[@georgesmyrnis1742]

Ancient Greek Grammar Police, KZbin Surveillance Unit here: Atomos (Άτομος) is masculine gender. Democretus would have been referring to atoms in the neutral gender as Atomon (Άτομον). The word is a compound coming from the verb “temno” (τέμνω) meaning “to cut”, in its noun form “tomé” (τομή) meaning “the cut”. The first part of the compound is the negating “a” (α). So, atomon is something that cannot be cut further (like “uncuttable”, if that’s a word). GREAT VIDEO 👍

[@dougr.2398]

We need more attention to classical scholarship

[@dougr.2398]

Few know or care that A.E. Housman was a Classical Greek and Latin scholar. Much of his poetry was strongly influenced by both his scholastic background and the losses of life in WW 1

[@markerguy]

Broo Klonuskkk.. I remember myself thinking a week or so back that it has been a long time since you had uploaded.. and now it's here.. very excited to see!..

[@4pharaoh]

Not condescending and no pompous-azzery. Rare and Refreshingly well done.

[@dwivedys]

What a brilliant presentation. I had read about Bohr’s atomic model in 1988 / 89. Orbitals, atomic number, wave particle duality, Heisenberg and such. I used to tell myself I know all these things. But in truth I knew only about their names! Your presentation brought the vague ideas I had in my head to light! Thank you!

[@deepak_nigwal]

I learned the concepts of quantum atomic models 15 years ago (when i was still in high school) and developed a good understanding and visualization of the orbitals with the probability clouds. Sadly, he ended the video exactly when it started getting interesting. I was expecting more exotic 3D orbitals of different atoms which would be a cherry on top of this amazing video already; but alas. The probability cloud orbitals are represented by him in a 2D fashion, but actually are 3D spherical shells which engulf the nucleus entirely. Similarly, other higher orbitals are more like flower petals (as in your thumbnail). The video click-bait people here with the picture, but eventually didnt deliver completely what he promised.

[@markerguy]

Klonusk an imp update, pls mention that in Bohr's Model, the electron "energy" is not just energy but it's "BINDING ENERGY" because the -13.6 there implies that this energy is negative which isn't even possible as -ve energy results in "anti-matter" and we all know that electrons are not anti-matter, so pls mention that this is the Binding Energy which is the energy required to knock this electrons off of their orbitals..

[@kapsi]

You say that energy can't be negative but binding energy, which is a type of energy can be negative, how does that make sense? And antimatter doesn't have negative energy, in the sense you write about.

[@fastlearner292]

​@@kapsi It's a quirk in how we write it that makes it easy to understand for humans. A positive binding energy indicates that a nucleus is stable and requires energy to break apart, while a negative binding energy indicates an unstable nucleus that will spontaneously decay.

[@slugface322]

Binding energy refers to the nucleus, binding protons and neutrons. i.e. the strong force. The ionization energy refers to the electromagnetic force. Oh and there's color confinement which is quantum chromodynamics.😅

[@ashirwadgarg174]

I like how easily you have explained Bohr's Model and Quantum Mechanical model. Great video sir 👏👍

[@gauravtak9787]

The best video I have ever seen about atoms .., you are just brilliant……brilliant…… excellent…..excellent and excellent Thanku for making this video

[@storytimeg.andfriends886]

Good video! 😄 but here are some corrections 'Anu'='Molecules' and 'Parmanu'='Atoms.'

[@besufekadmelaku]

This is the best video i have ever seen. You make a clear clarification about literally everything and you also motivate me to be curious about quantum physics ; thank you so much.

[@Vijay-bv3cp]

Went through the content in my physics and chemistry class and never understood,but this video cleared everything.If there is a thing called Feynman Technique ,you have mastered it.Thank You Sir.

[@mandla-nkosi]

Hey the diagram 21:02 and another one mixed the order of radio waves all the way to gamma rays, by mistakenly labelling certain radiation to be more energetic than others. I understand it is an error and your videos anyways are so good, but please have a fact checker just to make sure the tiny discrepancies aren't too obvious. Thank you.

[@Barseik]

At around 21:03, the light spectrum goes from radio to micro, then ultraviolet, then visible with the shortest on the left. This is rather misleading, as one might think radio waves are shorter than ultraviolet. Same problem as the right hand side of the spectrum, X-rays being presented as longer than infrared.

[@AabhyaKulkarni-yp6ou]

This was such a good explanation! I really struggled with this topic and all my questions were answered in just 30 mins. Thank you

[@ADileepkumar18]

A very nice explanation for this tough topic which I have ever seen. Keep it up..... All the best

[@TubeMaven-_3028.]

Most underrated KZbin channel 😢

[@de.monic_angel]

Best work, everything in sequence and order, great animation work,.. Klonusk your great work is really very very helpful to future scientists..👏👏

[@tanmaykathuria8141]

Damn you are really underrated dude hope you rise to great heights for you even sky isn't the limit

[@atullya8173]

Thank you Klonusk, great work. These visuals helped me understand better than what was taught in class.

[@zacsamuel7295]

we live in an amazing time! this content is packed with information simply explained for a lay person and is totally free! thank you Klonusk!

[@sriramesh3985]

Hey man! I was just thinking about you yesterday. I was going to send you an email asking why you haven't uploaded anything in a few months, but then I saw your new video today! I'm so glad you're back! The video is great. It cleared up a lot of basic stuff that I was too lazy to look up myself. And the production quality is awesome. It was definitely worth the wait. Keep up the good work! நன்றிகள் பல ❤

[@Just_Another_yt_account]

Im also a tamil❤

[@sriramesh3985]

❤

[@Klonusk]

நன்றி 🙏

[@Just_Another_yt_account]

@@Klonusk are you tamil bro????😱😱

[@Cockateiology]

Very much good job Klonusk...! I'm really grateful to you..By this video I gained a lot of knowledge tht is rare in any Academic Book..Carry on Sir..!💌

[@prithvisinghpanwar6609]

27:38 Quantum Mechanical Model

[@unitittii]

Zeno's paradoxes make the concept of matter impossible. What is substance? What is solid, firm, impenetrable? What is the one, very own, individual? The idea is floating around that matter must be absolutely solid, at least at its smallest core. Zenen, however, has highly relevant, massively confusing objections to this: If something were fulfilled in the deepest space, if it were massive at the point which is still completely dimensionless, so to speak, which would be the basic condition for massiveness in space, then it would need an infinite number of such massive points to obtain even the smallest volume. However short the distance between the points may be, it is still not a distance. So there must be a void between the points, or the whole concept of space is a dead end anyway. Plato drew the consequences from Zeno's paradoxes and declared everything that exists to be identical. His pupil Aristotle also gave up the idea of matter in space and only wanted to consider 2D flat structures to be real, “structures that could at most arch into the third dimension and could only form something similar to a volume if they were combined together.” Others, such as Heraclitus, have approached the ultimate validity of elementary substance from a different angle. “Such a substance must be completely homogeneous in itself, it must not also contain different things.” But not containing any details also means complete paradox. It is something, but this is without any granularity, melts between your fingers and yet must muster the strength to cohere with others. In the face of so many principles of exclusion, however, we must not lose our compass, because in order to understand a world of reactivity, there must be something in front of us. There must be a remote effect which, as we now know, must be able to leap over a distance without this concentration having to be built from voluminous primordial substance. Are there therefore necessarily concentrations that can act like substance and is there also a void in between, places where no effect is possible? No, the void does not exist, there are only strong concentrations and weaker ones that hardly trigger any effects. As we know today, there is this fluctuating vacuum in which there is a lot going on, but these movements are completely undirected and their strength is purely random. Brownian molecular motion and more simply known as heat. A duality of a something surrounded by a nothing, such a thing does not exist and is not absolutely necessary. “There is no such thing as nothing” - the pre-Socratic naturalists agreed on this. Nothingness is the term for the non-existence of something. There are no potatoes, but there is nothing purely as a concept, nothing more. At the time, this realization had blatant logical consequences. If nothingness does not exist, then the world has not emerged from nothingness and cannot be nihilated back into a non-existent nothingness. No emergence is therefore also no annihilation possible. The abstract, non-representational, incorporeal wholeness stands there unalterably, forever and ever eluding all fateful influences precisely because of its untouchability. Instead of assuming the existence of space, we should be talking about an interlocking, a continuum of the in-formed. There is no emptiness of space, nor is there a fullness of space insofar as mass cannot be full at a point. It is therefore only a question of extension, of overcoming isolation, of separation from one another. The explanation of the concept of time makes sense the other way round. On an imaginary timeline from past to future, the now must also be present in the shortest moment. The now cannot disappear only to be reborn later on the timeline. The point in time that the now must have profoundly fulfilled in order to exist behaves just as paradoxically as the point in space; you can arrange as many dimensionless points in time in succession as you like, but there is still no extending timeline. But the now does not need a timeline either, it simply has to remain present. It is enough for the now to remain in dimensionless instantaneity. Now is always. Everything passes, but the now remains. Those pre-Socratic elementary philosophers attached great importance to the fact that the primal elemental substance, which must be uncreated, must also remain beyond any transformation. A difference between being one way before and being completely different later, possibly aged or worn out, such subtleties cannot represent the essence of the uncreated. It is called prima matter, that which existed before all fatefulness, which makes it possible for a changeable formation process to take place. The methaphysical literally determines what happens. This creates compositions that can all diverge again. However, the quantity of basic substance units does not change, nor do their properties. They come and go and sometimes stay for a while, but all connections are ultimately not permanent, even if many have come together in a black hole. Conclusion: Wholeness togetherness takes place in dimensionless instantaneity. Disintegration into multiplicity and diversity is completely impossible. There can be no isolation, only a lack of reaction. Any form of activity cannot be present in that prima matter, which rests perfectly within itself, is in hermetic unity. So that what we perceive as concentration is in reality not an individuality, but quite the opposite, an amalgamation of everything into a single entity. Thus the all-connectedness, the total interconnectedness with all, is the only essence of matter that causes all properties. Seen in this way, there are no laws of nature but only properties of its participants. The search for matter itself therefore starts in exactly the wrong direction from the outset and a radical turnaround must ultimately be made. It is not the part itself that is to be discovered, but a union of the many around it. A 180-degree turnaround is needed to make sense of this miraculous thing called matter. The One is a union of all and this One is also included in all. It is about nothing other than maintaining unity, because a separation from each other would be an activity and such an activity cannot possibly have taken place. This nature of prima matter is preserving wholeness and is not progressing.

[@mardenteixeira8079]

this was the best animation of atom models I've ever seen, great job!

[@capjus]

Amazing man, i studied but never seen such good explanation, very uncomplicated

[@emenikevictor5118]

U are great teacher indeed ,you perfectly made everything clear ,thanks for that

[@RobinjayEbuen]

awesome editing and story telling, more on chemistry pls thank u.

[@VISHWAp.s-w8v]

A NEW EDUCATIONAL channel i subscribed after a year

[@chyldstudios]

Very high quality video! Well done!

[@Harshit-yi7zr]

This channel is Underrated Good JOB kepp it up Very easy to understand

[@SubhrajitReang]

thank you very much sir , love you from INDIA

[@donaldwhittaker7987]

Outstanding. Perfect for bright 6th graders. I would have enjoyed this in junior high back in the 1960s.

[@banditapattanaik3179]

Keep it up! I love how organized and detailed this channel is....

[@maheshxwar]

Thanks! very informative .

[@Sejal-up4dl]

Congratulations

[@Klonusk]

❤️

[@nword683]

@@maheshxwar get a life

[@memox.c]

This channel deserve more subscribers

[@SyDatNguyen-r4j]

I’m usually familiar with the bohr model and the dalton model. I draw molecules using the dalton model and atoms using the bohr model. But, sometimes, i use atomic orbitals to see the probability of electrons

[@freedomclub866]

Hope this channel grows

[@walkover1]

This video is gold. You, sir, got your self a brand new loyal subscriber🔥🚀✨

[@spiralsun1]

Send an alpha particle through the video, therefore, and few will be deflected because the video by your definition is mostly empty space. 😂

[@muhammadnuman4091]

Amazing Please make a video on Quantum mechanical model in details

[@prakharindus]

It had really helps for us to understand the Chapter 2 Chemistry Atomic ⚛️ Structure Thankyou 😊

[@AgendraSahu-ty9og]

Great explanation🎉 loved it ❤keep making videos like this....

[@engsoundleesam6292]

Thank you~~ I finally understand electronics. I respect your efforts. I hope you continue to give good lectures.

[@capjus]

Im still watching.. at about half already.. AND REALLY HOPING YOU INCLUDED latest like FERENC'S FINDINGS how electrons move etc

[@MrYellowAndYacello]

Are you still using alight motion? I'd love to know how to animate waves like the way you did.

[@saqibrashid6865]

Wow it was quite good explanation. Thank you ❤

[@katlehocaat6324]

Phew 😌 it's been a long tyme

[@YammyPhysics]

I like the explanation of the quantum mechanical atomic model.

[@Amalanandshiva]

Great work well crafted n compiled

[@bodrogo2585]

Hey friend please review Dalton's concept of the water atom (water being a compound atom) which he thought was composed of one simple atom of each hydrogen and oxygen. According to Dalton water had the formula HO. What Dalton knew, empirically determined, were the volume ratios needed to form a certain amount of water vapor: 2 volumes of hydrogen gas combined with 1 volume of oxygen yields 2 volumes of water vapor. This led him to conclude that the hydrogen atoms had to be larger than the oxygen atoms since the accepted model of the atom was the one you discussed, a solid particle surrounded by a heat atmosphere and the accepted model of the substance was that of a collection of balls arranged in rows and columns.

[@BjörnBöttjer]

what happened to the up and down quarks bosons neutrinos and such? will there be a part 2? and where does the energy come from that keeps electrons changing direction?

[@user-tera-baap-hai]

Finally someone recognised MAHARISHI KANAD 🙏🙏🫡

[@tivo3720]

Very nice video. To summarise the whole chapter

[@GabeTStarman]

5:10 this is a mistake, Cathodes are connected to the positive terminal and Anodes to the negative terminal. As a matter of fact, I’ve noticed some odd things about this video. It’s intending to be educational for English speaking audiences, and the visuals are generally very very good, but the script and voice work feels unnatural. It sounds like it was translated into English without receiving a proper proofread. The voice sounds like AI, or if it isn’t the voiceover needs some serious direction. In addition, the only sources listed in the description being Amazon listings for textbooks is unusual to say the least, not to mention there’s a…weird…rabbit hole connected to the listed author behind one of the pieces of text in one of the Amazon listings. If this channel seeks to be a positive and trustworthy source for English science education, I would recommend investing in rectifying these problems as soon as possible. Good luck in your endeavors.

[@BlackyBrownDestruction9337]

Why are the physical properties so vastly different from one another for just a proton added? Is it because the electrons create magnetic wave patterns?

[@markerguy]

At 27:27 there must be a slash in the h of the planck's constant, because that's the reduced Planck's constant and not the normal one so if you wanna write the normal one it would be h/4π

[@AhmedHan]

What about the atoms with multiple electrons?

[@mdw2367]

Keep Going!!. A question, How do you make that animations?

[@tava780]

Fantastic work. Easy to pick up information.

[@UJ-nt5oo]

Keep at it, your channel will blow up like kurtzgezat.

[@SyDatNguyen-r4j]

The jumping energy level part is hard to explain when the atoms has 2 or more electrons. That’s why i usually ignore energy levels

[@shaunehuolohan5736]

This should be in every school introduction to Atoms.

[@deepak_nigwal]

they teach this to kids in school, from middle school to high school. i middle school - what is atom, by the time they reach high school - probability electron clouds.

[@naysay02]

Beautiful work, thank you. Question: why does an excited electron want to return to its base state? If there is space for a standing wave at that energy, why would it not just stay there as that standing wave? If the tendency is to return to lowest energy how might one explain the stable characteristics of many elements where electrons definitely occupy higher energy states (eg gold, noble gases)?

[@naysay02]

Well, upon reflection it would likely be because all the lower levels are full, which is to say all possible standing waves at that energy already exist and there isn’t space for another one.

[@bryandraughn9830]

I wonder about the neutral state as well. The tendency to find the lowest energy state seems to be a universal law in general but I don't know exactly why.

[@prabhat.nanhi.900]

You are to the point Great explanation.. Thank you

[@DeadEnds1-me4u]

Can you make a video on electromagnetic radiation covering it from total scratch to advance it will be helpful for many 😊

[@Klonusk]

Sure 👍

[@dougr.2398]

Bohr effectively skated over Maxwell and Hertz’s results that accelerating charged particles radiate by simply stating that they don’t. That isn’t an adequate explanation, even though the results are spectacularly correct

[@oofsper]

This video is so helpul! Thanks

[@deepak_nigwal]

I learned the concepts of quantum atomic models 15 years ago (when i was still in high school) and developed a good understanding and visualization of the orbitals with the probability clouds. Sadly, you ended the video exactly when it started getting interesting. I was expecting more exotic 3D orbitals of different atoms which would be a cherry on top of this amazing video already; but alas. The probability cloud orbitals are represented by you in a 2D fashion, but actually are 3D spherical shells which engulf the nucleus entirely. Similarly, other higher orbitals are more like flower petals (as in your thumbnail). You click-bait people into your video, but eventually didnt deliver completely what you promised.

[@bryandraughn9830]

It's your fault.

[@deepak_nigwal]

@@bryandraughn9830 no

[@oofsper]

Sorry to be that guy but, it's h/4pi in the heisenberg's uncertainty principle :D

[@SyDatNguyen-r4j]

2.186x10^6 is 2,186,000, not 218,600,000. This means the electron speed in the hydrogen atom would be 2,186,000 m/s

[@suryaprasathm8020]

Please tell the softwares to make these type of videos

[@techwithvj257]

in sbse phle.... maharshi kanad ne diya tha atom ke baare m knowledge 😊

[@madanmohandas1038]

Great video sir thank you

[@codybass8873]

Amazing content!

[@RayyanAhmed-h5h]

great viedo.soon you will get more subscribers

[@CosmophysicswithRTsir]

@klonusk can you explain how you make such videos… what kind of applications do you use.

[@deepak_nigwal]

manim

[@fil22222]

Wow Amazingly explained

[@StarMan-h9b]

I wonder how would be atom( hydrogen atom) according to rutherford and according to bohr ,what is the difference

[@greggweber9967]

18:00 A particle of waves?

[@christianschuster4184]

simply fantastic didactic !!!

[@ANURAG_247]

Anyone from India and studies on 11th science should watch this

[@artandcraftgirl2310]

You are the best explaner ❤

[@NIPUNArts]

27:26 shouldn't it be h/4π

[@youreagoodperson6022]

Hey hope you’re well but I do believe water is a mass ratio with oxygen as 8:1 not 9:1.

[@RiRa462]

you need to look for the electromagnetic spectrum, i think it's Radio waves microwave infrared visible light ultraviolet x-rays gamma rays in the increasing order of frequency 🙈

[@MJ-cw6fw]

Thank you for creating this video 🐱

[@Brice23]

It leaves me wondering where the charge of the subatomic particles comes from. Why does an electron have the negative charge it has, and so on.. How can a neutron have no charge, it seems as if it wouldn't exist.. what is it? Are those particles waves? What would be the behavior of a wave without any charge? How is it that they stay stuck to the protons if they have no charge? Gravity? What is accelerating the electrons in the electron clouds? Why aren't electrons just considered negatively charged waves that surround the nucleus? If you measure one you are to get a particular sample of the negative wave that seems to be a particle due to the measurement technique, but the wave itself remains? Or does it physically transform a wave into a particle, and then back to a wave? I apologize if my silly questions were indeed covered in your production, or if I were meant to infer these details but wasn't observant or clever enough to keep up. Anyhow, a very well made video, I will look around and see if I can satisfy my curiosity with your other productions.

[@bretts6861]

They’re all good questions for which the science isn’t settled. The whole concept of a negative charge is ridiculous. It doesn’t exist.

[@Brice23]

@@bretts6861 Well I did look into my particular questions and have gotten a few interesting answers in terms of the current state of belief/evidence within the physics paradigm. Compelling, and often plain fascinating. Baryon acoustic oscillations, for example. I should have been more interested in physics while I was young. What is your idea on the fallacy of the negative charge? Very curious ..

[@affankhan6031]

thank you very much

[@Nameless-y9s]

this vid is soo goooddd !!

[@ayoubelazzouzi5600]

Great video

[@user-xu8xd5op8e]

hello Klonusk i am an south indian why do you put virumandi in the ending of your videos?? it was a movie i remembered it of Kamal Hassan

[@love2help_]

Thanks!

[@VieDiscovery]

I keep watching your video

[@Pocomine-cx2wy]

You just created your account ?

[@Pocomine-cx2wy]

Hi

[@VieDiscovery]

@@Pocomine-cx2wy Yes bro, I have wach on other PC

[@gerryboudreaultboudreault2608]

What is the speed (rpm)of the electron around, say, a hydrogen atom?

[@SyDatNguyen-r4j]

Electrons don’t spin, they act

[@khinmaungthein2624]

Thank a lot.

[@norbertdapunt1444]

Awesome, but, photons shouldn't be consider as particles, photons could act as particles but are electromagnetic waves spreading in expanding spheres at the speed of light.

[@lohphat]

Lavoisier Lah-vwah-zee-ay