Louis de Broglie's explanation of Bohr's atomic model

  Рет қаралды 168,337

Crash Chemistry Academy

Crash Chemistry Academy

Күн бұрын

Niels Bohr's 1913 model proposes quantized electrons to satisfy spectral data but without further support. Louis de Broglie (1924) made a highly significant breakthrough with his explanation supporting the existence of quantized electrons--applying a wave-particle duality of matter. This video explains how de Broglie was able to justify Bohr's contention that the electron is quantized.
CC Academy videos are easy 101 crash course tutorials for step by step Chemistry help on your chemistry homework, problems, and experiments.
- Solution Stoichiometry Tutorial: How to use Molarity
- Stoichiometry
- Quantum Numbers
- Rutherford's Gold Foil Experiment, Explained
- Covalent Bonding Tutorial: Covalent vs. Ionic bonds
- Metallic Bonding and Metallic Properties Explained: Electron Sea Model
- Effective Nuclear Charge, Shielding, and Periodic Properties
- Electron Configuration Tutorial + How to Derive Configurations from Periodic Table
- Orbitals, the Basics: Atomic Orbital Tutorial - probability, shapes, energy
- Metric Prefix Conversions Tutorial
- Gas Law Practice Problems: Boyle's Law, Charles Law, Gay Lussac's, Combined Gas Law
-More on de Broglie's model | Wiki-
"The 1925 pilot-wave model,[4] and the wave-like behaviour of particles discovered by de Broglie was used by Erwin Schrödinger in his formulation of wave mechanics.[5] The pilot-wave model and interpretation was then abandoned, in favor of the quantum formalism, until 1952 when it was rediscovered and enhanced by David Bohm
"His 1924 thesis Recherches sur la théorie des quanta (Research on the Theory of the Quanta) introduced his theory of electron waves. This included the wave-particle duality theory of matter, based on the work of Max Planck and Albert Einstein on light. This research culminated in the de Broglie hypothesis stating that any moving particle or object had an associated wave. De Broglie thus created a new field in physics, the mécanique ondulatoire, or wave mechanics, uniting the physics of energy (wave) and matter (particle). For this he won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1929.
In his later career, de Broglie worked to develop a causal explanation of wave mechanics, in opposition to the wholly probabilistic models which dominate quantum mechanical theory; it was refined by David Bohm in the 1950s. The theory has since been known as the De Broglie-Bohm theory.
In addition to strictly scientific work, de Broglie thought and wrote about the philosophy of science, including the value of modern scientific discoveries
Wikipedia contributors. "Louis de Broglie." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 10 Jun. 2016. Web. 13 Jul. 2016.

Пікірлер: 219
@davidobenitez3866
@davidobenitez3866 5 жыл бұрын
The yells are at discreet energy levels
@kepler6484
@kepler6484 5 жыл бұрын
Stop
@davidobenitez3866
@davidobenitez3866 5 жыл бұрын
Beast Master 😂😂😂
@Ivan_1791
@Ivan_1791 5 жыл бұрын
One of the best comments I ever found on the internet omg thank you. xD
@todorpetkov6525
@todorpetkov6525 2 жыл бұрын
Ahahaha what a genuine laugh you have provoked in me :D
@sorooshhamedi790
@sorooshhamedi790 Жыл бұрын
This was an incredible explanation of the model and logic behind the quantized energy. Thank you so much
@cybergooglelamine1142
@cybergooglelamine1142 7 жыл бұрын
Thank you for your clear explanation and your way of making things easy to get, you're awesome !
@natotem
@natotem 7 жыл бұрын
The best explanation.
@PhilMoskowitz
@PhilMoskowitz 3 ай бұрын
Schrodinger based his model on de Broglie's theory. Heisenberg did not and use matrices instead.
@joelweiner4156
@joelweiner4156 3 ай бұрын
Yes, but Heisenberg's (1926) model was the same as Schrodinger's (1926), based on the electron's energy manifesting as a wave. A mathematician (forgot who) in 1926 pointed out the the two mathematical expressions were describing the exact same atom, the same electron behavior, and in 1930 Paul Dirac combined the two into a single formalism.
@cosmefulanito519
@cosmefulanito519 5 жыл бұрын
Tamare....si tan solo entenderia el ingles :(
@CrashChemistryAcademy
@CrashChemistryAcademy 5 жыл бұрын
Lo sentimos, este video no tiene subtítulos (cc). Para cualquiera de mis videos que tienen cc, puede ir a configuración -> subtítulos -> traducción automática -> español. El video tendrá subtítulos en español. Lamentablemente, el video de Broglie no es cc y, por lo tanto, no tiene esta característica.
@nmaync
@nmaync 5 жыл бұрын
Stop shouting; it's just electrons.
@idaghani571
@idaghani571 6 жыл бұрын
You can't imagine what a relief it is to find such an explanation for a difficult topic as this.
@_Lex_9
@_Lex_9 7 жыл бұрын
the cheers at the end make you leave the video with a smile
@457azazazaz
@457azazazaz 6 жыл бұрын
Alexis C Einstein's facial reaction at the end went well with it.
@deepanshug5727
@deepanshug5727 5 жыл бұрын
8:10
@sexybeast7728
@sexybeast7728 7 жыл бұрын
OKAAY!!! i will go study it,. you don't have to yell at me.
@philoadriensson9850
@philoadriensson9850 7 жыл бұрын
That was a really excellent explanation, one of the best that I've seen. Any chance you could do one on pilot wave theory? Thanks!
@CrashChemistryAcademy
@CrashChemistryAcademy 7 жыл бұрын
My understanding of pilot wave theory is that it is basically the same as my video, just with lots more math-- people, especially David Bohm (1950s) attempting to bring electron behavior back to de Broglie's original interpretation. The "pilot wave" is the same as what is being called a "standing wave" in this video, with the addition of "hidden variables:" variables that are not yet known but that exist and bring the electron back from the precipice of probability and thus eliminating all "quantum weirdness." Pilot Wave Theory is an unpopular interpretation among today's physicists, but it was an essential step in creating the quantized world of quantum mechanics, and a remarkable leap forward in understanding nature, setting the stage for quantum mechanics, even though de Broglie's interpretation of his own math was not accepted by most.
@StephanBreuerFLYING
@StephanBreuerFLYING 3 жыл бұрын
agreed
@hafsasyed6331
@hafsasyed6331 7 жыл бұрын
This is by far the best explanation :D Thank you for not using alot of fancy words.
@lowersaxon
@lowersaxon 5 жыл бұрын
She should make really clear what a „standing wave” means. Without that nothing is explained.
@legpad5857
@legpad5857 Жыл бұрын
Thanks for explaining this in a much easier to understand way than most channels. Beautiful work.
@CrashChemistryAcademy
@CrashChemistryAcademy Жыл бұрын
Thanks for a beautiful comment!
@jcastronaut
@jcastronaut 7 жыл бұрын
Dang stop yelling at me :(
@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885
@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885 6 жыл бұрын
Little Orphan Annie
@redum2277
@redum2277 2 жыл бұрын
Can’t emphasis on the fact of how good this video was, I was always confused to why line spectrum has only lines !! Like the internet just gave vague or too complex answers but you gave it soooo perfectly !! Thank you!!! ✌️
@CrashChemistryAcademy
@CrashChemistryAcademy 2 жыл бұрын
Thanks! Glad to help!
@kashyaptandel5212
@kashyaptandel5212 Жыл бұрын
the thing that amuses me is De-Broglie majored in History, and won nobel prize after only few years of entering physics field
@CrashChemistryAcademy
@CrashChemistryAcademy Жыл бұрын
Interesting!
@ngc-ho1xd
@ngc-ho1xd 7 жыл бұрын
That was a really excellent explanation, one of the best that I've seen. Any chance you could do one on pilot wave theory? Thanks!
@muhammadkhandawermuhammadk9360
@muhammadkhandawermuhammadk9360 5 жыл бұрын
No.of standing wave in a shell how we can determine?
@dilaracengiz9813
@dilaracengiz9813 7 жыл бұрын
i wish there’s a subtitle at least english subtitle. Even there’s not it still the best explanation of de broglie. Thanks
@billusandda5845
@billusandda5845 3 жыл бұрын
It seems like from the last bit of the video that her teacher gave her an assignment to explain all this to us
@CrashChemistryAcademy
@CrashChemistryAcademy 3 жыл бұрын
My student asked if she could help make a video, so I made a script and had her read it...
@lifewonder9033
@lifewonder9033 5 жыл бұрын
can you add transcript?
@hellinvador
@hellinvador 8 жыл бұрын
Nice video. Keep up the good work.
@CrashChemistryAcademy
@CrashChemistryAcademy 7 жыл бұрын
Thanks!
@vanshsingh7270
@vanshsingh7270 3 жыл бұрын
How the hell he discovered it in the first place
@georgen9755
@georgen9755 2 ай бұрын
For a distant learning system ...........is .........attendance ...... a critical ??? For remote learners ............as distant learning .......does not require ........to tune in late ??? Offline learning through cameras tune at thier own convenient time So attendance and late tuning has no impact ....as ......salary not dependent either on attendance .... Can you imagine attendance specially on saturday or sunday ........all days are sunday or all days are friday ?? Independent of salary ......distance education ........?
@jaskaransingh6440
@jaskaransingh6440 7 жыл бұрын
best video on youtube on this topic
@hamdanv1189
@hamdanv1189 Жыл бұрын
Bro is Einstein...
@streetdogg8206
@streetdogg8206 6 жыл бұрын
She's at very discrete angryness levels.
@elena-mx7dg
@elena-mx7dg Жыл бұрын
really good and helpful thank you heaps
@CrashChemistryAcademy
@CrashChemistryAcademy Жыл бұрын
You're Welcome!
@CollegeHustler
@CollegeHustler 8 ай бұрын
Did I just get schooled by a 12 year old girl in quantum mechanics???? Nice…👌🏼😎
@hamzafarooq8533
@hamzafarooq8533 7 жыл бұрын
best video to clarify all confusions. You deserve more likes. Hats off👌
@ajcook7777
@ajcook7777 7 жыл бұрын
Plancks equipartion the black body spectrum gave a clue to Bohr's electron energy levels
@CrashChemistryAcademy
@CrashChemistryAcademy 7 жыл бұрын
Yes! That is what established the existence of quantized energy, despite Planck himself not quite believing it to be correct at the time.
@olo33xmillz99
@olo33xmillz99 7 жыл бұрын
How wide the energy level is determined by the electrostatic force between the nucleus and the electron and the probability of where the electron is, is determined by the unique wavelengths of that certain element?
@captainamericawhyso5917
@captainamericawhyso5917 Жыл бұрын
Is electron a standing wave, or does it move in a standing wave's orbit? In your animation, it seems to be the second one, but when searching this online, it says that the electron IS a standing wave
@CrashChemistryAcademy
@CrashChemistryAcademy Жыл бұрын
Great question! The video is concerned with how de Broglie envisioned the electron, which was as a particle moving around the nucleus in the pattern of a standing wave. That was immediately countered by Max Born (1924) who said the standing wave represents the probability of where the electron could exist within the atom, and not a representation of how it moves (which got him a Nobel Prize). Born's idea was taken further by Schrodinger and Heisenberg (1926) to create the quantum mechanical model, in which the electron's energy dictates the size of the standing wave, as well as the number of nodes & antinodes, based in the wave being a wave of probability-- the electron's path is unknown, but the electron exists in "clouds" of negative charge, and within those clouds we can know the probability of where the electron (as a particle) might be based on its standing wave: within the cloud the antinodes show where the electron is most likely to exist, and the nodes show where the electron cannot exist (zero probability). But, additionally, the electron's existence is also the standing wave itself, as you stated, but still a wave of probabilities as stated in the previous sentence. This dual existence (particle & wave) is only manifested through the nature of the devices used to measure the electron's behavior, and not considered to be how the electron actually exists. The electron seems to be a wave if you measure it one way, and it seems to be a particle if you measure it another way. However the way we measure the electron does not change the electron itself, it only changes how its behavior is manifested. All of this came out of Schrodinger's and Heisenberg's math describing electron behavior, which includes a correction by Paul Dirac in 1928 in order to account for the electron travelling at relativistic speeds. Additionally, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle (1927) tells us that we cannot know the specific location of the electron at any given moment, and so that means that de Broglie's idea of electron behavior is incorrect-- not being able to know the location of an electron means we cannot know of any particular path it is taking. de Broglie's electron traveling as a standing wave violates the Uncertainty Principle. Tens of thousands of experiments during the past 95+ years have confirmed the predictions of the mathematics, with not one experiment to date being able to show that the math is flawed. An impressive bit of work by those scientists in the 1920s.
@captainamericawhyso5917
@captainamericawhyso5917 Жыл бұрын
@Crash Chemistry Academy wow! honestly, I didn't expect to receive such a detailed and well written answer on KZbin. Thank you so much. So, if i understood this correctly based on the device we use to look at the electron, sometimes we observe it as: 1) a particle. We can't know the exact position of that particle, but the probability of its position is a standing wave. Other times, we observe it as 2) a standing wave, the same standing wave that describes the probability of the position when we view electron as particle Also, why do we say that de Broglie thought of the electron as being both a particle and a wave? He just thought of a particle moving in a wave orbit
@CrashChemistryAcademy
@CrashChemistryAcademy Жыл бұрын
Yes! An excellent summary. de Broglie introduced the electron as having wave properties in order to justify the quantized nature of the electron's energy states. If the electron could only exist at energies that allowed it to be a standing wave, then Bohr's model of the atom (1913) is vindicated. Bohr proposed quantized electron states in his atomic model but could not provide any theoretical basis for this quantization other than that it explained experimental data. de Broglie provided the needed basis with his electron-as-wave hypothesis (1924). I should add that de Broglie's hypothesis was his entire doctoral thesis, with a sound mathematical footing that no one was able to dispute. More specifically regarding de Broglie regarding the electron as both particle and wave, I can only think that he did not view the electron as having this dual existence. I believe for him, the electron was a particle that travelled in a specific sinusoidal path needed to be a standing wave in order for the electron to exist. The duality came very soon afterword with Max Born and the rest of the cabal that came up with quantum mechanics, as well as those many experiments showing the electron as either a particle or a wave.
@captainamericawhyso5917
@captainamericawhyso5917 Жыл бұрын
@Crash Chemistry Academy thank you once again, it's perfectly clear to me now. If it wasn't for your answer, I'd be really stuck . THANK YOU
@CrashChemistryAcademy
@CrashChemistryAcademy Жыл бұрын
@@captainamericawhyso5917 You're welcome, I'm glad it helped.
@pushkarchavan4120
@pushkarchavan4120 11 ай бұрын
Seems she was very happy after saying it continuously for 8 straight minutes😆😂
@RaymondKenny-k5d
@RaymondKenny-k5d 7 ай бұрын
It is pronounced De Brogly, not Debroi. This hurts my ears.
@shahulhameed-d5q
@shahulhameed-d5q 2 ай бұрын
your are explaining well with suitable examples.
@jackwright2495
@jackwright2495 7 жыл бұрын
Okay, but what would a *3-dimensional* standing wave look like?
@CrashChemistryAcademy
@CrashChemistryAcademy 7 жыл бұрын
The electron is considered a point particle so it can only trace a 2-D wave. I have seen models where the waves oscillate above and below the plane of the screen, but to my knowledge that is not what de Broglie had in mind.
@huntingresonance
@huntingresonance 6 жыл бұрын
This is excellent.... thank you very much, this will really help my students visualise what I am attempting to teach them with more static images. Very much appreciated!
@briansmith4853
@briansmith4853 3 жыл бұрын
Wow, this was one of the best videos about standing waves/ half -wavelength integer requirements! Thanks so much for sharing
@CrashChemistryAcademy
@CrashChemistryAcademy 3 жыл бұрын
I'm glad it was helpful!
@Tharushi_SM
@Tharushi_SM 3 ай бұрын
There’s two electrons existing in one orbital right. Two electrons of different spin states specifically. So one electron interferes with itself to form a standing wave. But in an orbital, or better termed degenerate orbital, where the energy level is the same two electrons are existing. How are their standing waves not interfering?
@CrashChemistryAcademy
@CrashChemistryAcademy 3 ай бұрын
de Broglie’s 1924 model was a description of electron behavior justifying Bohr’s quantum electron (1913). The mathematics of Schrodinger’s 1926 equation was modified by Pauli (1926) to include his exclusion principle, which creates degenerate orbitals to account for the existence of multi-electron atoms. These mathematical expressions I believe do not specifically address de Broglie’s idea of wave interference beyond the separation of degenerate orbitals. The flaw here is that all occupied orbitals overlap at some point since all orbitals converge at the nucleus. So while I have not really answered your question (sorry) I do think the answer lies in Pauli’s modification of the Schrodinger equation.
@elijahgardi7501
@elijahgardi7501 6 жыл бұрын
1. The energy isn't absorbed by the electron, or should I say the positive magnetic field hole. It transfers momentum to the nucleus, which superposes with it's energy; either constructively or destructively; either increase in energy of nucleus KE vector or decrease in KE; either absorb or "emit". The electron orbit is a common misconception made into a model. It's only in 2-d thermal equilibrium that the electron "exists" in two dimensions. Your animation is very good though. 2. You need to calm down a little about the fact that it's quantized. And stuff
@CrashChemistryAcademy
@CrashChemistryAcademy 6 жыл бұрын
Interesting! Thanks for the comment.
@elijahgardi7501
@elijahgardi7501 6 жыл бұрын
Crash Chemistry Academy lol I thought kinetic energy was a vector
@johnmanderson2060
@johnmanderson2060 5 жыл бұрын
Very clear and intuitive explanation, the best by far on the subject, thanks a lot ✅👍🏻
@akilansenthilkumar5288
@akilansenthilkumar5288 Жыл бұрын
Hey Amazing video I have a question So are you saying the de broglie told that electrons move like a wave? And if the wave was in phase then wouldnt there be constructive interference But if electron was a standing wave Shouldnt it also have destructive interference These doubts are making me loose my mind Pls some answer them
@CrashChemistryAcademy
@CrashChemistryAcademy Жыл бұрын
Yes, de Broglie interpreted his math (1924) to mean that the electrons move in a wave pattern. However, the wave pattern drawn in the video is just a trace of the path of a single electron. So when the electron meets up with its path (in phase), it is not coming in contact with itself, so there is no interference. It is simply continuing along its sinusoidal path. A single piece of matter cannot cause either constructive or destructive interference unless it interacts with another piece of matter. My guess is your confusion comes from Schrodinger's quantum mechanics that came along two years later, and more importantly, the double slit experiments using electrons that came along later (1950's?)(double slit experiments had been done with light previous to Schrodinger, but not electrons). In those double slit experiments with electrons, a single electron was shown to cause interference, but that is attributed (from Schrodinger's math) to the ability of an electron to exist in more than one place simultaneously, and so the interference can be thought of as a single electron existing in two different places (as a wave if you'd like) that then come in contact and result in interference, either constructively or destructively, depending on how the interaction goes. That may not make any sense to you, but it comes out of Schrodinger's equation, which, after tens of thousands of experiments over the last 90+ years, has never been shown to be incorrect. The data from all those experiments have only strengthened the nutty mathematical interpretations people have come up with, such as what I described above. By the way, de Broglie hated those interpretations, and insisted there are other explanations for the electron's behavior, but neither he nor anyone else has been able to came up with any empirical support for de Broglie's objections, although many have tried.
@amitpatil5151
@amitpatil5151 4 жыл бұрын
.....IN OTHER WORDS ELECTRONS ARE QUANTIZED.......!
@Fateymaa
@Fateymaa 2 ай бұрын
THANK YOU SO MUCH. THIS CLEARED A LOT OF CONCEPTS. MAY GOD BLESS YOU!!!❤
@CrashChemistryAcademy
@CrashChemistryAcademy 2 ай бұрын
You're welcome! Thanks for watching!
@frytor2240
@frytor2240 Жыл бұрын
But How the electron loses its mass to behave like a wave? When and how this occurs in the atom? Once it decides to behave like a wave when it will behave like a particule again with mass...? 😊
@CrashChemistryAcademy
@CrashChemistryAcademy Жыл бұрын
The electron always maintains its mass. It does not lose or gain mass. de Broglie (1924) thought the electron, with its mass intact, would travel in a wave pattern. That was supplanted by the wave representing the probability of where the electron could be in the atom (Max Born, 1924), rather than actually travelling in a wave-like pattern. The mass, however, does not vary.
@taladiv3415
@taladiv3415 5 жыл бұрын
Thank you for this clear visual explanation video! Keep up the terrific work!
@dakotamercer1679
@dakotamercer1679 4 жыл бұрын
In your example explaining an atom absorbing a "red" wavelength" and being excited to a higher energy level, or, standing wave, why is it that it then releases the red wavelength. You stated that "it wants to get rid of excess energy" and will go back to its lower standing wave, but if it received a correct "discrete" amount of energy, why would it then jump back down to a lower energy. Is that due to valence shells wanting to be stable, and if you absorb energy enough to push it out another valence shell it won't want that single valence electron in the outermost shell and want to get rid of it, thus expelling the "excess energy and returning to a lower energy level wave" as you stated?
@CrashChemistryAcademy
@CrashChemistryAcademy 4 жыл бұрын
Good question! One of the driving forces of nature is the tendency of a system toward lower energy. A system, however defined, will release energy if it can get to a path that will allow it to do so. If we call the atom the system, when an electron absorbs energy then the system has more energy. A path to getting rid of energy is now possible, which is the release of light energy by the energized electron. We can just as legitimately call the electron itself the system, and the same applies: it can get to a lower energy by emitting light energy. Chemical reactions are driven by this process, where atoms will rearrange into compounds that have less total energy than the reactants, requiring a release of energy. This very often involves electrons going to lower energy states, and sometimes releasing light in the process, which is probably most evident in fire.
@1091Floyd21
@1091Floyd21 4 жыл бұрын
I don't see how an electron can interfere with itself. Take the same concept with water waves in two different channels that meet up; okay, they interfere with each other some how if they're not perfectly in phase. But now lets take that same water wave in a circular channel. If you were to follow a wave all the way around the channel, the chances are that by the time one lap has been done, that any given crest will not be at the exact same part that it would have been previously. But the water doesn't know any different. So why would it make any difference with the electron? So I don't see how the electron could "interfere with itself"!
@CrashChemistryAcademy
@CrashChemistryAcademy 4 жыл бұрын
You sort of answered your question, being that the behavior of large aggregates of atoms (the macro level of our everyday world) cannot be compared with the quantum behavior of particles in the world of the very small. While de Broglie was known to believe the electron travelled as a wave, as shown in the video, I use it more as a pedagogical device. Max Born immediately re-interpreted de Broglie's wave path as a probability wave, a wave that portrays the probability of where an electron might be within an orbital, but the wave can only exist as a standing wave, which requires specific energies. Any energy between standing wave energies are not energies where the electron can exist. The standing wave energy allows for "nodes" of zero probability of existence and "anti-nodes" of maximum probability of existence within an orbital, but only a standing wave can have nodes and anti-nodes. So any other energy "disrupts" the node - anti-node structure, and so the electron cannot exist at those energies.
@mrslave41
@mrslave41 12 күн бұрын
6:50 you just finished explaining that the electron is a wave 🌊 - yet you insist on drawing a particle😮😮😮
@CrashChemistryAcademy
@CrashChemistryAcademy 11 күн бұрын
The video represents de Broglie's 1924 ideas of what the electron must be doing in order to establish a basis for Bohr's quantum model of 1913. He envisioned a particle that was travelling in a wave path, which is what the video presents. The last minute of the video explains that when de Broglie's model was published, de Broglie's idea of the electron moving as a wave was reinterpreted by Max Born (1924) as the wave being a probability wave, with the maxima representing areas within the atom where the electron had the highest probability of existing, and the minima being areas of zero probability. Born's wave-as-probability is what Schrodinger (1926) and Heisenberg (1926) based their atomic models on, with Schrodinger's model coming to be called quantum mechanics, and Heisenberg's model was called matrix mechanics. (Heisenberg used matrix algebra due to realizing a mathematical description of electron behavior would have to be non-commutative.) The two models turned out to be identical, just using different math.
@mrslave41
@mrslave41 11 күн бұрын
@@CrashChemistryAcademy thank you 😊
@CrashChemistryAcademy
@CrashChemistryAcademy 8 күн бұрын
You're welcome!
@blueckaym
@blueckaym 4 жыл бұрын
Very interesting explanation! However I didn't get why electron's wavelength is constant? I mean when an electron absorbs a photon and increase its energy level, I get how one option is to have to increase its orbit to fit a whole additional phase (ie wavelength), but I didn't get why for example it can't decrease its wavelength and keep its orbit energy level, so that the 5-phase orbit in the example can be described as same radius, but smaller wavelength?
@CrashChemistryAcademy
@CrashChemistryAcademy 4 жыл бұрын
Great questions! The visualization was purely pedagogical. Although de Broglie did apparently picture the electrons oscillating, his math was quite sophisticated and beyond my expertise. One thing you should keep in mind is that de Broglie is adhering to electrons with specific allowed energies, and it is those energies that are being interpreted here as electron paths of different sizes. So your idea of decreasing wavelength would not fit the visualization since wavelength for the electron would correspond to a specific energy. Changing the wavelength is changing the energy. So electrons can change energy, as specified in the video, but only to allowed energies, not just any energy corresponding to changing wavelength.
@moonshine7374
@moonshine7374 Жыл бұрын
@@CrashChemistryAcademy Aren't this 'allowed energies' are harmonics of the basic wavelength?
@CrashChemistryAcademy
@CrashChemistryAcademy Жыл бұрын
@@moonshine7374 Yes, it is a great analogy-- given a particular length of a vibrating string or spring or air, the allowed standing waves, with their corresponding nodes/anti-nodes, are dictated by the energies being put into the string or the air, which are the harmonics. This is only an analogy, however, because the electron harmonics correspond specifically to the probabilities of existence: the anti-nodes give the area where electron is most likely to be found, the nodes give areas where the electron has zero probability of being found. This is quite different than de Broglie's vision of an electron moving as a wave, and was proposed in 1924 by Max Born (for which he won the Nobel Prize), after seeing de Broglie's idea of electron-as-standing wave published in 1924.
@blueckaym
@blueckaym Жыл бұрын
​@@CrashChemistryAcademy , sorry for the late response (youtube notifications are not very reliable it seems). Yes I understand that De Broglie explanation of electrons' discrete "orbitals" is simplification and as such is incorrect (or at least very imprecise). This is easy to guess even the first time one hears it - it assumes specific shape of the electrons' wave (ie in what direction they oscillate for example) that somehow electrons have some basic wavelength and in order to fit additional one they jump into higher energy orbital ... But De Broglie attempted to explain what was stated by Niels Bohr years earlier. And I personally love the attempts for such explanations (and their shortcomings usually because of simplification). That's why De Broglie is among my favorite scientists, because of his struggle for Realism. Niels Bohr had no explanation for the electrons discreetness (in an atom), just very precise description. We know that De Broglie explanation isn't correct, but we actually don't know what the correct (and precise) explanation is. Today we have the electron orbitals described by QM which are basically solutions of electrons Schrodinger wave equations for Hydrogen! Not for every element!! Because the equations quickly become way too complex to solve. (I'm curious to what element have these equations actually been solved?) And from what I find I see that some electron's orbitals have been observed for real ... but only in Hydrogen again. I don't like how QM "explains" everything with solution of given equations. I mean I don't doubt that they're correct in most cases at least. But it's very misleading by having a very successful and precise theory to start thinking that Reality MUST OBEY exactly your theory and not be interested in experimental proofs or explanations. Also I think that real understanding is what is needed in order to jump to the next level in physics (or any science really). Many phenomenon are unintuitive, which is easy to see, as our intuition is built and evolved in rather narrow scope of things we can observe (see, hear ...) around us. Most sciences have pushed way ahead of what we're used to observe, and thus we need to train our brains to comprehend these new concepts even if unintuitive (as many of them are). In any case the quantum (ie discreet) behavior of electrons (in an atom) seem to be caused by simple** geometry and interactions of the main forces (mostly the EM force in this case) ** simple not in the sense that you can draw it on a napkin, but that it's simple in principle, just complex to describe precisely. But even in that geometric aspect we're no clear on many things - like do electrons move in an atom, how, the shape of their waves, the total*** length of their waves etc... And I'm quite annoyed when QM simply sweeps all these questions under the carpet by calling the wave a probability wave. Sure I can easily see that probabilistic, statistical approach can be used with things that are inherently difficult (or even impossible) to observe directly, but that doesn't necessarily mean that probabilistic wave is actually a real thing, just that it's our best current description. In my opinion until these and more such questions aren't asked and tested we won't be able to progress QM beyond current state (in which it has been stuck for decades now). *** the TOTAL wave of a particle is what I've been searching for lately, and it's practically impossible to find anything (at least with google) it always in 100% of the cases matches topics about wavelength (which is a different thing). But a total wave's length but be a thing, because we know that for example photon's wave has a front, and that its total energy is very important for some interactions, ie it must have an end too. But we don't know how long a photon is. You can describe a wavelength with a small fraction of the curve, but you need the whole wave in order to deliver its whole energy. It's sad that this is not discussed anywhere even in principle (ie from philosophical point of view). That's not critique to the video - not at all! :) I understand that especially difficult and unintuitive concepts have to be simplified and be processed in chunks. But I've been trying to build up my understanding of the quantum world for years now, and every time I try to push a bit further I hit a brick wall. It's either - no explanation beyond the too simplified one, or it's a ton of QM equations (which in many case QM haven't even solved!!!). Also as I mentioned above just because our current Math works wonderfully well, it doesn't mean that Reality has to somehow obey our Math. No matter how precise our theories are it's always the other way around - our Math & theories is just description of Reality. And trying to explain things with pure Math is inherently wrong imho. And there are many key things in QM that only come from math without any explanation. Out best is that they match our limited observations but that's it - zero explanation. Some of these things are for example: Pauli exclusion principle; QM electron orbitals (beyond the observed orbitals of Hydrogen, which also were observed long after the QM model); Born rule (of squaring the wave function to find the probability); the entangled particles stronger-than-classical correlation etc.. Actually it seems QM has way more inconsistent (ie potentially wrong) interpretations than good explanations.
@siderealvictor9813
@siderealvictor9813 4 ай бұрын
Daymm that was perfectt ty
@Khwartz
@Khwartz 6 жыл бұрын
Too much Rare Clear Understanding of Louis de Broglie's Theory! (btw, You Very Well Pronounce! :D I'm French, I can tell You! ^_^). Thanks and Very Well Done for this Nice and Clear Explanation :) Only thing I would recommend to correct but maybe You already have, is sometimes when You insist on a words it tends to shout at he ears ^_^. Regards, Didier.
@voya8480
@voya8480 4 жыл бұрын
And what did happen to quantum leap???? Hokus pokus and you are here.
@CrashChemistryAcademy
@CrashChemistryAcademy 4 жыл бұрын
Yes, the phrase is from quantum physics! Fun! (Started with Bohr? or maybe Planck?)
@Kevin36914
@Kevin36914 6 жыл бұрын
There is a Bohr´s atomic model for the quantum field theory? not quantum mechanics, but in the quantum field, where there is no particle, there is no waves, there is no particle-waves, just fields exitations, the quantum field where is quantum mechanics plus special relativity. I try to found the atomic model for this quantum field but without any sucess. Can you make a video or explanation/references for visualize that? Thanks
@haywoodjohnson2865
@haywoodjohnson2865 4 ай бұрын
Well done 👏 ✔️ 👍 👌 😀
@goodexams3064
@goodexams3064 3 жыл бұрын
@6:03 may I ask you why? Whereas a standing wave would definitely accept wave of any amplitude..
@DjonnyKrajkatoaSimataIrMsc
@DjonnyKrajkatoaSimataIrMsc 5 жыл бұрын
And all of this are not completely correct from the Orbital point of view
@CrashChemistryAcademy
@CrashChemistryAcademy 5 жыл бұрын
Yes, the only connection is the quantization and the wave, but the wave is interpreted very differently in the orbital model, the latter fitting experimental data while de Borglie's interpretation does not fit any known experimental data. However his contribution of making the electron behave as a wave as well as a particle was an essential step toward the orbital model.
@TheAce271
@TheAce271 6 жыл бұрын
u almost didn't leave anything not mentioned ,with no extra details that might b not important 4 everyone , bravo !!
@HabibiGa1z
@HabibiGa1z 5 жыл бұрын
so can anyone explain why/how a single electron can create standing waves? dont you need atleast 2 waves interfering with eachother to create standing waves? also, in standing waves, there is an end with reflects the wave... where is the wave here?
@durgahimabindudwarampudi6864
@durgahimabindudwarampudi6864 3 жыл бұрын
U r awesome thanks u so much for such a great work keep up rocking and enhance our minds with knowledge ,really u gave me the best . I'm tired 😩 in searching different videos but in this video the most important thing , I got satisfaction, happiness bcoz I understand it
@hazyhazy8435
@hazyhazy8435 3 жыл бұрын
I think i will pass ouutt
@ismaelirodriguez9760
@ismaelirodriguez9760 4 жыл бұрын
light energy is quantizED BUT LIGHT HAS NO MASS
@SandraSmith-e4l
@SandraSmith-e4l 2 ай бұрын
Thanks sis!!
@srinivasakumarmeegada6724
@srinivasakumarmeegada6724 Жыл бұрын
Nice explanation
@Ketab.mashrob
@Ketab.mashrob Жыл бұрын
Thanks a lot 🪻🪻
@psycheqg6294
@psycheqg6294 10 ай бұрын
Thank you.
@effinloser1112
@effinloser1112 4 жыл бұрын
wow you guys rule
@aeonian_harshul
@aeonian_harshul 6 жыл бұрын
Wont light of blue and yellow colour will have more energy then red color? At 6:01
@CrashChemistryAcademy
@CrashChemistryAcademy 6 жыл бұрын
yes but the electron can only absorb light that has the exact energy needed to get to a higher allowed energy.
@aeonian_harshul
@aeonian_harshul 6 жыл бұрын
Indians study this at age of 16, what is your age? I am just curious
@CrashChemistryAcademy
@CrashChemistryAcademy 6 жыл бұрын
My student was 16 when she made this video!
@rkpetry
@rkpetry 7 жыл бұрын
So, Why, wouldn't a yellow photon pump the electron higher than the red photon orbit but not enough to the next orbit, so we'd say it's 'sub-ionic' and should radiate its excess and fall back to the red orbit even as surely ionic electrons do the same in such experiments.
@CrashChemistryAcademy
@CrashChemistryAcademy 7 жыл бұрын
It has been shown, mathematically and experimentally, that your scenario would not (cannot) happen, due to quantization. The electron can only exist at allowed energies dictated by the math (experimentally shown to be correct), so it would never reach any other energy.
@rkpetry
@rkpetry 7 жыл бұрын
Perturbation Theory is only an approximation-that-works... So-if an electron goes flying into a neutral atom (degenerate state aka ground state) it can't interact with any orbital electrons unless it has exactly the quantum needed to pump one to an energized orbital (and the others adjusting for that) and escape itself...
@CrashChemistryAcademy
@CrashChemistryAcademy 7 жыл бұрын
I do not see how that is different from my reply. You stated the electron needs the exact quantum....
@rkpetry
@rkpetry 7 жыл бұрын
[that is-a consequence of-your reply]
@vrajpatel3007
@vrajpatel3007 6 жыл бұрын
thank you very much for the explaination best explaination ever thanks again
@sktiwari3877
@sktiwari3877 6 жыл бұрын
Thanks. It helped a lot keep doing the good stuffs and don't stop. You are helping many people that they can't understand but your representation Was really good.
@qualquan
@qualquan 5 жыл бұрын
not too good
@joloallexicepineda7347
@joloallexicepineda7347 3 жыл бұрын
Thank you for your very clear explanation
@rohitbhargav8920
@rohitbhargav8920 4 жыл бұрын
Respect
@hassanuddin7257
@hassanuddin7257 4 жыл бұрын
Amazing presentation. Easy to understand. Appreciate your afford.
@edwardwoods2991
@edwardwoods2991 5 жыл бұрын
Excellent explanation. I appreciate your enthusiasm. You have my subscription.
@marok-press
@marok-press 3 жыл бұрын
Great explanation. Thank you for the effort
@ayushkashyap8299
@ayushkashyap8299 6 жыл бұрын
Nice try! But still animation is misleading! Because it makes people assume that it moves in that wave like path! But,electron is itself a wave it does not move in that path! It is far too complex and basically we can't visually imagine it but only maths work out! But still nice try
@CrashChemistryAcademy
@CrashChemistryAcademy 6 жыл бұрын
The video was not an attempt to show how the electron behaves. The purpose of the video was to illustrate de Broglie's interpretation of his own math in terms of how the electron could behave as a wave, as well as how that explained Bohr's quantized electron. There are still a minority of people in the science community who continue to support what is called a "pilot wave" theory, which is basically a model that closely resembles de Broglie's model. At the end of this video (the last minute or so) I address your concerns, including Max Born's reinterpretation of what it means for the electron to be a wave, which is the currently accepted interpretation-- the electron as standing wave, with nodes and anti-nodes corresponding to probabilities of existence, which still requires the electron to be quantized.
@joshuazeidner8419
@joshuazeidner8419 6 жыл бұрын
where are the videos by real scientists?
@alimo166
@alimo166 3 жыл бұрын
What was that at the end of the movie?😁😁
@addictedu1594
@addictedu1594 5 жыл бұрын
How many preparing for JEE?
@chemistrymattersgetit4161
@chemistrymattersgetit4161 3 жыл бұрын
OMG I love this. your daughter? your student?
@CrashChemistryAcademy
@CrashChemistryAcademy 3 жыл бұрын
A student asked to do it, so we had some fun. I should ask my daughter to do one. She was in my chem class!
@chemistrymattersgetit4161
@chemistrymattersgetit4161 3 жыл бұрын
@@CrashChemistryAcademy I am stealing some of your thunder! Saw a comment about how you do everything in ppt. see my latest video on orbital hybridization if you have a sec. and yes your daughter should totally do a video!
@CrashChemistryAcademy
@CrashChemistryAcademy 3 жыл бұрын
@@chemistrymattersgetit4161 What a great video! Did you do it in powerpoint? I ask because some of the graphics (for example at 0:20 and 15:00) look a little beyond the capabilities of ppt (or beyond my capabilities). I'll have to investigate. My junior-in-college daughter seems to not be interested in narrating a youtube vid. Maybe when she gets a bit older! Thanks for sharing.
@Squidlark
@Squidlark 5 жыл бұрын
Brilliant and very clear explanation. Kudos!!
@acg6350
@acg6350 6 жыл бұрын
Showing the electron as following a sinusoidal orbit can lead to some misconceptions.
@CrashChemistryAcademy
@CrashChemistryAcademy 6 жыл бұрын
The video is attempting to show de Broglie's interpretation of his own math, which is the sinusoidal path. I address this issue at the end of the video. There are currently a small amount of physicists who think the sinusoidal path (or something similar) is the correct interpretation, and they call it a pilot wave.
@hamidthephysicist6376
@hamidthephysicist6376 5 жыл бұрын
Thank you very much . I
@bensmith7611
@bensmith7611 3 жыл бұрын
best explanation ive seen
@ragsiruh
@ragsiruh 3 жыл бұрын
An excellent explanation! Great job
@ARCSTREAMS
@ARCSTREAMS 3 жыл бұрын
more confused then when i started, first of all i only heard about this wave motion by electron up until yesterday,never heard of de broglie not even in school and this is all new to me ,but is an electron a particle or an em wave? is it matter or like a photon? and after all this another new guy born has another model?
@CrashChemistryAcademy
@CrashChemistryAcademy 3 жыл бұрын
Born isn't very new. He died a very old man about 50 years ago. De Broglie and Born were the bridge between Bohr's quantized electron (1913) and Schrodinger's quantum mechanics (1926). De Broglie established HOW an electron could exist as a quantized particle via having a wave quality, and Born re-interpreted the wave as a probability in the space surrounding the nucleus. So the electron can seem like a particle if measured in a way that makes it appear to be a particle, and it can seem like a wave if measured in a way that makes it appear to be a wave. The electron is an electron-- it is its own fundamental particle, and it is the way it is measured that makes it seem to be both a wave and a particle. It is not an EM wave, which is quite different.
@ARCSTREAMS
@ARCSTREAMS 3 жыл бұрын
@@CrashChemistryAcademy yes i know the guy and his theory was around long ago but im juts learning about him now,i guess they never went into deep quantum mech in school beyond bohr's model and yet despite my years online with science and physics i never heard of this guy or his theroy till yesterday when i was talking to a laser enthusiast named zendilion but he told me that electrons are not matter or particle ,im sure he is wrong on that ,its photons that are not actual particles (ie mass) even though they may look like particles or waves they are massless unlike the atomic structure
@CrashChemistryAcademy
@CrashChemistryAcademy 3 жыл бұрын
Yes, electrons are considered to be matter simply because they have mass. They certainly behave very oddly though. While there are many good books on the history of quantum mechanics, I think the best introduction is by one of the physicists who was actually there with Schrodinger and Heisenberg and de Broglie and Born (etc., etc.), named George Gamow: "Thirty Years that Shook Physics, The story of Quantum Theory" (1966). The book covers the development of QM from 1900-1930 and is quite fascinating, and introduces all the players and their contributions, of which there are many. Photons behave in a similar fashion to electrons in that they can appear to have both wave and particle properties, but they have no mass. Einstein's photoelectric effect (1905), for which he won the Nobel Prize, proved light's particle nature. All matter is considered to have this "dual" "wave/particle" behavior. We do not see the wave nature of larger objects because the wavelength is inversely proportional to mass, so once you get to larger masses, the wavelength becomes too tiny to measure.
@ARCSTREAMS
@ARCSTREAMS 3 жыл бұрын
@@CrashChemistryAcademy "We do not see the wave nature of larger objects because the wavelength is inversely proportional to mass, so once you get to larger masses, the wavelength becomes too tiny to measure." that is alot to wrap your mind around and visualise, i figured a photon is juts the energy fields of a particle and are invisible till it interacts with something at which point it can appear like a bullet or a wave ,another model i thought of would be that each photon is an expanding sphere of energy kinda like radio waves
@CrashChemistryAcademy
@CrashChemistryAcademy 3 жыл бұрын
I love that you said (paraphrasing) "energy fields of a photon are invisible until it interacts with something." That is exactly the case for how we experience light. However the fields of a photon are a disturbance of electric and magnetic fields that are already out there, so the photon always seems to be interacting with those fields. The disturbance itself is the photon. Regarding radio, is the radio photons that are expanding out in different directions from the source, not the electric or magnetic fields of the radio photon. This is pretty weird stuff and your laser friend might give you a better explanation. Anyway, the disturbance is contained (does not spread) along the path of the photon. The photon itself is the disturbance. That disturbance over time creates what we can map out mathematically as a periodic function, a sin wave, with a specific wavelength and frequency, and so that is often how light is shown, as a sin wave, even though the disturbance is a moving (speed o' light) localized disturbance, with a maximal amplitude at the center and rapidly decreasing amplitudes on either side of the maximum occurring along the path of the photon. The distance between each amplitude is the wavelength. The frequency is how fast the fields are created along the photon's path, in other words, how fast the photon is able to oscillate the electric/magnetic fields it is disturbing. It is weird stuff.
@ahmetboran873
@ahmetboran873 2 жыл бұрын
ELHAMDULILLAH MAŞA ALLAH.
@CrashChemistryAcademy
@CrashChemistryAcademy 2 жыл бұрын
شكرا
@shadowknight9239
@shadowknight9239 2 жыл бұрын
It was amazing thank you so much for this video😭😭😭. I was a bit confused about the standing wave with increasing integers. When my teacher explained it, his drawings were not clear enough to make it obvious that the increase of standing waves meant the increase in energy level and thus an increased circumference of the energy level. Just one last question, if they are acting as standing waves, why does it seem like they're going around in a circular path instead of a wavy path? I would really appreciate it if you could answer this question because my board exams are in a few days and I really want to understand this bit. Thank you!
@CrashChemistryAcademy
@CrashChemistryAcademy 2 жыл бұрын
The wave path I showed was in the plane of the screen, when in fact the path is considered to be perpendicular to the screen, that is, the waves are "waving" above and below the plane of the screen as it orbits the nucleus, for which I did not have the software to animate. If you're view of the atom is perpendicular to this path, it will appear as a circle. This idea of a wavy path was very short lived. The year de Broglie published the electron-as-wave mathematics, 1924, Max Born stated de Broglie's standing wave must be representing a probability function, where the nodes and anti-nodes occurring in the standing wave represent areas of zero and maximum probability of finding the electron at some specified radius. This became the basis for Schrodinger's equation of 1926 describing the wave mechanical model of the atom. This is shown briefly at the end of the video.
@shadowknight9239
@shadowknight9239 Жыл бұрын
@@CrashChemistryAcademy thank you so much I got a really good mark on my test after watching your explanation. Forever grateful!
@beng1471
@beng1471 2 жыл бұрын
Ez lol
@ponnarakoung7532
@ponnarakoung7532 5 жыл бұрын
Best explanation
@chanduyadav7237
@chanduyadav7237 7 жыл бұрын
then, how do the the atom exist in particle form and all other matter as well ?
@CrashChemistryAcademy
@CrashChemistryAcademy 7 жыл бұрын
Strangely enough, all matter has properties of both waves and particles simultaneously. There is an inverse relationship between the wavelength and the mass, and only very tiny masses (electrons, etc) have wavelengths large enough to measure. The wave and particle nature of matter is built in-- it is an inherent part of what a particle is, of what matter is. Further, via Einsteins special relativity, we know that matter is only a form of energy, and so to make analogies between what matter really is and how we experience matter is very difficult because in our large-scale macro world the way we as biological beings experience matter is very different than how we experience energy.
@sk8terbluetoo
@sk8terbluetoo 7 жыл бұрын
beautiful. Thanks so much.
@damianhardacre5804
@damianhardacre5804 3 жыл бұрын
This is a great lesson
@saleabaroukh4984
@saleabaroukh4984 7 жыл бұрын
Great video! Job well done
@ivanchaer
@ivanchaer 5 жыл бұрын
very clarifying!
@vidhiruparelia2491
@vidhiruparelia2491 4 жыл бұрын
You cleared up all my confusion!!! Thank you so much!!!!
@CrashChemistryAcademy
@CrashChemistryAcademy 4 жыл бұрын
You're welcome!
What is the Bohr model of the atom?
27:12
Physics Explained
Рет қаралды 409 М.
Миллионер | 1 - серия
34:31
Million Show
Рет қаралды 2 МЛН
Nastya and balloon challenge
00:23
Nastya
Рет қаралды 68 МЛН
Quantum Field Theory visualized
15:53
ScienceClic English
Рет қаралды 2,1 МЛН
Why Does Changing Just One Proton Change an Element?
13:57
Arvin Ash
Рет қаралды 458 М.
Pilot Wave Theory and Quantum Realism | Space Time | PBS Digital Studios
16:32
Electrons DO NOT Spin
18:10
PBS Space Time
Рет қаралды 3,5 МЛН
de Broglie’s proposal
10:37
MIT OpenCourseWare
Рет қаралды 126 М.
A Better Way To Picture Atoms
5:35
minutephysics
Рет қаралды 4,8 МЛН
This experiment confirmed quantum energy levels
19:27
Dr. Jorge S. Diaz
Рет қаралды 98 М.
de Broglie Waves - Sixty Symbols
6:56
Sixty Symbols
Рет қаралды 496 М.
Миллионер | 1 - серия
34:31
Million Show
Рет қаралды 2 МЛН