Scientists thought Quantum Tunneling is Just a Theory... Until they discovered this!

[@Mahesh_Shenoy]

I'll answer FAQs here. Also, to try everything Brilliant has to offer-free-for a full 30 days, visit brilliant.org/FloatHeadPhysics . You’ll also get 20% off an annual premium subscription. 1) Shouldn't Half life of Radium 226 be 1600 years? Yes, I goofed up. Sorry! 2) If Radon 222 is more 'stable' than Radium 226, why does it have a much smaller half life? Again, I should have been more clear here. Radon 222 has a higher specific binding energy compared to radium 226, that’s why the decay is favoured. But again, I should have been more careful with conflating ‘specific binding energy’ with ‘stability’. Especially with radioactive elements. 3) Shouldn’t the bottom of the energy well be ‘above’ U = 0 line? No, since nuclear force is attractive, the potential energy of the system must be lower than when they are far apart. 4) But why throw out an alpha particle? Because it has much higher specific binding energy yielding a high energy release compared to say just spitting out individual protons and neutrons. Okay, why not spit out an oxygen 16 for example? Well, the barrier width and height increases substantially making the tunneling probability insanely small. Helium is… just right 😅

[@mokshsurya1681]

Sir how do we get this tunuling energy, is it energy of particles of the nucleus at ground state. Why the probability of a particle being outside the nucleus inc as tunuling energy inc

[@harshwardhanborde7083]

Could you please send me relevant references.

[@RahulSB-vf3cp]

How is assumptions in black body radiation like e=hv be true

[@adt007ad]

20:10 Doesnt Sun compensate with lack of energy by extreme pressure? I mean there is so much material above that it is pushing protons towards each other. That's what we were taught in school. Second, why does radioactive decay happens in terms of half life? Say if you have a 1 kg Radium, in 1600 years 500 g would decay, in next 1600 years, half of remaining 500g which is 250 g would decay. If probabilities were adding up like this, shouldnt they add upto 100 pc in 3200 years?

[@_John_P]

This is nonsense, check the recent work of MIT physicist Jacob Barandes.

[@rushikeshkirtikar6147]

This is the most underrated channel on KZbin on science.... Many highly subscribed channels don't even reach this level of clarity.

[@RythemicPhantom]

let it be man, lets gate keep him... try Fermilab, sabine hosenfeilder, arvin ash !!! they all are great aswell..😅

[@pon1]

I agree! This channel is the best for understanding, the method of him asking famous scientists and letting them answer is great for understanding!

[@sheikhalsumaiya7230]

3b1b....

[@mitchellwilley7208]

yeah im glad i stumbled upon this channel today, im now subscribed.

[@Flank.Sinatra.]

and they're sometimes wrong

[@patrickdougherty2777]

Just started watching your channel. I am 73 so back in my school days there was no teaching about quantum mechanics. I have been watching videos to try to learn about it. Went back to school in the mid 80's for electronics and there was talk about leakage current in solid state device junctions due to quantum tunneling. After your radioactive half life video I now have a good idea of what causes it. Thank you for the smile on my face!

[@DGaryGrady]

Hey, fellow old guy! I’m 73 as well. I love this channel as well.

[@Boardexampreparation]

Finally he stopped talking to Feynman and started to talk with other scientist.Good work 🎉🎉🎉

[@wayneyadams]

Feynman was a brilliant teacher and had a way of explaining difficult concepts that made them understandable to non-physicists. He was also a really cooky guy with an off beat sense of humor.

[@lalit-_-]

All scientists have made discoveries but Feyman has crossed the limits of explaining, that is why he is called a great explainer. If you read Feynman lecture you will be a fan of Feynman. But also feyman is an underrated scientists.

[@adamwarlock1]

The new guy seems more polite than Feynman. Feynman was always shouting at him!

[@edwardblair4096]

There have also been conversations with Einstein and other scientists.

[@danieldelights1]

So what. Gamov is Jewish as well😂

[@Toksyuryel]

What's fun about the quantum tunneling problem in electronics is that we have actually been able to turn it into an advantage for certain applications- such as in modern SSDs, which actually use quantum tunneling in what's called "charge trap flash memory". It is some absolutely incredible technology, I highly recommend learning about it.

[@Mahesh_Shenoy]

I didn't know about this, thank you!

[@Atheist-From-India]

My favourite youtuber and science teacher. I never found anyone who explains science concepts so intuitively and flawlessly.❤❤

[@Achrononmaster]

It was not an explanation for quantum tunneling. Uncertainty in measurement of incommensurate variables does not permit tunneling. Tunneling is an intrinsically non-local phenomenon if one assumes everywhere Minkowski topology. The HUP does not give you non-locality. Entanglement does, but no one knows what causes entanglement... yet. Moreover, entanglement is why there is a Heisenberg uncertainty limit.

[@joshuaohuka7719]

​@@Achrononmaster what do you think this content of yours has explained...

[@sheikhalsumaiya7230]

3b1b.....

[@terpman]

Seriously, I have never heard anyone make quantum physics this accessible. Mahesh has an incredible gift for teaching. Please keep up the fantastic work, Mahesh!

[@gerbil_horde]

You are the absolute best at this Mahesh! Your brain works in such a way that you are able to make SENSE of seemingly unintuitive concepts. I majored in astrophysics and have never stopped learning for 25 years since, and yet you teach me something with every video. Thank you ❤

[@TZAR_POTATO]

Because of your prior videos, I had already come to the conclusion that tunneling is needed for alpha decay, which shows that you really are teaching subjects effectively!

[@i_am_bijit]

The biggest compliment I can give to your channel is that, I watch everything on YT at 1.5x speed except your contents. Time flies which watching and absorbing your explanations, which, in the end makes me fall in love with Physics (something I couldn't really enjoy at school) more and more. Brilliant work and keep it up!!

[@steveroberts7622]

Thank you from the bottom of my heart. How you explain such complex physics in such an easy way to understand is a true gift. Few people can understand this level of physics, and even fewer can teach and explain this in such a straightforward way. Mahesh WELL DONE!

[@devjoshi1775]

I am a university student and I found this video soo helpful to visual what actually was happening. I hope that professors also give this must effort in making us students understand things and not memorize it! In fact at the very end, the small detail that you mentioned about the limit of size of transistors that is when I get to know what do people mean by "Quantum Computers". This video was really of great help. Keep making these types of videos. Thank You 🙏

[@jonbikaku6133]

Bro I used to fail highschool, got kicked out in junior high due to grades etc., but later in life I got lucky to get teachers like yourself. I went from a failure to researching with CERN and it was all because of my teachers. We're extremely lucky to have people like you, who are enabling access to such beautiful lectures to everyone from anywhere. Its the energy, the passion that makes a difference. Thank you with all my heart!

[@MrKornnugget]

The way you presented the question is the voice in my head when I can’t sleep.

[@Rohan-tj1dr]

Mahesh, could you please make another video explaining what phasors are? It would be great if you could cover how they work for scalar quantities like current and how vector addition applies to them. A detailed explanation with examples would really help clear things up!

[@yayyo3226]

You are such a fun and outstandingly effective science communicator, I think many people could learn from you ;)

[@Recon777x]

I love how you can explain complex scientific principles in a way that induces compulsory smiling in the audience. :D Before, I was thinking that the energy was borrowed from neighboring particles, giving individual particles enough to get over the barrier, which might have explained why a larger sample decays faster. But it turns out this is all more nuanced and complex than I was thinking. And here we are, smiling at the process of learning!

[@plantsindisguise]

It's really fun to watch your videos. I watch a lot of videos on similar topics, and I want to say that you really break things down in a very clear and understandable way. You also tell the story really well-for example, when you say, "Gamov would say, 'Good question'"; it makes everything feel so engaging. The whole content is absolutely mind-blowing, and it feels like you're taking us on this journey with you. Thank you! Keep it up!

[@rickybobbyledeuxieme]

Dude you are my new favorite KZbinr. Another fantastic video!!!!

[@crazieeez]

I love how you start with a question that resonates then go through it like a common person with nice pictures to reason the conclusion. This is so good. I subscribed!

[@Mindset_Mastery876]

We can make a wall of protons and electrons such that the replustion & attraction is minimum. On this wall Gama rays can reflect ❤❤❤

[@marcosja8400]

I really love your channel. As a high school teacher you help me a lot. Please keep up this fantastic work !

[@touslespseud]

Drinking game idea : everytimes Maheesh says "deep intuition", you take a sip. Everytimes he says "mind blown"/"mind blowing", you empty your glass.

[@commieTerminator]

7:48 what about energy lost in photon emission? It's an accelerating charge

[@DanWills]

I just love how excited you get about this stuff Mahesh! Flippin' fantastic work and such amazing clarity on the concepts!! I definitely understand tunneling, half-life and decay better now after watching! Mega thumbs!!

[@paulm.8660]

I thought I had a pretty clear understanding of how radioactive decay and quantum tunneling worked, but now I feel as if I could clearly explain these phenomena. Assuming, that is, that I could first explain Heisenberg uncertainty 😅

[@jimmyzhao2673]

The ending of this video is Brilliant !

[@pakmans]

You are a rock star of physics popularization!

[@b.s.7693]

Maybe greatest video on alpha decay ever! BUT where does such a alpha particle get it's ~4.9MeV from ?!

[@sensorer]

Some nuclei require more energy per nucleon to stay together than others. Decay happens whenever the nucleus you get after the decay process has less energy per nucleon than the nucleus you start with. But the extra energy has to go somewhere since energy is conserved. So it goes to kinetic energy of the decayed nucleus and the alpha particle. But how much energy goes to one and how much goes to the other? That's where conservation of momentum comes in. If the decaying nucleus is stationary(which it is *on average*), you get that the decayed nucleus and the alpha particle have equal and opposite momenta. But since the alpha particle is lighter, it has to have more velocity for momenta to be equal. And when you remember that kinetic energy is quadratic in velocity, that means the alpha particle gets most of that kinetic energy. For heavy nuclei, it gets practically all of the energy, so its kinetic energy is approximately equal to the difference between binding energies of the mother nucleus and the products of the reaction(nothing prevents you from taking the actual masses into account and calculating it precisely).

[@Mahesh_Shenoy]

@@sensorer "Some nuclei require more energy per nucleon to stay together than others. ", I think it's appropriate to think that some nuclei 'release' more energy (per nucleon) when they stick together. Just like how magnets release energy, in the form of say sound, when they stick together.

[@tepolak]

And where is weak force in this picture? ​@@Mahesh_Shenoy

[@someguy-k2h]

You are one of my favorite people to watch. Your presentation skills are very enjoyable. The energy is infectious. The only problem I have with your diagram is that the bottom of your well is below the new energy level. Particles only tunnel to new LOWER energy levels, not higher ones. If the average energy level outside the well is higher then we see those particles being pushed back into the well, as in your fusion example. So the bottom of the energy well must be higher than your U=0 line, or the average external energy density.

[@QuantumMan9]

You are the best teacher I have ever seen. You explain things in the most intuitive way possible and the best way possible. You can explain all difficult science topics in the easiest way. There is a humble request. Please make a video on newtonian mechanics and Lagrangian mechanics and hamiltonian mechanics because you are the best teacher❤❤❤❤

[@sameersd_real]

Hi Mahesh,😊 I have some doubts Isn't quantum tunnelling physical? Does tunneling increase potential energy? When the barrier is an energy barrier, how does a particle cross it by tunneling? (Iff tunneling is a physical process)

[@jake6056]

it’s not a physical process. we are representing energy waves as physical objects but in reality it’s just a waveform of probability to find the particle in one place. every particle has this probability. and as such it can exist there. this only really touches on quantum mechanics as it’s hard to really understand but everything we know as “physical” is just the reaction of forces between particles and the particles themselves are not actually solid but energy wavelengths

[@sameersd_real]

@jake6056 oh! I didn't think of that 👍

[@gtsiam]

I would be really interested in the calculation of that 25Mev. And especially in how we can verify it experimentally.

[@Tiphisto]

Pls, can you explain some quantum mechanics, your videos are absolutely great.

[@diogocoletto9135]

Amazing Video, Mahesh! Taking advantage of the fact that in the last videos you are talking about the atomic nucleus, please explain chromodynamics!

[@mariom5307]

If studying physics was anything like this, I'd start tomorrow. I am envious of all the kids getting such great lessons to wrap their heads around complex concepts with ease before diving into the calculations

[@platypi_otbs]

You covered a lot in that video, so I'll need to rewatch a few and to be able to grasp it. As always, your presentation skills are superb. You make me smile.

[@ccamp3175]

Mahesh, by some miracle I stumbled on this video, but it taught me the answers to an incredible number of questions I've had for a long time. Your presentation and organization are extremely lucid, and I thank you for all your effort. PS, do I also recognize your voice from those EXCEPTIONAL lessons on semiconductors, from Khan?

[@Swapnil-mc4id]

Thank you for your videos. I always love these because just like you i always tried to find an intuition behind any topic of science. But, I have a question from this video, You explained that if we wait 16k years there is a 50% chance of a radium atom decaying. Which means if we take a bunch of radium atoms (lets say 8), then after 16k years they all should have a 50% of decaying, so why does only half(4) of them decays? And, lets say 4 of them decayed but this means the remaining 4 should still have a 50% chance of decaying (which will only increase from here). So why does even after 16k more years, only 2 would decay from the remaining 4?

[@ParvNaithani]

Veritasium is no 1 for me, you are a close second ... Amazing work

[@SeriouslyWeirdDream]

I am learning how to think from this channel more than just how to understand each principle that you have covered, even though in the process each principle becomes intuitive. Thank you

[@maelteotl]

Absolutely love what you do Mahesh, science communication is such an important job. Knowing things is just knowing things but the ability to think critically is what makes a person smart. We need more smart people to help combat the challenges facing humanity, by showing people how to think about complex topics in easier ways you are helping facilitate this. However, when explaining anything to someone there is a trade off that must be made between ease of thinking at a high level and accuracy at a deeper level. I believe you do a brilliant job at finding that sweet spot. This video in particular though had a couple of things that I felt to be rather vague, for lack of a better word. First the borderline Gambler's Fallacy about probabilities adding together and eventually being over 50%, probabilities don't add they multiply to give a new probability though even then the probability isn't "getting bigger", also probabilities don't depend on previous events, if I roll a standard 6-sided die and don't get a 1 for 1,000 rolls the odds I'll get one next roll is still 1/6, it isn't "overdue". And second, the "just a theory" idea, quantum tunneling is a theory, but theories and hypotheses are very different things. Supply and demand, germ theory, cell theory, cognitive biases, general relativity, all of these things are "just theories" yet form the basis for a huge number of things in our lives. Again, much love Mahesh, keep doing what you're doing, just felt like clarifying this. And look, you got me to do the critical thinking thing ❤

[@Dtomper]

Mahesh, there are no words to describe the quality of your content and your authenticity. Everything about the way you deliver these lessons is perfect. Please never stop being you, and just know that you've helped me grasp so many concepts in physics that I never even bothered checking. But now, just the thought that everything can be thought of in a different and more intuitive way without having to use so much math and calculations makes me want to keep learning about our universe. Thank you very very much!

[@ParM-s5v]

MAHESH SIR YOU HAVE TO SEE THIS! Hello Mahesh Sir, I’ve been exploring the concepts you discussed in your video about FTL and causality, and I came up with a thought experiment that I believe could allow for FTL travel without violating relativity. In your video, you assume that the missile firing is the cause, and the moon's destruction is the effect. However, in my thought experiment, I propose that the missile hitting the moon is the cause, and the moon's destruction is the effect. By redefining the cause and effect this way, causality can still be preserved. Additionally, I consider the impact of length contraction. As objects near the speed of light undergo significant length contraction, the light would still reach them at the speed of light in their reference frame. This keeps relativity intact while allowing FTL travel in a way that avoids causality violations, as light's speed would remain constant from all perspectives. I really admire your work and wanted to share this idea with you. I’m only 14, but I hope this thought experiment could add something new to the discussion! THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME!

[@vyvianalcott1681]

I had to go back to the video to understand the context, but I can answer that for you. The question is "Did you observe the missile being LAUNCHED first, or the moon blowing up?" It's an analysis from observers in multiple reference frames as to where the causal chain began. The causal chain doesn't begin when the missile strikes the moon, it begins when you fire the missile.

[@danieldelights1]

Can u please clarify ur argument properly.But I am willing to bet u, one can't exceed the speed of light and cause will always precede affect.

[@ParM-s5v]

@@vyvianalcott1681 Thank you for your response! I understand that the causal chain traditionally begins with the missile launch, but isn’t this perspective somewhat classical? From my point of view, the missile striking the moon could also be considered the cause, as the missile's launch doesn't guarantee that it will hit the moon. In a sense, the outcome (the moon being hit) might redefine the causal chain in a more outcome-oriented framework. Wouldn't this interpretation challenge causality in an interesting way, especially in the context of FTL travel? I hope that doesn't sound silly..

[@danieldelights1]

There is a woman called bright who traveled faster than light. She started one day in a relative way and came back the previous night😂

[@ParM-s5v]

@@danieldelights1 Yes I know that but my intuition can't align with the proof given in the video so it's natural for me to ask. The reason given for ftl signals being impossible was that cause precedes effect, in the context of the video if you launch a missile to destroy an object (moon) an observer traveling close to the speed of light will see that the missile launches after it destroys the moon which is clearly impossible... My arguement: But just for the sake of intuition can't I say that the missile HITTING THE MOON is the cause and THE MOON'S DESTRUCTION is the effect? That way causality is protected although it's still not the traditional causal chain. Now technically speaking the missile launching is the cause traditionally but it's not specific because after it's launch the missile could've done ANYTHING eg. missed the moon. So to ideally describe the cause and effect is it wrong to say that the missiles launch and the moon's destruction were the cause and effect respectively?

[@geethanazareth5691]

You both can open your own school in Mangalore.Take risk, and by doing so,Curious and eager-to-learn children would thrive in an environment where their questions are valued, and learning feels exciting. If you both focus on nurturing their natural curiosity and building strong foundations, I’m sure the school would not only benefit the students but also stand out uniquely in the vicinity. Wish you all the best dear Mahesh and Chitra❤❤❤❤

[@jonmoore8995]

So many questions I had answered in one shot. Love it.

[@gillydior]

Your explanations are awesum - thank you.

[@SameerKhanna-u6p]

Thank you for your content bro 💯

[@jensrasmussenjr]

Tunneling occurs every time you erase your flash-drive. Pretty cool. That means all your data is retained, just in a different universe.

[@someolddude7076]

Beings in that alternate universe sure will be impressed or horrified.

[@patrikstaron]

The intuition given is very nice. I have one thing. Alpha decay is exponential in terms of number of atoms decayed per unit of time. But the probability of decay per particle mentioned at 13:15. appears to be explained as linear behavior. Which would give an assumption, that if at 16K years it is 50%, then at let's say 32K years it is lim->100% and thus the whole rock should decay after 32K , or some other fixed time. Another thing, the alpha particle hitting another non-decayed particle has negligible effect on the overall decay?

[@nikileshraamsivakumar9746]

Few questions. The concept explained at 10:25, is that not a form of gamblers fallacy? Naturally i must be wrong in some way but i dont understand how. Also, perhaps this is a more fundamental gap in my understanding of quantum mechanics, but does the scheodinger equation give us a more classical interpretation of the behaviour of quantum objects? How to we know that in reality quantum objects themselves have a probability of existing at a certain point. If i put myself in an alpha particle for example, would i find myself teleporting all over the place according to the probability wave obtained from schrodingers equation?

[@robertfrederick6472]

Since the earth is about 4 billion years old, why is there any radium at all? Shouldn’t it all (except for a trace amount) have decayed by now? And the same issue for other radioactive materials.

[@O4C209]

Radioactive materials decay at different rates and can/will decay into another radioactive material. Uranium-238 has a half-life of 4.5 billion years and was presumably made in supernova. It is abundant and why Earth has a hot core. The decay chain is Uranium-238 to Thorium-234 Protactinium-234 Uranium-234 Thorium-230 Radium-226 So, in a backdoor kind of way, radium is being created as we speak (very slowly) Also, Uranium-238 can be used to create Plutonium-239 for nuclear fuel.

[@btuftin]

Radium and other elements like it are part of the decay chains of radioactive elements with much longer half lives. So almost none of our current radium was around when the Earth formed, instead it's the result of the decay of thorium or uranium. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decay_chain

[@mtrxQuarks]

Great episode about the tunneling effect. I'm impressed. You do a great job of explaining the intricacies of quantum mechanics. You have excellent graphics and great examples. Greetings from Poland.👍👍👍👍👍

[@davidbordwell8346]

Endless search for answers. I could get stuck in this matrix. Happily. Wish i chose this profession. Doing contruction(commercial retail renovations) is boring as shit after 25yrs into it. I need to be excited about going into work like this guy. Thanks for all you do

[@arifkazi7939]

The kind of clarity this channel provides is simply unmatched.

[@RajahChandrasekhar]

Very intuitive explanation, thanks for the video

[@rudra9017]

Sir, Thank you so much for explaining these complex topics beautifully 😊 and solving these kind of doubts which are usually unanswered.

[@babakmahmid]

Amazingly clear and vivid explanation. Thank you

[@Jacobk-g7r]

1:15 yes, it has less interaction so slow leak from stable position. The quantum isn’t supported but if it’s tied to a specific macro form then it can be leaked off slowly over the low interactions naturally. Like it was living and slowly decaying over the variations naturally similar to human cells flaking off but obviously different.

[@premasishpradhan6905]

Sir your video are as always awesome, intuitive mind boggling every time, and I actually Clears many misconceptions of mine. So may I make a humble request about intuitive way of explaining potential and kinetic energies, I'm finding it hard to understand this topics intuitively

[@adamkahn8645]

thank you for finally finding a way to help me understand the decay, ive struggled for a long time

[@LowellBoggs]

Great T-shirt, HeHe! Great graphics too. Thanks for the effort that took

[@sailingjabulani]

I want one, do you sell merch?

[@Mahesh_Shenoy]

@@sailingjabulani I am actually planning to. I wasn't sure if anyone wanted such nerdy t-shirts. So, I just usually make one for myself. haha!

[@SG-gm5kq]

ನಮಸ್ಕಾರ 🙏🏻 I have been watching your videos from a long time. Love them. And, Just got to know that you are from Karnataka 🤩

[@Eclipse-d4p]

Just curious what happens when the probability hits 100% is that just when it fully stabilizes

[@SpookyScarecrow]

When he started talking about the Sun, I was immediately reminded of the scene where Tony Stark meets Bruce Banner. “He’d have to heat the cube to 120 million Kelvin just to break through the Coulomb barrier.” “Unless Selvig has figured out how to stabilize the quantum tunneling effect.” Now I understand what they were talking about!

[@Financeification]

Fun explanation. A brilliant mind is one that makes something complex seem obvious. I enjoy your work.

[@Rkcuddles]

Well done as usual

[@henrik8960]

Really like ur Vids, I saw u changed ur Title and Thumbnail. The first one wasnt bad but new one is in my opinion more accurate to the topic. Good job!

[@zain70257]

Best youtube channel evr

[@firstolasto1518]

Freaking brilliant. Thank you for helping with the intuition!!! I love your channel for this exact purpose. You really help explain the intuition which is the most important thing! I really appreciate all your videos. Thank you.

[@legendtias3594]

I love the way you think Mahesh i am a highschool student and I get motivation for studying because of you

[@visenmaackerman]

20:33 its just a theory, a game theory. ah miss him mattpat. btw great video man

[@ohihassan693]

11:30 well then, shouldn't the reverse be also true and we should see some Radon turn into Radium if we keep Radon with lots of alpha particles or between Radium

[@harrydavidson5548]

Lovely explanation, thank you🙂

[@pon1]

Great video, I've always wondered how radioactive decay works, now I feel I have a good understanding of it! Thank you!

[@Tom-zy6ke]

An excellent presentation as alway, I love your passion and enthusiasm. It seems to me that while we can describe the appearance and effect of quantum tunneling in terms of probability, there is some fundamental process that we simply don't understand that allows an alpha particle with 4-8 MeV to overcome a barrier of 25MeV. We are therefore describing what we are seeing / the effect in terms we can understand as opposed to what is actually happening.

[@williambottaci5320]

I've understood it, thanks. A tip for you, hope you take it as well as I intend it, for me the message on the tunnelling section could be said a lot more concisely, shorter - there was a lot of repetition...

[@kovacsattila8993]

4:00 The illustration is wrong because you drawn it a way where the hole is deeper than the surroundings. Reactors gives energy because the middle is at high potential. It would be closer to reality if you would instead drawn a crossection of a extinct volcano, a peek but some slight dent on top but still higher then ground level overall.

[@faroncobb6040]

At ten minutes he shows the energy levels with the particle at the right height.

[@GMPranav]

What determines the energy of the alpha particle for a given isotope? Why is that number so low for gold but high for Radium?

[@jeremysharpe5467]

I had this question as well. It makes sense that if you tunnel at 8MeV vs 3MeV that the half-life would be different, but what determines that tunneling energy 8MeV vs 3MeV? And why is it always the same? For one atom, why can't it tunnel at a range of values?

[@fabianquevedo2707]

This video is so good that I finish with a lot of clarity and a lot of questions (even though I'm a physicist)

[@VuNam_MCVN]

20:47 pressure and gravity do help a bit

[@vrtrasura5060]

Dumb question line. Does the positions of all the elctrons affect this? Is the strong force so kuch stronger that it is irrelevant? If the radium atom had all of its electrons stripped wouldnut have the same half life? I ask because it seems to me that if the uncertainty of the electrons resulted in a very lopsided electric attraction overall it may become a factor on the forces in the nuclues, maybe push them to one side of the well?

[@topoderbadimare9791]

Amazing explanations!

[@dmitriy9053]

Firstly, Rn is not more stable, it decays much faster. So, it is not about moving to a more stable state instantly, just gradually losing excess particles. Secondly, t1/2 of Ra is 1600 years, not 16000 years.

[@Mahesh_Shenoy]

Oh damn! Yes, it should have been 1600 not 16000. My bad. Radon 222 has a higher specific binding energy compared to radium 226, that’s why the decay is favoured. But again, I should have been more careful with conflating ‘specific binding energy’ with ‘stability’. Especially with radioactive elements. Thank you. I will add this as a response to the pinned comment.

[@toxiceditzzzz]

@@Mahesh_Shenoy Idk if i am right but i saw somthing like moores law about that transistor thing, and that we have already got past it.

[@parthhooda3713]

@@toxiceditzzzz that isn't really a "law" that's just a statement that "technology will improve by two times every two years" which isn't really a law it's just a prediction and technological advancement does not necessarily means decrease in size of transistors

[@user-cd6vy2jg6f]

⁠@@parthhooda3713it’s not that technology will improve by 2 times. It’s that we can fit 2x as many transistors on a chip

[@clintonweir7609]

@@parthhooda3713 the way I was taught, a "law" is an observation. The Law of Gravity was based on the observation that objects near the Earth's surface tend to fall towards the Earth. Newton's Theory of Gravity is a model that mathematically describes the Law of Gravity and makes predictions. Moore's Law was an observation about the doubling time of transistor density on computer chips.

[@chalo3427]

incredible video man thank you

[@DanielSpringer]

I think I'm a bit confused. I thought that probability didn't add up? 13:21 Isn't decay memoryless?

[@alexbennie]

At 11:50 two things came to mind, both of them lead to the

[@harshudasi9032]

superb explanation bro, I never understood tunnel ing intuitively before this, thanks. Can you can make a similar video for quantum entanglement, it’s also a difficult concept to understand.

[@KetogenicGuitars]

I love your grinding style hammer the thing in. I get it first time. And at speed 0.75 it and text on it is very entertaining trip. Thank you very much!

[@NiharikaAChirayil]

Amazing video! Somehow your answering all the questions i had studying this lol. Mind doing something on enthalpy it never made any intuitive sense especially the pv term in the equation.

[@polypodesmos]

This video has awesome insights! yet another fabulousness. By the way, what does it have to do with half-life, like why a set time for half the amount's decay and then the same time for the next half...?

[@t1germetal]

For those who are interested, here’s the approximate number of years for gold half-life: 10^389 years Unimaginably long.

[@DavidFMayerPhD]

Thinks of it this way: Suppose that you have a leaking gasoline tank. All the gasoline will NOT pour out at once. It depends on the size of the hole and the pressure in the tank. Radio-nucleotides contain particles that are constantly bouncing around off of the potential barrier that holds them in place. Quantum tunneling permits occasional escape, of such particles. So decay can be very slow or very fast depending upon the particles and the potential barrier. Some isotopes decay almost instantly while others, such as bismuth-209, the most common isotope of bismuth, with a half-life of about 19 quintillion years, or 1.9 x 10^19 years. That's the way the beta-particle bounces.

[@dhimanbhowmick9558]

Thanks, nice explanation 😉

[@SpaceFrogFromOuterSpace]

Excellent video! I never understood half life with any intuition, I would get equally vague answers from my teachers, too. It's all just statistics. It also makes sense that all heavy elements are technically radioactive, but only on timescales that are orders of magnitude larger than the age of the universe.

[@eliotherrera48]

Understanding is truly beautiful as is also ignorance 16:04

[@joshuatorres3342]

You inspire me. Thank you!

[@DenysSene]

If you got curious, the half-life of Au197, considering it can decay, would be estimated in 10E30 years, which was never observed because the universe is only 13B years.

[@TrueLimeyhoney]

For comparison between age of the universe and the scientific notation, 13 Billion years is 13E9

[@darshanlanghi2594]

nice explanation

[@bwa5818]

Tunneling as an explanation seems incomplete. If energy was bouncing around inside the nucleus randomly and occasionally knocked out an alpha particle that would be less hand wavy than tunnelling without a mechanism. I.e. analogous to particles escaping from a liquid which is random but follows a statistical probability.

[@tech-german1806]

Can you explain what a photon is and electromagnetic wave is ?