Are Atoms REALLY Mostly Empty Space?

[@nicevideomancanada]

I'll be 60 next week. I went back to school 10 years ago and received my Grade 12. while there I took Grade 12 math and got lots of 90+s, I even received a 100% in Trigonometry Exam and a round of applause from my classmates. When I was a young person I failed every class. I have ADHD. I completely understood your explanation in this video. What an Amazing Teacher you are Sir. Peter from Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

[@thomashenden71]

Best explanation ever, about _how_ particles really are waves, totally agreed! 🙂👍 They are actually waves because of time, whereas a measurement "stops the time" for a moment, then the wave is a point, but only for the moment of the measurement. This made me wonder even more about how the fabric of reality is as it is… 🤯😮😄

[@rossk4864]

Wow, congratulations! I have a similar story, but not nearly as impressive as yours. I graduated from high school and started in electrical engineering in college but found it too challenging, so I transferred into Geology after the first year and received a BS degree by the skin of my teeth. In my late 30's, I went back to college, resumed my electrical engineering studies and received my BSEE degree near the top of my class. I discovered that with age you never lose the knowledge that you once acquired through study, and life is the best teacher of all.

[@nicevideomancanada]

@@rossk4864 congrats. I was planning to go into Renewable Engineering but i couldn't afford it so instead I started an old business back up Detail Cleaning Vehicles. I now have 260+ Five Star Reviews on Google with a 5.0 average. And im now about to open an Auto Detailing Centre in The Marriott Hotel with plans to expand my business. In the spring and summer i earn around $12,000 Canadian per month by myself it will only get better once i open my new Detail Centre in August. There's more than one way to skin a cat. Best of luck to you also.

[@nicevideomancanada]

@@rossk4864 Funny that you went into Geology. I have a hobby of Gold Prospecting. I have some videos on it on my channel.

[@meesalikeu]

impressive regardless, but i do question your adhd diagnosis because actually that is exceedingly rare and more often the underlying cause is depression or other factors. i trust you are under psychiatric and counseling care to parse that out. 🎉

[@RamiK101]

Great stuff! Again. Where were you in my school days?! I really think that if teachers had the level of knowledge and interest in the subject they're teaching as you do, it would make for a higher pass rate.. Truly truly grateful for all your efforts. I've learned so much in Maths and physics and even some chemistry just off your free KZbin vids over the past couple of years.. Thank you.

[@al_in_philly5832]

I'm worried. Niels Bohr once famously said "if quantum mechanics starts making sense to you, you really don't understand it." This discussion of electrons as waves was wonderfully comprehensible. Until recently, I was a university professor for 36 years; I hope that my lectures were as insightful and coherent to my students as this.

[@henrydetlef8353]

I am leaning with Niels Bohr . I am 83 , a Hamburg survivor of the ashes of WII and the scientist who allowed it to be fought .

[@lungflogger9]

finally a clear description with great graphics, thank you so much!

[@vmdude1]

Great job explaining something I knew very little about. It becomes so obvious that we know so very little about this whole universe thing.

[@hollyanforth1006]

Just because they exist in a probability cloud doesn't mean the electron is actually everywhere at once, because if that were the case, we would identify them everyplace every time we observe them. Probability just means you don't know where it is at any given point in time, not that the electron is everywhere at once. Even Schrodinger said that the cat wasn't really dead and alive simultaneously, just that you can't know until you open the box and look.

[@StephenPadgett-e5f]

You are confusing the explanation .. the electron in the wild is described as a probability density function. This explanation is a good one. If we devise an experiment to detect an electron, it's location is subject to the uncertainty principal of Heisenberg.

[@domenicobarillari2046]

The most modern point of view is that the electron "cloud" is NOT simply a probability distribution, though you can treat it as such. The most sophisticated interpretation - one that allows for the formation chemical (covalent bonds for instance) is that - "ontologically" - an electron is "0.34234 percent there at the 0.01 angstrom cube around location x = 0.23, y =0.654, z= .122" . The simplistic classical probability interpretation does not work - that is why the "fathers' of QM had to struggle so hard with the new view of nature required. Thanks to M and S here for doing his best to get things straight. The ELECTRON IS NOT A POINT. regards DKB (PhD physics)

[@NICEFINENEWROBOT]

If an electron can be located every time you try to locate it, and if that point of location can be anywhere in a given space, you may well say, in its wave form it IS everywhere. Right or wrong?

[@MikA-db2]

Great video, bet electron shells are fascinating.

[@sandyago4735]

Sorta like the emptiness of space? I say this because of my understanding of how virtual particles pop in and out of our ability to observe their existence. What do y'all think?

[@Dmitrij-p3m]

This is the first person who clearly explained to me what an electron in an atom looks like ) That's why I like and subscribe.

[@MultiTipsie]

Hit there, Thank you for explaining. Only one side note; In an antenna (and any conducting material) it is not the electrons that travel, but the electro-magnetic energy. That is passed on from one electron to the next! Like those metal balls on ropes that hang and one ticks to the second and then the last one suddenly jumps away. It is the energy that is past through via the electrons. They (or their cloud) gets exited and that extra energy is then moved on into the next adjacent cloud.

[@petevenuti7355]

Electrons do move. It's not a mutually exclusive situation. But then there is that veritasium video I'm not going to get into an argument like that.

[@MultiTipsie]

@petevenuti7355 OK. Still curious about your explanation though! I am always willing to get new insights! It was not only Veritasium. I suspeced it for many years. Also an audio cable producer (Edwin van der Kley from Siltech) mentioned this and a man I knew who was incharge of building high voltage lines here in The Netherlands told the same thing. So my sources are diverse, including my own estimations. But there is always a chance I might be wrong. That's how science work right?!

[@petevenuti7355]

@MultiTipsie of all the nonsense that veritasium video started, I particularly like the responses from alpha Phoenix. If you're not familiar with that channel I highly recommend it. Also the three blue one Brown videos on the transmission of electromagnetic radiation might help give you a better intuition. But anyway, saying that the energy is going at the speed of light across this antenna in a wave and that it's not electron movement does not take into account the mutual interaction between that electromagnetic wave and the mass of the electrons in its path. It doesn't actually travel at the speed of light. The electric field does travel very near the speed of light and the electrons travel surprisingly slowly. Will be a phase delay between the electric field signal and the actual amount current that can radiate practical power, ( similar conceptually to how power factor is calculated), unfortunately the math behind it is still beyond me. I know just enough conceptually to know that most of the ways is described in early higher education are still grossly oversimplified.. The actual mechanics of it in the upper levels of higher education are still a matter of argument, for instance that new paper that says Hilbert spaces aren't real, but because of the math involved it's still way over my head.

[@petevenuti7355]

@MultiTipsie side note regarding the veritasium video, I think he intentionally set it up to become a matter of controversy to increase his own viewership and popularity, but justifies his own behavior through the way it did encourage scientific inquiry and good discussion. Yes that's how science works, except the overarching motivations have shifted from being much about ego to being more about money as of late.

[@electrodacus]

@@petevenuti7355 No, I do not think Veritasium made the video to be controversial. It is not the only video providing incorrect explanations and he has wrong understanding on this subjects. The other video where he provided completely wrong explanation was the one of the direct down wind faster than wind powered only by wind cart. I did debunked that particular video and was planing to do more videos including one you mentioned. What he was saying in that video was that energy flows trough a capacitor (incorrect) instead of correctly saying in to a capacitor.

[@Marcus-gq6jd]

The best explanation I have ever heard for “filling “ the extra-nucleic space in an atom with the electron probability density.

[@doubletribble-yt]

6:14 - This is the first time I've heard anyone provide an intuitive explanation of how the electron's wave length determines the shell radius. Well done!

[@edwardgrabczewski]

This is a truly excelllent video that manages to bridge the gap between secondary education (I'm from the UK) and Higher education. It's so important to connect the two levels, especially in physics and engineering subjects. You are clearly a very experienced educator and very talented at spotting the right level at which to pitch this subject. The best video I've seen to date on these topics and I encourage all up-and-coming physics and engineering undergraduates to watch this before commencing with their studies at university.

[@MathAndScience]

Many thanks!

[@jonmoore4050]

Like you said we need to stop thinking of quantum objects as existing in single locations, but over regions. the probabilty of "finding the electron" is not really that the the electron will be in a specific place(s), but that the likeliihood a measurement--an interaction--will occur at that location. There's a subtle difference in between the two concepts. The electron is not here or there at some probabilty, but is spread out at over all of those places with varying probabilty of interacting at each of the locations. It's a bias that observing an interaction at a location implies the quantum object was only there & not at some other point.

[@markberry7193]

Jason, I have learned so much from your teachings. Thank You Sir!!

[@mspapworth1]

Thanks, very clear. What is never mentioned is what is the energy source for the movement of not only the electron(s), but also for the quarks/protons,neutrons etc. Everything moves, and that means an energy source. When I put a sine wave signal into a circuit, it has an energy source in the signal generator. It is actually the kinetic energy of the components in the nucleus that released energy in an atomic explosion. So, there must be fields that supply that energy from the outside the atom, so where is that source in the universe?

[@sarass1234]

Please post more on Quantum mechanics... this is a wonderful class

[@NicleT]

This was an excellent class. Thank you so much.

[@stephenlyall7759]

As a teacher this guy is great. To give him his due he would do well to have a question/answer session with some of the responders here. That way together a common understanding might be achieved. Active listening.

[@frankroper3274]

As far as I know everything we use that is electronic is powered by electrons and their reaction to positive and negative charges. This is a very interesting class and I know it must be important since you have given more than one class on it.

[@kieunganguyen693]

Precise descriptions and analysis of atom behaviors! 👏

[@krautsky]

I remember that the idea of electrons as a cloud around the nucleaus was published on German public broadcasting already in the mid 1960s, when I apprenticed as lab tech, during a science program at night. I listened to that program about science while going to sleep quite regularily, and even still have the transcript the station sent me upon request about this new model of the atom. Amazing that still the old model persists.

[@winstongludovatz111]

The wave function is defined on configuration space not physical space. The two look similar in the case of a single particle (both 3 dimensional) but not so much in the case of a system with N>1 particles (dimension 3N). Therefore the wave function is not physical, it is merely a mathematical description of some particle aspects (probability of location). The wave function is not the particle and so the mystery remains.

[@fergusfitzgerald977]

Fab remembered some of this stuff - amazing how people actually worked this stuff out !!

[@michaellesser8043]

Cool stuff. Love it. My understanding was that atoms were conceived as being mostly space from the experiments of Rutherford. This was a GREAT explanation. I guess it was just waves of one energy passing through those of another energy with minimal interaction due to the different wavelengths

[@wdfusroy8463]

This video is nothing short of SUPERB in my book! It provides the clearest explanation I have ever seen of how the "electrons as orbitals" model refutes the idea that atoms are "almost completely empty space" which is derived from the older notion of the "electrons are tiny particles of matter forever whizzing around a much larger nucleus" model which was, somewhat ironically, known to be impossible by physicists as soon as they calculated just what you well explain, namely, that the high and forever changing accelerations involved in such a tiny object actually "orbiting" at close to the speed of light around the nucleus would invariably cause so much energy to be radiated away from the atom -- [tho' unfortunately you don't explain just HOW that could be possible , i.e which particle would, in that model, carry away that sheded energy while the usual suspect for shedding excess energy at such a scale, the electron itself, remains captured by the nucleus, not spun off into open space carrying the excess energy with it ] -- as to lead to the electron spiraling into the nucleus in some very short amount of time, -- which, if I remember correctly, is less than one microsecond. Your presentation of that argument, which certainly refutes the possibility of "the atom is mostly empty space" conception being true, which is, of course, your primary THESIS to establish here, is easy to follow and reiterated several times, in various different ways, so that the video viewer doesn't forget what you are claiming primarily to have proved. Nor does your lecture ever drift off on divagations merely related to your thesis but not establishing it, a very common and annoying practice which one famous rhetorical theorist, Kenneth Burke, claims "violates proper form" by failing to subsequently deliver to the the reader or hearer the pleasure to be derived from seeing how exactly the author or speaker has indeed established what their previous thesis promised it would. [[I apologize here, but as an emeritus professor of Rhetoric and Argumentation for 30+ years I can't help but reflexively utilize conceptualizations from those disciplines to analyze all forms of discourse, including scientific discourse, even when, as in this case, I am myself close to deviating from my own thesis, namely, that you have done precisely what the entire long tradition of Western Rhetoric, derived from ancient Greek sources well predating Aristotle's summation in his "Art of Rhetoric ", says any author's presentations on any subject should do, namely present a clear and relatively simple thesis up front, and then explain clearly in the body of one's presentation exactly why one believes that thesis must be true.]] Aside from the one small matter I have already mentioned, i.e. that you don't explain fully how the energy would be carried away from the atom if we assume the older "classical" model of the atom as electron particles literally "orbiting " the nucleus, I have one other comment on the video. You do a great job of getting us to conceive the new model of the atom, where electrons are instead conceived as standing waves occupying, with varying probabilities, the whole region of space, -- and indeed much more than that! -- previously demarcated as the volume of the relatively huge space defined by any particular orbitals' radius, its distance from the nucleus. The many metaphors and analogies, and even basic Calculus equations, you provide along the way are all completely apt, pertinent and, most important, very useful, to any viewer attempting to grasp and accept your primary, explicitly stated thesis.

[@tryfly4248]

??? Well, it used to be easy to imagine a neutron traveling through the Earth, not hitting any solid objects… I’m wondering how the probability math works out that the neutron doesn’t interact with any of these fields? Awesome explanation!!

[@lethalwolf7455]

Electrons are so wild they kept brilliant physicist John Wheeler up at night trying to figure them out

[@knutholt3486]

Even from a classical perspective, atoms are not empty. Between the particles, there are fields, and the fields are also something.

[@freddiereadie30]

And what is this field made of from a classical perspective?

[@jmodified]

@@freddiereadie30 We don't know. They may be fundamental.

[@knutholt3486]

@@freddiereadie30 From a classical perspective the electromagnetic fields are there as a smooth extension of the charged particles, and they are recognized by causing forces. Thus they are something.

[@lowersaxon]

@@freddiereadie30Electricity.

[@freddiereadie30]

@knutholt3486 Do electromagnetic fields occupy space from a classical perspective?

[@CF542]

Reminds me of the probability drive in Douglas Adams' Hitchhiker's Guide where you could be at all points in the universe in an instant.

[@robert-wr9xt]

Enjoyable video. I watched the entire video. Thanks Jason.

[@mikethespike7579]

At school, 40 years ago, when we were first taught about atoms and how they form the elements, our physics teacher depicted them as nucleoli with little balls spinning around them. He did emphasise though that this was a very simplified depiction that in most cases was sufficient to solve most chemistry and engineering problems and that only physicists were expected to understand the deeper nature of atoms.

[@anthonycesarano5948]

This is a very excellent lecture on quantum mechanics. I wish I had had this professor when I was in physics program in college.

[@josephdevasia3921]

Thank you Jasen, you are a talented teacher. Well explained the most difficult subject. Again thanks 🙏

[@Li.Siyuan]

This made so much sense. Thank you.

[@jagadishchandra3142]

Amazing narrative sir thanksfor the uoload

[@John-c4r1o]

Rather than flipping the coin as an analogy its like entries into a lottery with the balls visible and randomly chosen leading to collapse of the probabilitisic state.

[@ForeverLoveCats]

Ok, I guess because the electrons are no longer in their natural, free moving state.

[@martinfarfsing5995]

There are those who provide the light , there are those who reflect the light and there are those who absorb the light .

[@terrainofthought]

and then there are those who come let you see that light is not what it seems to be.

[@mirop4189]

Thank you for an inspired explanation of the matter. Very well done, without going into the very details of the probability density function. When you talk about wave catching up with itself it sounds like talking about static waves, which usually require specific size of the sphere where the wave resonates…

[@StephenPadgett-e5f]

I took a class in partial differential equations so that I could understand a wave function. Sound is a wave and waves happen on the surface of water. These are called 'water waves' but these are not quantum mechanical. Maxwell's equations describe how waves are created by accelerating electric charges but these are not quantum mechanical either. I still don't understand where the imaginary number comes from or why it is necessary in quantum mechanics. Maxwell's electro magnetic waves do not require the use of imaginary numbers. Water waves 'appear' to move across the water but the water itself just moves up and down as the wave comes through.

[@anthonycarbone3826]

It would seem the measurement is imprecise for a very tiny particle like the electron. So the electron wave is everywhere within the wave form but the measurement is changing location within that wave form and gives the answer we see as the location. What is hard to fathom is that since no vacuum exists, isolating a single electron is impossible unless all electrons are in reality one single electron. What I said makes no sense but that might have more in common with quantum mechanics than most explanations. I find it hard to believe that we even believe that we are looking at one electron when everything involved in every single experiment is not only made up of atoms with electrons but even the area surrounding the experiments equipment is also made up of atoms with electrons.

[@AlphaChinou]

Another great video Jason!

[@StarmaxStarmax-zn3xt]

Interesting presentation -- as others have stated: very understandable. 1) What is waving? 2) What happens with multiple "electrons"/wave functions in the same orbit? 3) A coin actually has three states: heads, tails, and edge. Granted that the edge state is a very low probability state, but it exists.

[@Feroxing12]

2) Pauli exclusion principle.

[@wadeb7536]

The wave function is not the electron itself spread out in space, but rather a mathematical description of the probability distribution of where an electron is likely to be found, meaning it represents the "chance" of finding the electron at a given location, not the electron itself physically occupying that space.

[@0087adi]

Not sure this is the right way to describe. From what I've heard every object is described by a wave function and only at the time of a measurement the wave function collapses and you can "measure" the object - here it being an electron. This is backed by the famous double-slit experiment that suggests that the electron not passed a specific but both slits exhibiting wave characteristics causing interference patterns when "measured", describing to the probability density where to find its particle representation. This is counter intuitive to our macroscopic world, but in quantum physics there is a superposition of all possible locations at the same time until the wave function collapses upon a measurement ... the probability density is then a measure to predict where it more or less likely be found when there is no superposition any more ...

[@NicholsonNeisler-fz3gi]

Not entirely correct. You have to study quantum field theory to really understand what is going on

[@craigreustle2192]

Quantum just means too small to see so use probability. All this superposition nonsense mathematically works but it's really just advanced probability. Just a model for what we can't see.

[@0087adi]

​@@craigreustle2192 This comment is nonsense. Undoubtedly there are many unproven mathematical models in theoretical physics and therefore called out as theories (e.g., the "string theory") but quantum mechanics has been experimentally proven over and over again. The fact us not understanding the root cause of the observable superposition or quantum entanglement doesn't mean they don't exist. And the duality of wave and particle is not a measurement problem to be solved ...

[@domenicobarillari2046]

@@NicholsonNeisler-fz3gi Here here - it IS a hard fact that you must do the deep drill (with the time required) to learn QFT as the best theory we currently have of reality (despite the apparent irony of learning about virtual particles, Hilbert space, yada, yada, that seem more surreal to the layman). Cheers DKB

[@tiago.alegria.315]

Thanks for the awareness, and thanks for sharing

[@doubletribble-yt]

23:35 - That small probability density where an electron is "located" inside the nucleus is called electron capture, and it causes a proton to decay into a neutron with the extra wave energy emitted as an electron neutrino.

[@oo6505]

Love your videos, I can see the passion you have for science and it's great to see. Have you ever been on Star Talk by any chance? You look sorta familiar like you've been on a lot of programs.

[@hanyahamba-AlKhaliq]

Hi Sir.. Please also do Schrodinger , Hisenberg , Dirac and more advance QM subject.. Appreciated Sir

[@Levon9404]

I have whole lot of respect for you, finally someone is able to explain things closer to reality.

[@billczerno215]

Thank you, Jason, Sir ! Very nice, simple yet useful vulgarisation here. I shall recommend your channel to friends and acquaintances, at least those who can follow talks in English. (We're Froggies...)

[@nizamieminov3648]

Thank you for the great work.

[@andrewnixon8556]

As a retired Pharmacist in my 60's that just blew my understanding of the Electron to smithereens! Thank you most enjoyable and briliiantly explained.😀

[@user-lu6yg3vk9z]

Nice.What do u think show the Pharmacists going? Hearing the number of pharmacist jobs shrinking. Pharmacy schools scamming people.

[@soshoux]

Thanks!

[@MathAndScience]

Thank you so much!

[@robertwinkler4719]

Hi Jason, great resentation. Do you have a dvd on this, got all you other DVDs. Bob Winkler

[@fjg2896]

Brilliant explanation!

[@premprakashjoshi4616]

Where from the electron gets it's energy to remain in the state of it's motion or vibration forever, like the accelarating planets and ever expanding universe.

[@shawngrinter2747]

Superb description, well said

[@johnyu1750]

Great explanation. Thanks

[@wilsongomes3360]

A truly masterpiece .The teacher is marvelous

[@ColinMilner-q7z]

Wow that really helps me thank you, I've always wondered about that, you're a really good educator keep going😊

[@MathAndScience]

You’re welcome 😊

[@mspapworth1]

How fast does the electron move around the nucleus, and how does an electron not interact with electrons in other bands?

[@bluex610]

Like .7% of the speed of light. 2.2 million meters per second.

[@cristiandemirel1918]

"I've signed an executive order forbidding atoms to be empty space. This is a big one!"

[@daveb7999]

Thanks for helping to fill the void, and for helping us conceive of how an electron behaves. One really has to think outside the box. Or should I say, think within that quantum, wavy region of mathematical probabilities within an atom? Quantum is ubiquitous, but so difficult to conceive of. 😕 Point is, I think I know more after watching this than before. Thanks for that.

[@DD2DL]

Excellent explanation!!

[@springinfialta106]

I thought the Pauli Exclusion Principle meant that electrons in one orbital can't disperse into another orbital if that orbital is filled. This suggests that unless the orbitals fill all the space in the atom there is still some empty space in the atom.

[@donaldaxel]

You could also say that the idea of Electron Baseballs floating around in the space around a BasketBall would still need us to define motion, space and matter. There is no space if there are no time and matter (where matter includes photons). Therefore the particles, the processes of which defines space when we measure space by registering light (photons which comes to our apparatus or eye) or using a yardstick ("built of atoms") then space is "registered" (measured) by indirect proofs. These subatomar particles are "waves/movements" and when they resist bumping into another they show indirectly that they have energy causing changes.

[@jdmayfield88]

I suspect orbital energy levels are due to harmonics-- like if you take a guitar string and pluck it, you get a specific pitch and above it you get the harmonic series if frequencies that perfectly fit within the wavelength of the string. All wavelengths that do not perfectly fit a division of the strings wavelength quickly die off, as their kinetic energy is redistributed into wavelengths that do perfectly fit divisions of the strings wavelength. In sound, this gives the string a definite pitch. In atoms, the kinetic energy would necessarily redistribute itself into harmonics of wavelengths that perfectly fit the wavelength of the orbitals. With the guitar string you can actually see this with slow-motion photography. Especially if you tune it to a wavelength matching a division of the framerate, which itself acts as a wave, causing an interference pattern in time that can be seen in the resulting video. Just like tuning forks will vibrate sympathetically with wavelengths divisible with their own. You can actually feel this when you sing with another person.. and you can hear it. Why some people can sing with another person but might not have stable pitches singing by themselves. The dissonant frequencies will tend to line up when close to a perfect division of each other. They resonate. So orbitals and their energy levels are basically just the effect of the electron fields resonant frequency and harmonics. Works for macro waves. Why not subatomic waves?

[@jazzman5598]

Fine vid Jason! Just subbed. with a 👍💯👍 ? I bet you know my favorite physics dude, Anton. Keep it real! AF. Thanks for the fine meta forms of how this works. I am an ancient guitarist. The waves in particle physics especially , I hear ol’ Fibonacci banging away at a red hot abacus ! 🤪😝🤣

[@conniestone6251]

This gives (to me) more understanding about "electron shells".

[@sarass1234]

U are such a great teacher

[@JAVACAT1999]

So that was an example of a hydrogen atom, but what if it is a different element? Do the waves mix with each other as they would in the ocean or do they stay separate around the nucleus? What is the latest theory about valence shells? Is the valence shell the bohr radius? I’m staying curious as you asked us to do.

[@alvindimes649]

Thank you, that has clarified a few things for me. 😊

[@EpizodesHorizons]

Thanks for this video. Great explanation. Just one question about the electron's wavelength and orbitals. Is it true that the electron's wavelength in the first orbital is 1; and electron's wavelength in the second orbital is 2; electron's wavelength in the third orbital is 3, etc...? Thanks.

[@MrRobBlac]

I like that, "smeared out probability cloud"

[@JaRaIndianz]

What you say is true and untrue at the same time (sorry for the pun). It's true when electrons behave as waves atoms may not be completely empty as the cloud like fuzzy electron "fields" buzz around the nucleus at the speed of light. But when observed or measured the fuzzy electron "fields" collapse into particles occupying specific positions and space around the nucleus. At this point of measurement you can say the atom is mostly empty. Even when electrons behave as waves there may still be some sort of empty space between "shells" or "orbits" they occupy around the nucleus. If it is true that electrons, whether exist as waves or particles, possess different energy levels depending on their distance from the nucleus (specific shells they occupy) then we should presume that some sort of empty space would exist between the shells.

[@whatelseison8970]

It is still certainly true that the "size" of the orbitals is extremely large compared to the nuleus and incredibly light by comparison also, which kinda still makes the whole empty space thing feel truthy, even if it's not 100% rigorously true.

[@ponzi-d4k]

I do protest the assumption that finding an electron and measuring only some of it are the same thing. Remember that we can`t simultaneously measure momentum at the same time even though we know that it always has some. Personally, I sort of think of electrons as being certain features of EM waves. A really cool and fun You Tube video to see on this subject is `This is an electron`, by Action Lab.

[@col0342]

You know what's the most weird? The Schrodinger equation is derived computing a Hamiltonian that see the electron(s) as point-particle(s) with a a point-like charge and a point-like impulse.

[@motleyh9427]

I don’t speak math,but let me see if I’m getting this. Which I’m probably not. So the electron cloud is a 3 dimensional localized wave frequency within the electron field. The peaks in that wave are what we count as numbers of electrons. So, shape of the local electron field. Every element has a different wave shape around it with a different amount of wave peaks in the electron field. The energy of an electron is constant. So if interacting with other atoms, the frequency of the localized electron field will cause an increase in energy and to stabilize the local field, because all electrons have the same amount of energy, either the the balancing out of this energy will cause a bonding of atoms or a repulsion of atoms depending on the wave frequency (shape). Certain frequencies will not allow for a balance between the patterns (peaks and troughs) so you have repulsion which is why we have separate physical objects. If the electron wave frequency is compatible, then they combine to make other elements. So, the number of electrons in an element is the amount of peaks (shape)in the local field? Am I even remotely close?

[@jamiesawyer5102]

It seems the electron would be an object or ball perse but because it is traveling at speed of light in such a tiny area, that it is in all location at same time. And when measured is showing the true location at that time.

[@djelalhassan7631]

No, the Electrons are waves just like anything else in the Universe.

[@nosuchthing8]

​@djelalhassan7631 microscopic things like electrons might be waves but we humans are not. Our location in space is fairly certain.

[@jmodified]

@@nosuchthing8 Only relative to our size.

[@whochecksthis]

What about in the case of neutron stars, where gravity crushes the electrons into the protons to become neutrons? How does that apply to the cloud?

[@James-ll3jb]

Wish he'd of spoken more about the electron as "a 3-dimensional wave," because I think there is a proper analogy there with the actuality of Time.

[@dr.michaellittle5611]

👏👏👏👏 Very well done. Thank you.

[@stroudcurran3061]

If an electron from an atom can exist far away, can it be captured by another atom that has lost an electron? If so, the dynamics of electrons must be in constant flux not only within an atom but among all atoms.

[@jmodified]

Sure. It can also be captured by another atom on the other side of the room or the other side of the galaxy, it's just that the chance of that happening is so small as to be meaningless.

[@marcellovignoli8083]

Wonderful lesson Jason! After 50 years from the "shut up and calculate" era we finally see some people understanding the realty under the QFD math It seems that after a century of hard materialism there could be some places for a bit of "spiritualism" I'm not speaking of religion but just of an intimate sense of what we and the universe are. I like also J.A. Machen vision of an oscillating space-time, you should help togheter imo.

[@0087adi]

We talk about electrons being quantum objects but aren't all particles quantum objects? I.e., is it only an electron "wave cloud" orbiting a nucleus, or do we also have to consider the nucleus with its quarks, gluons and virtual particles having a wave function that suggests for the nuclei probability density as a "core" to the atom? This said, Pauli's exclusion principle suggests they can't occupy the same space, yet it appears there were overlapping probability clouds ... Sorry if asking a stupid question, but I just happen to be an electrical engineer and not a particle physicist or physicist in any form to start with🙂

[@nizexlizzy]

Interesting and very well explained, however, I am now more confused than before I watched it. If electrons are actually clouds and not specific particles, then how do you explain what is going on with an element that has 20 electrons? How do you bump one cloud off and then get two atoms to hug together with a single cloud? How does that binding electron "cloud out" between 2 atoms that already have other electrons flying around them? It was much easier to think about it, although still confusing as hell, thinking of particles, but considering clouds instead, just made my mind explode.

[@xenthosbobo]

fluctuating waves with a magnetic field that is oscillating and enlarging while shrinking in a random pattern that still hold a substance that causes reactions into a free form like water in a shaken snow globe 😊

[@BULGARIAN1-d8s]

What actually "the wave collapse" mean? The wave is in zero point or in it's maximum? If it collapse in one point is the electron one peak wave?

[@shaunehuolohan5736]

Visualise a spherical jelly mould, where the outside surface is the electron, the more it interacts with energy the more the wave wobbles. How does the temperature interacts with wave function probablies, of distance from the nucleus.? At absolute zero, will the electron bond with the nucleus.?

[@smashu2]

There is no duality wave particle there is only the wave. What is perceive a corpuscle is simply the interaction between multiple waves at a point in space. ( the particle you attempt to measure the position + your apparatus which is also made of waves...)

[@terrainofthought]

Getting acquainted with quantum mechanics twenty years ago blew me away. Over the years I've been gradually loosing my mind thinking how the very real and tangible classical universe is made up of very intangible unreal probabilities.

[@peterstanziale3211]

I imagine this might be a stupid question but what determines the outer limit of the electron.? Why are they limited to a maximum distance?

[@ErikBongers]

One analogy that I find useful for people new to this concept is clouds and lightning. Where is the energy before the lightning strike? Well, it's in the whole cloud isn't it. A bit more in the dense center and less at the fluffy perimeter. The lightning strike is then the "wave collapse".

[@mikecawthorn7806]

Nice work

[@VironPapadopoulos]

Wave function is the tool to aproximate the probability of electron in space. Reality is described by wave function collapse which always locates the electron to a very specific location. All experiments verified the the wave function collapse

[@samuelmiensinompe4902]

Is not empty space, but weak in volume strong in energy. Like a powerful plasma ball. One thing I think we do not know yet. Some electrons can leave far away from the atom and come back. We need to make more experiments with electro magnetic fields.

[@AnonYmous-yz9zq]

Every time I glimpse a little more of QM I get a headache. Forty years later I still have that headache. Thanks

[@SanderDouma-y5w]

I wonder if there is any actual measurent ever done in the atom measuring electrons. If not a possibility then the understanding in that way is a bit deceptive. Thanks for the lecture

[@esorse]

You could argue that the set of Integers, Z, including 1 and additive inverse -1 such that 1 + -1 = 0, breaks the law of non-contradiction : nothing is it's opposite, which the product of either a negative, or positive, number with itself being the same sign, instead of always positive, may resolve.

[@user-iu6dm7fx2p]

Can you make a video about semiconductors and quantum numbers please

[@ktall6749]

Would I be incorrect to assume the electron wave impacts the entire area of probability and varies in impact intensity with its degree of probability? It really sounds like fields of force such as electromagnetism.

[@WorldSlayerPlKA]

I love the recent fact that GRAVITATION(al force) IS A WAVE FORCE. Water, ocean, waves. Imagine one gust of wind sending one wave. Ebb and flow. Water settles still after a while. For me to make it easy, I say earths gravitation pulls water to a halt (when there's none other impulse). I understand an electron faces less resistance than such a water molecule on earth. Your coin analogy needs this correction: electrons are always "moving". So the coins natural state would be "moving". Now, could make a photography and see the coin standing still. Just wanted to say something. =] Stay curious. Godspeed (as in farewell :P ). Greetings from Switzerland.

[@williambunting803]

Hmm. That doesn’t fit the present thinking on electron orbits, and orbit arrangements. My preferred thinking is that each Proton has an energy thread (positive charge) that emanates from the Proton and returns to it. Electrons attach themselves to this thread and oscillate along the thread and gyrate with the thread. The thread gets distorted by the Proton’s position in an atom and that distortion is what sets up the various orbital shapes and orbital positions, positions and levels that are the essence of chemistry physics.