Great Physicists: Niels Bohr, the Father of Atomic Physics

[@EtherDais]

Please keep doing this, Herr Unzicker. We cannot make progress until we understand what has good foundation and what does not

[@morchel332]

he hasnt good foundatoin, dude is just talking bs.

[@DeepuKumar-th1wq]

@@morchel332 yaa i just see him just criticising other scientist

[@morchel332]

@@DeepuKumar-th1wqthis isnt critic, just pathetic and stupid.

[@qibingsia9212]

The insight of Bohr that strikes me the most is how unique he is compared to other physicists at that time, he wasn't afraid of raising the right questions, and that requires courage and a lot of taking up as being the "devil's advocate" so to speak, he seems to me like a contemporary Socrates. Anyways, thanks for the talk, its informative and interesting.

[@clydeblair9622]

"For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand." Einstein

[@jamieflame01]

Nobody knows how the stand of our knowledge about the atom would be without him. Personally, Bohr is one of the amiable colleagues I have met. He utters his opinions like one perpetually groping and never like one who believes himself to be in possession of the truth. Albert Einstein

[@jimmypk1353]

Never mind the audio, we are very lucky to have someone of your caliber educate us. Greetings from Pakistan

[@nehakulkarni5009]

Fantastic Danish physicist and Nobel laureate Niels Bohr (1885-1962), was fascinated with Vedas. His remark “I go into the Upanishads to ask questions.”

[@ericephemetherson3964]

Erwin Shrodinger was also studying Vedas in his later years.

[@nehakulkarni5009]

Yhhh! Ive made a video of him on my channel to...With all 3 of them

[@ericephemetherson3964]

@@nehakulkarni5009 I am glad you are in this subject. Can you give me the directions to your channel of your video?

[@nehakulkarni5009]

Video on my channel is called: atheism king vs H induism ,

[@ericephemetherson3964]

@@nehakulkarni5009 Thank you.

[@noahmorton4707]

Great video I hope you continue this series with some more great physicists

[@MrFlaviojosefus]

Absolutely right! Physics is missing deep thinkers like Niels Bohr.

[@TheLuminousOne]

He's doesn't strike me as a bohring guy.

[@rayoflight62]

I have great respect for Niels Bohr, for his clear mind on the state of physics and all the clear limitations of our methodologies. He defined the measurement as "An Human Act". And I like what Heisenberg once said: "Complementarity is like having two different sets of obligations, never to be reconciled, toward two persons with opposed interests". A measurement is an interaction between Space and Time, and it is subject to complementarity. General Relativity is a narrow window on the spacetime processes, not wide enough to observe the Universe and minimise (or temporarily set aside) complementarity at the same time. Thanks for the video on Bohr! Regards, Anthony

[@bjorn7355]

45 years ago I was playing though your father´s chess games - now I am listening to your great overview over physics!

[@TheMachian]

Thanks for kindly sharing your memories.

[@clydeblair9622]

One doesn't have to be a physicist to appreciate your explanations. It's a gift. Thank you.

[@calvinjackson8110]

No matter what anybody say about Einstein or Bohr, to me they will always be great men. I will always admire what they accomplished and there is nobody alive wearing flesh is qualified be their judge!

[@johndododoe1411]

Not even those wearing Bohr flesh as his children and grand children?

[@douglasstrother6584]

I find it interesting that Planck was working on an Engineering problem of designing a more efficient litghtbulb that inspired him to invent the Quantum, with the hope that he could make his little constant go away. Einstein, Bohr and others picked it up and ran with it! Einstein used it to explain the Photoelectric Effect. Bohr (and Debroglie) used it to explain discrete electron orbits; then Bohr stated the Copenhagen Interpretation which Einstein didn't like! Very interesting.

[@Tyler11821]

Except that it came from the ultraviolet catastrophe, not a "lightbulb"

[@johnm.v709]

Spin of Indivisible Particle : Watch... kzbin.info/www/bejne/pJ_Op6J_fd-nhtk

[@ericephemetherson3964]

Erwin schrodinger did not like this idea of Bohr's electron jumps that he said that if all these jumps were a part of physics I was working on I would never have gotten in the field of quantum mechanics in my life. Schrodinger's idea actually explains the atom because Schodinger said that electrons travel in waves and one cannot determine the exact position of it. And I would agree with that because in order for an electron to jump orbits it would have to take time and it seems like they do it instantaneously.

[@gahangwasteve8789]

Amazing video! Respect to you 👨‍🏫

[@mikealexander1935]

Another view if Bohr comes from George Gamow's poem about Ernest Rutherford's temper. that handsome, hearty British lord We knew as Ernest Rutherford. New Zealand's farmer's son by birth, He never lost the touch of earth; His booming voice and jolly roar Could penetrate the thickest door, But if to anger he inclined You should have heard him speak his mind In living language of the land That anyone could understand! One day George Gamow, as his guest By Rutherford was so addressed At tea in honour of Niels Bohr (Of whom you may have heard before). The men talked golf, and cricket too; The ladies gushed, as ladies do, About a blouse, a sash, a shawl And Bohr grew weary of it all. "Gamow," he said, "I see below Your motorcycle. You will show Me how it works? Come on, let's run! This party isn't any fun." So to the motorcycle Bohr, With Gamow running after, tore. Gamow explained the this and that And Bohr, who on the saddle sat, Took off to skim along the Backs, A threat to humans, beasts and hacks, But though he started full and strong He didn't sit it out for long. No less than fifty yards ahead He killed the engine dead And turning wildly as he slowed Stopped traffic up and down Queen's Road. While Gamow rushing to the fore, Was doing what he could for Bohr Who should like Jove himself appear But Rutherford. In Gamow's ear He thundered: "Gamow! If once more You give that buggy to Niels Bohr To snarl up traffic with, or wreck, I swear I'll break your bloody neck."

[@andymouse]

Always Fascinating......cheers.

[@BlueGiant69202]

Thank you Dr. Unzicker for sharing your impressions of Niels Bohr. I didn't like the gossip regarding Bohr's talking. Maybe he needed to think out loud or it was just something he was accustomed to or it was a defensive mechanism of some type. He was human. At least you don't idolize him. I would have preferred to have heard more about how the cluster of jigsaw pieces Bohr put together (without doubt a feat of genius) did not fit in well with the already put together clusters such as Maxwell-Lorentz Electromagnetism and Newtonian Mechanics.

[@agdgdgwngo]

I personally quite enjoy the "talkative genius" persona. Shows a real passion and confidence in his work.

[@Satyagraha-ql3pf]

I'd love to see a discussion between you and Dr. Sabine Hossenfelder (who has a channel here). I have your book, and am reading her's "Lost in Math". Any chance?

[@EtherDais]

Agreed but I suspect she wouldn't do it. She seems a bit of a snob

[@EtherDais]

@I Em Hoo I Iz ive seen how she moderates her blog. Maybe she just has to shield from the quacks but it isnt clear she wants a dialogue

[@mrJety89]

@@EtherDais not true. If she can respond to flat earthers, and it seems to me that her thinkig is already going in a similar direction to herr Unzicker's then the only problem for us would be if suddenly they both switched to german which is a real possibility.

[@mohithmaruvada473]

@@charlieruppert1423 mind ur tongue us a*****e . As if u did study. U clown

[@charlieruppert1423]

@@mohithmaruvada473 I did some graduate work. and you - an English major?

[@smAshomAsh]

...a lesson learned from Bohr. 😃 J.k. that's encouragement!

[@bryck7853]

install some noise absorbers in your 'studio' because I'm getting an untenable amount of echo/reverb. I'll check back in 2 weeks.

[@nafeesaneelufer5023]

Dimensional analysis really plays important role in deriving formulae. For example if we consider commutator formulas [ x , Px ] = i ( h cross ) the product of x and Px has dimensions of angular momentum so we get only i ( h cross ) . [ Lx , Ly ] = i ( h cross ) Lz . Here product of Lx and Ly has square the dimensions of angular momentum. So i ( h cross ) goes for dimensions of angular momentum and clearly Lz has dimensions of angular momentum. Same way [ Lx , y ] = i ( h cross) z

[@johnm.v709]

Angular momentum - very well explained in this video. Spin of Indivisible Particle : kzbin.info/www/bejne/pJ_Op6J_fd-nhtk

[@rineric3214]

Leo Szilard and Lise Meindtner (sp?) deserve to be given credit where credit is due.

[@ylst8874]

Respect him R.I P Bohr. Thank you.

[@kumarswamymc433]

Very informative thanks 🙏🙏🙏

[@johnmanderson2060]

PLEASE! 🙏🏼 Buy a descent mic 🎤 or check that your tie mic is properly selected on your computer’s mixboard, actually it sounds more that your laptop’s mic is selected instead with all the room noise audible. Btw, clip it on the right side of the shirt to have the mic out of it and by so avoid rubbing noises.

[@TheMachian]

I just orderd it :-) This one had an intermittent contact... I promise to improve on that :-)

[@godara2op566]

@@TheMachian can u pls implore on why e=mc2 is not Einstein's equation

[@godara2op566]

@@TheMachian Nd that Maxwell real eq is diff and the eq pushed in his name are of Oliver headside

[@JacopoBerzeatti10]

Thank you for the video, greetings from Colombia

[@madansharma2700]

This video should be a part of syllabus for high school students. Please improve the quality of sub-titles.

[@davidwilkie9551]

If the observation of equivalence between Actual Intelligence and Wisdom of Intuitions in long-term practice is sufficiently valid, then the standard practice of reviewing and reiterating the work of previous Natural Philosophers, in/of QM-TIME Completeness First Principle Observation approach.., Bohr is already a core study from which other conceptual lineages branch out. For the same reasons, Bergson is an omission and is an actual contributor to the unity of Actual Intelligence of Time Duration Timing Conception. Definitions being the reason why this is so evasive a concept mixed/messed up with the idea of externalities or discreteness that does not exist in true, actual fact of Actuality, only in the Theory of Limit. (A subtle distinction)

[@LuisAldamiz]

This is great but you certainly need better audio, there's an annoying background noise.

[@ignominius3111]

Luis, that’s the cosmic background microwave radiation that you hear.

[@albertperson4013]

I would love to hear Mr. Unzicker's interpretation of the SAM or Structured Atomic Model that is being proposed by Edo (Edwin) Kaal, et al., as it answers many questions heretofore unanswered by the Standard Model consisting of Protons, Neutrons, and Electrons.

[@carly09et]

The "problem" here is how 'squishy' is 'space' at this scale ie the measure of pi.

[@alecmisra4964]

The problem with physics is that the high energy levels required to construct meaningful new theoretical physics cannot conceivabluy be reached. Thus there is only an endless wandering in a desert of mathematics hoping to get lucky.

[@aryanbista747]

would you care to explain a little more?

[@standowner6979]

@@aryanbista747 I second your request!

[@dadsonworldwide3238]

The choo choo train standardized Time seems like a human perspective more than a photon or one of light and distance. The approximations of our language including math is paradoxical. We are within certain probabilities. Somewhere in H and C is problematic if time is a local gradient or approximation or not its miss represented . Especially in other fields. Relative to a photon clearly isn't relative to our observation and measurements.

[@caesare1968]

May I suggest to improve the quality of the audio and diction, the exact words are not clearly pronounced and this makes it hard to follow the interesting presentation. Sorry to be critical, but it is all in an effort to make the divulgation of science and your channel better propagated in this precios media. Thanks for your efforts.

[@mrJety89]

herr Unzicker I get the sense that our universities don't actually tech physics. They teach the rules, but not the reasons behind them. It is my intuition that they only teach you as mouch physics, and the KIND of physics as is needed to get a phd or to start teaching it to others, but none of the deeper principles behind them are being thought at all.

[@TheMachian]

Your intuition is not entirely wrong :-)

[@mrJety89]

@@TheMachian Can You evaluate this claim plz. _ kzbin.info/www/bejne/rKTYiIGLrZ2YabM Searching for the Monopole - The Cosmic Microwave Background! Sky Scholar _ I feel like it should be valid, but the claim itself is huge, and I think that my level of understanding of physics is not quite good enough to give it a definitive yes or no. But the reasoning, as far as I can tell is solid enough to try and let you know about it.

[@mrJety89]

@@TheMachian To be clear, even if the claim is entirely true, it does nothing to negate all the other lines of evidence that we have for the big bang.

[@mrJety89]

@@TheMachian In short, the claim that I'm asking you to evaluate is this. Sky Scholar claims that the so-called cosmic microwave background was never measured by anyone, in fact it is impossible to measure it because the foureground is mouch too strong and varied, and that any sky map of this radiation is the result of sophisticated data tampering. If A≈B, and the signal is defined as A-B, which is 1000 weaker than A, then any uncertanty in A or B will likely make the measurement impossible, and A-B will forever be just random noise and sophisticated error correcting algorithms. That In a nutshell is what this scientist claims. I tried to evaluate it, but some of the technical details are beyond my level of expertise. My name is P.S. Derechkey, and I'm a nuclear physicist.

[@mrJety89]

@@TheMachian Sorry for piling this on to you like this, but I just don't have anyone else I could ask about this. Even if you don't want to spend your time looking at this, You may know someone who could be interested.

[@jsbueno]

Dr. Unzicker - had you taken a look on the "Reciprocal System Theory"? I'd like to know your thoughts on it. I jsut got in touch with it, and it at least seems to address many of the unsolvable problems in Physics you like to point out (even about the concrete existence of Space and Time). Most of their material can be found at reciprocalsystem. org/ (spaces added so that this platoform do not sensor the comment out)

[@rg3412]

Your sound is not coming from your lapel mic.

[@johnm.v709]

Does Light bend ?

[@TheMachian]

Yes. See "Einstein's Lost Key"

[@NisseOhlsen]

Bohr wasn't good at math. He only defeated Einstein by applying the latter's own voyage into Riemannian geometry.

[@audreydaleski1067]

Standing on the shoulders of giants.

[@CGMaat]

Cosmic priest of physic of the universal cathedral

[@markseidler3251]

It is easier to understand Planck's constant h, if it is defined as h = Joules/Hertz = Joules/(CYCLE/second); it is NOT h = Joules/(1/second). A Joule-second is not a thing. Additionally, ħ = Joules/(RADIAN/second). When using the formula E = hf, all the units are consistent if h = Joules/Hertz. Alexander correctly SAID, " this unit, which was originally energy per FREQUENCY," but the formulas displayed on the screen incorrectly SHOWED h = J/(1/s) = Nms, which is incorrect. Again, Nms is not a thing; it should written as Nm/Hz. (Nm is Newton-meters, which is Joules, which is energy)

[@TheMachian]

You are rigth in distinguishing cycles and radians, though there is no difference in physical units. In any case, I think h (or h bar) as angular momentum is the more fundamental property.

[@markseidler3251]

@@TheMachian Wouldn't it be mvr/(cycle) ? Is angular momentum per cycle a thing? Somehow, everyone dropped the cycle-unit.

[@dosomething3]

0:45 audio gets better

[@sunroad7228]

The more recent line of thinking, though, is that what we believe in and call 'protons' and 'standard model' of Atom - are actually calls to a non-materialistic Application Programming Interface (API) - The Universe's API, if you like. This explains why an increase of one 'proton' may radically change the properties and behavior of an element next to the one that comes before it and after it. This emerging school of thought itself is a derivative of what was dubbed in 2017 - 'The Fifth Law of Thermodynamics'. What holds an element together is Energy but we cannot observe where that Energy is putting its Thermodynamics-waste at (i.e. where we can observe the waste - [the 'radiator', the 'tail pipe in a car'] - for the Energy that holds a piece of metal?). An API framework, instead of the periodic system, provides a better approach to understanding the problem. An element is a one particular Function in the repertoire of all other Functions offered by the API. Bohr's Quantum entanglement also becomes, instead, a demonstration that Light actually doesn't travel, it is always there between entangled-energies. Light simply intensifies and becomes visible to us - as a call to the API is made between two Energy spots, each connected and governed by the system serving the API. Our observation of light in space is a factor of the technology we use - i.e. the light we see is impacted by how much Energy we expend in making objects possibly be called by distant Function-calls of the API. Nuclear doesn't hold an excess Energy in itself that humans can liberate without expending more energy liberating it upfront (in our case fossil fuels energy) - having the universe is already running at its maximum Energy-potential. the-fifth-law.com/pages/press-release?vEFCXoITrLA=bohr

[@johndododoe1411]

Sorry, as a software engineer this sounds like confused technobabble rather than solid thinking .

[@jcdisci]

Very bad echo in audio.

[@newstein3636]

Bohr's particle atomic model caused a lot of damage to physics and when Schroedinger brought about the wave model, physicists interpreted his work to match the Bohr model which was obviously needed to be abandoned. This idea is what that led to quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is a pseudoscience which uses the mathematical formula of Schroedinger's wave atom model and uses Bohr model as to describe the atom and the proton electron and neutrons.

[@henriknielsen1662]

@newstein3636: yeah, or President Trump, or something

[@MrKmanrambo]

Quick Question>" Have the family of neutrinos been experimentally proven? Highschool Physics teacher in Australia asking here. Did my undergrad in Astriophysics/Physics we never got all the way to end of the standard model.

[@TheMachian]

That's a long story, parts of which I described in www.amazon.com/gp/product/1492176249. In short, it's better NOT to learn all this stuff...

[@johnm.v709]

Teacher, You may watch this. Spin of Indivisible Particle : kzbin.info/www/bejne/pJ_Op6J_fd-nhtk

[@johnm.v709]

@@TheMachian I like that short part.

[@mathoph26]

Something piss me off about einstein: he discovered basically nothing. He just pumped out very basic formulas from sophisticated theories. For instance obviously Planck said that the energy of light produced by Black body is h f n, then with the Boltzman distribution he gets the irradiance. E = m c^2 is a static invariant of Lorentz theory, so Einstein said "hey ! E = m c^2". He had some very good intuitions but thats it. It is a baby compared to Planck, Sommerfeld, Lorentz, Dirac and so on

[@fritsboer4315]

Was it not Arthur Eddington who said something along the lines of, looking for sub-atomic particles, that if they searched long enough, they would surely find them........

[@sillysad3198]

i am afraid Lombrozo would like to tell us a lot about Bohr

[@stevedriscoll2539]

Shut up and calculate! Is what the gatekeepers say...I will watch more of these good videos

[@EasyThere]

Why don't protons have a shell and states themselves? Bohr's model always seemed unbalanced to me. Everything in the natural world stores + & - charge so why not the atom and solar bodies. Why isn't what most people call a black hole just a positively charged massive body?

[@kzeich]

Louis De B. Is consistently underrated and ignored. It's not his fault he's French

[@TheMachian]

Agree. I do mention his work frequently, though not in this video. Maybe I should have.

[@stormtrooper9404]

He's consistently "forgoten",not because he is french or his contribution were small,but because his most significant work and contributions were in his (rather) early age! After his meteoric ascent in the 1920's,he in a lack of better wording lost his mojo,and have'nt any significant hypothesis/discoveries thereafter. What's even more sympthomatic is that Brogile never cared enough to stand and defend his pilot-wave or at least criticise D.Bohm if he think it was wrong! He went rather unambiguose 50 years,in a best time of modern physics when physicist were making huge steps forward! And (kinda rightly so) he was forgoten along the way....

[@infiniteloops1879]

IHO he is not ignored, he was one of the founding fathers of CERN, and director general.

[@AYAMDASH]

Need a video of Einstein

[@TheMachian]

there are 2 in the playlist

[@normanstewart7130]

The problem is not that "Bohr wasn't always clear", but rather that he was positively obscurantist. Bohr didn't believe in clarity as a value.

[@TheMachian]

No. He really struggled for clarity, at least he believed that :-).

[@normanstewart7130]

@@TheMachian Well he's quoted as saying: "“Accuracy and clarity of statement are mutually exclusive.” and “If you aren’t confused by quantum mechanics, you haven’t really understood it.”

[@rineric3214]

Successful (?) early humans? What constitutes "success" when extinction is a process of LIFE? Everything that ever lived for a minute was successful. Everything becomes extinct eventually. It is replaced by the next paradigm of existence.

[@PeterMilanovski]

Wait wait, so when an electron jumps to a different shell, a photon is released? Where the hell was that photon? It's not in the model of the atom! And I don't believe that it's actually said that it's in the electron or anywhere in the nucleus! So where was it? And on the topic of conservation, in order to achieve conservation you must have a constant! And in my eyes, there can only be 3! The first is space! Because if you are going to have anything, you are going to need somewhere to put it! And space is always constant and therefore conserved! The second is matter! In order to have anything in any given space you need matter! The third is the electric charge! Because where there is mass, there is electric charge! I have no explanation for why yet! But mass is always associated with the electric charge! The two are always together! I don't have any answer for where all 3 properties came from or why they even exist! But they are always constant and conserved! They cannot be destroyed! Even if the universe is ripped open, the space it consumed will still be there, the mass with its associated electric charge will also still exist, if there's any difference in potential of the existence of matter and charge between inside the universe and outside of it, and it's greater inside than out! Then the matter from inside will spread out to equalise to it's new environment! As will the electric charge... All matter has a preferred state of charge, although it's not a constant, it can be higher or lower than it's preferred state and will always seek it. And speaking about preferred states, the photon! What ever it really is, it can't just appear out of nowhere! The model of the atom is incorrect in my eyes! I personally think that there's some confusion to it, I kinda get the feeling that either some or all people think that there is more than one type of charge! Going by the atom model, the proton, neutron and electron appear to have two different types of electric charge! But this is impossible! The positive and negative indicators should only designate the state of charge! And since the proton is labelled as positive, this can't be! The neutron is neutral but that doesn't mean that it doesn't carry a charge! It just means that it's at a state somewhere in between the proton and electron! It's physically impossible for the neutron to not carry a charge, if it doesn't, then it would never have been detected! It wouldn't have the energy to do anything! It can't affect and it can't be affected! And there wouldn't be an explanation for why it's where it is! Without an electric charge, it would be invisible to everything! Just a mass that doesn't attract or be attracted, constantly moving as it can easily enter a shell due to it not been able to be affected until it hits the mass of a proton or electron! So basically if an atom is observed to suddenly change direction or move in a fashion other than what is considered normal and there's no evidence why! Then there's probably a particule that doesn't carry a charge and won't release a photon when a collision takes place... Oh and the proton can't be more positive than the electron! Because nature say's so! Take our planet earth for example! The higher up you go, the higher the state of charge! The deeper into the earth, the lower the state of charge in an atom! You can easily see when you see that Russian experiment where they drilled into the earth, I think that it was around 12km deep, they were pulling up granite from the depths only to see it fall apart, mainstream science would probably call that decay! It looked like it was decaying! But I believe that it was actually suffering the same fate that a deep sea Diver does if he was to arrive at the surface to fast! The granite, just like the deep sea Diver, has been in a low energy state due to begin in an atmosphere of high pressure! The granite would have given up most of it's electric charge under such circumstances and it was held together by the atmosphere that surrounds it! So basically when it's brought up to the surface, it's now in a different atmosphere which has a lot more Electric charge, it appears to be falling apart when in fact it's actually exploding, it's molecules are taking a charge so fast that they litterely launch, I haven't seen it being mentioned anywhere but I believe that the granite would have been getting hot! I also believe that the granite would appear to be radioactive as it's charge hungry atoms are flying out to achieve their preferred state of charge! I mean, if you are using a device that runs on electric charge, you can only measure electric charge! Anyway, that enough ratings from me LoL you thought that Bohr was the only one who thinks deeply and can talk for hours, you haven't sat down with me yet LoL. I have actually sat down and reworked the scientific method with a complete new model, so much simpler than the current one. And I could explain how and why it works possibly in a day! And by the next day you will have made a new discovery using this new method! I'm so confident that I could almost guarantee it! And no matter where you look, and whatever you want to know, be it out into the universe! In a galaxy, in a solar system, in a plant or star, in atomic matter, or even sub atomic! It works everywhere! Wouldn't you just love to know what gravity actually looks like? I mean to be able to actually see it and just know that you are looking at it! I can see it! I have developed a principal that I'm calling the Third Harmonic Principal that explains why everything is the way it is and how it it, and it works on everything! Including and especially with thing's like gravity which is not a physical property! It technically doesn't exist, you can scoop it up in a cup! It's invisible But you can feel it's effect and know that there's something there! But it is possible to see it, you just have to know how to see it... If all that you know is what you have learned from the past, you will never see it! Because you have been litterely taught to not see it! You really have to ask yourself, why is it that when I learn something new, it makes things easier! Except when we are referring to science! The more science you learn, the harder it gets! That's counter intuitive, that's not how nature itself works, that's telling you that something is wrong! When you learn something new, you should be able to apply this new knowledge to existing knowledge and it should simply fit and work! Knowledge should be a progressive experience! It should be easy! But it's not! But I know that it can be, just not the way that it's being done today so I had to develop my own!

[@craigwall9536]

Your problem here is that you don't know shit but you _think_ you do.

[@justinkennedy3004]

@@craigwall9536 you're probably right, but do you think *anyone* knows shit?

[@Tyler11821]

No modern physicist says energy is conserved in this universe. Nor do most physicists think things just because of a cult of personality. The uncertainty in your example is measurable. Claiming you are smarter needs evidence which you give nothing of. Natural philosophy was the origin of physics, but we now have way better methods than opinion.

[@TheMachian]

I don't remember such a claim, naybe you can help me? Natural philosophy is not about "opinion" but about asking fundamental questions about the true laws of nature. Today's paradigm, in contrast, is doing hich-tech sports (experimental particle physics) combined with mindlessly fiddling around with free parameters to describe the outcome (standard model). If you look at history, you'll find that physics has changed a lot in the past century - not all for the better.

[@johnm.v709]

@@TheMachian true

[@reidbarnes5579]

Einstein claimed that the bending of light passing near the Sun, famously measured by Arthur Eddington during a solar eclipse, and also that the precession of the orbit of Mercury around the Sun were due to space-time deformation as characterized by his theory. In essence, he claimed that the explanation for the phenomena is that the geometry near massive objects is not Euclidean. Einstein said that “in the presence of a gravitational field, the geometry is not Euclidean.” But if that non-Euclidean geometry is self-contradicting, then Einstein’s explanation and his theory cannot be correct. On the other hand, this means that it was Einstein, not Bohr, who won that debate in 1930 at the Solvay Congress. See "What if Einstein was wrong about general relativity and right about dice?": facebook.com/notes/reid-barnes/what-if-einstein-was-wrong-about-general-relativity-and-right-about-dice/2062575177128379/

[@johnm.v709]

About dice it's true phenomenon, light bending I have a halt at. But for now I can only offer kzbin.info/www/bejne/pJ_Op6J_fd-nhtk

[@audreydaleski1067]

His disciples lead him in...

[@sathearn]

The assumption that the atomic number corresponds to the number of theoretical particles considered to be identical with the observed particle called a proton is _not_ "one of the most important pieces of mankind's knowledge" - but a demonstrably flawed assumption, no matter how universally believed. Consider some facts. At the time of Rutherford's nuclear hypothesis, there was no justification for assuming that the atomic spacing from crystallography represented the true size of atoms - rather than, say, merely the location of a force equilibrium _between_ atoms, and without any significance regarding "atomic volume". Actually, evidence subsequently accumulated from experiments on the effects of external compression favors the latter alternative, rather than "discrete electron orbits". Rutherford's evidence was equally consistent with the alternative hypothesis that _all_ of the mass of the atom resides in the region he called the "nucleus" - i.e. that the atoms themselves were much smaller than previously thought. The original basis for the inference that electrons are constituents of atoms was in fact beta radioactivity - but today it is universally realized that these electrons are created in the process, not constituents. In the study of ionization it became necessary to assume that at least _some_ ions (i.e. those from the non-ionic compounds) were created in the process of ionization. Therefore it was clearly within the bounds of possibility that _all_ such ions are. Now consider how radically _ad hoc_ was the assumption of a "nuclear force" (to allow protons to coexist in a "nucleus"). It could only be justified on grounds of of necessity. The existence of basic alternatives - as hinted in the foregoing - removes that apparent necessity and thus demolishes the supposed justification. Similarly the neutron was decided to be a constituent of the "nucleus" immediately after it was first discovered. This hasty decision - again without considering basic alternatives - then resulted in a need for a second radically _ad hoc_ assumption: namely, that the neutron - with a half life of around 12 minutes - somehow becomes stable when inside a "nucleus". Neither was the "problem" of electrons spiraling into the "nucleus", a problem for a nuclear-sized atom not constructed of protons and electrons. Bohr's solution to this "problem" is justifiably regarded as brilliant. Unfortunately its very success had the regrettable effect of removing Rutherford's hypothesis from further critical scrutiny. I deliberately (and temporarily) withhold credit for the ideas outlined above in the hope that their substance may be considered.

[@TheMachian]

I don't know what you are critisizing. I am totally with you (probably Bohr, too :-)) that one should consider alternative models of the nucleus. You seem to advocate nuclear electrons - interesting, though they appear to have a problem with the Li spin.

[@sathearn]

​@@TheMachian Sorry if the reasoning I presented was telescoped and hence unclear. The position I am advocating is that _the atom itself_ is of the size associated with the "nucleus"; it has no constituent "parts"; the "atomic dimensions" associated with the spacing in crystals is simply the location of a force equilibrium determined by the attractive and repulsive forces _between_ atoms; and the experimental sub-atomic particles electron, proton and neutron must be sharply distinguished from the hypothetical atomic constituents referred to by the same names. Hence I was disagreeing with the claim that atoms are _known_ to contain as many protons as their atomic number. Considering that at the time of Rutherford's hypothesis the actual atomic dimensions were unknown, hence there was no basis for identifying the region he identified as the "nucleus" of some larger object. nor were electrons known to be atomic constituents, since their production _from_ atoms by various processes is no proof of their status as atomic constituents - for example, they could be created in these processes. The same is true for the other alleged atomic constituents. nor was it known that electrically neutral atoms are neutral because they contain equal numbers of positive and negative charges. Since it had to be accepted that at least _some_ ionic charges are created in the process of ionization, rather than preexisting in neutral matter, it was clearly within the bounds of possibility that _all_ ionic charges are created in the process of ionization. . Therefore in retrospect, there was no valid argument for introducing the _ad hoc_ concept of the strong nuclear force (to overcome the _known_ force of repulsion between experimental protons), or for supposing ad hoc that neutrons, which are _known_ to be unstable, become stable when incorporated in nuclei. These are assumptions of such a nature that they can only be justified on grounds of necessity. They cannot be justified on the grounds that we would like to make certain other unnecessary assumptions about the atomic structure. (Of course, there do exist measurable quantities associated with the "binding energy of the nucleus". Observers in the past, such as Karl Darrow, have recognized that this concept claims more than the facts justify.) I confess that I am not a trained physicist. The arguments I have tried to outline originate with the highly neglected theorist and critic who wrote the memorandum linked here (philpapers.org/rec/LARJHM-3 ) and in greater detail in a book he published in 1963. Having perused many other accounts of the history of the nuclear atom, I am convinced that there was indeed a very serious failure to consider alternatives when putting together the basic concept of the nuclear atom. Although it should now be clear that it wasn't what I was advocating, thanks for bringing up the interesting history of nuclear electrons and their problems - the apparent removal of these problems being the reason that neutrons were so hastily added to the nuclear model when they were discovered in 1932. .

[@johnm.v709]

Here is the particle - in & out of nucleus. kzbin.info/www/bejne/pJ_Op6J_fd-nhtk

[@missbond7345]

@@sathearn Thanks for providing the link and the well written thought. Am no physicist and discovered this channel among a host of others I peruse for the love of knowledge and your comments (& others in this series) seem lucid and stimulating , asking the right questions (which I think Bohr would have appreciated :)) and give ppl like me food for thought. Am going to read the link you posted about the paper from Dewey Larsen. Going back to basics and asking a question seems to be the right approach in any case. And we do miss deep thinkers who can ask questions before delving into Mathematics. At some point we will try to see what we want to see because we are looking for numbers to make that happpen.

[@rgaleny]

DO YOU DARE CIRTIQUE WALTER RUSSELL ?

[@OL9245]

Watch the automatic English subtitle to appreciate how creative is the translation engine. Bohr is correctly spelled only when following his first name. Otherwise, I failed at enumerating the number of proposed spellings of his name. This is hilarious. 😂

[@Strutingeagle]

What do you mean that Einstein found the formula? He found it alright, in a book by someone else.

[@godara2op566]

Exactly

[@PrivateSi]

I totally agree neutrinos are a fudge.

[@charlieruppert1423]

Lol. Unzicker the self-styled historian of truth, falls for one of the biggest scientific myths of all time: That old-man Einstein forgot about relativity in his challenge to Bohr. It was Bohr that dropped the ball here, not Einstein. Refer to Smolin or Adam Becker, who wrote an entire book about it. But really, it’s just common sense.

[@calvinjackson8110]

It seems like your job is making hard working physicists who studied hard and earned PhD and wrote and published many papers in their area, most of which I believe were sincere in their convictions and just tearing them apart. They are dead and gone and cannot defend themselves or contest your opinion of them. Why not let them have the honor that they had and move on to solve problems in physics and mathematics that need solving? What's the point in looking for ways to tear someone down or exposing their human frailties??

[@richardsinger01]

Because if they didn’t get it all right, in order to move on we have to step back from their work and try again. It’s not disrespectful, it’s the way science progresses.

[@uberobserver]

Too bad photons don't actually exist as particulate entities.

[@johnsmith-fr3sx]

The Copenhagen consensus on the interpretation of quantum mechanics is really not such a great achievement in the history of physics. The notion of a magical observer collapsing the wave function is a nonsense cut and paste hack. In this consensus view the observer is an independent entity stapled to the theory almost like an afterthought. But the observer is always entangled with any quantum system, i.e. anything observable, and is part of the universe and not outside it. This consensus opened the door for all sorts of subjectivist trash peddling just like special relativity. The pilot wave interpretation of Luis de Broglie is much more plausible but it sits in the craw of the no absolute frame denying relativist cult, the same one that dosen't even realize that general relativity is not a relational theory but one which throws out subjectivist reference frames in favour of general covariance. The Lorentz transforms do not imply relativity and Poincare's interpretation is superior without any of the logical contradictions euphemistically called paradoxes. Physics went off the rails after 1905 and keeps drifting farther and farther into the sea of speculation. The often claimed experimental validation of this and that is ambiguous and tenuous at best.

[@jonbainmusicvideos8045]

If you reckon Einstein was great, you have been suckered. Google "instant gravity proof".