Understanding Quantum Mechanics #7: Atomic Energy Levels

[@tonyguerich9854]

I can't believe the number of times we still see the old animations of electrons "orbiting" anround the nucleus, often with the comment "like planets around the sun" And often from explainers who surely know better. I could pull my hair out if I had any left. Thanks for your careful explanations

[@DJVARAO]

Electrons inside an atom occupy a standing spherical wave piece-wise exponentially decaying. This is a fair illustration of how it looks like. ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S000926140901015X-gr1.jpg

[@clmasse]

And actually this is true, with a caveat. Remember the states you are presented are but a basis, an actual state is a superposition of them. In particular, some superpositions of states with large enough n and l give a wave packet orbiting around the nucleus, that is, the amplitude of the wave function is appreciable in a small moving region of space. This is the correspondence principle from which Heisenberg, Jordan, and Born deduced their matrices mechanics.

[@ListenToMcMuck]

@@clmasse & imho this won't be the end of the line... or model. I'd love to see an average educated human from about 4000 years in the future taking a look at this state of the art model (8)

[@robrtsparkman9362]

I always thought it funny that the same people would write that particles are point objects of zero size, then, two chapters later tell you that it doesn't make sense to speak of things smaller than the plank length. Also, ditto on the hair thing.

[@manaspradhan8041]

The Bohr atomic model was taught to us throughout freshman and sophomore year in high school and it was only in junior year that we stopped using that model.

[@wholenutsanddonuts5741]

That graph at 5:30 is a brilliant visual way to show that electron “shells” are much more spread out than we’re taught. Thank you!

[@MyKharli]

yes , i feel all the simplified rubbish most have been dealt hasn`t helped at all .

[@EffySalcedo]

👏📉 nice

[@RWin-fp5jn]

Wel actually Sabine was close to making it even much better. At 6:00 into the video Sabine mentions that the wave function avoids divergence for r=0 rather like we see in singularities. Well, let's actually go this path (as per Einstein's equivalence principle). Let's for a moment suggest at the core of EVERY atom there is indeed a micro-singularity. If so, then from academic simulations (Karas, Kapacek e.a. 2012) we next know what happens to straight EM fieldines around rotating micro-singulities; the get bend, folded and this fold next get wrapped in orthogonal spirals with finite windings, the number of which relating to the energy (momentum) involved. At their farthest point (energy wise) these spiral end folds cross the micro event horizon into our ST world where they discharge as a double (a fold always has two intersections) energy charge we observe as 'electron'. After this the EM fielding would unwind and wind up anti clockwise at the other side, causing the next double discharge at the other side of the electron orbit. This is actually photographed at the Max Planck Institute Heidelberg with a He atom. Crucially our oblique view of this wound up spiraled EM fieldline would appear to us as an INTGER or 'quanta' of windings. This provides a perfect explanation for the century old issue of what quanta are. Finally, we should notice that the spiraling of individual fieldines, will cause their orthogonal straight form to contract to provide the material. If we accept that EM fieldlines in their straight orthogonal form are tangible spacetime fieldlines that we now have an explanation for ST contraction caused by atoms; the oscillating 'quantized EM spirals' always cause a net shrinkage of the orthogonal ST fielding. leading to the sensation we call 'gravity'. As such we may notice the the spin 1/2 of the electron will appear spin 1: 1/2 =spin 2 form this orthogonal ST contraction viewpoint. Graviton anyone? It would appear with all these pieces of the puzzle coming together that indeed this is the tangible physical setup that belongs to the mathematical description of this video...

[@wholenutsanddonuts5741]

@@RWin-fp5jn woah!! That’s a bit mind melting. Thanks for the references. I need to look Into this!

[@wiwaxiasilver827]

Yeah, I really wanted to understand this, so I plotted the equation on desmos with manipulable quantum numbers. The next step I’m trying to take is making it 3D.

[@gustavoaroeira7329]

I love this video as I am a graduate student in Quantum Chemistry! Quantum mechanics allows chemists to simulate reactions mechanisms and compute properties such as free energy, enthalpy, entropy, equilibrium constants, etc. Due to difficulty of running precise computations, only recently, with the improvement of our approximations, traditional experimental chemists started to be interested on what quantum chemistry can offer.

[@AndrewBlucher]

This is how to communicate science. By explicitly stating the simplifications you enable the student to a) understand the limit of their new knowledge, and b) know what to study to extend that knowledge. Well done Sabine, as always.

[@x_abyss]

Fantastic! I can't tell you how long I've waited for such a video that relates Schrödinger's equation with spherical harmonics to explaining bulk plasma resonance with GR. Thank you Sabine.

[@mikemackie8158]

Loved the video Sabine. Especially the part when you said "I love it because it never would have occurred to me". We're all approaching the topic from a different levels of understanding and you nail the delivery 💛

[@clermeil]

These videos are my favorite part of Saturday morning! (East coast US)

[@jonashartmann6687]

I just want to add that calculating properties of molecules has gotten so important that nearly every chemistry phd student has to do it at least once during their studies. Even if they are experimentalists

[@SabineHossenfelder]

That's interesting; I had no idea!

[@aniksamiurrahman6365]

This is where I really wish if P were equal to NP or if we had Quantum Computers!

[@aniksamiurrahman6365]

@Wacky Venky Well, I wish. Cuz we're not gonna get a good enough Quantum Computer anytime soon. I don't have a hope to see that in my lifetime.

[@pilliozoltan6918]

The quality of the calculations for useful systems increased drastically in the last 20 years. Experimentalists didn't care about 10 atoms systems most of the time. But now, you can reproduce the measurements for 10-100 atom systems of NMR, IR, X-ray spectroscopy, even if there's a few heavy elements. And that's not just interesting, it's really important. These spectroscopies are used to identify or verify products. If you know the true spectrum, that's easy, but figuring out the structure from spectrum is complicated, mostly were done by a specialist. 20 years before accessing to spectrums were expensive, or impossible if nobody measured that. Now you can simulate a lot of things on a desktop with a GPU.

[@gustavoaroeira7329]

@Science Revolution seriously? The foundation of chemistry (atomic and molecular structure) is probably the most understood part of physics. If you really do your homework you find explanation for all these questions. Even experiments. You need to go back to middle school science and carefully study atomic models. I hate to be that guy and say "you need to study" but yeah you do need. The questions are valid, but believing the whole chemistry and physics is wrong because of them is delusional.

[@jonahansen]

Thanks Sabine, that was great. I took Physical Chemistry 50 years ago, so I'm not totally lost, but it sure brought out how much I've forgotten.

[@michaelblacktree]

Back in high school, they taught the "planetary" atomic model. That was in the 1980s. But even then, the quantum model was already ubiquitous. I didn't learn about the quantum model until many years later. I feel like I missed out.

[@danielarcher369]

trust me you did not, since both are wrong and/or not the complete picture.

[@RWin-fp5jn]

Indeed. You missed nothing. Physicists did not progress. They refuse to admit atoms are nothing but oscillating Tiny Kerr singularisties, with the ISCO defining te minimal orbital distance for individual ME fieldlines to get wrapped around...

[@RWin-fp5jn]

@M Bacon Sorry bacon. Just like your face diaper; you are quite unaware of the actual science behind it.

[@seetheious9879]

The visualizations are very helpful, the explanation clear and concise, mentioning the complications and what issues arise makes it more interesting. Great video.

[@ramuthra1]

Sabine, I want to say a massive thank you. Thank you for having a healthy respect for the intelligence and curiosity of your audience. Thank you for not dumbing your explanations down to the point they're inaccurate. And thank you for taking a stand to fight against the shameful amount of BS and pseudoscience that exists online. You get straight to the point and I come away feeling like I've actually LEARNT something - it's a breath of fresh air, and as I hope I've made clear already; I can't thank you enough.

[@RWin-fp5jn]

This is a great video, explaining in clear terms the mathematical description of the atom orbiting electron in its various states. But Sabine was close to making it even much better. At 6:00 into the video Sabine mentions that the wave function avoids divergence for r=0 rather like we see in singularities. Well, let's actually go this path (as per Einstein's equivalence principle). Let's for a moment suggest at the core of EVERY atom there is indeed a micro-singularity. If so, then from academic simulations (Karas, Kapacek e.a. 2012) we next know what happens to straight EM fieldines around rotating micro-singulities; they get bend, folded and this fold next get wrapped in orthogonal spirals with finite windings, the number of which relating to the energy (momentum) involved. At their farthest point (energy wise) these spiral end folds cross the micro event horizon into our ST world where they discharge as a double (a fold always has two intersections) energy charge we observe as 'electron'. After this the EM fieldline would unwind and wind up anti-clockwise at the other side, causing the next double discharge at the other side of the electron orbit. This is actually photographed at the Max Planck Institute Heidelberg with a He atom. Crucially our oblique view of this wound up spiraled EM fieldline would appear to us as an INTEGER or 'quanta' of windings. This provides a perfect explanation for the century old issue of what quanta are. Finally, we should notice that the spiraling of individual fieldines, will cause their orthogonal straight form to contract to provide the material. If we accept that EM fieldlines in their straight orthogonal form are tangible spacetime fieldlines than we now have an explanation for ST contraction caused by atoms; the oscillating 'quantized EM spirals' always cause a net shrinkage of the orthogonal ST fielding. leading to the sensation we call 'gravity'. As such we may notice the spin 1/2 of the electron will appear spin 1: 1/2 =spin 2 from this orthogonal ST contraction viewpoint. Graviton anyone? It would appear with all these pieces of the puzzle coming together that indeed this is the tangible physical setup that belongs to the mathematical description of this video...

[@wuodanstrasse5631]

Mr. Win: Thank you very much for your knowledgeable comments above. It is more appreciated than you might realize.

[@EventHorizon618]

Great visualisations of the Schrödinger equation. Thank you

[@bozo5632]

Thank you for the 3D representation. I had always wondered... and mostly still do, but that was helpful.

[@alphalunamare]

Those were 2D representations as a Chemist would see them in The Real Plane. A Physicist would prefer the 3D representation involving the complex axis as well. Seeing where the 'electron' might be measured is truly more interesting in 3D :-)

[@alphalunamare]

This is worth a view kzbin.info/www/bejne/eqe1q5d5o9icj9k

[@matthewsmith1779]

Best channel on KZbin.

[@johntavers6878]

I like Closer to Truth better because it discusses philosophy of mathematics

[@matthewsmith1779]

@@johntavers6878 Never heard of him. I'll check it out.

[@jessedaas6365]

Agreed! Though I must say it is shared with kurzgesagt

[@trevorgwelch7412]

I'm addicted to Quantum Theory . Excellent Professor , God Bless and Thank You . 💖

[@armandos.rodriguez6608]

Excellent picture as the real operations of scientific theory,like watching a car being built in a manufacturing plant versus seeing the same car at a dealers lot,fab.Thanks Again We used to see in the Wizard of Oz,his thundering voice,and you are the person who is revea ling the Wizard as just a plain person hiding behind the curtain,thanks for pulling the mystery of Science into the light of day from that old Science Magic.Great stuff.

[@FreshBeatles]

THANK YOU SO MUCH SABINE

[@zecarlosparahyba7498]

Grüße aus Brasilien. Ich empfehle meinen Studierenden deine videos. Einfach superb. Vielen Dank!

[@shubhsrivastava4417]

7:56 "Calculating atomic energy levels was a frontier research a century ago. Now, it's just a practice for Physics students" This fact in itself tells about the great advancements in science and technology we have had in the past century. It's Great! 👍🏻

[@lepidoptera9337]

Sounds great, until you try that trick and you notice that it's actually not that simple. It's still not a homework exercise for physics students. :-)

[@stanlibuda96]

Sabine, thank you so much for your incredible videos. Clearing the fog about a lot of things I am not able to understand and evaluate myself. If you have a teaching position, your students are very lucky. If not - shame on the university system.

[@tvit]

I'm so glad to find Sabine creating this video, as I've searched visual aids about the "true orbitals" long time, and this video is a great start for me to understand the behavior of the atoms. (Also, The Science Asulym posted similar video, about the dynamics of the orbitals. Is it a coincidence?) My hope is to find a time-based animation of few orbitals, maybe even during some chemical process. I don't know if they exist, as I'm not that educated about the subject.

[@peanut71968]

So well explained. I truly don’t have a clue. Given the complexity of our known “world”, we have a loooooooooooong way to go before we can begin understanding what we’re really have to work with! Cheers, Doctor.

[@hcoagency9122]

The visuals are very helpful, they really helped me get a very basic understanding of how it all works.

[@aaltimimy]

Dear Sabi, Schroeder equation is a way to explain how the wave function behaves, but it's solutions acts as quantum exchange of energy. While no expression found to explain the paths of electron jumps from one level to another in atom. If we say that no paths because electron is somewhere, that is nonsense. I think solutions may be found in hidden variables, may be or may be not of Boehm mechanics interpretation.

[@seionne85]

Your student was so smart! I'm not sure if you were joking there or not but either way, you regularly make me laugh. Thank you for all you do sabine! ❤❤

[@KeithCooper-Albuquerque]

Another great video Sabine! Great outfit too!

[@StiloNautica]

Thank you Sabine!

[@nigeldepledge3790]

I've never tried any of these actual calculations myself. But, when I was doing a third-year chemistry course (many years ago), the moment the lecturer mentioned ab initio molecular orbital calculations, those who already knew the term seemed to share a collective "oh, no..." moment.

[@juanvia8394]

Brillant you. That was incredible. A forbidden arcane given to the masses of -perhaps not too much- ignorant common people like me.

[@orri93]

Thank you for a wonderful explanations of the e- orbitals

[@sevhenry]

An electron in a stable state around the nucleus of an atom forms around it an approximative Bessel’s spherical or ellipsoidal stationary wave (various modes), and progressive, rotating around an axis. From the point of view of quantum mechanics, this train of waves has neither beginning nor end. He is biting his own tail. For this reason, the associated energy level is very precise.

[@Dasha-lr4mv]

Finally getting the answers to some of the questions I've had so long! :D

[@hypegt6885]

Loved this! Thanks Sabine, (second).

[@adonistopofmen2571]

Great explanations ...

[@marccox8977]

TY Sabine - excellent answers to questions that I've been curious about for years ! ( and was about to recreate the wheel for some parts of - and may yet 😊 ) And Re: Q:Why (re)calculate equations we already know the answers to ? I think substitute "calculate" for "create" in Feynman's quote below also answers that question here >> "What I cannot create, I do not understand." - Richard Feynman

[@stanleyniezrecki2469]

How long will electrons stay in a given energy level? What causes electrons to drop back down to lower energy levels?

[@SabineHossenfelder]

Entropy increase, basically. They will drop if they can. (The can't if the level is occupied.) Probability depends on the temperature.

[@Bassotronics]

The irony of needing to make a quantum computer is to understand it’s own quantum behavior.

[@alienzenx]

Not really irony, but logical. In a sense the universe is a quantum computer I guess, so it just follows naturally that you need a quantum computer to simulate it.

[@giordanobruno5650]

@@alienzenx Es ist sinnlos dass ein Quantencomputer einen Quantencomputer simuliert. So sinnlos sind auch alle eure Wertungen der Realität.

[@alienzenx]

@@giordanobruno5650 Wow. Where did that come from? lol

[@ianmackenzie212]

Love seeing your videos pop up in my feed

[@Thomas-gk42]

Thanks for a great education. Very helpful

[@caseytailfly]

Amazing video, love the visuals of the solutions! 🤩

[@miguelgonzalezperez4832]

Very good introduction the atomic problem from a quantum perspective.

[@41alone]

I'm a little thick, so I'veve got to listen a second time.

[@DukeEllision329]

Dummy thick

[@MichelleHell]

That's what makes a smart person smart. When you get it, it will be a concrete fundamental understanding that holds true throughout your life.

[@nfarnell1]

I am putting the video in a loop, might have to learn QM to know when I probably understand it!

[@cameronlakeview7068]

Yeah, me too.. I actually think the second time is much more important than the first, first a broad exposure to the ideas, second make sense of all the stuff.. even with good material such as this..

[@anteconfig5391]

@@nfarnell1 ok so I think I finally get it. First: quantum mechanics is weird. At first glance, to me, it just reminds me of math. What I mean is quantum mechanics says energy comes in tiny indivisible discrete chunks that we call quanta. It also says that all things behave like particles _and_ waves. Now imagine taking one of these particles and confining it. (Lets think 1-dimensionally so the particle has only 1 degree of freedom, forward and backwards). So this particle is in between two points on a line, probabilistically, essentially bouncing off from wall to wall like a beam of light. I watched these videos, old videos probably recorded in the 70's, here on youtube and these dudes talk about how the laser works and simple harmonic motion...anyways I think that's how it works. In this video she explains _that..._ only the particles here are electrons and the cavity they're confined by is the charge of the nucleus and it's all happening 3-dimensionally. _And_ in the circles 6:15 what I think we are seeing is a cross-section of this confined space passing from one side of the sphere through the core(nucleus) and out the other side.

[@davidcampos1463]

I had not heard your description of the nucleus before. I pictured the one found in standard chemistry.

[@martifingers]

A great lesson in being taught precisely what it is I don't know. The complete opposite of dumbed down.

[@billhong4216]

Dr. Hossenfelder, thanks for your good explanation about the subject. However, the layman, like myself, still don't understand what the shown exhibits are all about. It would be good if you could point to the exhibits on that wall and explain what the dark and bright patches really are. Why are there different patterns? what is causing the different patterns? If the electrons are actually not circulating the nucleus then what is the electron actually doing? they exist in a probability state defined by the wave function? The question remains that if the electrons are not circulating, then what is their form of existence around the nucleus?

[@jeremiahcouture8750]

Id like to see if rigging up several chladni plates in a geometric pattern combining different frequencies to make things out of thin air isn't too far off of plausible

[@MattHare]

Thank you for your content. It's extremely interesting and informative.

[@etta6972]

Thanks, I learned a lot from this video. You're a role model for me :)

[@dwinsemius]

Materials science, i.e the behavior of electrons vibrating around multiple nuclei, is endlessly fascinating. It doesn't get enough respect in the press.

[@russchadwell]

Thank you! Very nice.

[@scottdc2105]

I always enjoy watching your videos, they are well put together and informative. I have a question concerning quantum gravity. Since an atom exists at the quantum level and ive discovered a mechanism that explains gravity for a single atom can i call it a theory of quantum gravity?

[@nealemcconnell7027]

Dear Sabine your the best educator & presenter just one question What are you going to name the baby ?

[@whatitmeans]

The shapes shown for the orbitals are absurdly similar to Laguerre-Gaussian and Hermite-Gaussian laser modes, which can be easily and cheaply made with LCD displays proyecting thin holograms masks (fork-like sinusoidal patterns).

[@bogdanbaudis4099]

The moment I hear "slow moving particle" is the one where am I am immediately being jolted back to the reality where we know that there is sound connection between quantum mechanics and relativity! BTW: at the microscopic scales there should be no "particles" but waves of field and nothing should "moving" Ok, I know, I am supposed to supt and start computing/calculating ...

[@mimzim7141]

how do special directions appear in the non spherical solution? The orginal equation has spherical symmetry, no? Do you need to introduce an arbitrary coordinated system and thereby choose some special directions?

[@einsteindrieu]

I Like what you said at the end Sabine !!! 💙😎

[@karekarenohay4432]

I would like to see the lobular tridimensional shape of the orbitals. It is so strange and counter-intuitive to see how the electrons distribute themselves in separate "probability clouds" around the nucleus instead orbits with a definite trajectory...

[@jagatiello6900]

Fun fact, one of the most popular records of Spanish musician Joaquin Sabina it's called 'Fisica y Quimica' (Physics & Chemistry), a phrase which was inspired by a famous sentence said by the Spanish Physician Severo Ochoa who said textually that "Love is physics and chemistry".

[@DJVARAO]

I can believe Sabina did it, he ruins everything.😁

[@martypoll]

Great lecture on what might appear to be common knowledge.

[@LQhristian]

Great video Sabine!!!

[@Mostafa-jf4nr]

Can you please do a video on the quantum bubble

[@noeckel]

The probability density plots show slices through the atom, but the plots for m=+-1 are mislabeled. The plots show superpositions of electron waves in which m=+1 and m=-1 are present as equal admixtures, that's why there are wave nodes resulting from destructive interference of the electron circulating in both direction at the same time. If you'd like to see what these clouds look like for pure m=1 states in three dimensions, here are some examples that also show the relative sizes: mathematica.stackexchange.com/a/75535/245

[@temizdunya]

A simple question. Where it comes the energy of quarks? Or if they produce their own energy than how? We know plants produce their own energy. Use sun light (photon) to produce sugar.

[@Handelsbilanzdefizit]

Superb explaination. But can you also use the Schrödingerequation to calculate decay-probability of a nucleus? And the next thing that I don't "fully" understand, is entanglement. Can you only entangle same attributes of same particles (the polarization of two photons)? Or can you "cross-entangle" different particles and their attributes? For example, Photon-Polarization Electron-Spin, or Electron Spin nucleus decay, and so on.

[@alienzenx]

The probability for a nucleus to decay into what? Nucleons in the nucleus also occupy shells analogous to electron orbitals, and they can be excited and decay to lower energy levels. If you are talking about Neutrons decaying to protons and vice versa, then you need quantum field theory for that. If you are talking about alpha decay, then you just need to know the probability of two protons and neutrons in the nucleus forming a helium nucleus and tunneling out of the nucleus....so yes I guess?

[@SciPunk215]

This was great !

[@AD-zo5vp]

Neat! Have been missing 2 terms: Eigenfunction and basis set. When calculating the fall of an object we also always calculate the "same" equation. But when weight, height or wind change we have to calculate again ... baffling!

[@artessence2024]

Thx for very brilliant Vid. Yes, I suspected for a long time that there isn't really matter. All is made of vibrations, interference, fields and processes ...

[@solapowsj25]

Free space is an ocean of fluid (Aether) balls or photons that move and interact at 'c'. Here shown are 'wells' that trap these photons and are called Dalton Atoms with their shell and nucleus.

[@thirstfast1025]

I saw these on PTable.com (electrons tab). Very comprehensive resource.

[@Michael-mf7tq]

Dear Sabine, I would be very excited to see a video from you on the following citation from Weinberg: Steinberg, who has had “a seeming obsession” with the tunneling-time question since he was a graduate student in the 1990s, explained that the trouble stems from the peculiar nature of time. Objects have certain characteristics, like mass or location. But they don’t have an intrinsic “time” that we can measure directly. “I can ask you, ‘What is the position of the baseball?’ but it makes no sense to ask, ‘What is the time of the baseball?’” Steinberg said. “The time is not a property any particle possesses.” Instead, we track other changes in the world, such as ticks of clocks (which are ultimately changes in position), and call these increments of time. But in the tunneling scenario, there’s no clock inside the particle itself. So what changes should be tracked? Physicists have found no end of possible proxies for tunneling time. All your videos are wonderful and inspiring.

[@clmasse]

Time is for events, not objects. So is space too.

[@Mikey-mike]

Awesome, Sabine. Good one.

[@gyro5d]

Resembles electron probability patterns, hyperboloids, vortexes and toruses. The shapes of Aether.

[@alexandernichols413]

Great video! Stay safe Sabine.

[@mojtabajohnny1614]

Well done !

[@johnfoe3574]

Amazing. Magic was involved in creation of this video.

[@matthewalan59]

Thank you.

[@arturtrzcinski1027]

didn't see all that math below you that you were pointing because I watch youtube with subtitles :< great video tho

[@aruneelakkham5898]

Thank you very much. I really need this.

[@rainaldkoch9093]

The simplification at 8:42 could be stated more drastic: "We solved the equation for just one electron."

[@Petrov3434]

Outstanding !!!

[@ominollo]

Thanks Sabine! Extending on the subject, do you plan to release an episode on DFT (density functional theory) too? I would be very much interested 🙂

[@fernandojackson7207]

How can you tell at the scale, size of the nucleus, that it's not a perfect sphere? Isn't it essentially like a point?

[@clmasse]

The electrons don't fall on the nucleus because of Pauli's exclusion principle, otherwise all the electrons would be in the same 1S state, and the atom would be very small. An 1S electron is an electron put to rest, that is, fallen on the nucleus. Then nothing to do with the Schrödinger equation, the electrons would behave like orbiting planets without this principle, modulo the discretisation of energy which is not essential.

[@DarthCalculus]

I love this video! Very helpful

[@_vicary]

Isn’t it weird, that the wave feature of particles almost like they are designed to work around a quantised spacetime. Such that it can largely interacts with each other like particles even if there are a minimal time unit (plank time). It’s almost like how computer simulations work, the constant fear of too few frames that skipped some particle interactions in-between.

[@videoinformer]

It appears every orbital other than spherically shaped has to be oriented in space, but it would also seem this orientation itself would be random for an isolated atom and no magnetic field, with equal probability for any orientation, making the "net" probability spherical regardless of the orbital shapes and obliterating the meaningfulness of the shapes. Is there a single "correct" orientation in space?

[@clmasse]

It's like planets orbiting the sun, but with very different quantum numbers, namely, small n and l. In both cases it is a law in 1/r², that's why it's called the Kepler problem.

[@andrewroberthook3310]

Very interesting

[@kadourimdou43]

How do all the Electrons in the Universe "know" what Quantum energy state the other Electrons are in. It's something to do with the Pauli Exclusion Principle or something like that. Brian Cox mentioned it at the end of that BBC lecture.

[@DJVARAO]

Why do they need to "know"? The Coulomb interaction quickly decays and that's the only one you need for determining the electronic states inside an atom.

[@kadourimdou43]

@@DJVARAO kzbin.info/www/bejne/d4S9iJianriZirc ⬆️ Is there a deeper reason than just saying Pauli Exclusion Principle And how does it effect the entire Universe.

[@alienzenx]

@@kadourimdou43 The "deeper reason" is simply the symmetry of the wavefunction. For fermions it's antisymmetric. This means that if you superimpose the wavefunctions of two particles in exactly the same state onto each other, they cancel out. Since the wavefunction describes the probability of measuring a particle in a particular state, then you get that the probability of measuring two particles in the same state as zero. If you want to understand why the wavefunction is antisymmetric, then you can broadly understand as follows: if you swap two particles with each other then swap them back again then you have to get the same thing you started with right? Mathematically there is only 2 ways this can be done. Firstly: the wavefunction stays the same when you swap them. This should be fairly obvious. Secondly: you multiply by -1 when you swap them. This means when you swap them twice, you get (-1)² which is 1. This is the solution you get for fermions. Hence the wavefunctions of two particles with exactly the same quantum numbers exactly cancel out. If they have different quantum numbers then they won't.

[@tezlashock]

The more electrons, the more energy lost to kinetic energy due to uncertainty. Electrons should wiggle nucleus the more electrons there are?

[@TIO540S1]

What do phrases such as “the place where you’re most likely to find the electron” or “the probability of finding the electron at ...” actually mean? One doesn’t actually “find” the electron and, as I understand it, the electron has no precise location. My question is complicated, but I hope you get the gist of it.

[@TerryBollinger]

"...something similar can avoid ... a singularity ... in black holes. Please check the information below the video for a reference". An intriguing comment, but I was unable to find a link or reference?...

[@SabineHossenfelder]

Gosh, I forgot about this. Sorry! The reference is here: journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.91.125028

[@johncommers9597]

Sabine, I am a true novice. I want to appreciate and understand Physics would you recommend a good introductory text for me to begin with? I am not very strong in mathematics but I am motivated to work at it. Thank you Sabine!

[@clmasse]

Any of the standard physics courses of Berkeley, Alonso and Finn, or even Feynman etc. are fit. They are of the college level with elementary mathematics. For quantum mechanics, I rather recommend Berkeley.

[@johncommers9597]

@@clmasse thank you sir, I will avail myself of the resources you have outlined.

[@Almeida19001]

Hello Sabine, could you make a video on the Hartmann effect and how do you interpret superluminal tunneling ? thanks

[@Jkauppa]

you did not mention how well the model explains what is actually happening

[@Matt33318]

Let me ask something, in an atomic nuclei, for example in a proton, does gluon (which keeps the quarks inside the proton) or the higgs bozon are responsible for the energy state of the proton? What happens in a Bose Einstein condensate, at nearly 0K with the energy state? Will it become nearly 0 too? Is it possible to measure it?

[@SabineHossenfelder]

I don't know what you mean by "energy state of the proton". In any case, I have explained here what generates the mass atoms backreaction.blogspot.com/2015/08/the-origin-of-mass-or-pions-pr-problem.html

[@Matt33318]

@@SabineHossenfelder In the quark gluon plasma, quarks are moving with nearly the speed of light. Are their movement slow down at nearly 0K?

[@SabineHossenfelder]

@@Matt33318 I don't know what temperature you are talking about. Temperature is not a quantity that makes sense for single particles.

[@Matt33318]

@@SabineHossenfelder ok, never mind Anyway, I will look after it more in detail, I will do my own research on it, and try to take up the question in an understandable way for you. I read about particle physics and quantum physics years ago, I found them interesting and a lot of unique and crazy questions formulated in me, I should refresh my thoughts about them. :)

[@clmasse]

The mass of the proton is a very difficult problem because the strong interaction (chromo dynamics) is nonlinear. The calculation is made numerically on a lattice, and we can't speak about a state. The Higgs boson gives mass to the constituent quarks, but it is marginal. An example of a Bose-Einstein condensate near 0 K is a laser ray. There is then a single state for all the photons (third principle of thermodynamics.) . We can loosely define a temperature for a system with several particles, but not so much. But a quark-gluon plasma is at a high temperature, it is produced in relativistic energy collisions of heavy ions (or atoms.) At 0 K, or for a nucleus in its ground state, the quarks are confined in the nucleons (to the best of our knowledge, they don't wear a mask.)

[@mineduck3050]

If you look at the plots, they do resemble the sand formations on vibrating metal seen in cymatic research. Do you feel there could be a correlation?

[@mineduck3050]

Atomic and black hole connections are great discoveries.

[@ericfern8869]

Why not avoid the term 'orbital' altogether? Call it the "shimmer zone," for the whitish/reddish parts of your graphics, the places where the electrons are most likely to be found.

[@eliyasne9695]

A long time ago i watched a video explaining the principals lasers are based on. In that video it was said that electrons that transition to to a lower energy level by emiting a photon immediately "teleport" there. Its rather wiered because the energy levels are actually somewhat overlapping zones, so it doesn't seem like a change in location is needed to change the energy level. My question is whether or not the electron needs to change its location to change energy levels or only other properties like momentum.

[@clmasse]

It is an outdated picture (1925). During the transition, the state is a superposition of the initial and the final state. There is no intermediary state, but there do exist a mixed state. The superposition of the two states creates beats whose frequency is precisely the frequency of the photon, that is, the difference of frequency between the two states. In, QM the frequency is the same as the energy for a single particle.

[@eliyasne9695]

@@clmasse Thanks!

[@alienzenx]

@@clmasse You are talking about the time dependent oscillation of the probability density in a two level energy system with a frequency equal to the frequency(energy) difference between the two levels? How does this relate to the emission of a photon?