What Does An Atom REALLY Look Like?

[@AydinTebyanian]

The only channel where you come in with one question, and leave with 47 other questions and maybe 5 answers. love it

[@Marc-mp6lf]

That's science

[@sumerianannunaki5957]

As it should be, ha!

[@tcpip4me]

Especially 5 answers, to things you did not know you didn’t know

[@ashroskell]

I left with 42 questions . . . 42 Precisely . . . Maybe there’s something in that? 🤔 . . . 😉

[@captainobvious1252]

There’s more channels like that.

[@Hardzinho_Yay]

People get confused with one thing, we can't see atoms not because we don't have enough technology or understanding of what a atom is. Is just because "to see" has no meaning at all in the scale of atoms. Is just like trying to figure out what is portraited in a picture throwing cannon balls at it. But we are not limited to vision that is why mathematics is so important, we can "see" things mathematically infinitely times better than with our eyes. For exemple, most part of the computer/smartphone you are using to read this coment isn't possible to be made or make sense looking at it piece by piece, but we can make sense of it with mathematics. Quantum mechanics looks weird when we try to make sense of it with our senses, mathematically it is beatiful (I find it beatiful at least). Mathematics is our new eye, our senses that opens our mind to a much bigger and fuller world.

[@ScienceAsylum]

Exactly this.

[@wonhyeukjung3521]

I wish I could like this comment twice thank you for your brilliant input.

[@reiniervanleeuwen9815]

Yeah sure this is correct.. But still, its a mystery. It can not be compared to a computer with ones and zero turning into images. Just because us building a computer, is using atoms in a way we can explain. Computers are actually very simple, so is everything we created from atoms. Yes, you do need the knowledge. But atoms we still can not explain, same goes for energy in atoms. What you are saying is just a psychological comparison. It does not explain anything. And also, we define maths, we did not create it.

[@Hardzinho_Yay]

@@reiniervanleeuwen9815 The standard model, quantum chrodynamics and eletrodynamics is impressively accurate modeling atoms and molecules (as far as computation power is enough for the complexity of the molecule) off course is not 100% accurate because that is proved to be impossible but every simple model of the eletronsphere of a atom made by computer using quantum mechanics is much more detailed and represents better the experiments results than if we could "see" it with an microscope.

[@sarai9102]

Renato Cara daaammmnnnn... you have sent me down a rabbit hole. Lol. 😫 🧐 I’m not well versed in this at all but I understand intuitively... So what you’re suggesting is that we have only seen the RESULT of the atoms “form” and “behavior” AFTER whatever method they use to see it, not the actual form/ behavior? My mind is blown. I’m gonna go in a corner and lay in a fetal position and meditate on this now. 🤯🤭🤔😮😯

[@jason-pacini]

This video explains the general concepts better than any of my teachers in my four year physics degree.

[@raviverma8479]

You learn these things in a 4 year physics degree???

[@knightofcydonia1192]

@@raviverma8479 -general concepts-

[@Amanda_Evangelista]

I totally agree with you!

[@knightofcydonia1192]

Just realized my comment looks hostile, I was meaning its a lot more than general concepts if you ask me.

[@derekl3108]

I'm confused, the electron is probably here or there but it's still somewhere so why doesn't it loose energy?

[@neverarguewithan18wheeler10]

Think about this: you're a bunch of atoms, watching an atom screen of atoms listening to a bunch of atoms tell you about atoms

[@sumeunggai5665]

None of which can actually be modeled or predicted as we are the existential result of probability wave functions. Blinking in an out of space at all times.

[@davidprime6080]

I'm eating an atom burger and atom fries while I watch

[@medurseshuswaminathan8098]

100% true. As a note we can infer a round plate rotating when the fan in full swing. The faster the movement of atoms Me and you are seen static and in a form as structure. May be the movement of atoms are waves as shown.. just fishing...

[@tprnbs]

"A physicist is just an atom's way of looking at itself." - Neils Bohr

[@NoLongerNull]

yes

[@lisawyse1182]

Oh my goodness! I am almost certain you were my Electricity and Magnetism professor in college. I want to let you know that you were the best professor I had in college. I am now a high school science teacher and I often look back on your teaching style for inspiration. I found your colored handouts, the way you broke down the notes into easy to follow examples, and demonstrations to make even the most difficult concepts easy to understand. You are 1 of the teachers in my life that really made a lasting difference. So thank you. I am happy to see you and your channel are doing so well.

[@ScienceAsylum]

Hi Lisa! Yes, I was your professor. I'm glad to hear you're doing well 🙂 Thanks for letting me know I had an impact. As a teacher, you usually don't get to see or hear from students after they leave your class, so you don't know if what you did made a difference.

[@asutoshghanto3419]

@@ScienceAsylum where do you teach?

[@Red-Brick-Dream]

omg this is so cool! Bless you, Nick, for inspiring students and teachers alike!

[@poopinbabe8972]

Omg

[@dtmty]

@@ScienceAsylum from other part (mexico) of the spaceship (earth), I wish to say would love have the posibility to be in their future recording video classes, would be fantastic to catch the sense to have a great teacher as master who persuits you for the good questions. wish to include in my roadtrip by US the stop at your recording channel, would be a happy volunteer

[@j4c3kp]

Dude, you've explained basics of QM in less than 10 minutes. I didn't think it's possible. But on the other hand - in QM almost everything is possible, just unlikely.

[@AnthonyShuker]

@Radioactive Light no, the longer time goes on, the likelier something is

[@atomicnumber202]

@Radioactive Light what

[@Yeetntx]

yes even teleportation is created

[@Yeetntx]

so is crystals oscillating in time

[@MrTej780]

I basically never comment, but this video deserves it. As a Masters student in Physics, I can say this video was very succinct, coherent and good at explaining some very difficult concepts without needing to dumb things down. A job well done, perhaps one of the best videos yet. Stay crazy

[@bxyhxyh]

Oh that's why I couldn't fully understand it.

[@MrTej780]

bxyhxyh pretty much

[@Krish-jm6ve]

If we (matter) are at sub atomic level mainly a probability function Then there is a good probability that I watched this video. (Where am i). But you can't predict at what speed I am travelling at (how fast am I ) .... mind blown😳

[@ScienceAsylum]

XKCD just did a comic about this: xkcd.com/1861/

[@ScienceAsylum]

MrTej780: Thanks! Succinct without dumbing things down is always my goal. I'm tired of educators spouting BS explanations. Accuracy first... _then_ clarity.

[@NPC-kv6ee]

quantum physics is basically "well yes but actually no"

[@ScienceAsylum]

Pretty much, yeah.

[@duprie37]

If you look it could be "yes", or it could be "no", but when you're not peeking, mostly it's just "probably".

[@ivanroman8914]

it's actually wave worse

[@paultonge6513]

Probably

[@cinamontoast2555]

No=yes=no and so on

[@aspieatheist6040]

"If you say you understand quantum mechanics, then you don't understand quantum mechanics". -Richard Feynman

[@guitygro1138]

Joseph Bailey Quantum mechanics is like trying to explain that the sun revolves around the earth or that the earth is flat and not a sphere. Every time there’s a problem with a theory, a new theory is invented to explain away the flaws of the previous one.

[@dougharmon7462]

I been studying Quantum mechanics for 14 years now and I still don't understand it. that's why I'm watching this video.. lol.. I'm hoping someone can get it through my thick skull... this was a great video I must say..

[@A_Box]

It's not that every bit of quantum mechanics is hard to understand, what is hard to explain everything in the theory. For example: electrons are allowed to only have certain energy values is easy, explaining what the Hamiltonian is and why it is an operator in Hilbert space is much more difficult.

[@ShauryaSingh-ts2oc]

And if I say I do not understand quantum mechanics?

[@lukascerdenia8156]

@@ShauryaSingh-ts2oc then perhaps you understand quantum mechanics! lol!

[@kugaththeplaguefather6332]

When you realize everything you have learned in KZbin is a simplification and SERIOUS physics requires intense and complex mathematics.

[@ScienceAsylum]

Yup.

[@hatoftricks7132]

When years of education is rekt by an 8 minute video

[@marjohngmoggy5281]

My years of education (as a physicist) has just wrecked this video.

[@emettroll6911]

You had 99 likes, I was the 100th XD But seriously, I can relate =3

[@josephhollandpontes1030]

8 minute old!

[@nyakwarObat]

Yeah we know so much about the moon, Jupiter, Plato etc and apparently even have equipments to see them but we have never seen an atom, considering we carry them and use them every day. Really exposes the dysfunctional human levels, miseducation galore

[@sixchiensblancs]

@@nyakwarObat You, and I, can't see atoms because... light. It's complicated... 😂😂😂😉

[@rn6045]

I have a PhD in watching KZbin videos and trust me. This is the best video I've seen on Quantum Mechanics.

[@thegoatleo]

Haha 😀

[@MaxPower-tx8ci]

:D

[@naomicristinemaduro5975]

lol

[@princegoro180]

W A 😂

[@ultimategamer2669]

"MAYBE it's a wave of probability." Ah, I see what you did there.

[@qbslug]

this channel deserves way more subscribers. you do a great job of always explaining away common misconceptions

[@ScienceAsylum]

Thanks!

[@johndifrancisco3642]

qbslug, You are right. I'm in. I actually understood some of it! And it was fun.

[@cgaccount3669]

I remember in high school chemistry class we studied orbitals and aside from thinking it was weird I never really thought much about it. My teachers were nice but had no enthusiasm and like many teachers never took 2 seconds to really explain or try to make it interesting. It was just facts and rules. Kids today are so lucky to have access to excellent KZbin videos and internet information. Math and science can be fun if you have even the slightest curiosity

[@tonisoja1561]

I still remember when i, for first time, found out that all those simple movement equations we had back in school (something like y=ax+b+c etc) actually have infinite number of ever smaller members that you actually have to consider when dealing with higher speeds etc. Yet somehow, they failed to even MENTION in, im not asking for anything in depth, mere remark, that in reality things are significantly more complicated.

[@jstudios6427]

As a person in school I respect that statement so much

[@hektor6766]

Those electrons just aren't friendly neighbors. They're too much alike.

[@MsSonali1980]

In 1996 our teacher still used the Bohr's model for atoms -_- school system in Germany was/is - let's call it - heterogenous

[@MsSonali1980]

@Rusty If they had and were that clever they wouldn't be teachers. Can't speak for everyone who studied for teaching but for the majority it is true (I had during my mathematics and later environmental sciences bachelors study enough contact with future teachers).

[@scptime1188]

Quantum mechanics: *idea* Also quantum mechanics: well yes, but actually no

[@hektor6766]

Probably.

[@kamranbashir4842]

Also quantum mechanics: *saying No while nodding Yes*

[@Mr.Nichan]

It's in a superposition of states where it says yes and ones where it says no.

[@scptime1188]

@@Mr.Nichan Lmao missed that one 😂

[@kaisoonjoe5514]

Let me get this straight: An atom is both existent and nonexistent, at the same time??? Preposterous!!!

[@obakeng1140]

The Science Asylum: Leave your questions in the comment section Me: What does an atom really look like?

[@hijeffhere]

You must ask first how do you see things before you you ask that question.

[@obakeng1140]

@Time Bandit So helpful! At least now I got an image

[@mr.evasion]

Also A ball park (fuzzy electrons) With a grain of rice in the middle (nucleus)

[@jskratnyarlathotep8411]

it does not =)

[@jskratnyarlathotep8411]

@Time Bandit but the electrons in atoms are not moving at all, they would be emitting photons otherwise

[@tfannon]

I’m a CS professional who has just recently gotten into physics. I’ve read books about Einstein, Dirac, Feynman, etc but this video was the first I watched which allowed me to get an idea of how all of these ‘breakthroughs ‘ furthered our understanding. Thank you so much for this.

[@ScienceAsylum]

You're very welcome :-)

[@dru4670]

CS and physics. Perfect combination for taking over the world.

[@curtbarnes4294]

this is what we hoped the internet would become--education for the masses (!) for free!* thanks. *with Patreon supporters

[@paulybeefs8588]

I have watched literally hundreds of videos about physics and nature, and this video is the first to make me really understand atom structure on a deeper level. Thank you so much for the intuitive explanation!

[@harikumarpg5341]

Dude I learned more from this 8 minute video than I did from 4 months of chemistry online classes.Keep up the good work man!..Really appreciate it.

[@philosophilia3563]

The many times I wished youtube was around (or even internet!!!) when I went on junior high or high school... This is _the perfect example_ why I'm still a little jealous on children today who have the opportunity to learn difficult subjects with such clarity, than getting schooled by bad teachers, and back then - also horrible books compared. THANK YOU.

[@ScienceAsylum]

You're welcome! :-)

[@philosophilia3563]

Keep up the _very good_ work TSA :)

[@velialpyavuz3411]

I am a Chemical Engineer from a top Collage and my 12 year old daughter knocks me off in Chemistry - and i feel proud 💕

[@rogeronslow1498]

Philosophilia Don't you know, a good education is wasted on the young.

[@gothicfan51]

A lot of younger viewers don't watch this.

[@charliesvids]

Me: cool, I wonder what it looks like. *watches video* Me again: What

[@Ali_Kareem180]

You watching what does an atom looks like You again after watching : what does an atom looks like

[@greenben3744]

What he was describing is that we need to move on from the Bohr model to the Orbital one. There the electrons get smeared into shapes of probability’s; taking on shapes we can better understand. The s, d, p and f orbitals have these weird ball and hoop shapes which can interact and hybridize together to make atomic bonds. The Orbitals are the representation of the energy level an electron can assume. Because of their spin, only two electrons can exist in one place, forcing more electrons to take up space further and further out from the core, looking, when simplified, like the Bohr model. Wikipedia has a good explanation plus pretty pictures if you want to know more.

[@TheSkullConfernece]

Electron orbitals are a very good representation of what an atom "looks like". The orbitals of oxygen (which is shaped like a tetrahedron) explain why the molecules of water always have the hydrogen atoms bonded to it at 120° angles which explains why ice expands as it cools and creates those snowflake patterns we all love.

[@zarifzaman8959]

It's 104.5° not 120°

[@ahmedace4911]

Wait, it could explain all that ?! Reference pleeeaase !!!!

[@cecool4]

Very nice video, wish these things were explained as nicely in highschool!

[@dew02300]

CrY of FuN This video also explains very well why I was a history major in college.

[@JohnSalmon]

So, What Does An Atom REALLY Look Like?

[@ScienceAsylum]

It doesn't look like anything. The more we learn about atoms, the less visual they are.

[@JohnSalmon]

If Rutherford couldn't see one how could he split it?

[@KubuntuYou]

He smashed a bunch of atoms into a bunch of other atoms. Some hit and split and others didn't.

[@moonstriker7350]

"it doesn't look like anything to me"

[@mychevysparkevdidntcatchfi1489]

She looks like Julianne Hough.

[@13thxenos]

This was a great explanation! I had quantum computing last year and it started by describing quantum theories, and a whole semester couldn't do what you did in less than 10 minutes.

[@ScienceAsylum]

Glad I could help :-)

[@MB-xr7xx]

That's university education for you. Nuggets of useful information in a four year cloud of useless nothingness.

[@kt420ish]

I recently started getting into quantum mechanics. And this video really tied a lot of loose strings together for me. Love your channel! If I'm going to waste time on my phone, I'm going to waste it gaining knowledge.

[@ralphjasperjose6176]

looks like you have discovered the loose string theory

[@leechjim8023]

What's the average length and width of each string (in STATIONARY TIME)!😮😂😂😂

[@kt420ish]

@leechjim8023 no comment 😂😂😂

[@martj1313]

Thanks a lot, 8 minutes and 43 seconds ago i thought i was pretty smart, now im not sure i know how to tie my laces.

[@ScienceAsylum]

Welcome to quantum mechanics.

[@martj1313]

It,s witchcraft.

[@mandolinic]

I assure you that you DO know how to tie up your laces - you're just not sure whether they're going to stay tied up when you've finished. I think it's something to do with quantum entanglement.

[@martj1313]

Mandolinic ahhh, i wear slip ons to get round the problem

[@marciabarlow4704]

Martj: I'm right there with you....or even if I have the shoes on the right feet.

[@ahnufakifurrashid2855]

My mind hurts

[@reineh3477]

Be lucky you still have one, even if it hurts. Mine exploded

[@hasansalman7369]

02:02 I wish he had that mqny views.

[@ScienceAsylum]

A creator can dream...

[@G4Gringo]

He'll get the views. This is brilliant.

[@zzpazi]

Time to update the video to the new KZbin look :D

[@MinhDangBusiness]

@@ScienceAsylumcheck your view again :)

[@MegaDeath458]

"That's right! We're talking about quantum mechanics" Me: *Oh no, oh not this*

[@nazra7]

Good info. only after watching several QM documentaries and explanation videos did I finally realize that particles are not waves, only their properties are. And only recently did I realize that a particle doesn't exist, only its properties do. And that led me to discover that all particles and energies exists only as a group of vibrations always resonating somewhere on the electromagnetic spectrum... All light, heat,, sound, taste, and texture are made up of the same thing: vibration. They only differ n frequency and wavelength. Since then I've been making new discoveries of knowledge everyday. Learning the above really is they key to unlocking the universe's mysteries.

[@heavyhitter8972]

nazra7 I came to the same realizations you describe but through a different process... I took a bunch of magic mushrooms and experienced it directly. The other major realization I had was that everything, and I do mean everything, is mind or consciousness if you will. There is mind and awareness of it, and that's it... The rest is simply what mind is doing.

[@jensphiliphohmann1876]

I think the particle exists but not as a kind of 'thing' but as an elementary excitation of something called the electron field, figuratively as the lowest possible oscillation of a guitar or violin string (this is just an image not to take too seriously).

[@artv.9989]

So does that mean that everything in nature vibrates at a sub atomic level?

[@pfury67]

Excellent post, and this is dead on for our understanding on particles. There is no sexy way to portray these things in pictures, they are understood by their properties.

[@alphagt62]

I understand your explanation more than his. I noticed as a child that all energies are measured as waves. Sound waves, light waves, magnetic waves, x-ray waves, they all oscillate in sine wave fashion. I also recall seeing a electron microscope photo of gold, it looked just like little yellow balls jammed together, so, it’s not just properties, they actually exist. You can see the outer orbits, or whatever the outside edge of an atom is. String theory may never be provable, but it sure seems likely.

[@flindersmj]

As a long-time "type 1" diabetic, I frequently suffer extreme "sugar lows", sometimes down into the 40's. After eating sugar and as I start to come out of these sugar lows, just for a few seconds (20 or so), I can "see" what looks like an atom in my field of vision. Its not really there, but I can see it hoovering before my eyes; or rather, hoovering inside of my eyes. The image has a core with several oscillating layers flying around the core. These layers are just like the energy levels depicted in this youtube video. The oscillation seems to pulse very rapidly as generated light flashes between spectrums of lighter to darker; the leading edge of the pulse being the brightest. Its so bright that it's hard to focus on it without wondering if I might damage my eye just by looking at it. After a few seconds the image fades into the surrounding ambient light. This phenomenon is the coolest thing you could ever imagine.

[@KnowBuddiesLP]

Yep, once again gave me some insight but also broke my brain! Great work as always and keep it up!

[@williamrobinsoniii4870]

KnowBuddies LP you think you can find my brain and text it back to me please😂😂😂😂😂

[@andrewanderson5095]

KnowBuddies LP Since I'm not highly educated I can't wrap my head around it, To comprehend it fully..So it's goes over my head LOL I feel so STUPID. 😬

[@HeyImLucious]

Welcome to electrons. The more you learn about them the more you become convinced that they're literally magic.

[@n2airb382]

What you need to take a way from this is that you live in a simulation, and the REAL REALITY will become clear when you die. " All things are held together in his name" Colossians 1:17

[@Jakehava]

n2airb, Most of what you say is good. What we think of as "reality", the physical, is really a shadow cast by the substance, the spiritual, which is the reality to be manifest thereby bringing all into perfection.

[@kensurrency2564]

Don’t worry, we’re getting closer to understanding. Have patience!

[@chrisspere4836]

Patience, only another 100yrs.🙂. Scientist have keep their jobs for as long as possible. I think I've been watching too much of the big bang theory.

[@operazionetrasparenza5297]

thank you Nick for putting your HEART in these great videos

[@bula9737]

Fabio Z yeah he’s very passionate!! You’re a great man Nick! Thank you

[@ShauriePvs]

As well as heart on your comment

[@frroossst4267]

I periodically come back to these to have my mind blown and everytime I understand and enjoy these a bit more

[@DKolha]

This one was very very hard to get... I might come back in the future when I know stuff better to try again... But, great job anyway, I like the precision this channel has on explaining things even though sometimes it compromises the understandability for guys like me..

[@ScienceAsylum]

XKCD just did a comic about this: xkcd.com/1861/

[@seagoat651]

Yea,I agree.I personally need to process over and over till something clicks.

[@OzzieWozzieOriginal]

In other words, they understood NOTHING and there is no such thing as what atoms look like

[@OzzieWozzieOriginal]

hehehehe

[@blogofbored3224]

We ain’t know shit, cap’n!

[@JohnDoe-zl6qw]

Wrong! The mistake is assuming the atom can be conceptualized within the limitations of visual stimuli. It's not that they understood nothing, it's that so many fail to understand the limitations of a conceptual framework built on the constraints of our five senses. Transcend what you can experience if you want to arrive at what you can know.

[@orlock20]

Those round things are atoms. taylorsciencegeeks.weebly.com/uploads/5/9/2/0/59201005/315595909.gif

[@janalbrecht5099]

@@JohnDoe-zl6qw can you explain that for dumb people (Like me)? I didnt really get What You want to say

[@TheADHDNerd]

"What does an atom look like?" "We don't know. But here's a lot of science." Lol

[@alcoll1038]

You're missing the point of the video. The point is that it can only be understood through quantum mechanics.

[@Mark-Wilson]

missed the point idiot

[@druebio851]

This guy simultaneously stares into my soul while also teaching everything I need to know in 8 minutes plus

[@daffidavit]

After all these years of listening to audiobooks about quantum physics, I finally got some idea of what it means to "collapse the wave function". I always believed that when the wave function "collapsed" it fell flat. But now I see that its "probability wave" simply gets narrower in a "vertical" way, not in a horizontal way. Dah.

[@jesseinfinite]

To be more precise collapse of a wave function is synonymous to measuring something. Before you've measured something, in Quantum mechanics, we assume, that the particle has every single energy imaginable. So before measurement, that graph that you saw, is very random. After measuring, you get a result. That's why the energy of the atom instead of being super random, just becomes a singular line(with a bit of uncertainity) That's what collapsing of a wave function means, getting a particular value. Like once you do the measurement, you will actually know how much energy it has 2 units, 3 units, etc. Before measurement, the particle had every single energy that's possible for it to have .

[@daffidavit]

@@jesseinfinite Nice explanation. Thanks.

[@aVoidPiOver2Rad]

I can't believe that I found your channel only a few days ago... Your videos absolutely fantastic. Keep it up :)

[@davidsabillon5182]

Me too 🙋🏻‍♂️. I was impressed with the graphics. The best channel is called space time. Check it out if you haven't yet.

[@dr.georgeburden3721]

Wow, you explain this so clearly in 8 minutes (more or less). Well done!

[@switchblade8028]

this video was shot in 2017 so old and still no one else better to explain this concept

[@DTG01134]

There are a lot of science KZbin videos out there, but this one was one of the only to actually teach me something I hadn't already know while also still being interesting and intuitive. Veritasium should be jealous he's not as good as you.

[@ScienceAsylum]

Thanks!

[@nash6323]

Well one thing is for certain. We never would've gotten to this level of technological sophistication without all this "probability" stuff. So yeah, that's enough evidence to say that they're real.

[@bikerchrisukk]

Bloody hell what a good video, fair play to script writers and graphical making people. And the presenter of course :-)

[@DeepakYadav-rg1mx]

This video is the one that I should have got to watch in my 11th class. 8 years too late.

[@matheusbarbosa2548]

I have just discovered this channel and am impressed with such quality of content. WP.

[@GabrielTLGTaveira]

It's one of the best I've ever seen in terms os scientific explanation, in simple terms.

[@jobla7124]

I FINALLY think I understand the "both a particle and a wave" thing.

[@michaelmcdoesntexist1459]

I found this channel yesterday. You suckerpunched my mind so hard now I need to keep watching.

[@ScienceAsylum]

I'm glad you found the channel then 🤓

Superlative and so educative video. I always share them. They deserve the best. Regards from Patagonia, Argentina.

[@ScienceAsylum]

Thank you for sharing!

[@soupbonep]

Great explanation of collapsing wave function. I've heard this term millions of times watching videos and listening to Brian Greene, yet never has it been described. THANKS!

[@thegirlsquad2500]

With confidence, this is so far the best short physics material explaining atom.

[@smithmelanie754]

I love your presentation of the atom . I didn't feel like I was falling asleep. It kept me laughing.

[@edjohnson2192]

I loved the flaming head at the end. love the vids. you're a great teacher.

[@OfficiaINebula]

I've learned more from 8 minutes from a video then 3 weeks worth of science at school

[@kimberlyhovis5864]

Wow, I'm really glad that I found your channel; I find physics fascinating! I also have an 8 year old daughter who, I think, would enjoy some of your videos as well. She loves science and knows a lot about it including a basic knowledge of atoms. I taught her about atoms using the basic model of electrons orbiting the nucleus, so this will probably grab her interest as well since it obviously isn't quite what we thought it was. Thanks for sharing!

[@ScienceAsylum]

I think it's wonderful that your daughter is into science. I'd also recommend Physics Girl: kzbin.info

[@thotdestroyer6945]

I just wanted to see an atom!! 😩😩😩😩

[@zechariahdymond4358]

Check out the IBM atoms... Prepare hate this guy

[@suwinkhamchaiwong8382]

That isn’t the point. Find it on Google Images.

[@donutwindy]

You can't find it on Google images. You can only find an atom shown under intense laser light with no detail whatsoever as one dot. (The shape of one pixel from the camera taking the photo not the shape of the atom) An atom should have a color. And every electron possibly a different color and shown as dots around a nucleus that is probably not visible in normal light. Ie.. what an atom really looks like which is why we were here. You'd have to model this on a computer. It is not possible to make a camera with pixels smaller than an atom, so it is not possible to photograph one in any detail. The images out

[@SheikhN-bible-syndrome]

@@donutwindy exactly because an atom is smaller than a wavelength of light therefore technically invisible in a singular manner of course

[@ffggddss]

​@@donutwindy 1. You don't need pixels that are physically smaller than an object in order to photograph it. Any instrument that can magnify an image, allows taking a photograph of, say, a living cell that can be smaller than the pixels in the imaging array of your camera. What you *do* need, is radiation whose wavelength is smaller than the object you're trying to image. This means that visible light cannot be used to image atoms, which are more than 1000 times smaller than the shortest wavelength of visible light. Electromagnetic radiation whose wavelength is smaller than an atom, is in the x-ray part of the EM spectrum, and its photon energy disturbs individual atoms too much to image them. So no form of EM radiation is suitable for imaging atoms. And for the above reasons, atoms and electrons cannot "have a color." 2. In recent years, it has become possible to image atoms using a scanning electron microscope. The imaging waves used, are electron "waves," whose wavelength is determined by their energy and mass, through the deBroglie wavelength equation. 3. 60+ years ago, in October, 1955, individual atoms on the tip of an extremely sharp tungsten needle were imaged with a device known as a field-ion microscope. One such photo made the cover of Scientific American for June, 1957. Check out the Wikipedia article, entitled, "Field Ion Microscope." For the Scientific American cover, Google "Scientific American cover art." It's shown on a decade-per-web-page basis. Fred

[@wojiaobill]

When you can't even understand an "atoms for dummies" explanation.... Good grief, I'm useless.

[@PanyingPilot]

An example of the highest and best use of social media.

[@quahntasy]

*This video was very coherent and good at explaining very difficult concept without dumbing down too much. One of the best videos.*

[@therealallanjohnson]

I have a question: what does an atom REALLY look like? If only I could watch a video answering that question.

[@ScienceAsylum]

It doesn't look like anything. The more we learn about atoms, the less visual they are.

[@therealallanjohnson]

Oh, gotchya. Thanks!

[@pongespob]

*"...It doesn't look like anything...."* Bullshit - you just don't know. You're not any better at explaining things than you are at audio treatment.

[@amineaboutalib]

pongespob what does "look like" mean for you?

[@pi6913]

+pongespob lol... do better, dolt

[@coolstar7819]

3:06 this concept is now clear to me thanks for explaining

[@Jack-vy2vx]

Outstanding presentation and explanation ! Great teacher !

[@imsidetracted]

it took me months and maybe more to learn all this crap. so many books and pdf lectures.and he explained it better than i could ever explain it, in 8 minutes and 43 seconds. it was so well explained i laughed through the whole thing and had to watch it again. hmm why doesnt light have mass. well looky there he knows that also.

[@Argonautica]

On some other video I recall that the earth is gaining 35 grams of photons per second or about 70,000 tonnes per year. Light apparently does have some mass, but it is very small. Not sure what this mass looks like though.

[@jensphiliphohmann1876]

@Jason Argonaut These tonnes of photons are not their mass but their _'kinetic' (= elektromagnetic oscillation) energy_ (divided by c² which is a constant and thus an artefact of us measuring lengths and time spans in different units). Mass is _rest energy_ (again, divided by c²), i.e. the energy of something within its 'rest frame' which does not exist for photons for, if you want to Lorentz transform 'into the rest frame of a photon', you get a division by zero error. If you would physically try to catch up with a sequence of photons, they would not slow down with respect to you but stretch out of existence. This doesn't mean you cannot use the term 'tonnes of light': Photons have a kind of 'effective mass' h·f÷c² which makes them have a potential energy Φ·h·f÷c² at a gravitational potential Φ. It's just that kinetic energy of a body is not counted as part of its mass any more, the term 'relativistic mass' being outdate wording.

[@MichaelRMcCoy]

There is a distinct possibility that everything is now cleared up.

[@lukasschmid1623]

I dont know if I have questions. What I know, it is excellent what you are doing. Thanks

[@kaushikgupta4782]

This video made my doubts very clear . Thanks !

[@davidhall8874]

I would like to ask a question but I wouldn't have any idea what to ask. If I did manage to ask a question, I am sure I wouldn't understand the answer.

[@EpicMathTime]

Atoms are so small that they almost feel abstract. IE, there isn't a picture of what an atom looks like in the same way that there isn't a picture of what the number 4 looks like. We can only give symbolic representations and images to communicate and describe that abstract idea.

[@maalat]

the idea of waves and energy level. I can apply that everyday. "What is my energy level?" How many atoms do I have in my body? Home many molecules do I have in my body before I eat my breakfast? Was this done already, measure or count all the molecular transformations in the body depending on the energy level of atoms? Am I making sense? Are we even here? Hello?

[@maxi.229]

I never comment but that sound when the electron emits light is kind of awesome. Btw could you perhaps in the future do a video about the (quantum) hall effect?

[@ScienceAsylum]

I'm pretty fond of that sound effect too :-)

[@samarthsai9530]

I wish we could subscribe more than once.

[@FuzzyBall]

Make another account.

[@wrjazziel]

I love the faces of the clones, it's portrays the average face we make when we listen to Physics LOL

[@diamondminer2546]

but what does an atom look like

[@SyDatNguyen-r4j]

Atomic orbital

[@advaitsavant4886]

I have found an epic channel!!!

[@kripashankarshukla4073]

2:02 I wish he had that many subscribers as there were views and of course, he deserves that!!

[@ronanderson7649]

KRIPA SHANKAR SHUKLA .

[@channelsixtysix066]

Remarkable that our understanding of atomic structure, is less than 100 years old.

[@3dlabs99]

Yeah. I think the discovery of electromagnetism really kickstarted a lot of discoveries where one led to the next almost automatically for a long time. Incredible break-thru.

[@Hythloday71]

Yeah, be great if you could do a simple explanation of electron orbitals that would allow me to work out, from 1st principles, the chemistry number sequences we had to learn eg 2, 8, 8, 16 ....

[@ScienceAsylum]

Soooooon

[@kakan147]

Maybe if you look into the electron configuration, s p d and f, and you'll find your answer

[@STARDRIVE]

The maximum number of electrons per shield are 2, 8, 18, 32, 50, 72 and 98. (1 to 7) squared x2. In reality, the latter = 96, not 98. Curium is the completed 7th shield, not Californium. How do I know? I build the motherfuckers even pinpointing the protons & neutrons.

[@larrysherk]

Good luck, buddy. Chemistry doesn't even begin to understand that kind of detail.

[@Rationalific]

Well-presented! I liked the history, and you made it (relatively) easy to understand!

[@SyDatNguyen-r4j]

I think electrons must behave so weirdly that we can’t predict its exact position. So, we come up with a model called “atomic orbitals”. It shows the probability of electron’s position.

[@JEDI1390]

EVERY TIME I WATCH A FLIPPING SCIENCE VIDEO MY MIND EXPLODES!!! But its very interesting

[@MirekHeikkila]

Awww i was hoping for at least one pretty picture to what a ATOM(+ quarks :P ) looks likes, i remember seeing some bio chem stuff with electron probability clouds. Ahh well, awesome channel, can't believe still only at 16k subs.. errr heh

[@ScienceAsylum]

Soooooon

[@TIMEtoRIDE900]

Whole atoms are way smaller than visible light so you wouldn't "see" anything anyway - but I've heard that compared to a football field a proton would be a marble on the 50 yard line and an electron would be in the end zone.

[@samuelfeder9764]

7:05 - 7:20 That was SO helpfull for my understanding. Why does nobody else (in popular sience) tell you that? In hindsight it might seem obvious but this REALLY helped my understanding!! =D Thanks!

[@Mephil]

So... We're all just weird blobs of vibrations in a sea of other weird vibrations.

[@ScienceAsylum]

Yep, pretty much.

[@PhilipReeder]

Its really funny. Years ago while contemplating electrons and their actions around a nucleus I looked at the classical model of an atom and determined the 'orbit model' was nonsense. Eventually I came to the conclusion that electrons travel around the nucleus from point to point completely randomly. I then realized that their transference was INSTANTANEOUS. I shared this theory with a friend who like me, never attended college, never studied physics but let's just say, we're both above average intelligence/above average IQ's. Everyone else I happened to tell had eyes that glazed over. Months, or maybe even a year or two later, I was watching a science program on PBS which probably was about quantum mechanics. Eventually a physicist described the actions of an electron as being not in an orbit, but jumping from point to point around the nucleus in a random pattern. And that it/they did it instantaneously. My jaw dropped. I was sitting on our couch and looked at my father who was sitting across from me. He had the look of someone stunned, with eyes as big as saucers and said, "You were right". One of the greatest moments of my life. 😊

[@tylork8025]

Next you're going to tell me my heart doesn't look like this! ❤️

[@stefaniasmanio5857]

Thank you so much! Very well done!

[@patrickschepis2357]

This is the best youtube video I've ever seen. You just described reality in the most simplest of terms and made it fun. I'd like to see a more in depth explanation of the smallest object known to man. I love how we use them too. We just bombard something with electrons and look at the imprint it makes...

[@kagannasuhbeyoglu]

Very informative content again. Also subtitle translations are amazing! 👏👏

[@nznick9033]

The science educators community really, really, like REALLY needs more of this kind of 'not dumbed down, nor oversimplified, nor pretending to be more certain than we really are' presentation of scientific information. This is the way out of the progress throttling certainty fetish that currently holds us back.

[@xhem1061]

I am in BSc 5th semester and here, is my all syllabus for physical chemistry, Unit -1 (Elementary Quantum Mechanics ) thank you very much

[@ScienceAsylum]

You're welcome! 🤓

[@xhem1061]

@@ScienceAsylum 😇😇😇😇

[@xhem1061]

@@ScienceAsylum Dear sir I want to know Raman scattering at atomic level. Please make a video on it. 🙏🙏

[@cliffchism9187]

I am absolutely positive that you are probably concurrently both wrong and correct.

[@megalampada2372]

What?

[@johnathanwoods1223]

Shroedinger

[@cliffchism9187]

@@johnathanwoods1223 With a little Heisenberg thrown in for flavor... LOL

[@marcoruiz3108]

This is what I have done...(8:11)

[@sanjeewaperera6796]

Marco Ruiz exactly, me too!!😂😂

[@ScienceAsylum]

Teri Ma, see the pinned comment.

[@easyeagle2]

Lolol. I`m still laughing. Thank you Thank you. I learned a lot. Sort of.

[@joseh3564]

This was a big, "we don't know, but we hype it up to make you think that we have a clue."

[@ScienceAsylum]

Not at all. We know a lot! It's just that the truth isn't very satisfying: atoms don't really look like _anything._ They don't have an appearance. The concept of an "appearance" ceases to exist on that level in any meaningful way.