Why don't electrons fall onto the nucleus?

Why don't electrons fall onto the nucleus? Terra Physica 37.6K subscribers Join Subscribe 4.3K Share Download Clip Save 181,543 views Feb 16, 2024 The correct and complete answer to the popular question of what prevents negatively charged electrons of an atom from falling onto the atomic nucleus actually contains almost all the main principles and regularities of atomic mechanics. How exactly? Let's delve into it in today's video. Transcript Follow along using the transcript. Show transcript Transcript Search in video 0:00 in the comments the question is often 0:02 asked why don't negatively charged 0:04 electrons of an atom fall onto the 0:06 positively charged Atomic nucleus and 0:09 recently it occurred to me that with 0:11 just this question you can effectively 0:14 illustrate a whole series of important 0:15 principles of quantum physics in fact 0:18 the early history of modern physics 0:20 largely boils down to the search for an 0:23 answer to the question of why the 0:25 electron doesn't fall onto the atomic 0:28 nucleus and it turned out that was 0:30 impossible to answer this question 0:32 within the framework of classical 0:33 physics so scientists had to essentially 0:36 create a new branch of physics known as 0:39 quantum 0:40 mechanics and in our video today we will 0:42 try to follow in the footsteps of the 0:44 physicists of the early 20th century 0:46 through the chain of reasoning that led 0:48 them and us along with them to where it 0:52 led this Story begins in 1897 when the 0:55 English physicist Joseph Thompson 0:58 discovered the tiniest charged particle 1:01 the electron and later proved that 1:03 electrons are a component of atoms that 1:05 is the smallest chemically indivisible 1:08 particles of matter since atoms 1:10 themselves are neutral that is they have 1:12 a zero net electrical charge it was 1:15 obvious that the negatively charged 1:17 electrons in the atom must coexist with 1:19 some carriers of positive charge that 1:21 balance them out Thompson himself 1:24 proposed the so-called Plum Pudding 1:26 model or as it is also called the raisin 1:29 bun model in which the negatively 1:31 charged raisin-like electrons are 1:33 embedded in a loose positively charged 1:35 bun to test this model Ernest Rutherford 1:38 conceived and Hans Gyer and Ernst 1:40 Marsden carried out a series of 1:42 experiments essentially boiling down to 1:45 the following thin sheets of gold foil 1:48 were bombarded with alpha particles 1:50 produced by the decay of radon 222 and 1:52 radium 1:54 226 the alpha particle essentially 1:56 represents the nucleus of a helium 4 1:59 atom with two protons and two neutrons 2:01 although this was not yet known at the 2:03 time it was known only that alpha 2:06 particles firstly have a positive charge 2:09 and secondly their mass and consequently 2:11 size should be much smaller than that of 2:14 gold atoms of which the foil Target 2:16 consisted according to the plum pudding 2:18 model rapidly flying alpha particles 2:21 should practically not be deflected by 2:23 the loose putting substance and pass 2:25 through it almost without 2:27 deviations except for a slight 2:29 acceleration when passing through the 2:32 dough the largest deviations were 2:35 supposed to be observed in cases when 2:36 alpha particles pass as if tangentially 2:39 to Gold atoms and even in this case 2:42 according to calculations the magnitude 2:44 of the deviation should be only 2:46 fractions of a degree that is if 2:49 Thompson's model were correct we should 2:51 have observed a relatively small 2:53 widening of the initial beam and 2:55 probably some slowing down of the 2:58 particles however in prac practice 3:00 something different was observed the 3:02 vast majority of alpha particles passed 3:04 through the foil completely without 3:06 scattering as if through empty space but 3:09 some of them were reflected including at 3:11 very large angles up to an angle of 3:14 180° as if undergoing elastic collisions 3:17 with some massive compact objects from 3:20 this it was concluded that the atomic 3:22 nucleus is actually a compact massive 3:25 and of course positively charged object 3:28 occupying a negligible part of the 3:29 entire space inside the atom and around 3:32 this nucleus at a distance tens of 3:34 thousands of times larger than its 3:36 dimensions are small and lightweight 3:39 negatively charged electrons it is 3:41 precisely the distance from the 3:43 electrons to the nucleus or rather the 3:46 sizes of the corresponding region 3:48 occupied by the electrons that we 3:50 perceive as the sizes of the atom which 3:53 determine its chemical and physical 3:55 properties after all negatively charged 3:58 electrons should be attracted to the 4:00 positively charged nucleus and 4:02 eventually fall onto it that is the 4:04 observed size of the atom should be of 4:06 the order of the size of the nucleus 4:09 However the fact that real atoms have 4:11 significantly larger sizes indicated 4:13 that electrons for some reason do not 4:15 fall onto the nucleus and in order to 4:18 explain this physicists had to 4:21 understand why they don't do it that is 4:23 for the first time the very question 4:25 that we have set ourselves today arose a 4:28 fairly logical answer to it was given by 4:30 Rutherford himself namely electrons do 4:33 not fall onto the nucleus because they 4:35 revolve around it in circular orbits 4:38 indeed in one of our previous videos we 4:41 mentioned that the motion of a particle 4:43 under the action of a constant force 4:45 always perpendicular to the direction of 4:47 its velocity will have the character of 4:49 endless rotation attracting bodies will 4:53 as if constantly fall towards the center 4:55 of attraction in our case the atomic 4:58 nucleus but always miss it a similar 5:01 process is observed in Celestial 5:03 mechanics when our Earth and other 5:05 planets revolve around the sun 5:07 attracting it but never falling onto it 5:09 completely or when the moon or 5:11 artificial satellites like the ISS 5:14 revolve around our Earth and it was 5:16 beautiful and logical and very much 5:18 resembled what we observe in everyday 5:20 life but quite soon physicists realized 5:23 that this couldn't work the thing is 5:25 electrons are charged particles and 5:27 according to the equations of electrod 5:29 Dynamics any charged particle moving 5:32 with acceleration must emit 5:34 electromagnetic radiation about why and 5:37 how this happens we have a separate 5:39 video on our Channel moreover 5:41 accelerated charged particles indeed 5:44 emit electromagnetic radiation this 5:46 principle underlies for example radio 5:49 transmitters in all their variety so 5:51 here's the thing the rotational motion 5:53 of the electron along its orbit is 5:55 accelerated and the rotating electron 5:57 must continuously emit there by losing 6:00 its energy or more precisely the kinetic 6:03 energy of its rotational Motion in 6:05 simpler terms the speed of the 6:07 electron's rotation must quickly 6:09 decrease causing the radius of its orbit 6:12 to continuously decrease until the 6:14 electron Falls onto the nucleus and this 6:16 should happen fairly quickly bringing us 6:18 back to atoms with sizes comparable to 6:21 the size of the atomic nucleus 6:23 furthermore atoms containing rotating 6:25 electrons would constantly emit 6:27 electromagnetic radiation with certain 6:30 characteristics which was not observed 6:32 in 6:33 nature that is Rutherford's model led to 6:36 a picture that contradicted what we 6:38 observe in nature in other words from 6:41 mechanical considerations electrons had 6:43 to rotate around the nucleus to avoid 6:45 falling onto it due to electrical 6:48 attraction but from electrodynamical 6:51 considerations they couldn't rotate 6:53 around it at the same time because in 6:55 that case they would fall onto it due to 6:57 energy loss through radiation the 7:00 question of why electrons don't fall 7:01 onto the nucleus again arose before 7:03 physicists in all its Glory but now for 7:07 slightly more complex reasons an answer 7:10 to it was provided well or at least 7:12 attempted to be provided by Neil bore a 7:15 student of Rutherford in 1913 he 7:18 proposed that electrons in an atom could 7:20 revolve not around just any orbits but 7:23 around orbits where their angular 7:25 momentum that is the product of the 7:27 electron's momentum by the orbit radius 7:30 equals an integer multiple of planks 7:32 constant according to bore it was 7:34 impossible for the electron to reside on 7:36 an intermediate orbit between the 7:38 allowed ones and hence it became 7:40 somewhat more or less clear that 7:43 electrons indeed couldn't emit radiation 7:45 due to rotation around the atom this 7:47 process would lead to a gradual decrease 7:50 in the height of their orbits during 7:52 which they would have to occupy the 7:54 impossible intermediate orbits and 7:57 according to B's model an electron could 7:59 could only emit radiation in the case of 8:01 a discontinuous transition from one 8:03 allowed orbit to another closer to the 8:06 nucleus B's hypothesis seemed to answer 8:08 the question of why electrons don't fall 8:11 onto the nucleus however it explained 8:13 very little overall for example it was 8:16 completely unclear why only certain 8:18 orbits of electrons were permissible in 8:20 an atom because in orbital motion in 8:23 Celestial mechanics these orbits can be 8:25 anything moreover it remained a mystery 8:28 what physical mechanism prevents a 8:30 rotating electron in an atom from 8:32 emitting electromagnetic radiation after 8:35 all outside the atom accelerated and in 8:38 particular rotating electrons emit 8:40 radiation perfectly in accordance with 8:42 the equations of 8:44 electrodynamics that is it turned out 8:47 that the same or at least very similar 8:49 processes under different conditions 8:51 occur fundamentally differently and this 8:54 required at least an explanation and 8:56 bore didn't have such an explanation 8:59 which is why his model was subject to 9:01 rather harsh criticism from 9:02 contemporaries however it had one 9:05 colossal Advantage it allowed 9:07 quantitatively correct description of 9:10 many parameters of the simplest atom the 9:12 hydrogen atom with one proton in the 9:14 nucleus and one electron in its orbit 9:17 that is the main Criterion for testing 9:19 the correctness of the theory through 9:21 comparison with experiment B's idea 9:23 passed it remained only to understand 9:26 the fundamental reasons underlying B's 9:28 hypothesis which turned out to be I 9:30 repeat correct that is once again to 9:33 understand why electrons really don't 9:35 fall onto the nucleus another 9:38 fundamentally important step towards 9:40 understanding was made 10 years later in 9:42 1923 by Lou de brogley by that time 9:46 physicists had already come to the 9:47 concept of the corpuscular wave nature 9:50 of light to the fact that light in some 9:52 situations for example when scattered on 9:55 narrow slits or interfering behaves like 9:58 a wave and in others for example when 10:01 emitted or absorbed by a solid body 10:03 behaves like a particle a photon and 10:06 this particle can be attributed such 10:08 ordinary characteristics of particles as 10:10 kinetic energy and momentum in 10:13 particular the momentum of a photon 10:15 turned out to be equal to such a 10:17 quantity where H is Plank's constant and 10:20 Lambda is the wavelength of the 10:21 corresponding electromagnetic 10:24 radiation so here's the thing de brogle 10:27 suggested that not only a light wave can 10:29 exhibit the properties of a photon 10:31 particle but real particles such as an 10:33 electron can exhibit the properties of 10:35 some wave moreover the wavelength of 10:38 this wave is related to its momentum in 10:40 the same way as the wavelength of 10:42 electromagnetic radiation is related to 10:44 the momentum of a photon thus de brogley 10:47 expanded the concept of the corpuscular 10:49 wave duality of light turning it into a 10:52 concept of the corpuscular wave duality 10:54 of everything in the world any wave is 10:57 supposed to have some physical meaning 11:00 an explanation of what wave it is in the 11:03 case of electromagnetic waves these are 11:05 oscillations of the intensity of 11:07 electric and magnetic fields propagating 11:09 in space for waves on the surface of 11:11 water these are oscillations of the 11:13 water level itself the oscillation that 11:16 the de brogle wave represents de brogle 11:18 himself couldn't formulate it was Max 11:21 Bourne who did it for him in 11:22 1926 showing that the deogi wave is a 11:25 wave of probability more precisely the 11:28 probability density of finding a 11:30 particle in a particular volume of space 11:33 that is the movement of an electron in 11:35 space can be considered as the 11:37 propagation in this space of a wave of 11:40 probability to detect the electron at a 11:42 certain point now let's look at the 11:45 movement of the deogi electron wave in 11:47 an atom as we know in it the electron 11:50 cannot move freely because it is bound 11:52 to the nucleus by Electric attraction 11:55 physicists say that the electron is in a 11:58 potential well from which it cannot 12:00 escapee unless it has enough energy and 12:02 is forced as was supposed in B's model 12:05 to rotate around the nucleus in some 12:08 orbit in order for further reasoning to 12:10 be clearer I suggest considering an atom 12:12 with an electron rotating around it as 12:15 if it were on edge from this point of 12:17 view the movement of the electron looks 12:20 like oscillations first it moves to the 12:22 right reaches the farthest right point 12:25 and then turns starting to move to the 12:27 left accordingly the propagation of the 12:30 de brogly wave of this electron in the 12:32 atom should somehow look like this as 12:34 well and this is already somewhat 12:36 similar to what we observe in classical 12:38 physics the wave goes from one end of a 12:41 certain space reaches the other end and 12:44 returns we observe such situations for 12:47 example in oscillations of the density 12:49 of an air column in certain closed 12:51 spaces oscillations of a string fixed at 12:54 both ends and we know what happens in 12:56 such situations a standing wave is 12:58 formed form Med the different points of 13:00 which oscillate with different 13:02 amplitudes in some points known as nodes 13:05 the amplitude of oscillations should be 13:07 zero in others known as antinodes it 13:09 will be maximum accordingly in our case 13:13 it would be logical to assume that the 13:15 de brogly wave of the electron in the 13:17 atom should also form a standing wave 13:20 and we can even understand what 13:22 properties this wave will possess we 13:25 know for sure that outside the region 13:27 limited by the orbit diameter the 13:29 probability of detecting our electron is 13:31 zero because we are given that it is 13:33 trapped in the potential well of the 13:35 nucleus field accordingly we conclude 13:38 that at the boundary of the potential 13:40 well that is at distances equal to plus 13:43 and minus the radius of the orbit the 13:45 amplitude value of the wave should be 13:47 zero and this means that inside the 13:49 electron orbit in the atom a whole 13:52 number of De brogly wavelengths should 13:54 fit one wavelength two wavelengths three 13:57 wavelengths and so on 13:59 mathematically this statement will be 14:00 written like this where n is some 14:03 integer Lambda is the wavelength of the 14:05 de brogly wave and L is the length of 14:08 the path that the deogi wave travels now 14:11 all we have to do is remember that the 14:12 electron rotates in a circle so L will 14:15 be equal to the radius of the orbit 14:17 multiplied 2 pi and then substitute into 14:21 this formula the expression for the 14:22 wavelength of the electron's de brogly 14:25 Wave by transforming the obtained 14:27 expression we easily get the Criterion 14:30 introduced by bore Quantum orbits but 14:32 not as a given but as a consequence of 14:34 the fact that the electron caught in the 14:36 potential well of the atom possesses 14:38 wave 14:39 properties however in order to explain 14:42 B's hypothesis of orbit quantization we 14:44 had to introduce another actually 14:46 significantly more exotic hypothesis 14:48 about the electron that is the particle 14:51 possessing wave properties and now we 14:54 have to somehow show that this is indeed 14:56 the case fortunately phys physicists 14:59 studying the real world always have the 15:00 opportunity to ask the universe whether 15:03 a particular hypothesis is true by 15:05 conducting an experiment and in 15:08 1927 such an experiment was conducted by 15:11 Clinton Davidson and Lester germer they 15:14 showed that a beam of electrons passing 15:16 through a crystallin lattice is 15:18 scattered on this lattice similarly to 15:20 how light is scattered on defraction 15:22 gradings that is as a wave not as a 15:25 particle forming a characteristic 15:28 pattern of alternating Stripes known as 15:30 a defraction pattern this confirmed the 15:33 validity of De bro's hypothesis that the 15:36 electron indeed possesses wave 15:37 properties no matter how crazy this idea 15:40 may seem to us who have grown up in the 15:42 logic of the macroscopic world where 15:45 particles are particles and waves are 15:47 waves and there is very little in common 15:49 between them more precisely in fact not 15:52 only electrons and not even only Quantum 15:55 particles possess wave properties all 15:57 material objects do including objects of 16:00 the material world even a tennis ball in 16:02 fact does not fly as a single object as 16:05 we are used to thinking but spreads out 16:07 in space like a wave however since the 16:10 momentum of a tennis ball is measured in 16:12 units of kilog per meters per second and 16:15 Plank's constant is a very small value 16:18 of the order of 10 the power of 34 Jew 16:22 perss we conclude that the de brogi 16:24 wavelength for a tennis ball is about 10 16:27 the power ofus 34 16:29 meters this is undoubtedly an 16:31 infinitesimally small value trillions of 16:34 times smaller than any value we can 16:36 measure with our modern technology and 16:38 therefore we simply cannot detect wave 16:40 properties in macroscopic 16:42 objects however for Quantum objects like 16:45 electrons for which momenta are of the 16:47 order of 10 the^ of M is 20 to 10 the^ 16:51 of m- 25 the wavelength becomes 16:54 comparable to the characteristic sizes 16:56 of the systems in which we study them 16:59 that is in this case the sizes of atoms 17:01 and these effects of course must already 17:04 be taken into account in other words 17:06 there is no separate quantum physics The 17:08 Familiar classical physics ultimately 17:11 also obeys Quantum laws it's just that 17:14 on the scales of lengths speeds and 17:16 masses with which we deal in everyday 17:19 life most quantum mechanical effects 17:21 turn out to be too insignificant to 17:23 manifest themselves in any way and 17:25 somehow participate in shaping our life 17:28 experience 17:29 and the logic based on this experience 17:31 that is precisely why quantum mechanics 17:33 seem so strange and sometimes illogical 17:35 to 17:36 us but we have digressed and meanwhile 17:40 our main question the question of why 17:42 electrons do not fall onto the atomic 17:44 nucleus still has not received a 17:46 definitive 17:47 answer indeed even if we have convinced 17:50 ourselves that the condition of orbit 17:52 quantization in the atom applies we 17:55 still May wonder what will happen if n 17:57 in this formula equals equal Z indeed 18:00 this corresponds to a zero orbit radius 18:02 that is the situation the electron has 18:04 fallen onto the 18:05 nucleus since we know that electrons 18:08 still do not fall onto the nucleus such 18:10 a situation apparently is impossible but 18:13 why exactly the answer to this question 18:15 is provided by another fundamental 18:17 principle of quantum mechanics 18:19 Heisenberg's uncertainty principle which 18:22 prohibits simultaneously precisely 18:24 measuring the position and momentum of a 18:26 particle more precisely 18:28 the uncertainty relation states that the 18:31 product of the uncertainty in these 18:33 parameters must be greater than or equal 18:36 to half of the reduced plank 18:38 constant with this in mind let's again 18:41 look at our atom and its electron we do 18:43 not know exactly where in the atom the 18:45 electron will be at any given moment but 18:48 we do know that it is definitely at a 18:49 distance from the nucleus not exceeding 18:52 the radius of its orbit in other words 18:55 the inaccuracy in determining the 18:56 position of the electron is is equal to 18:58 plus minus the orbit radius the same 19:01 goes for momentum when the electron 19:03 moves in the atom it takes on values 19:05 ranging from plus P when the electron 19:07 flies say to the right to Magus P when 19:10 it flies to the left that is the 19:12 momentum uncertainty or Delta P equals P 19:15 itself and with this in mind the 19:18 uncertainty relation for the electron 19:20 will be written like this in other words 19:22 the product of the electron's orbit 19:24 radius by its momentum cannot be less 19:26 than half of the reduced plank constant 19:29 and if we now also recall that this 19:31 product according to the Criterion of 19:33 bore proven by us equals a whole number 19:35 of plank constants then we automatically 19:38 come to the conclusion that n in B's 19:40 Criterion cannot be equal to zero but 19:43 must be at least one that is the 19:46 electron must have a minimum orbit below 19:48 which it is forbidden to descend by the 19:50 uncertainty principle the state of the 19:52 atom in which electrons rotate precisely 19:55 on such orbits is called the ground 19:57 state thus we have excluded all 20:00 possibilities for the electron to fall 20:02 onto the nucleus and at the same time we 20:05 have dealt with the principles of 20:06 quantum mechanics that precisely 20:08 prohibit it from doing so today in 20:11 quantum physics however they do not 20:13 reason in categories like those we used 20:16 above the same uncertainty principle for 20:19 example essentially prohibits us from 20:21 asserting that the electron rotates 20:23 around the nucleus in some circular 20:25 orbit of a fixed 20:27 radius instead we say that the electron 20:30 is somehow smeared out over the atom 20:32 within a certain region which we call 20:34 the electron cloud and fundamentally 20:36 cannot say how exactly it moves inside 20:38 this region or if it moves at all the 20:41 wave representation of De brogi in 20:43 modern quantum mechanics is also not 20:45 used straightforwardly the ideas of bore 20:48 Bourne deogi Po and others have been 20:52 reinterpreted and found their reflection 20:54 in modern equations of quantum mechanics 20:56 such as the schinger and draa equations 20:59 and in modern quantum mechanics atoms 21:02 are no longer depicted as circles 21:04 instead physicists solve the 21:06 corresponding equations for the 21:07 corresponding conditions we cannot 21:10 correctly and accurately draw quantum 21:12 mechanical systems on paper or a 21:14 computer screen and even less so their 21:17 evolution but we can describe it using 21:19 the universal language of mathematics of 21:22 course the thought that describing what 21:24 is happening in the quantum world 21:26 without mastering mathematics is 21:28 impossible is a bit discouraging but 21:31 alas the universe is not obliged to be 21:34 such that we like it and all we can do 21:37 is try to find some analogies that would 21:39 give an idea of what is happening in the 21:41 quantum world and at the same time at 21:44 least not too strongly contradict what 21:46 is actually happening there this is what 21:49 we are doing on our Channel and there 21:50 are many exciting tasks ahead of us in 21:53 this field Well for now all the best and 21:56 until we meet again Terra Physica 37.6K subscribers Videos About 867 Comments rongmaw lin Add a comment... @Synconntez 1 year ago Here are the three things I have to praise about your presentation! 1st) The Chronology! Thank you for laying out the investigations and question leading up to these discoveries in such a simple and detailed manner. Often, videos discuss ideas independent of the many experiments and considerations that led up to those investigations! 2nd) Thank you for keeping it politically free! It's like when we think 'atom' we have to be told about Einstein's 1905 paper with Brownian motion! But as you have here indicated, as far back as 1897, there were already considerations on the atomic structure of matter. Ludwig Boltzmann also stands out as a figure of importance. The issue as to why it took so long for it to become acceptable is it mattered too much who was the one telling you this as a matter of 'politics!' And finally, 3rd) the transition between the ideas and the illustrations shown. It is indeed impossible to absolutely visualize an atom, but the illustrations you used really help because of the wide variety you used. Please keep up the good work! 31 Reply 4 replies @dariushmilani6760 1 year ago Enjoyed the your presentation and even more by some smart comments. Liked and Subscribed.👍❤ 5 Reply @MS-tz1ml 1 year ago There are a lot of interesting details and perspectives in this video that I never saw in other youtube videos about these concepts. 7 Reply @taziefahmed9750 1 year ago Glade i came across this channel very interesting question, nice visuals n audio. 3 Reply @4kevbot3 1 month ago Great video. Keep 'em comin'! Reply @gaminawulfsdottir3253 1 year ago After watching this, I have one question: Why don't electrons fall onto the nucleus? 118 Reply 12 replies @quantum4everyone 1 year ago Aside from the video primarily discussing atoms using “old quantum theory only”, at the end, it fails to recognize that for the ground state, the highest probable place for the electron is indeed inside the nucleus (when the probability distribution is written in Cartesian coordinates in 3d). In fact, the electron often spends substantial time within the nucleus. It does not interact or change anything there due to energy considerations—-there is not enough energy for a proton and electron to combine to make a neutron—-except in special nuclei, where the electron is captured by the nucleus and a proton and electron combine to make a neutron. The reverse process, of creating an electron in the nucleus, does occur in tritium, which can beta decay to He3. If one uses a relativistic formula, the probability distribution within the nucleus is even higher, because the wavefunction actually diverges at the origin. And, of course, zero angular momentum states are possible in an atom. This is one of the old quantum ideas that was incorrect. 71 Reply Terra Physica · 49 replies @trapperjohn8481 1 year ago Just happened upon this channel a few hours ago and just started from the beginning and it has been enjoyable thus far. 1 Reply @neilgibb5265 1 year ago Excellent description. Thanks Reply @florian2442 1 year ago (edited) The pronounciation is "debroy" not "debrouglie". I realize it's an automated voice, but it just follows the trend of actual science communicators butchering that name almost every time. I feel like only PBS Spacetime has gotten it right, maybe a few others. Edit: I also have to admit, it's really hard for me to focus and take in the information with the incredibly monotone cg voice. Anyway, 'nough nitpicking, thank you for the otherwise great video :) 3 Reply @RealWaveQuantumMechanics 4 months ago You might be interested in a theory which is compatible with Quantum Mechanics and which explains spin of hbar/2 in normal way rather than requiring it to be 'intrinsic'. It also addresses the question of 'what is moving'? to give orbital angular momentum. The theory is described in the video The Distributed Electron and more full explained in the video series the Road to Quantum Reality. Reply @5ty717 1 year ago De Broi is the pronunciation you seek. Very nice compact piece. Thx. 11 Reply Terra Physica · 6 replies @RyanK-100 1 year ago A very complicated non-answer to a simple question. Very often physics amateurs will try to answer a conceptual question with math because they don't truly understand the concepts. We have that here. Further, the math mistake is substituting momentum p in an equation for the UNCERTAINTY in momentum (delta p). The statement delta p= p itself is wrong. So the solution doesn't even answer the question mathematically because it is nonsensical. 5 Reply @ibnorml5506 1 year ago A great, high level explanation on what is happening between electrons and the nucleus of an atom. Too bad we still don't have an explanation as to why it has to be that way. Reply @pavolusak2488 1 year ago At some very close distance from the proton mass center the attractive force bettween proton and electron flips to the repulsive. The inner region of the proton behaves like having a negative charge, dominat at this distance over the proton positive envelope. Fading however at the distance of Bohr radius, and further from proton center, in favor of the positive proton envelope. Attractive for the electron. Even 170 MeV/c^2 mass of the electron e*-, more compatible with the mass of the proton components, and capable to couple by strong force (~ 2.3E4 [N] ) with the proton to the neutron (under conditions in the nucleus), after "free neutron" {proton, e*-} expulsion from the nucleon, making it an entity, which inevitably within less than 10-15 minutes disociate to the proton and the light 0.511/c^2 electron e-. Sometimes captured by Coulomb force by proton to form neutral hydrogen atom. In the metastable neutron {proton, e*-} the expulsion of the negative electron by the inner negative proton region finaly takes place. No matter of its initially haevy mass and strong force coupling to the proton. Ejected away or even coupled to the proton by Coulomb force, attractive again at the distance R(Bohr), or larger, as a hydrogen atom 1H {proton, e-}. More details in the "World of the rings", "(Pseudo)science fairy tales" , on the Research Gate Reply Terra Physica · 1 reply @yru435 1 year ago I was hoping for an explanation that would use the tools of classical physics, as my high school students usually melt when quantum mechanics is invoked. The big dilemma for me is to explain why the attraction of opposite charges (which is a dominant concept in high school chemistry) does not take precedence over all other considerations... 14 Reply 10 replies @marcelma 1 year ago Congratulations to this very digestable an interesting presentation! One wish: Please reduce the visual footage to illustrations of what you are actually trying to explain. There is no need to add "pretty wiggle patterns" just to keep the viewers eyes busy. This has become a huge niussance on YouTube. You don't overdoe it here, but still, the tendency is present. The best presentations on YouTube are those which allow the viewer to "let it all in" without having to bother to mentally sort out trash and frill. 1 Reply Terra Physica · 1 reply @Daniel-y1f9r 1 year ago That's his job If he didn't want comments they would be turned off Thankyou very much for your video 3 Reply @carlhitchon1009 1 year ago I don't find it satisfying that the electron cannot fall into the nucleus due to an "uncertainty principle". In fact much of quantum mechanics fails to be explanatory even though it is rather precisely descriptive (but only of probabilities rather than individual events). Some suppose that our "brains just aren't built to understand it" or "the quantum world is so unlike the classical world that it surpasses understanding". Maybe we actually have more to learn about the quantum world. That we can accurately calculate probabilities of events is all well and good, but we lack insight into what is actually going on. 41 Reply 17 replies @kennethbransford820 1 year ago === Isaiah 40 : 26 “Lift up your eyes to heaven and see. Who has created these things? It is the One who brings out their army by number; He calls them all by name. Because of his vast dynamic energy and his awe-inspiring power, Not one of them is missing. [] Nehemiah 9 : 6 “You alone are Jehovah; you made the heavens, yes, the heaven of the heavens and all their army, the earth and all that is on it, the seas and all that is in them. And you preserve all of them alive, and the army of the heavens are bowing down to you. [] Daniel 2 : 44 “In the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed. And this kingdom will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it alone will stand forever, ==== Reply 1 reply @exoplanet11 1 year ago Nice discussion. I like to teach my students that classical physics proves that atoms can't exist (electrons would radiate away their energy according to the L'armor formula ) Since atoms do exist, classical physics must be wrong. The only flaw in your video I find at 20:00 when you show the 'electron cloud' as an apparent ring, and then state we cannot visualize the shape of such clouds. Indeed we can. Just look up s- and p- orbitals in a chemistry book. They are the solutions to the 3D Schroedinger equation. Reply @bryandraughn9830 1 year ago Wow 😮 How do you deal with these comments? Such patience and tolerance! Bravo! 18 Reply Terra Physica · 5 replies @richardbennett4365 1 year ago Why??? We are already at 13:25, and the graphics artist is still depicting an electron revolving around the nucleus if an atom, but we already know this model is incorrect. Also, the presenter already told us that charged accelerating particles emit radiation, so why is the graphics artist still showing us a misleading, incorrect view of the concepts that the narrator is trying to to teach. When the graphics don't match the words, it's damn confusing vvi think this team needs to go back to square 1 and think about more carefully how to explain these concepts. 3 Reply @mortophobegaming6454 1 year ago does this still apply when the electron is not in orbit around a proton? if you increase pressure enough such that another proton enters its neighbour's electron cloud, does the electron start making weird orbits or are you by that time call it nuclear fusion? Reply Terra Physica · 1 reply @disgruntledtoons 1 year ago (edited) The unification of QM and GR will take the form of equations which show that the future space-time path of electrons shows a non-zero probability only in the known orbitals. Exact equations will probably be impossible for anything other than a hydrogen atom, in the same way that there no general equation for the three-body problem in celestial mechanics. We will more likely have imprecise formulae, with the more complex formula giving less imprecise results. Reply 1 reply @michaelmcclain6899 1 year ago I was hoping for an answer that included the modeling we used to describe the conditions where the exclusion and uncertainty principles are overcome. I think that understanding that would give people a much better answer than just this, it is missing pieces. 3 Reply @anikettripathi7991 11 months ago Law and principles for sustainable universe are different they only change during pralya /mahapralya. Disintegration time for universe to nothingness back. Whole creation and dissolution of universe is cyclical and life span of universe allowed to remain alive /awake. All energies forces, matters, particles follow and respect law and principles. So all are alive only.. Reply @douginorlando6260 1 year ago Nice journey of discovery. I would have emphasized DeBroglie how he started with Schroedinger wave equation and adapted it to include special relativity … and thereby explained subtleties in spectral emissions which Schroedinger did not. Plus predicting antimatter (positrons) which were discovered a few years later. There are some other channels with content that goes well with yours. Physics Explained, Huygen’s Optics, are two. There’s an excellent YouTube video of the development of Maxwell’s equations which reminds me of your narrative (people, their discoveries, how they build up to the complete current picture by Maxwell 1 Reply @xBINARYGODx 1 year ago I am very unclear why anyone would at first assume they should fall - electrons move at the speed of light. The fact they can be captured into orbits is more surprising than the idea that they don't fall in, or rather, it would seem easier to assume at first that's strange than electrons stick around for any length of time such that things exist as they do. 2 Reply Terra Physica · 17 replies @RWZiggy 1 year ago Actually, "matter waves" went out in the 1930s, the only waves are probabilities. The electron is a point particle with no size, so are the quarks. The electron does go through the nucleus, the equations of quantum mechanics say it does. By the way there are certain conditions under which the electron can be captured by the nucleus and cause changes there. 3 Reply 1 reply @EternalSearcher 1 year ago So many words to say "we don't know" 28 Reply 4 replies @jdalton4552 4 months ago This question was answered by George Goedecke in 1964 when he discovered the non-radiation condition which had been hidden in Maxwells equations for 100 years. He discovered that non radiation occurs when the radius of the atomic electron equals ncT/2pi where n is normalized by the fine structure constant. This equation gives the r to be the Bohr radius , or .53 times 10 to the minus 10. That is the true size of the atomic electron. Reply @BeIteshazzar 1 year ago they do fall onto/into the nucleus, we then call the system a 'neutron'.. in neutron stars that's all you have, electrons pushed into the single proton nucleus hence neutral charge.. this also allows for higher density.. the pressure also prevents them from decaying, unlike under earthly conditions where free neutrons decay in 15 minutes.. you also have some neutrino interaction in the process 1 Reply Terra Physica · 1 reply @peterbrough2461 4 months ago Pretty sure electrons (or proto-electrons) WILL "fall" into the nucleus (but not bind with the proton for some reason). The sum of forces of other electrons then force it away from the nucleus resulting in an oscillatory behavior. 😉 Reply @zBernie12345 1 year ago I don't see how Heisenberg's uncertainty principle which is a mathematical construct, explains the reality of which force or forces prevent an electron orbit from touching the nucleus. 26 Reply 15 replies @richardmercer2337 1 year ago Perhaps the best one can do representing quantum mechanics in this context is to interpret the electron as a "probability cloud" or "distribution", representing the likelihood that the electron occupies a position within a certain region. Yes that seems quite abstract, but that is what it takes (in spades!) to understand quantum mechanics! 5 Reply 5 replies @JonDesautels 1 year ago Electron capture: Electron capture (K-electron capture, also K-capture, or L-electron capture, L-capture) is a process in which the proton-rich nucleus of an electrically neutral atom absorbs an inner atomic electron, usually from the K or L electron shells. This process thereby changes a nuclear proton to a neutron and simultaneously causes the emission of an electron neutrino. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_capture 1 Reply @sundareshvenugopal6575 1 year ago The reason is similar to why satellite's in a geostationary orbit do not fall out of orbit. On those stationary orbits, the forces neutralize and cancel or balance each other out, but outside of those orbits the forces are not in equilibrium. But system's whose state of equilibrium is disrupted or disturbed will always tend to revert back to a state of equilibrium, from their state of non-equilibrium. The natural tendency is always to restore balance or equilibrium. This is the principle way in which energy is conserved. This is the law of entropy. By rights, entropy should always be a measure of order in a system, not it's disorder. Reply @geniebegins6181 1 year ago I think atoms can give or take smaller amounts of energy to move up down their electrons in orbits; but when it comes to merge electrons and the nucleus it needs larger amounts of gravity pressure and temperature (energy) such as the one the star can do at its end phase. So to move from n=1 to n=0 it requires a lot of energy. Reply @Davidsavage8008 1 year ago It cant get back into the nuclius Whete it was fotced out of by tremendous forces . the electrons symbolised by a (--- ) . it is similar to the quantum entanglement when pulled apart or forced together. Never forget that mind over matter is because matter has a mind.. Reply 1 reply @lashasib 1 year ago I’m more interested in a similar yet different question: If I am an electron how would I differentiate a proton from a positron? How is it that when it’s a positive charge just 1000 bigger than its own mass it can’t annihilate? 4 Reply Terra Physica · 5 replies @sherman_w_braithwaite_atomica 2 months ago I thought it was about charge exchanges that allowed temperature changes in the medium of the charges; And, as temperature increases, electromagnetism is lost, so fusion is possible, and electrons can fall into the orbit of protons. At least that's how everyone who talks about it has described fusion as possible. OK, this video is from 1 year ago from today and now fusion is 21 to 31 years in the future. "Nuclear fusion has been theorized since the 1920s by English physicist Arthur Eddington [1] [2]. However, it remains an elusive goal, with estimates of 20 to 30 years away [3] [4] [5] [BING].". Reply @Degenerates-re5wc 1 year ago (edited) I've always said that the electron is bound to the nucleus via the nucleus wave function energy, thus the wave function of the electron is direct related to the nucleus wave function. Thus different atoms have different "looks" or signatures when it comes to wave functions. The electron is a kind of signature of the nucleus and the nucleus can be analized via the electrons around it. The electrons and nucleus are interlinked. The electrons cannot "fall" into the atom because the wave energy onto the electron eminates from the nucleus energy function. Here an electron is a wave function of the atom. When in free space unbound by a nucleus an electron is a particle due to a lack of wave function energy linked by a nucleus. Reply @solapowsj25 1 year ago Although electrons have spin like a marble, they are field lines radiating to and from a central point ➕ and magnetic field curl at the edge. A fall in potential leads to superconductivity, Bose Einstein condensate, Neutron star or even the singularity black hole🕳. Reply @PatrickStaight 1 year ago I thought the electron can't fall into the nucleus for the same reason a drunken sailor who stagers 1 step in a random direction every moment will not be infinitely close to a bar, even if the direction to the bar is bius in the random probability of her staggering. The average distance between the sailor and the bar is relative to the size of the step per moment in the simulation. If it were possible to take an infinitely small step in infinitesimal time then the drunken sailor would be infinitely close to the bar. However, Planck distance prevents this and thus electron orbits have non-zero size. Is my sense of this close to being correct or is there something I'm missing? Reply @conflict_monitor 1 year ago (edited) ZI'll tell you when I get back from the shop. -Terra Physica great video Reply @jimm8191 1 year ago "Fortunately, physicists studying the real world always have the opportunity to ask the universe whether a particular hypothesis is true by conducting an experiment" What a nice way to define what experiments is...!!! Reply @billjohnson9472 1 year ago 19:00 there is no orbit radius of electrons around the nucleus, there is a probability density function. the science in this video was current about 1920, before quantum physics. 3 Reply 1 reply @johnmalcolm4822 1 year ago Our normal everyday concept of a “particle” is something with a distinct boundary or surface, within which all of it exists and outside of which none of it exists. In reality there is no such thing although for all intents and purposes we can act and think as if there were, because it is so close to being true. On the atomic and sub-atomic scale however the tiny error of this way of thinking is of the same order of magnitude as the “size” of the things we are studying. This is why the illustrations in this video reinforce the misconception of sub-atomic entities being “particles” in the everyday, macro-world sense. It is also why attempts to fathom a question such as the one posed here are doomed to failure when we use terms that have practically no meaning in the sub-atomic realm. According to the strictest definitions in geometry, a surface has zero thickness and all of something resides entirely on one side of it. There is in material reality no such thing as a surface defined in this way. Likewise points have no area or volume, and lines have no width. So we can say that if we subscribe to the strictest definitions, there is no such thing as a circle; it is an abstraction, a model. Yet most people who believe God does not exist, believe in circles and by applying the ideal model to reality give themselves a smoother ride through life on “circular” wheels. It is at this stage of contemplation that those who argue that science proves the non-existence of God should find humility and realise that religion, like science uses models and idealisations which “exist” in a different sense than a rock exists. Our concept of the rock is something with a definite surface as defined above. So our concept might work for everyday purposes but is flawed. This is why the human mind can contain equations made of idealised functions, but cannot contain objective reality. It is why a question such as the one posed here is unanswerable because of the flawed concepts on which it is based. The images of shiny electrons orbiting a conglomerate of smooth-surfaced protons and neutrons is very useful, but as far from the truth as the (equally useful?) image of God as an idealised person. 1 Reply 1 reply @JC0322 1 year ago Read Randell Mills Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics - everything is explained and proven. All you need is Maxwell's Equations. Reply 1 reply @carriefu458 6 months ago This video blew my mind! 😳😳😳 Reply @atticuswalker 1 year ago because of gravity. gravity moves objects to the orbit of their density. like water vapor on earth. the near infinite energy density of the nucleus keeps the particle in orbit. flipping from 1 360⁰plane to the next . to get a 720⁰ 3d position . Reply Terra Physica · 3 replies @davidrandell2224 1 year ago QM classicalized in 2010. Juliana Mortenson website Forgotten Physics uncovers the hidden variables and constants and the bad math of Wien, Schrodinger, Heisenberg, Einstein, Debroglie,Planck, Bohr etc. So,no. Reply @wbiro 8 months ago It could be because the model is wrong. Maybe the 'valances' are just different stationary points on the nucleus, and the electrons just get kicked up like dust and then settle again, each in a different position that is a fixed distance away from the center of the clump. It makes more sense than magic electron valence jumping without going through the intervening space, and orbits that do not decay. Reply @shinyraygun 9 months ago (edited) My definitive guess is that disallowed electrons actually do fall into the nucleus, and they do fly in and out of orbits in every possible way. However, all "disallowed" states decohere from the "classical measuring apparatus" (the observer). Therefore-ish, all we can ever observe are the electrons that remain in their quantum orbits. IOW, the observer is the sustainer of the electrons' quantum orbits because the observer is also quantum and can only see the electrons that are in coherence with the state of the observer. (Wha?) Reply @derekmiller6091 8 months ago Omgg, if the electron was confined in the volume of the nucleus, the uncertainty in its energy is so high that its kinetic energy would overpower the electrostatic attraction to that nucleus - so it can’t be in the nucleus! That’s why it can’t fall in! Reply @danielschechter8130 1 year ago So the reason electrons do not fall into the nucleus is because of quantum uncertainty. This is very unsatisfying. I was hoping it would have something to do with the strong or weak nuclear forces. But if there's enough gravity everything collapses into neutrons. But I guess gravity is its own thing and doesn't play well with QM. Reply 1 reply @MottyGlix 1 year ago A correction: The units of Planck's constant (16:21) are joules times second, not joules per second. And I was dismayed to learn in college that "de Broglie" is pronounced "de broy" but then confirmed that we Americans may pronounce it as it is spelled in our orthography. 2 Reply 1 reply @APNambo 8 months ago (edited) This video is stupid. I'll tell you the answer. Elections at the ground state HAS fallen into the nucleus as much as they physical can. They need to "wave" in their ground state orbitals which is the lowest energy they can possibility have, thus they form orbitals defined by the wave equation. So imagine you holding onto a strong vibrating ball that at any moment can be anywhere within the length of your arm. This will form a probability sphere with the radius of your arm holding the ball. Thus this ball has already contacted you as much as it can while still allowed to vibrate. Reply @feynstein1004 1 year ago I just thought of this. Electrons and protons don't merge despite being attracted towards each other is because there's a small hill between them. You can push both to the top of the hill by expending energy and in the classical world, they'd stay there but in the quantum world, particles are always jiggling/moving. So they're more likely to be at the bottom of the hill than the top. As for why the hill exists, I guess that's just how quantum fields are structured? There isn't really a good answer to that. Kinda like asking why the electron has a negative charge. It just does 3 Reply 3 replies @dadsonworldwide3238 1 year ago (edited) Emerging energetic actors indirectly detected are amazing but to scale of atoms the fact anything and everything it can ever be that is definable is absolutely amazing 👏 Reply @robertlivingston1634 1 year ago Since I'm not a physicist nor a mathematician I suppose my view could be easily dismissed, but since the proton is also moving through space and not stationary finding the position of the electron would be impossible without knowing the speed of the proton thus also effecting the orbit. Reply 4 replies @kensanity178 1 year ago More importantly, where does all of the energy come from when the nucleus is split? How is this energy generated, and how can we control it safely? Is it possible to start a chain reaction in a super collider that could cause major destruction? How many things do we think we know about atomic elements that we know only by our inadequate linguistic explanations? Reply 1 reply @paolodelzanno9520 1 year ago In the Hamiltonian of the Shrödinger equation the terms of radiation are not considered! That's why in quantum mechanics electrons don't radiate. It is a trick! Simply Quantum mechanics do not explain why bound states don't radiate.... Reply @samtheweebo 1 year ago Even though a proton and electron are attracted to each other, the electron is too shy and fearful to actually approach. So it hangs around the proton it loves, doing it's best to repel any other electrons that would want to get close. 2 Reply 2 replies @InternetGrandpa 1 year ago It seems that one way to describe a neutron is to view it as a hydrogen atom where the electron is in the "zeroth" orbital. Now what happens to Heisenberg? 2 Reply 2 replies @russchadwell 1 year ago (edited) I'd say when an electron falls onto a proton you have an atom. In short, what we see IS an electron as close as it can get to a proton, ground state. What I mean is, an electron free of a proton can be either wave or particle in behavior. But, once falling onto a proton it is just a fuzzy wave, close as it can get like that. 1 Reply @rebeuhsin6410 1 year ago Bassically this is a very inportant observation. And for a theory to ne fully successful the math has to prodict it. I never done the math, I think about it like this, there is no solution to the wave equation that has an electron inside, or stuck, to a proton. Of course there is a electron capture, but that has a very large energy barrior, so is very unlikekly, except in sone isotopes with proton to neutron ratio that is unstable. And in any case, the electron no longer exists. Reply @frankmueller25 1 year ago The Heisenberg principle is not a law. When due to extreme pressure, the electron shells shrink. What is expressed here are observations not exclamations for why electrons don't fall into the nucleus. While the essence of an electron can be 1000 times smaller than a proton, we at present cannot determine where it will be except by probability. I feel though, that this uncertainty will not always exist. Reply 1 reply @wesbaumguardner8829 1 year ago The wave particle duality of light is wrong. Saying that light behaves like matter when it is "being absorbed or emitted by matter" is fallacious. Matter cannot be absorbed by matter. Matter cannot emit more matter. Fission or fusion can occur, but they all give off enormous amounts of energy and this is not observed when light is absorbed or emitted by matter. With that said, waves can be absorbed and/or broken up by matter, especially if the matter has an irregular shape. Matter can create waves, as well. There is not a single property that only occurs in matter and not waves which can be ascribed to light. In other words, light is a wave... a compression and rarefaction of a medium. Physicists have been peddling fiction for over 100 years now. Reply 7 replies @misterbonzoid5623 1 year ago Because they're not really particles orbiting like planets around the sun. They are fluctuations in one of a number of quantum fields which coexist and span the universe. 5 Reply @bbbl67 1 year ago You should have shown what the modern electron orbitals look like. The orbitals do show some electrons spending time inside the nucleus. They don't remain there, but they do get there. 4 Reply 2 replies @BMRStudio 1 year ago So no answer 😂😂😂😂 93 Reply 45 replies @peters972 8 months ago Saying something doesn’t behave physically because of an abstract principle is not an acceptable physical explanation. But it is all we have. “Faith is the essence of things unseen” is an abstract principle that enables theological belief. “You cannot measure the position and momentum of an object” is an abstract principle that enables quantum mechanics. In both cases no acceptable physical explanation is forthcoming. It is the ultimate in frustration. Reply @riccoy7667 1 year ago At 0:58 you discuss how Joseph Thompson discovered the electron. That discussion occurs over a picture of Ernest Rutherford not J. J. Thompson. A picture of Thompson can be found here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._J._Thomson. Rutherford is pictured again at 1:39. 2 Reply @TommieTrumper-TFC1200 1 year ago Typical nerd logic 20mins to tell me you don’t know hahahaa heres another one, what actually is gravity not its visualised or demonstrated effects…. Reply @AnAntidisestablishmentarianist 1 year ago So all physicists had to do to explain why electrons don't fall onto the nucleus was write an equation that says the electron can't fall onto the nucleus. Genius. I wish my job was that easy. 1 Reply 5 replies @philoso377 1 year ago (edited) Page 6:12 Lost of electric charge/force/energy of an orbiting electron move it to a higher orbit and not lower. On the other hand lost of momentum takes it to a lower orbit. If electron charge loss continues the orbit may be too large ending in 1. a drifting electron or 2. Gravity kicks in bind the charge-less electron (now subatomic particle) at the nucleus. Could both the nucleus and subatomic particles were attached to one another originally, only to exhibit a difference charge when forced apart, electrically? 2 Reply 1 reply @3KnoWell 1 year ago Excellent Presentation. ~3K Reply @NoosaHeads 1 year ago It's very frustrating to be told that an electron has an integer orbital and energy state - but nobody can tell us why. It definitely requires biblical type faith. Can you give a presentation on why each orbital has its particular shape? (ring, doghnut, dumbbell etc)I believe it can be explained by the Schroedinger equation, but i haven't yet been able to understand how the equation was derived and how it's applied. 1 Reply 1 reply @JoeDeglman 1 year ago Electrons do not orbit but fit into defined locations like plasma tufts, defined by charge points on the nucleus. The Bohr model is a red herring. Electrons do not orbit unless there is an input energy large enough to break the electron out of its position around the nucleus. Electrons and protons are condensers of the ether medium. Quantum computing experiments show that there is an electro-magnetic ether shell around all atoms, electrons and protons that can be controlled as a 'qubit' by an electric field or laser. It is the ether shell discovered by quantum computing experiments around the electrons and protons that provides the needed tension and keeps the electron out of the nucleus. The ether, AKA the Dirac ether, is dipole particles or photons that engage in flux cancellation around the atom to neutralize the Coulomb forces within. Reply @surenbono6063 8 months ago (edited) Parables.. it's like trying to listen frequencies below 16 hertz..there was always those gaps & natural laws that limits it..These laws are redundant everywhere in existence..in all universes Reply @laura-ann.0726 1 year ago The deeper question is "why are electrons quantized in the first place, such that they can only occupy orbitals (energy levels) at specific radii from the the nucleus?" Or, "why is the speed of light what it is, and not some faster or slower speed?" Or, "why is the value of Planck's Constant what it is, and not some value larger or smaller?". Maybe we aren't smart enough to answer those questions yet, or maybe I'm not educated enough to understand quantum mechanics. But I do love these videos, that try to bring the most extreme concepts of science to some kind of level that a layperson can grasp. Reply 5 replies @pes0635 1 year ago The video explains that quantum model is better than planetary one, because in planetary one it's not explained how electrons not slow down and fall on to the atom due to always right maxwells laws which tells accelerating electrons will emit light and lose kinetic energy. But in quantum model it's still not answered, only difference is that there are more rules from which fixed orbitals are emerged, it still doesn't answer why electrons don't loos energy due to emitting radiation. What do I miss ? I am totally not physicist forgive me if my question is stupid. Reply @jackfrost2978 1 year ago Good explanation of a very disappointing answer. Mathematics both accelerates our understanding by allowing us to test various ideas, while stagnating our understanding when people become far too infatuated with incomplete equations. Reply 4 replies @feltonhamilton21 1 year ago The fabric of dark matter is the foundation for all particles because it is vibrational. The reason for electrons not falling onto the nucleus is because the vibrations between the electrons and the nucleus are powerful. All particles uses waves to communicate which causes the fabric of dark matter to vibrate every time a wave is used by a particle. The truth is in-between the nucleus and the electrons for example electrons are force apart from each other through vibrational interference regardless on how powerful the magnetic pull is between them that keeps bringing them close together they will always remain a part from each other this is because the vibration keeps getting powerful every time they come closer, this is also the real reason why fusion was so difficult until now. The nucleus and the electrons all have there own wave functions that triggers individual vibrations out of the fabric of dark matter. Superconductor activity also uses waves to trigger vibration in the fabric of dark matter which then open doors to black holes , and planets and moons and stars. Close to truth. Reply @Songwriter376 1 year ago (edited) So, why don't electrons which are spinning around so very vigorously, bump into each other?? I do not think it is due to like charges repelling each other because the momentum seems it would be too great to avoid collisions. Nah, I think the whole model of atoms, electrons, protons and neutrons that are taught has to be very skewed and misrepresented in classical atomic theory. The theories work close enough to allow us to calculate and predict behavior in the physical world but I do not think it really explains what is really going on. Reply 1 reply @tonymarshharveytron1970 1 year ago The problem is, the standard model is wrong, because there has been too much reliance on manipulated mathematics. Hopefully, in a few weeks, a book called ' The Two Monopole Particle Universe ' will be published, that will offer a radical but logical alternative to the standard model. This I believe may answer many of the outstanding problems, in particular Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and Gravity. Kind regards, Tony Marsh. Reply 14 replies @johnmiranda2307 1 year ago When do electrons stop? Oh, then there IS such a thing as perpetual motion! And all this time you said there wasn’t, AND that the entire Universe came from nothing. What a CROCK! Reply 1 reply @TheStefan665 1 year ago (edited) no; just no; the reason why it doesn't fall is the 3 body problem; there are 3 quarks and not all of them are positive; together with the electron they form a system; a perfect system; the electron goes towards the center just to be tricked and find himself close to the negative quark; so it goes out again and so on; it's a perfect machine where one tries to catch the dragon; and we don't know if the electron never does; all we know is that we observe a negative charge outside; it could be that when it goes close enough, another electron gets born in another part of the atom; it's a system; and by another electron gets born, i mean that a bit of charge and a bit of mass go out of there; why couldn't they stay all in one place is the question; and no, "no radiation" is not a proof of anything; because they all radiate all the time; they all leave their electric mark, it;s just that on average the waves cancel out and appear to be neutral; the atom isn't neutral per se; it's a bunch of positive and negative bits that look neutral on average from a distance. Reply @christopher-e4t 4 months ago (edited) Earth's magnetic waves literally go IN one pole and come OUT the opposing pole. The Moon is too large to do this or it would. Meaning, electrons DO fall into and out of the nucleus. You don't get something from nothing and that is why Earth's magnetic field collapses when energy production (hydro electric as well as nuclear) peaks. Our energy production literally taps the available electrons from the electromagnetic field lines of the planet itself and redirects them through out power grids. Reply @jamesmcclain5005 1 year ago The electron doesn't fall into the nucleus because of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation. This signal creates a constant moving relationship between the two particles. If you filter out this signal, and reduce the temperature, the electron WILL fall into the nucleus. Reply Terra Physica · 1 reply @philoso377 2 months ago (edited) Page 9:37 that is as good as in saying that by breaking in a home and found evidence good to convict the occupant can be use to justifies law violation (breaking in) in the first place. Is this how modern physics is conducted? By violating a law of physics and found something useful behind that as an excuse to justify dismissal of the nucleus-electron collision paradox. Reply @DrBeah 1 year ago Given the comments, you should have left two things out and emphasized what you brought up in the last 90 seconds. 1. Eliminate the n=0 discussion. It's confusing and doesn't drive the narrative. 2. Too much time spent on Bohr and DeBroglie. I've never seen a decent presentation of DeBroglie 1-D waves fitting into circular orbits. I told my students to skip over that part, and go straight to ... 3. Schrodinger and orbitals. That would also help respond to some comments below: yes electrons Do have a probability of being at the nucleus - specifically, s electrons, but not p, d, or f electrons. What are those? I was hoping this video would address that, but no such luck. Wait until next lecture. 5 Reply 1 reply @andrecarvalho9637 1 year ago Voice sounds like AI. But sounds very natural. What software did you use for text to speech? Reply Terra Physica · 1 reply @hillaryclinton2415 1 year ago They DO .. and pass through .. the clouds we see (resembling dumb bells in some configurations) are the physical representation of this Reply @chrislong3938 9 months ago A better question is, 'Why haven't galaxies completely merged into singular humongous black holes?!?' Gravitational waves cannot happen without something there to propagate the wave through space! There must be an aether!!! Therein lies the key to everything! Reply @atheistaetherist2747 1 year ago What a load of krapp. Electrons do not orbit a nucleus. Photons orbit a nucleus. Photons hug the nucleus. Photons have fallen as far/close as they can fall. JG Williamson explains. Reply @v2ike6udik 1 year ago 5:10 iss if fakery, check pic from wiki. Potatoshop pic with fragment of cgi eatrh. Uuuups. Pathetic. Prolly done to mock blind. Reply @silaskelly604 1 year ago It is an obsolete view but: The moon is attracted to the earth by gravity and continuously falls toward the earth. But the moon is attracted to the center of where the earth is and falls toward that center. But it is constantly moving and the moon isn't smart enough to "lead" the earth so by the time the moon gets to that point in space and time, the earth will have moved to that point. So the dumb moon continuously falls toward where the earth's center of mass was a moment ago and just chases it forever, never even gaining. In 2024 we have other theories that change by the minute, (or less), so it doesn't matter much to anyone except a quantum physics professional. Reply 1 reply @alanmcneill2407 1 year ago An over simplified explanation was given me by a teacher, the electrons are moving at a velocity that gives it enough momentum to balance the magnetic attraction. How that happens is insanely complicated! I agreed with him!!! The truth is very likely something the human brain can not handle. Reply @kazunorimiura3526 2 months ago Why don't electrons fall into the nucleus? In 1920, Rutherford proposed the intranuclear electron theory, which states that electrons exist in the nucleus. If intranuclear electrons exist, the orbital electrons are attracted to the protons in the nucleus and repel the intranuclear electrons, so they are loosely connected. However, at the time, it was thought that the dominant positive charge acts on the orbital electrons, so the intranuclear electron theory was not accepted. Reply @rogerjohnson2562 1 year ago (edited) 19:50 "the electron is forbiden to descend (to the nucleus) due to the uncertainty principle" 🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🙃 This highlights the strange hold the 'uncertainty principle' has on science; sounds like 'non-science' to me, why not just call it 'Dark Certainty'? The negative electron is attracted to the positive nucleus because of the electric force, and held off the nucleus by the nuclear force, which is stronger. The electron can be squashed into a proton, creating a neutron, but which then decays by the (weak) nuclear force. Note that a negative anti-proton is attracted to a positive proton by the electric force, but instead of being held off, it joins the proton and unleashes the energy of both; scientists should focus on that phenomenon to determine HOW energy is trapped into matter... they'll probably just call it a 'Dark Trap'. Reply @thomas-gw3xf 1 year ago CENTRIFICAL FORCE --- SPEED OF ELECTRONS in conjunction with the mass of the nucleus and its "gravitational" force create a syncronation that will survive until ths nucleus turns in on itself and dies ! Reply @kayakMike1000 1 year ago Technically, electrons do fall on the positively charged nucleus. These are called "atoms" and they are often found electrically neutral. There's a better question to ask, like... Why does there seem to be a structural relationship between positve nuclei and the electrons? I think the idea of electron orbits like planets orbiting a star caused the confusion. Subatomic paricles behave like waves, electrons are no exception. The wave like nature of the electron exists on top of the nuclei. 5 Reply 2 replies @Soulwrite7 1 year ago Doesn't this simply beg the question, what is the uncertainty of the proton being in the nucleus of the atom? If we fired a line of protons in a vacuum at two slits wouldn't we also observe such uncertainty. If both are uncertain then we are back with the plum-pudding model just with an asterisk? Perhaps because protons and neutrons are composites of quarks they are less uncertain? If somehow you were to have a concentration of electrons and neutrons in one place, would protons fall into such probability shells? While math is a powerful tool, faulty assumptions will produce faulty answers, one model may have many mathematical solutions. I understand that this is beyond our scope of sight, and is relatively new physics. I just wonder with how convoluted and pointing to math some answers are, how questioned the assumptions inherent were, and how explored all solutions to the equations have been. Sometimes a mistake in Sudoku may not become apparent until much later down the line, then it becomes very difficult to figure out where the faulty assumption was made. 1 Reply @Rodney-u5c 4 months ago Two protons can be made to stick together because of the nuclear force; but two electrons cannot be made to stick together. This shows that the nuclear force is in the proton and not in the electron. The strong nuclear force is between two protons, and the weak nuclear force is between a proton and an electron. The reason the weak nuclear force is weaker than the strong nuclear force is because the strong nuclear force is between two particles that both have the nuclear force in them, and the weak nuclear force is between two particles where only one of the two particles has a nuclear force in it, namely in the proton. These two forces are opposite to each other. Protons electrically repel each other but attract each other through the nuclear force. The electron and the proton electrically attract each other but repel each other through the nuclear force. So in conclusion, the reason electrons don't fall onto the nucleus of an atom is because the nuclear force keeps the electrons out at a distance. But this isn't always true; in the nucleus you have protons repelling each other but are held together through the strong nuclear force, but whenever this force exceeds the force of the weak nuclear force, an electron can be taken into the nucleus and therefore cancel some of the repulsive forces between protons to make the nucleus more stable. The electron will combine with a proton to form a neutron. So as the nucleus gets bigger, the number of electrons allowed into the nucleus increases which results in more neutrons being formed. Reply @gijbuis 1 year ago (edited) You continually depict electrons as small round balls. That's simply wrong! Yes, we don't really know what sort of properties really depict a 'particle'. It might be a quantum excitation of an electromagetic field. But that doesn't help us much. Nobody understands quantum mechanics!! Reply 1 reply @PeterMilanovski 1 year ago Nope! You are still wrong..... Where you are going wrong is that you keep saying positive and negative charge like there's two different but opposite charges.... When there isn't! It doesn't exist! Not even a battery has two different but opposite charges! Even though it's marked with a positive and negative symbol! The earliest mention that I know of is by Benjamin Franklin who said that when you have more charge, we will call it positive and when you have less charge we will call it negative, meaning that something either has more or less than something else! Then there's the problem of the neutron..... It too carries a charge, for it is the charge that holds everything together! If the neutron had no charge, it can't affect anything and nothing can affect it! Therefore it cannot be in the nucleus! So therefore it's charge state must be something between the proton and the electron, probably closer to the proton than the electron would be my hypothesis.... Considering it's location being relatively closer to the proton...... There's far too many things wrong with our science, hydrogen isn't the lightest element.... It's heavier than whatever dark matter is.... But there's no empty box waiting for it's discovery in the periodic table of elements...... In the part where it's showing electrons going through a sheet of gold, where are the electrons coming from? How are they being replaced? Where do those free electrons end up once they pass that sheet of gold? There's always a cycle! And we weren't shown one! Showing an electron beam is like looking at entropy at work, but even entropy is a cycle, good things fall apart so that better things can fall together..... There's no point in just looking at the point of entropy, little can be understood from that alone, you need to see the whole cycle! It's no wonder why we always stumble across new technologies instead of actually understanding what everything is and how it works to know how to use it! That's why science just keeps getting harder instead of getting easier! That there tells you that we don't understand science..... Reply 1 reply @aarongallagher8898 1 year ago I wondered if time just around a nucleus slows down. As dense matter bends space time. So there would be a extremely thin space around a nucleus or the space in a nucleus of bent space time. Reply @KipIngram 1 year ago 0:32 - Oh my gosh - your nuclei are so BIG. Pretty pictures, but not anything like an accurate picture. Of course, the electrons don't explicitly orbit like that either, so I guess it's not meant to be realistic. Reply @manmeetjammu 1 year ago I thought orbits are not always circular.. only S orbitals. They have different shapes. Like dumbal donut etc.. And the probability of finding the electron is such . So electron actualy behaves like a wave in these orbits. Reply Terra Physica · 1 reply @philoso377 1 year ago (edited) Nice video and presentation. Logical and mathematical speculations are extremely convincing but whole. It produces special case and has narrow application, sometimes give us the satisfaction of a false positive. Orbital model of an atom falls in that category. The model only teach us nucleus is positive and orbiting electron is negatively charged, and electric force in between them can lead to collisions, that was prevented by orbiting centrifugal force of the electron. This model lacks a number of things. - Electric field in between wipe through a permittivity of vacuum imposed electromagnetic drag that tangential speed is at or below light speed. - given the mass of electron, and the electric force in between, at what tangential speed the electron to possess in order to stay in orbit? was not addressed. - electric field of an atom model wiping through vacuum, like a single bladed propeller, can induce synchrotron radiation. Converting electron’s electric force into radiative loss. In the end the electron may have its charge stripped completely. So no charge to keep electrons with the nucleus. (The fall of orbital model) Alternatively, negatives charged electrons and positively charged nucleus bind together without a collision. When parted the smaller member always comes out negatively charged. This supports JJ Thompson’s model a plumb pudding. For that we are free to explore how discharged didn’t happened. As oppose to invent a new branch of physics to explain the nature. The quantum mechanic physics. Reply @bsgnerd 1 year ago Good video! Reply @jacksimpson-rogers1069 1 year ago The fact that a planet is in a constant state of accelerating towards the Sun seems weird until you introduce trigonometry and differential calculus, which was why Isaac Newton invented it. But if you grant that acceleration implies a force, you can prove that a mass attached to a cord, which you whirl at a constant rotation speed around your head, exerts a force upon the string, which means you are causing it to accelerate towards you. Reply @FrankHeuvelman 1 year ago I want to know how IR photons can transport heat moving at light speed and without mass and why, for instance, short wave radiation can not. Or can they..? Never got a satisfying answer. Yes, stupid question, I know, but it keeps me awake at night. I simply have to know. Reply 1 reply @bretts6861 1 year ago (edited) Seems like a lot of the confusion arises from us still using the dated positive negative convention. What exactly are the positive protons doing that the negative electron aren’t? Is one pushing and the other pulling? Considering that they’re both spinning and moving it seems like sometimes they’re attracting each other and other times repelling, and eventually the electrons reach an equilibrium a certain distance from the nucleus. Reply 3 replies @patrickkelcey2435 1 year ago Excitements in a field... Collapse that field and produce neutrinos. (thank you Mr Veritasium) Reply @gbear1005 1 year ago Visualize a charge aleays moving .. it flies through the spaces between charges then flies away.. to have its orbit bend back... Reply @billynomates920 1 year ago excellent video, tp! 😃👍👍 1 Reply @ioannischristou2362 1 year ago You are pronouncing the name of Nobel laureate (French aristocrat) de Broglie wrong: his name rimes with Versailles (the palace of the Kings of France). Think of smth like "de-grail" but with a "b" instead of a "g", and the "l" being kind of silent... Reply 2 replies @philoso377 2 months ago Page 20:31 I doubt it is legal to produce and apply a new GM rule to bypass illegal assumption that there was no collision issue between nucleus and electron, and call it a day. Reply @johnaugsburger6192 4 months ago Thanks Reply @sag1970 1 year ago Positive negative charge repel each other this causes the emotion this causes the activity of the electrons I suspect gravity has something to do with it but then I don't have the education to know I'm only guessing Reply @PedroFigueiredo-q9x 1 year ago The experimentally observed fall of an inner electron ( a 1s electron orbits on the K orbit, an old term) into a neutron deficient nucleus is called K capture, K-Einfang in German. Hence an electron spends some time IN the nucleus before being irreversibly absorbed by a proton. This somewhat contradicts your assertions. The French pronounciation of de Broglie cannot be rendered in English, the last sound is the same as in Italian Cagliostro, Cagliari , as in Spanish calle and as in Portuguese Calvelhe. 1 Reply @The_Green_Man_OAP 1 year ago (edited) 14:19 Your illustration doesn't look right... Waves should be around the circle. r(2π/n)=rΔθ~2rsin(½∆θ)=λ, for 0‹|∆θ|«15° (just over 1% max relative error). Reply @Gegarace 1 year ago This has the same answer when my parents ask why I got C-. Me : because 49/100 is not allowed me to get C. Nice answer, but that's not explaination my mom was looking for. Reply @figefago 1 year ago 5:28 Could you give me link or video name where you describe this mechanism? Reply @audistik1199 1 year ago Sigh…This takes me back to college physics in the 60s. With some added depth. I love the inclusion suggesting that that quantum mechanics is still a part of macro physics except just too small to manifest itself in any meaningful way. Isn’t this a way forward to the theory of everything? Reply 3 replies @antoniosmpl.3457 1 year ago ok so when we push an object, the electrons push or pull the objects protons ? 2 Reply 2 replies @justintodd5145 1 year ago Can neutrons be pushed into other neutrons? Reply Terra Physica · 3 replies @KosalaKopal 11 months ago The velocity of an electron is 2200 km/s. If an electron change it's speed (low) it will attract by the nucleus. This is my answer. please say is my answer correct ??? Reply @markvoelker6620 1 year ago Because of the wave nature of electronic orbitals, each of which is a solution to the Schrodinger equation, an eigenvector to be precise. Reply 1 reply @papaschlumpf5894 1 year ago Allow me to ask an absoulte amateur's question: Aren't the electrons in a Neutron star "pressed" into the Protons, so that only Neutrons result? At least this is what I've often read about neutron stars. But if this is true, then it IS possible for n to be zero, no matter how you mathematically proved it to be impossible. Can you enlighten me there? 2 Reply Terra Physica · 2 replies @HealthcareBlockchain 1 year ago Cool video, I think there is a place for hyperbolic space Reply @rezadaneshi 1 year ago The logical conclusion is their speed is so precisely synchronized to the mass in the nucleons that their slowest speed is a perpetual orbit in first electron layer and higher speeds and energy for higher orbits discharging photons on the way down. 1 Reply Terra Physica · 4 replies @MaxAbramson3 8 months ago Answer: It does. But the diameter of the largest nucleus is about 15 femtometers, while the wavelength of the gamma rays emitted on positron-electron annihilation are much larger, about 2.43 picometers. The gamma ray sized electron completely surrounds the nuclueus of even the largest atoms and cannot be squeezed into the nucleus under normal heat and pressure--only at the core of a star. Reply @SimonMcGrath-x2x 4 months ago I thought DeBroglie said an Electron is a standing wave, any thoughts? Reply @snnwstt 1 year ago At 5:45, you stated that an accelerating electron should lose energy, but your quantum model removes that requirement by stating that ... we don't know how the electron moves or if the electron moves at all ?!? To me, that is a little bit gross: you freely "wave" away the problem of NOT having to lose energy, and thus, not having to explain it, isn't it? Reply @GH-oi2jf 5 months ago Newtonian mechanics just doesn't work at that dimension because it does not account for physical principles which apply only at atomic dimensions. It is an error to expect that macroscopic phenomena would scale down to an arbitrary degree. Reply @larrytanner4725 5 months ago To be truthful, many aspects of QM cannot be understood but must simply be accepted because they are in agreement with observations. Reply @allenplante4402 1 year ago Can the atom be considered a perpetual motion machine ? Reply Terra Physica · 1 reply @walterulasinksi7031 1 year ago Electrons are attracted to protons in the nucleus however the neutrons permit the polaric reversal of vibration to occur without causing an explosion. Remove the neutrons, as in a fission procedure, and such energy is generated. Reply @Celestiallearn369 1 year ago The kinetic and potential energy of atom keep balance and prevent from fall Reply @apollo-r5z 9 months ago (edited) All electrons travel in a straight-line past atom but are drawn back towards atomic orbitals by the negative positive asymmetrical oscillations of color charge. Reply @sonpopco-op9682 1 year ago We have no reason to believe that an electron cannot pass completely through the 'positive' nucleus unaffected. It is simply the ignorance of what "charges" actually are, that even raises this question. 2 Reply 13 replies @ericreiter1 1 year ago where you mention JJ and the electron you show Rutherford 1 Reply @Sikintyred 1 year ago I think it's really funny how the deeper we look we see that everything is revolving around something No matter how strong it is it pulls toward something bigger Yet it wants it's space Reply @michaelgonzalez9058 9 months ago The atoms repell the photon by attorney magnetics 1 Reply @manofsan 1 year ago (edited) If you're using a toy pingpong-paddle that has an elastic band attaching the ball to the paddle, then why doesn't that elastic band pull the ball into the paddle? Because the ball and paddle are being bopped around. Same thing is happening with the electrons and the nucleus. Space at the tiny small scale is unstable, and bops around tiny objects. You and I are too big to notice it, but tiny electrons and nuclei are certainly small enough to be affected. 1 Reply @dougieh9676 1 year ago Those folks are my heroes. ❤ Reply @bigrigexperience9294 1 year ago It is a jungle, my dear. Electrons do not collapse on the nucleus because each has magnetic momentum of opposite sign. That means, the electrostatic attraction force acts radially (on the radius of the atom) while the magnetic force acts azimuthally (perpendicular to radial in polar system of coordinates). You repeated the mistakes in the books of physics that emphasize electrostatic attraction and repulsion, ignoring electromagnetic deflection by moving charges. Thus, you need not invoke Heisenberg's uncertainty principle because the magnetic deflection will prohibit electron-proton collision. You need not invoke De Broglie's matter waves because a charge in motion has electromagnetic waves on Maxwellian basis. You need not invoke Bohr's orbitals because they cannot account for locked shells in inert gases: He, Argon, Neon, .. to Radon. You need not invoke Planck's constant h because it is obscure, misleading, and futile. Max Planck never believed in Einstein's crazy idea that photons exit as particles of energy because Planck's work was limited to the violet and blue light and h must apply to the entire spectrum. You cannot assume that the red, radio, and microwaves acts like particles despite their possession of h energy per each wavelet of frequency. Lastly, electrons that revolve in orbits must do so in elliptical trajectories, not circular. That means electrons must accelerate and decelerate around the nucleus, thus losing and gaining energy in every round of rotation. I do not think that Rutherford claimed that electrons do not collapse on nuclei because they stay in orbits. Rutherford was too smart to make such dumb claim. Neil Bohr was the king of laziness and fabrication. That made him twist every logic in order to advance the quantum theory that is filled with fixes and delusions. Reply @MrWebbtang 1 year ago 16:10 momentum is measured in kilogram metres per second, NOT kilograms per metre per second 2 Reply @TravisCotter 1 year ago I could care less. I am X 1 Reply @mahamaha4816 1 year ago I did not understand your answer for the question why electron dont fall onto nucleus. 19:45 seems to get there but confusing Reply @peterosmanski7466 1 year ago So after all that you did not explain why. You used circular reasoning and math to demonstrate that the equations don't allow it, but never why! You develop equations to describe observations, then manipulate those equations to produce a result that describes the observation that the electron can't have an orbital radius of zero as if somehow electrons know about man made mathematical constructs. 😂 Reply 1 reply @ManyHeavens 1 year ago If perspective is everything we can't afford to be blind . or Blinded by God Particles 1 Reply @melaniecampbell7055 1 year ago Why? Because the storyline wouldn't work. Thus it was time to embellish to explain it all away and give u a 'y'. Personally, I would've called them happytrons instead of protons and told kids in chem & phys the negative guys were always trying to make the happy ones negative but could never get to them. Or like Romeo & Juliet they were forever to be apart. Anyways, it gives the content maker a chance to make a living on youtube. Reply @timelapseofdecay9028 1 year ago So let me see if I understood what you said. You are saying that even though the positive and negative charges do attract, the electron won't fall on the proton because of the uncertainty principle and math? Because then we would know precisely where the electron is? Reply 2 replies @benjystrauss2524 1 year ago Actually, the wavelength of a tennis ball is zero. Experiments have shown (and I forget the source) that anything larger than the planck mass has a wavelength of zero. Reply @sdal4926 1 year ago Pauli exclusion principal should be included 12 Reply 6 replies @jeffreyluciana8711 1 year ago Electrons don't fall into the nucleus because Harry Potter said, "Wingardium leviosa" when he created the universe. Now, electrons follow the Dumbledore-Pauli exclusion principle. Reply @mireyajones810 1 year ago The electrons do NOT flow IN the wire. They just vibrate OUTSIDE the wire. What did Heaviside say? What does Eric Dollard say? How did Tesla create devices that drew energy directly from the earth? 1 Reply 1 reply @EnyListiyarni 1 year ago Elektro magnetik radiation like proton and nutro nitrogen hidroven🎉 Reply @gbear8207 1 year ago I still don't understand. 😂 2 Reply 1 reply @MichaelMoore-no9ly 1 year ago In the classical understanding of the atom, the electrons, of course, do not rotate around the nucleus, but revolve around the nucleus. Reply @alansanders4733 1 year ago What happens when neutron stars are formed? Don’t the electrons get forced into the nuclei of atoms in that case? 1 Reply 3 replies @peterdamen2161 1 year ago Interesting video! However, it's not Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, but Kennard's uncertainty principle that states that you cannot suppress quantum fluctuations of both position and momentum below a certain limit simultaneously. Many physicists, including the one responsible for the content of this video, don't know this..... Reply 2 replies @miinyoo 11 months ago It's because they are not particles when you consider them bound. They are standing waves. Of something. We can describe the something but have no idea what it is. Reply @mtb095 1 year ago Electron capture is a very real thing 2 Reply 1 reply @SpaceCadet4Jesus 1 year ago I know it's not common knowledge but Schrödinger had a dog too. Reply @marounaboujaoudeh1401 1 year ago "If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself". I think using complex equations to explain reality is confusing, and it shows that you don't understand the subject yet. After viewing the video, one might say that electrons don't fall into the nucleus because there's an equation that says so! Reply Terra Physica · 5 replies @huverdoose 1 year ago If physicists were then as they are now, Rutherford would have declared the existence of 'dark alphas' to explain his results and kicked off a hundred year hunt for them. Reply @jesusisunstoppable4438 1 year ago Where do they get their Energy from ?? Reply @dpeelman1 1 year ago You never did answer the question “why don’t electrons fall into the nucleus,” you merely pointed out a man made rule written because electrons don’t fall into the nucleus 1 Reply 2 replies @mr.adamski6431 1 year ago Well done video! Heads up that Louis DeBroglie’s name is properly pronounced “ duh-BROY” Reply @finhas8865 1 year ago Of course, the base of Quantum Mechanics always refer to electrons as point particles. Along the way, they forgot about this and never admit it when pointed out. Reply @sucraloseUncle 1 year ago AI generated regurgitation. 13 Reply Terra Physica · 3 replies @THEUNFOLDING- 1 year ago The nucleus of the atom is the product of the exact frequency of the electron. An electron is a toroidal field. Reply Terra Physica · 1 reply @kiranchannayanamath3230 1 year ago The narrative was so intuitive and thought provoking. I also wonder why don't planets lose energy as gravity waves and fall into the sun. Reply 2 replies @andygreeley5196 1 year ago I, an object of the material world, not unlike a tennis ball, spread out in space like a wave. Reply @cantkeepitin 1 year ago In 19:35 you apply the Heisenberg theorem but you do it with the assumption density=0 at the edges. Couldn't it be just small? What shape has the pdf? Reply @adbellable 1 year ago shud treat black holes as large atoms. boundary conditions will form waves internalized. Reply @radinelaj9280 8 months ago (edited) You say : electrons don't fall due to revolving around the nucleus ,but what if could have same charge with nucleus They wouldn't fall if elecyrons have same charge with nucleus. Why not Reply @tysonessenmacher2091 1 year ago When magnetic particles jiggle they create nodes in their magnetic field, the electrons fall into these (orbitals) nodes. Reply 1 reply @rbti99 3 months ago Where would it fall "from"? Reply @chriskenney4783 1 year ago (edited) I got the Impression that the electron must travel in relation to the nucleus, as if in a parrell path. It seems that we try to explain atoms as a closed system, each and every one. What if both the nucleus and the electron are traveling in a straight line relative to each other, but occupying different states, space and/or time. Both are acted upon simultaneously by a shared influence, perhaps a component of gravity, which we observe in 3D? Reply 1 reply @robcrissinger776 1 year ago Onto or into ? I dont think that with the size of an electron , even if its possible that the electron would be gobbled up. Reply @Overitall805 1 year ago (edited) What if the answer is the missing dark energy/matter/ force that we seek? Lol, just playing around in your sandbox for a minute . Reply Terra Physica · 1 reply @Jack__________ 1 year ago Electrons tunnel through the nucleus all the time… but they are repelled by the down quarks. The real question is why does charge, repulsion, or attraction even exist? 2 Reply 2 replies @Superfly-dg5ty 1 year ago So the answer is - We don't know but we can calculate even after calculating we don't get exact values but probabilities from which we can speculate. Reply @HEMANTHKumar.p-hi5rn 1 year ago (edited) 😂😂😂😂 No guys its the answer they can't find there is no answer you know 1+1=? But a+1=? You call a1 😂😂😂 claps for that but it is unknown may be or may not Reply @kirbs0001 1 year ago Is electron capture the reason we believe electrons are a combination of corpuscular and waveform at all, rather than pure waveforms? Reply 1 reply @tonybalazs 1 year ago Very nice. Just that units of h are Js not J/s. Reply @Octopossible 1 year ago Around the 6-minute mark you say that the electron speed has to decrease in order to fall into the nucleus. Completely false! That is opposite to what is observed. The animation at 8 minutes actually shows the inner orbitals moving faster. this is consistent with celestial mechanics. Reply @ask230 1 year ago (edited) 9:43 It's not at all intuitive, but the name de Broglie is pronounced "de-broy" not "de-brogue-lee". Reply @rh001YT 1 year ago After watching this, I have one question: Why don't electrons fall onto the nucleus? The pseudo answer given is in the form of a dogma. Reply @chrisjust7445 1 year ago Then how do you explain Electron Capture? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_capture Reply Terra Physica · 2 replies @RealMiami33141 1 year ago Why is because the nucleus is also in motion going somewhere and therefore also a wave? At least the electron never “arrives” where the nucleus “was”. This also makes me think perhaps the “pressure” of atoms joining and separating causes the electrons that will be leaving to be pushed to zero and instantly achieve escape velocity in that moment? Reply @sundareshvenugopal6575 1 year ago The reason is similar to why satellite's in a geostationary orbit do not fall out of orbit. On those stationary orbits, the forces neutralize and cancel or balance each other out, but outside of those orbits the forces are not in equilibrium. But system's whose state of equilibrium is disrupted or disturbed will always tend to revert back to a state of equilibrium, from their state of non-equilibrium. The natural tendency is always to restore balance or equilibrium. This is the principle way in which energy is conserved. This is the law of entropy. By rights, entropy should always be a measure of order in a system, not it's disorder. 2 Reply @iamuonline 9 months ago still the question remains 'why electron won't fall into the nucleus?' Reply @Sunnanandi 1 year ago Electrons are subject to the laws of the sub atomic realm.Falling up, down or sideways wouldn't occur to them. Reply @shivkumarmohite4672 9 months ago Why electrons don't slow down and stop spinning altogether? Why they don't experience friction of the atmosphere? Reply @zorand67 1 year ago (edited) Wrong ... And the real truth is very ... as always: simple and comprehensible. Reply @MrBollocks10 1 year ago Couldn't live with a plum pudding, could they? Do they imagine we're all have plum pudding weekly in Britain?🙄 Reply @CharlesMatheson-w1z 1 year ago This video was much like the episode of the Big Bang Theory where Sheldon was giving Penny a physics lesson, you talk to much about things that while related, could easily be left out, it gets boring listening to someone drone on and on. Reply @Rohit-oz1or 1 year ago Click-bait video. Even Richard Feynman couldn't explain quantum mechanics intuitively 1 Reply @MEMcAndrews 1 year ago Sorry I couldn’t continue watching. Your repeated “interchangeable” reference to “rotate” and “revolve” was off-putting. There is no part of this argument where you discuss electron rotation, yet you use the term “rotation” far too frequently. Reply @thomas-gw3xf 1 year ago electrons -----> suns ---> planets ------> galaxies --------->>>>>> universes again all that dark matter and energy that you can not see feel touch nor any mass nor well nada !!!!!!!!!! Reply @tml721 1 year ago IF its orbiting then wouldn't Gravity/force be in play in the orbit ? Reply @tk423b 1 year ago If they did you couldn’t ask that or any question. Questions wouldn’t exist. Reply @philoso377 1 year ago Each time the electrons were found, it is negative charged. Does that mean it always carries a charge, w/wo the atom? Each time we saw a fire truck parked by a house on fire. Does that means the truck always cause fire? Each time we were found in the highway together with our car does that mean we and the vehicle are one piece? Reply @WarmWeatherGuy 1 year ago What about making neutron stars? If you push an electron into the nucleus it will turn protons into neutrons. 1 Reply Terra Physica · 2 replies @rickabr123 1 year ago You really don't know why, so you answer with an equation? Smh 1 Reply 1 year ago The representation of electrons whizzing around the nucleus like satellites is misleading. 1 Reply 1 reply @SimonMcGrath-x2x 4 months ago Why didnt u say Rutherford's famous line " it was like firing a cannonball into tissue paper and having it rebound straight back!" Reply @TheAnimammal 1 year ago (edited) The reason it seems illogical is because it is illogical and mathematics falsifies quantum by measuring a ball on a string. Reply @gregorysagegreene 1 year ago (edited) Please Gawd, never roll your dice and have me watch this video ever again. 1 Reply @justfellover 1 year ago I've heard of the plum pudding model, but the raisin bun model is totally new. I wonder if there's still room for a blueberry muffin model? It seems likely. Atoms are supposed to be very spacious. 2 Reply Terra Physica · 4 replies @Javier-qk7ms 1 year ago ChatGPT is making so many YT videos lately. 1 Reply @willclarke4631 1 year ago Occupy space! That’s awesome. Reply @ScRaMbLeS247 1 year ago Electron is the god particle what if it was at the center before the bang and the bang made them never combine to the atom again Reply 1 reply @saulgoodman7221 1 year ago Question is where did all the electrons come from. Curious that every proton has a corresponding electron. Why are there exactly enough electrons and no extras ? Reply 3 replies @brian554xx 1 year ago What we call "uncertainty" I maintain is better described as "indistinctness". Reply @masnyak 9 months ago "Lets start from incorrect understanding 100 years ago, then lets talks about incorrect understanding in the middle ages, then lets talk about incorrect understanding in primitive people ...". I listen 5 minutes and found only some historical story about incorrect approaches. Should we learn hundreds volumes of some historical stories before getting one formula which was only needed? Reply @vulpo 1 year ago So why doesn't the negatively-charged electron just fall into the positively-charged nucleus? Reply @agniusvasiliauskas4140 1 year ago (edited) Not to say that basic algebra here is flawed : pr = nh >= h/2 => n >=1/2 not n >= 1. I don't know who wrote the script, but it probably has skipped elementary school :-) Reply Terra Physica · 1 reply @bussi7859 1 year ago Because they are no stones. Electrons are fields as everything else is. Stop seeing matter as tiny marbles Reply @christophergame7977 1 year ago For me, this states that electrons don't fall into the nucleus because they can't. It doesn't seem to explain why they can't. Reply @walter_lesaulnier 1 year ago Because they don't get drunk. Bada ching!! I apologize for the joke above, those responsible have been sacked (cool movie reference). Reply @alexciocca4451 1 year ago Dawk that’s right Mr Festerbester Reply @davidpalin1790 1 year ago My view is that atoms are quantum packets of energy held together by forcefields 1 Reply 1 reply @derekmiller6091 8 months ago ‘De-broy’, ‘De-broy’, ‘De-broy’, ‘De-broy’, ‘De-broy’, ‘De-broy’!!!!! Reply @cazzone 1 year ago Title: why electrons don't fall on nucleus. Listen for 22 minutes for no answer Reply @tomlavelle8340 1 year ago Strong or Weak nuclear force Reply @stephenacton9347 1 year ago 20' waste of time... yeah U did it with ur nonsense video! 1 Reply @jsbrads1 1 year ago Well, don’t they fall inward to create neutrons? Reply @MichelleHell 1 year ago They can fall into the nucleus, but there is so much energy around us that electrons are under near constant stimulation. 1 Reply @MostlyIC 1 year ago a nice long history, ending with as near as I can tell an incorrect explanation (Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle). very unsatisfying. Reply @briankleinschmidt3664 1 year ago 22 minutes later and we still don't know. It's a barrier. Think 4 dimensionally. Future particles interact with past particles to form the present. Reply @billjohnson9472 1 year ago this is silly. in the 1s orbital the highest probability location of the electron is *at the nucleus*. for every atom in the universe. Reply @jakegarvin7634 1 year ago Because they're racist...to neutrons I KNOW I THOUGHT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN PROTONS TOO Reply @josmeproslonije724 1 year ago So, if an Electronic collapses, and turns into a particle, while still in orbit around the nucleus, it still does not collapse, because?!?!?!? Reply @dwinsemius 9 months ago How do I make it so this channel never pops up for me again. Just wasted 20 minutes listening to high school student create a mishmash of confused quantum principles. Reply @galenhaugh3158 1 year ago Why don't protons explode into the negatively-charged electron cloud spinning about them?? THAT'S the real question!! Reply Terra Physica · 1 reply @praveenasantosh9121 3 months ago What is in the nucleus ? Reply @jamesgordon8867 1 year ago Electrons don't go around the nucleus like this, but waves are closer Reply @michaelmaclachlan-brown 1 year ago Why should charged subatomic particles be the only things in the Universe that do not carry an Electric Field? Reply @VolodymyrLisivka 1 year ago When electron falls to proton, it will create neutron. It happens sometimes. Reply @deadman746 1 year ago "If they did, you'd know where they are and that they aren't moving."—Richard Feynman Reply @7Earthsky 1 year ago I don't know why i know this; but i know the woman narrating this has zero clue what she's saying. Reply @kokomanation 1 year ago If it fell into the nucleus it would annihilate with a proton and it would emit radiation probably Reply Terra Physica · 2 replies @ronsandefur9788 1 year ago did they ever answer the question? I got lost! 1 Reply @iamboborilee 1 year ago To get to the other side? No wait wait.....whos there? Reply @herbiv5023 11 months ago Why is my comment deleted? Reply Terra Physica · 1 reply @uileam161 1 year ago So….the math is the reason for the observations. Riiiight. Next time try: idk. Reply @stevewhitt9109 1 year ago Actually it is the fact that as you add more energy to try to force the electron, the KE rises toward infinity. Reply 2 replies @M3GAN2LovesYou 1 year ago (edited) You said something I found bizarre and untrue as a classically trained scientist that was taught the Scientific Method: "You can test a hypothesis is true..." No one can, not even "God." That is why the null hypothesis is always stated in the negative, we can falsify claims (e.g., global warming, man induced climate change) with certainly, but we can never prove something true with certainly, only up to some arbitrary probability. For example, given my poor choice in wife, I now know with a court admissible probability my son is mine (99.95%). To me, a p < 0.05 is not good enough, but that's what you get for $600. Think six sigma, in industry, or a p < 0.001 for practicality... in the real world. I do want to thank you for pushing me to finally realize atoms, according to current scientific shenanigans, are perpetual motion machines irrespective of whether or not the explanation is a simple orbit or "occupying some probability space." A probability space is just a complex transform of a simple orbit. Derp on me! Damn that took me decades to see the bullshite slung clearly. Reply @TheReaverOfDarkness 1 year ago They do. They're just a whole lot bigger than nucleons. Reply @friendryan 1 year ago potential wells that doesnt answer nothing what are they made of such bs Reply @polaris1985 1 year ago Maybe quantum mathametics is different too, like 1+1 = 3??? Reply Terra Physica · 1 reply @philoso377 1 year ago (edited) Think about this :- Electrons are always negatively charged WHEN we found them. That doesn’t mean it WAS always charged in associate with its nucleus. Wait before we embrace quantum mechanics physics. Reply @softbytesunlimited 1 year ago (edited) No answer, that's how nature works 😅 Reply @Sikintyred 1 year ago Is this the explanation to failed marriages Reply @Teshuvah-n27 11 months ago So just wondering, why doesn't an electron fall onto the nucleus of an atom? Reply @thornsaresharp 8 months ago What is a positive or negative charge? Physics has lost all contact with reality Reply @alikims 1 year ago so the electron doesn't radiate because it's not actually moving? Reply Terra Physica · 1 reply @aidenmartin6674 1 year ago They can visit but the rent is too high for them to stay. They have to go back to the low rent rural areas. Reply @BritishBeachcomber 1 year ago You made the classic mistake of saying that electrons orbit the nucleus. The do not. They exist in "orbitals" of quantum probability. Reply Terra Physica · 3 replies @idegteke 2 weeks ago They do. Reply @jamesgordon8867 1 year ago Same reasons why positive magnets will never be attached Reply @Itachi__Uchiha-ck4mk 1 year ago Does not fall into the nucleus bcz he is very busy in revolving. Reply @michaelmaclachlan-brown 1 year ago BECAUSE there is an Electric field on the Atomic Nucleus! Reply @surenpatwardhan4489 1 year ago Quantum mechanics is not a branch of physics; it is physics itself. Reply 1 reply @RavenZahadoom 1 year ago Another AI voice channel giving out bad info /smh but somehow this one has 20k subs. Reply @jamesgordon8867 1 year ago Magnetic forces need to be taken into account Reply @TheD4VR0S 1 year ago why is circular motion considered an acceleration Reply Terra Physica · 1 reply @justthink3375 4 months ago That sounds kind of like why don’t the moon fall on the earth or the earth on the sun? Reply @billyjunior1917 1 year ago A decent question but kinda like why doesn't the earth fall into the sun? Reply @Dolan1492 1 year ago funny. the word Leptons appears at 0:17 Reply @garysnewjob 1 year ago Well, that clears that up? 😂 Reply @bluntwrapent.2051 9 months ago I think we live on a giant atom and the stars are electrons Reply @jaimeduncan6167 1 year ago Did you just jump over Einstein's contributions? You also jump over the ultraviolet catastrophe? What about Schrodinger? Reply Terra Physica · 1 reply @user-em1dg3he1h 1 year ago They have really good balance , so they dont fall 😅 Reply @lyntonblair9016 1 year ago Another question to ask is why the electron's speed does not decay? Seems like an atom is a perpetual motion machine... Reply Terra Physica · 1 reply @swainscheps 1 year ago 13:30 or something - giving up….moving on to next video… Reply @Halcon_Sierreno 7 months ago It's just some quirk built onto the universe. Reply @afonsodeportugal 1 year ago My God, these comments! 😬 Reply @bluefandango 1 year ago it's "into" and you mispronounced "de Broglie" Reply @mohammadsareh4732 1 year ago Electrons obey the spirit. Reply @donholmstrom6482 1 year ago My takeaway, There is a QM law that states it is not allowed. So question not answered! Reply 1 reply @Matlacha_Painter 1 year ago English speak dictionary need and spell good not. Reply @eidiazcas 1 year ago I thought it was the same explanationa as why don't planets fall into the sun 1 Reply Terra Physica · 1 reply @mikeharbour_music 1 year ago So... why dont electrons fall onto the nucleus ? 1 Reply 2 replies @thomas-gw3xf 1 year ago must be all that feisty dark matter and dark energy OR being in the dark !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Reply 1 reply @MikeSmith-cl4ix 1 year ago I think this is where it all went wrong. Reply @loocrepus 1 year ago Hi.. Looks like you don't even care to know about the pronunciation of Louis de Broglie's name. It's not DEE BROGLIE, it sounds like de broy. You can check out the pronunciation in the wikipedia. Reply @mrknesiah 1 year ago Because electrons don’t orbit the nucleus. Reply @lllPlatinumlll 1 year ago They can't fall because they are spherical. Reply @Dur4m4x 10 months ago Video doesn't match the audio halfway through. Reply @rud1239 1 year ago Why nucleus not a negative charge particle Reply 2 replies @KS-tf6nw 1 year ago so what is the answer? 21 minutes wasted Reply @davidhess6593 1 year ago Momentum Reply @zaiks0105 1 year ago Coz electrons aren't really particles but appear to be Reply @biffedya 1 year ago it would be like you falling onto the moon Reply @Manzplained 1 year ago A. I. Copy and paste bullshit. 1 Reply Terra Physica · 1 reply @MrBollocks10 1 year ago Honestly? People often ask that?😮😊 🥴 Reply @ronanzann4851 1 year ago Long range attraction...short range repulsion. Reply @AmikaofMan 1 year ago Quantum mechanics just makes me think that one day scientists will mess with something and oops. Then that 1 in 1 quadrillion thing happens and we/it all goes down the drain. I have always loved science, but the LHC and its variants make me go WHAT? Reply Terra Physica · 5 replies @swainscheps 1 year ago Lost me at around 10:00 Reply @Brucec-x6r 11 months ago Energy does not exist.. author Jed McKenna Reply @Mou3allembelgayb 1 year ago All in all photon and electron are the exact same thing. Reply Terra Physica · 2 replies @delphinazizumbo8674 1 year ago A: because there's only ONE electron? Reply Terra Physica · 2 replies @GK-hc4yl 1 year ago sorry, no one called J.J. Thompson, Joseph. Reply @stephenrice4208 1 year ago Why doesn’t the moon fall into the earth? Reply @taylorman40x9 7 months ago Why doesnt the earth fall into the sun? Reply @johngeverett 1 year ago So it doesn't... because it can't... because - MATH?? Reply @williamlavallee8916 1 year ago Not even wrong. Reply @seitbekir 1 year ago Gdeto ya eto uzhe videl Reply @DougDeYoung-gt4id 1 year ago Why don't planets fall into the sun?🤦‍♂️ Reply 1 reply @mehdizangiabadi-iw6tn 4 months ago Good question whay earth doesn't fall onto sun Reply @youtubepremium3505 1 year ago Nobody knows is the cirrect answer. 5 Reply 2 replies @Mike-zf4xg 1 year ago de bro glee? are you kidding me? Reply @joshtaylor4583 1 year ago Disagree. Reply @stevet7695 1 year ago I lost interest when the narrator failed to even pronounce de Broglie's name correctly. He'll be turning over in his grave...probably. 1 Reply 1 reply @Sikintyred 1 year ago Not the wife Reply @gutzimmumdo4910 1 year ago because they playing hard to get Reply @pauliexcluded1 1 year ago If you are in an s state you do…. Reply @patrickbrumm420 1 year ago There only is one electron Reply @contemporaryhumours 1 year ago Nice try Reply @lyuboslavilov 1 year ago Debrogli😂 2 Reply Terra Physica · 2 replies @robertkat 1 year ago Why does the Earth not fall into the sun? Another stupid youtube video. Reply 1 reply @outerrealm 1 year ago This could have been explained in 5 minutes. Why all the unnecessary blather? Reply @lepidoptera9337 1 year ago Yes, this was absolute bullshit. :-) 1 Reply @kayakMike1000 1 year ago Sigh... Electrons do fall into the protons, sometimes. They're called neutrons. 42 Reply 28 replies @marscience7819 1 year ago not real good Reply @Kysen10 1 year ago This whole channel looks like AI generated crap. Reply Terra Physica · 1 reply @FloydMaxwell 1 year ago because modern physics is broken 2 Reply 3 replies @mortophobegaming6454 1 year ago leptons Reply @proteusaugustus 1 year ago Because an electron has no mass. They just calculated one for it. Reply @rahulj9 1 year ago Lame Reply