A Better Way To Picture Atoms 

hey, what did you use to render these? is your Google search for Blender 2.9's geometry nodes functionality a clue? :)

It would help a lot of the visuals were published under a permissive license like CC-BY-SA

Heyy.. Love your talents man

Can you share its file

Releasing these under Creative Commons would be *amazing* - seconding the suggestion. It would also make it possible for Wikipedia to use these visualizations, with proper attribution.

If only there were a way I could find websites with information about this "Google search engine."

@@Tim3.14 bing

Bing is rising in popularity fast and is starting to actually be a threat to Google

It's not about getting more people to know it, it's about PR. Google is losing popularity and wants people to think better of them. Hence they sponsor something we like to get us to associate google with something we like, and like google in turn.

Duck

You're asking too many questions!

@@JerromyAugust "God doesn't play dice" Well, God also wouldn't be interacted within or made of atoms, and the uncertainty lies in their net behavior which we are literally contained within (in some sense). Wouldn't even bother comparing something that is supposed to be supernatural with the natural. It may be uncertain within our observation and in its behavior, but that does not mean it is not defined someway or another. After all, many things show behaviors of influence regardless of if we can detect or see it. i.e. Dark Matter. It is called the uncertainty principle because within our abilities and within observation, it is an uncertain thing and not within our current ability to predict such a position. That does not imply the universe is baseline random or that it couldn't be controlled. At its fundamental meaning, there is no reason it couldn't exist within a guided universe.

It's a bound electron in an orbital, not a free moving electron. The momentum is very precisely defined by the orbital. It's position is uncertain, which gives you the "cloud". It doesn't have a speed at all -- it's actually called a stationary solution. That is, it's *not going anywhere* but is pinned to the nucleus.

@@JerromyAugust You're using a computer... if you don't believe in the findings of science how do you explain the existence of technology that is based on this knowledge? Do you understand that uncertainty is intimately tied with quantization? And without that, we'd have the "ultraviolet catastrophe" which faced physicists at the end of the 19th century.

@@JohnDlugosz a stationary state still has time evolution.

Nope. Not schrodinger Oh xome on, i cant explain? WHY AM I OUT OF ENERGY TO.EXPLAIN.

Hi, Destin!

love yyour videos as well

The point of this video was that these things suck, and you are calling them cute, wtf, get a brain bro

lemme guess, u got this recommended from the slo mo guys?

dianna and destin drop in = you are in the right place tonight 👍🏽

This reminds me of the VFX artists creating the black hole from Interstellar, with actual math. Nature can be really beautifu all by itself

Hi Dianna.....big fan of yours

Big Fan Mam ❤️❤️

That's a very creative use of Blender. I would love to see the code.

When two of my fave science explorers are together on the same virtual space.. I know I'm in right place

I want to see the mesmerizing loops of these physics, for relaxation wallpapers.

Yesss me too

that will be awesome

yessssss... please do

yess

Damn now I'm curious too

60minutephysics

Let's start a petition

I agree, it is just shocking how well its done

I agree! We should definitely petition!

I watched millenniumphysics video on it and now my 2 children starved to death

quantum theory is bullshit, the electron actually is a 3d em standing wave, and the entire atom and any mass is just the interference pattern of many standing waves being locked in place together in a specific geometric way, which also is the source of gravity. if you want to know what atoms really look like, you have to simulate the oscillation and movement of the wave, without squaring the result.

And I'm an uneducated slacker and I think this visualization is garbage because it is absolutely nonrepresentative

@@KeksimusMaximus ??

A scientist never gets retired... from a job, yes, but from science, no never!

@@KeksimusMaximus its as accurate of on atom as we can get

@@KeksimusMaximus i believe isn't representative the actual atom but it's the closest one

Schrodinger's learning

Veritasium made a vid on this called "effectiveness of sci vids"

Worth a watch

Because you will not find the "true" info in any short video. Only by picking up a quantum mechanics textbook, like Griffith's or Sakurai's. As wave functions are functions, meaning they take as inputs 3D points and output a real number, they have too much data to describe with words or simple diagram, only as an equation... unless you write out the equation in words, like "the ground state electron of hydrogen is an inverse exponential as a function of radius." And then there's the often ignored time-varying component.

Because these vids only give the most basic info. Ie, it shows *how* atoms look but not *why* For lay people that's enough, and better than not knowing how they look. But we still don't know atomic physics.

Yeah there was some inconsistency in the hook part of the video. I love the model though, so I think it could have been introduced in a less inconsistent way.

But with motion!

@@saud2 yeah

Yeah, the only thing this model adds is that it gives a "feeling" for the angular monentum of the electrons otherwise it's exactly the same thing.

@@manmanman4825 but even that small thing makes a huge change in how easier it is to understand

Well this is not a good video. First of all, electrons don't orbit like planets do. Secondly, this guy claims he doesn't understand the classical diagram. If the guy at least had a look into a textbook, he would find out that orbitals are "spaces" with the biggest probability of occurrence (thats the difference between Bohr's atom and Schrödingberg who figured out that electrons dont follow a orbit, but are most likely in a certain place). Furthermore, this video shows bunch of little balls in some space and on top of that going in a certain direction! That is not very accurate and even confusing. There are TWO electrons with opposite spin "located" in the space of given orbital. This video brought pretty pictures but are the same like diagrams used in any textbook.

i would like to see these two "interacting" in these model

It can with an emulsifier! Water hydrogen bonds with itself and it would need something to disturb the hydrogen bonds which are pretty strong. It’s why it takes so much energy to boil water. Soap is a really good emulsifier because it has a polar head and then non-polar tail which cleans very well. I always thought this part of biochem was very interesting.

Same tbh

@@vitoriaicassatti4546 I *think* molecules and interactions are both impossible to calculate and draw like this because of the three-body problem. technically all these wavefunctions are of the hydrogen atom because it only has two pieces I could very likely be very wrong

@@DaMonster They aren't impossible, Comsol and other tools are able to create such molecular interactions with constraints. Just that there would always be constraints on number of particles that can be simulated realistically, etc.

Yep, that was my first thought.

Exactly.

@@oldcountryman2795 no.. uncertain..ly

It reminds me of the *_mold in this video_* ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-cJpn0wkihWk.html&.knen

It reminds me of the *_mold in this video_* ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-cJpn0wkihWk.html&.bpkz

ill ask jeeves to find out who they are

@@hugh.g.rection5906 Cheers, tell me when you have the result

Apparently they're some fancy version of Bing. But with way more advertisement.

shill

It reminds me of the *_mold in this video_* ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-cJpn0wkihWk.html&.wrqb

My science teacher is really getting off to this video. And I caught him touching himself to an animation of gene transcription

@@cretinousswine8234 you guys have a subject called science? Biology, Physics, Chemistry all in one?

@@teekanne15 No, but I suppose you don't have a subject called "English"

@@NH-ge4vz It occurred to me that teekane15 was just making fun of SoufFC for not specifying the subject, so that's why I replied the way I did to the former

That should tell you it is wrong.

Well, It'd exclude the speech, but you could still do the .25x or .5x speed simply for the visuals 《_/【^.^】\_》

I came here to comment the exact same thing. He changed where the electron is by measuring it.

@@radtech21 How do you know without taking a simultaneous measurement of position?

@@jwadaow You don't know. That's why we call it uncertainty

Exactly

@@jorgec98 Well, if you actually measure it, then the error in the measurement would be very high.

Majestic.

It's a scientific therm, it's ok to lowbrainers to laugh

@@andricode Who are you calling a lowbrainer? a Master in Physics?

@@andricode If your ego was any larger you'd be crippled under the size of your own head.

@@m07z That doesn't sound exciting (laugh now because funni)

I never knew google actually sponsored videos. I don't even know what the sponsorship was for? The Google search engine?

@@Jesse_Dawg yeah right like who is their biggest competitor

@@Jesse_Dawg Something tells me it's less about the search engine and more about pushing the vaccine. It was a subtle push but annoying nonetheless.

It's just google in general. They collect your data when you use their services and sell it to advertisers

Ofc, we don't know it yet

+. so much +.

The resulting orbital basically is the bond. The process is just the change in the shape of the initial atomic orbitals as they come together and form a lower energy arrangement. The bond is just what we call the lower energy arrangement of electrons and nuclei that results. It's bonded together because you'd need to put energy in to pull them away from each other.

@@rredd7777 Yes, but how does the process look like? Is it a smooth slow transition, or does it "snap in"? Does it induce a wobble that settles down over time? Do the orbits deform as the atoms come closer? Does it cause a temporary collapse of the wave function?

@@PaulPaulPaulson I can't say 100% for sure, but I would expect the orbitals would sort of "ooze" from the initial to final shape. And this would be over a very brief timeframe, certainly sub-microsecond. And since the orbitals only represent the probability of an electron being at a certain point, it probably doesn't have much effect on things. Of course, this is coming from a chemist, so that would color how I see things.

@@PaulPaulPaulson Time-dependent quantum mechanics is very computationally intensive to compute and is much harder than a stationary state. So expect a lot of time and work to make that.

I, for one, would like a curated video showing an extended view of each to stare at and ponder what I'm seeing.

And students thank you.

Very much so, with some labels and different atoms

But teachers have curriculum to follow, unfortunately 🤷‍♂

It reminds me of the *_mold in this video_* ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-cJpn0wkihWk.html&.uepr

Hello!

Loved your videos on quantum mechanics

Difinitely!

Hi universe I am from earth

Wasn't 💯% sure about this video, until I saw this: LGU's seal of approval.

“sciency lofi as you try to defy the heisenberg principle”

Now that's music for Scientists!

we could make a religion out of this

@@MirroredReality tempted to call it Sci-Fi but dunno if that's just too confusing... maybe Lo-Sci or Sci-Lo-Fi lol *shrugs*

Me: Joins in screaming

Me: I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'RE YELLING ABOUT!

@@Zraknul blah blah blah we can't know position and velocity of electron at the same time blah blah blah

Seriously, I think that's where the model actually 'breaks down' because of the assumed 'absoluteness' of position with the moving representation. I honestly think that you can either get one OR the other, but not both, due to the nature of electrons in general. If physics honestly followed the model as presented, then electrons would be vastly easier to 'pin down' in their positions/presence to study. But we know that this isn't the case in practical terms.

Same

I was going to say mist . . . .

@@Lucius_Chiaraviglio Thanks! ;)

How are you supposed to see the movement with a mist

@@vedwards5027 why such a rude reply?

@@Roel922 I don't remember

I really like the representation. And as much as I love it, I've got to be honest, I find then butt ugly, they make feel icky. But that's my personal hang up. It's way better than most, so hats off.

@@khaduopha2640 Maybe if the dots were replaced with animated tv-static? The colours could be a bit more muted too. Great idea otherwise.

Feels ?

@Gopala krishna Murthy horrid henry

Good to know his name is henry

It says at the bottom of the description 😜

"But when he uploaded to tell his fans to vote..."

Do you have aphantasia?

Can you please help me understand the model that he showed? I don't get it, each "droplet" he showed is just a spot where the electron has a chance of being detected. But how is the entire thing moving? Its not like the electron will move like the water droplet, it will just choose a random droplet according to its wavefunction. But didn't the probability distribution remain the same while the orbital was moving. Look at, for example, 2:43. The probability distribution isn't changing while the orbital is rotating. Or is it actually changing??

The electron exists at all the points simultaneously until it is measured, right?

@@linxuser897 I think the model is developed based on Bohmian mechanics, where particle can have definite positions

@@jithinks5405 I'll check that out. I don't know anything about modern physics to begin with, so that was just my assumption.

@@linxuser897 I think the word "potential" means, it _might be_ here. Not, _it is_ here in a way you can't understand. Or, am I wrong about that? If it were actually in each of those locations, then the mass would change when being observed. No?

Color and semi transparency on wave based potential placement was exactly what I was going to say! But you beat me by about 4 months… 😄

Congrats you're the random person i'm going to ask. So my question is where exactly is the nucleus?

This is the reason we love the web. I am in my forties, and I can hardly remember what it was like to not be able to instantly share ideas with anyone else who may find interest.

@@deathstroke8639 The nucleus is in the center of the atom but very tiny compared to the region occupied by electrons - roughly 10,000 times smaller

@@trainjumper ooooh. Thank you for the response! I was kinda lost there lol

@@deathstroke8639 it's the powerhouse of the cell

The answer was wrong. You can't see atoms in the normal sense. You only see the interaction with photons aka absorbtion of or emission of photons.

@@pcuimac Fine, then next time you want a useful drawing of the shape of an electron orbital you can expect to get a blank sheet of paper

I don't understand the last Representation-> why two orbital are represented so close ( I mean, on same axis) Aren't they in x y and z planes to minimize repulsion.

@@NamedSoni I'm no expert, but I'm currently in my 2nd and third quantum classes right now so I'll try my best. The m_l quantum number depends on the amount of angular momentum measured along an axis and can range from -l to l in integer values. So an electron with l=1 and m_l=1 will "orbit" one way and an electron with l=1 and m_l=-1 will "orbit" the other way to have an opposite value of angular momentum along the z-axis. This is what is shown with the two close-together orbitals. This actually does reduce repulsion in a sense because if they orbit in opposite directions they won't interact very often. The reason why we can't have another direction is because the z-angular momentum is quantized. Only 2 electrons can take each value of m_l (one for each spin) so if there was another orbital perpendicular to the other two, we would have two different orbits with m_l=0 with the same energy and the same l. This isn't allowed by quantum mechanics

@@pcuimac And not even that. What we see is a tangled mess of interactions of nerve cells in our retina that sends an electrical signal to the Visual cortex that in turn mades a lot of stuff up for us to function in the world.

I agree, they are satisfying to look at, a secret world. Do you look at Mandelbrot zooms? They can be relaxing and focus altering : )

@@maryrao2306 Indeed I do, but only the ones where the zoom speed is relatively low, and I watch all types of fractals. I enjoy discerning out shapes and oddities in fractals, especially in 3D ones, so when the speed is too fast I feel like I'm missing out details, and it doesn't feel relaxing anymore.

@@windwalkerrangerdm So true! I look for the slower speeds, its more absorbing? If that makes sense. But just like this wonderful picture of atoms, it's too fast, theres a lot to look at..it's everything. Mind blowing!!

Not just relaxation, but education!!!

yesss

Or fusion. Slam two together and watch what it turns into.

@@RDJ2 well what you just described is pretty much a chemical bond: the fusing of 2 (or more) atomic orbitals to form molecular orbitals!

@@joelabedz4216 No I mean fusion of two atoms into a new element.

@@RDJ2 Imagining the collision inside the LHC just blew my mind after seeing this video

@@RDJ2 ah my bad yeah fusion could be interesting to see how the orbitals shrink down to accommodate the new nuclear charge

Yes... exactly what I would love to see. Make a water molecule... or carbon nano tube...

It gets complicated super quick, which is why these kind of diagrams/models always use hydrogen. Add just a few more electrons, and the orbitals begin to stack on top of each other, so you end up with a ball, roughly. A whole molecule would actually be less interesting to look at.

The water molecule would probably have a light electron distribution around the hydrogen nuclei and a heavy distribution around the oxygen atom, showing how the molecule would have ionizing properties. It would appear triangular, which suggests how snowflakes can be six-sided.

@@mjw120046 using outer occupied orbitals can be fun though and simplify these issues

If I remember by high school chemistry correctly, it would look similar to one oxygen atom with an almost 120° cloud distribution (single plane) and two hydrogen blobs almost but not fully touching either of the "arms" of oxygen. That hydrogen atom then distorts that 120° as well as the planar property because of electronegativity and all which then gives the famous ~137° tetrahedron shape of water molecule.

Yeah, but he needs to memorize what the teacher says for the exams though. 🤷‍♂ Most of the things taught in school are inaccurate.

@@culturecanvas777 Would you rather have kids learn the full analytic expansion of the orbitals of the hydrogen atom? You have to learn to crawl before winning a marathon.

Cuz Google needs a PR boost, and what better way to do it than to advertise on your own crummy website?

Google is currently on a campaign to teach new skills for the changing world, whether that's good or bad remains to be seen, but right now getting in with "Grow with Google" or one of their other experience growth platforms isn't a bad idea. It also explains why there are suddenly appearing interested in minutephysics, eevlog, electroboom, among many others

Because of the kind of viewers this channel has or attracts

This paid sponsorship has made me more likely to use Google search.

Because Google needs to thwart anti-monopoly initiatives.

It’s almost like they don’t believe in Ads before the video.

thats.... how a sponsorship works.

@@derovvvv well said. Greatly said. Super reply. That's how sponsorship works. Great reply.

If youd know how many grannies are out there using the default browser with the default search engine and end up with Boing. EDIT: Meant Bing, but Im keeping the typo lol.

@@derovvvv yes except we all know this information so it’s redundant, hence funny

@@TheStoffl96 Yeah there sure are Bing using Grannies watching minutephysics.

but what if you lean in _really_ close to look at them?

It's because atom is almost empty. And the electron is at every point in a single time.

@@vigilantcosmicpenguin8721 Then you fall through

@@MrQhuin you consist of atoms, so you're mostly emptiness too

@@iMaxBlazer yeah pure emptiness af 😞

I second this!!!

I think molecules and interactions are both impossible to calculate and draw like this because of the three-body problem. technically all these wavefunctions are of the hydrogen atom because it only has two pieces I could very likely be very wrong

With the right software you can visualise them! If you work through the orbitals of the hydrogen atom you'll find a low energy orbital with high probability between the atoms, and a higher energy orbital with high probably on either side, and you could go higher still to see various (unpopulated) higher energy bonding modes! Something like Avogadro can do it for you, or if youre good with maths you can plot the equations yourself in 3D.

Ye, chemists just operate with quants as if they were Newtonian particles. They don't give a fuck.

it's also complete nonsense and pseudoscience

@@emerther5843 Furthermore, the concept of an "atom" as we know it is a Scientific Fiction. Nils Bohr, a Danish physicist in the early 1900's, known as The Father of Atomic Theory, modeled his concept of the atom from the design of the Solar System. Hence, at first it was known as the Planetary Theory of Atoms. Before that was what physicists called the Cookie Dough Atomic Theory. 100 years from now, people may well be saying that we were all Morons for thinking about basic atom structure the way that we do.

@@emerther5843 How so?

@@Akhin they say atoms are never in one place at any given time; there is zero evidence for this. But they act like it has been proven.

so the orbits are flat lol

omg thanks! I didn't even notice!

and in the google commercial he googled blender

Good point!

That's the same difference, really; what I think you _meant_ to say was that the atomic orbitals don't mean that the electrons are somehow "smeared" over space, as I had some teachers sometimes express back in college

And why is that different?

@@thstroyur well they kind of are smeared though until they are measured. Up until measurement they are best defined as being those cloudy probability wave function abstract vector cloud things in hilbert whatever

@@AkamiChannel : It is different because, kind of as you said, we can’t talk about the position of an electron until measurement. Quantum mechanics tell us it is accurate to say the electrons are in _all_ of those spots at the same time and that they pick one of the eigenstates (thanks Wikipedia) once they are measured. One of the spots, to make it simple. It’s a little like the Shrödinger’s cat experiment. Only difference being it wouldn’t work with a cat in real life, because its size is much bigger than its De Broglie wavelength, so applying quantum mechanics to such a macroscopic system would be faulty.

Think of each dot as a position where the electron COULD be, the more dots, the more probable an electron might be on that position.

@@NavidIsANoob I believe one of the problems is probability is based on a real atom, but these atoms are completely fictitious with physical properties.

It’s too bad this doesn’t take into account the way orbits actually work described by Schrodinger’s equation.

to clarify, this representation is a point-by-point location probability (chance) of a stationary atom. the problems with atoms and quantum understanding is we in the physical world (reality) cannot observe/measure both the location of an atom or the energy, we are ultimately incapable of knowing both properties of them. if we could see an atom for real with immense detail, all of these dots would not be there. as best as we can tell, there would only be a number (N) of corrosponding electrons in "orbit" and in reality, if it was at all possible, we would see their positions individually. however, "the uncertainty principle" dictates we can't see it as giant creatures by comparison to these insanely tiny objects. if you've ever seen a macroscopic photo of a strand of hair, then you already understand the details we are incapable of seeing with just our eyes without technological help. go smaller than that and see headlice in great detail, or waterbears, these things only serve to exacerbate our inability to see the world in all the details it has to offer. now concieve the idea that each of these things are made up of trillions (1,000,000,000,000) of atoms and begin to understand the complex nature of such tiny objects. they move fast. real fast. i'm shyte with science and math, but i think Hydrogen has but 1 electron, and the video is demonstrating Hydrogen, and all the points you see are places in which the electron might be found. once you find it, you will not know which way it's moving (spinning... whatever) and if you found which way it was spinning, you would never know where it is in that moment. so the diagram/animation serves to show us what an atom of hydrogen might look like if we could even look at it. this goes for every atom. if you thought Hydrogen confused you, with one electron, you'd probably split your brain looking at something with 40 electrons. by the way, the rainbowed representations, i think, are atoms with a high number of electrons, giving a visual representation of possible positions the electrons could be. also. i failed every course and class in school. don't listen to me. however i am confident in my understanding.

And it's situations like these that I realize only in a Physics class can you get remotely close to learning about the true nature of atoms and that my education has failed me until I am able to reach that point.

Yeah, this doesn't do much for people lacking high-level particle physics knowledge.

Yep, neither of his proposals are superior to the first example. They're very pretty, but will cause more confusion and require more explanation.

@@135.samarthkala9 in the comments section you can find many people with basic knowledge getting confused.

Exactly. The reason for my downvote

@@135.samarthkala9 what exactly does each point represent then?

My exact thoughts! It is probably more accurate than what we have now, but still confusing.

@@tigramthedark9620 Electron*s* - plural - are myths. There's only one electron in the whole universe and it's everywhere all at once.

@@sentinel76 Wheelers hypothesis doesn't hold up because it doesn't account for why we observe so many more electrons than positrons.