The experiment that revealed the atomic world: Brownian Motion 

Thank you Steve, excellent video, I love the way you present things in such a clear and concise way which creates such intrigue from your viewers.

I know you explained moles before but are Dalton's observations similar to how they work?

*"brownie in motion"* gotta love those YT closed captions

How do we know that the same amount of atoms are in each syringe? It doesn't make sense.

@@Blackmark52It is by appetite alone I set my brownie in motion.

Another Anus instead of an Annus

A mild Derek on this occasion! Glad you liked it. Loved the trading video!

WHAT ARE ANUS MIRRORballs?????

I was thinking of Dr. Muller during this video. There isn’t much overlap. Both are great in their own right. I admire the breadth of Dr. Muller’s topics and the practical demonstrations of Mr. Mould. You are complimentary in SciComm. Keep up the great work!

Hah, my first thought was also that Steve got slightly Dereked 😁 Perhaps you could link to this video in the description of yours for those interested in a deeper dive on Brownian motion as atonement 🤔

@@miked8497as your pupil? Most of what you know about modern science is due to Albert Einstein, assuming there were enough things you could teach him if you were alive back then is incredibly egotistical. You are assuming you would be better than one of the greatest minds in modern science, what makes overinflation of one’s importance

His 3rd greatest achievement THAT YEAR. Who but Einstein has the ability to "correct" Newton on such a fundamental and pervasive scale?

@@herbpowell343 well no one believed him until the eddington experiment. he was a nobody. einstein was catapulted to fame overnight. So back then "einstein" meant nothing to anyone.

Or fourth, even: general relativity is a pretty big deal, too. And the EPR paradox took 30 years to explain, so that one was pretty important as well. There's a reason that Einstein was Time's man of the 20th century.

Sorry wasn't there a paper about 2 Phase viscosity also?

The deadpan on that was amazing! Now I'll be looking for a context where I can use "anus mirrorballs!" as an exclamation of wonder and amazement.

@@clinthall9011 I thought this was hilarious as well hahaha buuut unluckiy for you guys I think there was an error in translation here, annus mirabilis should actually translate to "Wonderful year" or "Admirable year" from Latin to English, nothing refers to either anuses or balls hahaha

Sure, Einstein!

Five papers in one year?! ANUS MIRROR-BALLS!!!

Anus Mirrorballs indeed.

In 1905 Einstein finally hit that anus... quite an accomplishment yo. :D :D

In 1905 Einstein finally hit that ass... quite an accomplishment yo. :D :D

Ooh, thanks for making that important distinction.

There's also a small mistake just beforehand, where he states at room temperature 22.4 litres contain one Avogadro's number of molecules, but that's the value for 0 °C. It's 24 litres at room temperature.

I was about to comment this too

It's not that big a difference when the molecules are that simple, not even a full order of magnitude.

How about solid stuff like metals? Does a 1dm³ block of steel has the same amount of particles as 1dm³ of Aluminium?

I now know what you're talking about: go Organic Chem! Be there, or be... cyclobutane.

Or vice versa.

@@Hei1Bao4 That sounds like it implies that they are correlated rather than merely two representations of the same phenomenon.

I thought it was kinetic energy 😅

@@DanKaschelreally? i felt just like that when i read your original post, but i think it’s just because my brain doesn’t like the term ’thermal energy’ because it feels like it abstracts away the fact that it’s only kinetic with my previous idea of heat/hotness. am i crazy?

@@Arcflow_ at that scale, kinetic and thermal energy are the same thing

chinburn incoming

I can barely see it in on my phone in bed lmao

No no, that's the Universal Perspective Vortex

The famous thought experiment where you have two brownies on a moving train ...

I almost failed a university physics class and it almost caused some Brownian Motion in my trousers!

Yeah, right, you got this in a 3rd grade physics exam and did not find out for yourself for 20 years.. Totally not BS.

Thanks! Looking forward to it!

I keep hearing, "Brownie in motion" and getting a craving for Thin Mints.

Veritasium did one as well. Is March Brownian motion month?

⁠​​⁠@SteveMould, I’ve been told I’ve been messed up by mold hyphae in brownian motion carrying toxins from bacteria in water damaged buildings. There is an ERMI test that was used to classify buildings that have had water damage by looking at proportions of different mold DNA. It might be BS or it might be causing a lot of people cognitive problems.

Why do youtubers all copy each other at the same time?

I couldn't believe that was in the video. I thought maybe I was having a stroke listening to that, I had to tab over and listen again (and watch).

@@dotancohen Same with me, I didn't know this level of intellectual subterfuge was even allowed on RU-vid 😆

That's what I really like about Steve's videos. Very fast paced, serious and highly informative, but occasionally, out of nowhere, some ridiculous silliness with the deadpan delivery only a Brit can do justice

that was so dumb actually how cringe

@@user-bd6yi5gj9o get off our lawn!

Med student here (intern almost done), I always asked myself how difussion and MRI worked together specially because I look at the images and they seem like they're still when in reality everything moves, specially if you take into account heart beats and respiration and the biomechanics of it (e.g. in the brain, because it's and organ that's surrounded by CSF, perfused by arteries and drained by veins, 3 hydrodimamic systems that vary in pressures, velocity, viscosity, etc.); this kind of questions made me think that I want to be a biomedical engineer just to understand how things work

@@noctisumbra4656 diffusion of water affects its magnetic field, regardless of macroscopic movement

Hmm... that makes me want to be an MRI radiographer!

opa!

There's another "Ouzo effect" that usually occurs after abut 2am. Completely different though.

The ouzo effect is when you wake up next to a fat and you cant remember her name.

make sure you remember the experiment hahaha

ew, ouzo

Very good. What does the mean though?

Average

Isn't part of that diversity due to the fact that the pre-1982 STP is zero Celsius & 1 atm., while the post-1982 metric (really SI) STP uses zero Celsium & 100 kPa pressure instead of the previous 1 atm pressure (which is equal to 101.325 kPa)?

Is the term Brownian motion used for fluids only, or does the term apply when dealing with solids also. When you say you can squelch it, is that because you are increasing the noise so that the signal is lost? Why do you want to squelch a radio receiver that no one is transmitting on.. wouldnt you squelch one that is being transmitted on?.. and is this how radio signals are jammed, by causing an increase in thermal noise at the receiver/transmitter? Lastly, PC's sometimes have a temp sensitive part that is used to generate a random number by (I think) letting the voltage of the noise represent a 0 or a 1 in binary. Is this how that type of RNG operates?

no such thing as random, more mumbo jumbo bs

​@@-iloveyouat the scale of electrons, there certainly is randomness. The proof for that is so fundamental that you don't even have to rely on the correctness of quantum mechanics to show it. It's at the heart of the emerging technology of unconditionally secure quantum key distribution, for example.

​@@-iloveyou first off, if you're just being a pedant, substitute the word "stochastic" in place of random and fuck off. Second, randomness most certainly does exist. But yes, you certainly did just say mumbo jumbo. Proud of you buddy.

@@neutra__l8525 In a solid that conducts electric current, some of the electrons are free to move among the atoms, and thus behave like a fluid. The term “squelch” refers to silencing the random noise resulting from the random motion of electrons that comes from the speaker between transmissions, which is very annoying, especially in sensitive FM communications receivers. Basically, a receiver sensitive enough to hear the stations you wish to talk to will, between calls, produce a very loud “white” noise if the audio is left on at a normal volume. When a coherent signal comes in, the math of how FM detectors work overwhelms or “quiets” the noise. Since the noise has frequency components above the range of signals that are deliberately transmitted, part of the detector output is tapped off, amplified in the “noise amplifier” (that is its actual name), and rectified to produce a DC bias voltage proportional to the amount of noise detected. When that DC voltage reaches a certain level (which can usually be adjusted with a knob), the audio amplifier is cut off, or “squelched.” When a call comes in on a channel, the noise drops below the threshold, and the audio comes on. When the transmission stops, after a fraction of a second called the “squelch tail,” which sounds like a short burst of white noise, the audio cuts off again. Many applications, such as police and fire radios, aircraft radios (they are usually AM, but a similar system works with AM also), or even two or more “ham” operators talking, require a frequency to be monitored for occasional calls, and the squelch makes monitoring much less stressful, and allows the use of audio for other purposes while waiting.

n is actually the number of moles of particles, with one mole being Avogadros number of particles. But you are right, Steve should have said “particles” not “atoms”.

Yeah, also immediately noticed that and went straight to the comments! 😉

​@@DonnieX6 Proud of myself; I only got a C in college chemistry, and even I caught that one.

I like to see you wiggle, wiggle...

I like to see it wiggle wiggle, for sure

Nope, Sir Isaac Newton remains the absolute BOSS in physics and mathematics. The man invented calculus, just to solve some other problem. Einstein comes a good second though.

@@paulmichaelfreedman8334 .. it's an opinion. I used to rate N above E but I've come to reverse that order. Strictly speaking N was only refining the ideas put forward by Archimedes; in the same way, E had to teach himself/develop some rather advanced maths (curvature of spacetime) and adapt it to GR. As I say it's an opinion. GOAT discussions are never conclusive !!!

@@tensor131 Can't argue with that :)

Everything you think you know about the real world is a model of one sort or another. Newtonian gravity is “wrong” but it’s a darn sight easier to compute orbital mechanics with it rather than general relativity. Which is why NASA stick with Newton for the most part.

Helium gas is monoatomic, not diatomic.

I got DRTAE, but it's wrong apparently. Where is my mistake?

@@alexdavidouskiR should be a P You can't do diagonals. Also the routes are not in order but if you trace them out on the grid, you can read them left to right, top down on the grid it self. Very close though.

Thanks,@@brandonfrancey5592! I realized that I misread the code now.

That’s reductionist.. there’s emerging qualities also.. you can’t reduce consciousness, life, culture, love and other down to atoms

Anus mirrorballs!

awesome remind