Відео

yes (tho' recorded on the too loud/distorted side 🙄)

yes the music is original

👍 There is a link to an HTML/JS app to experiment with from the three body problem or downloadable apps pages if interested: sites.google.com/site/logicedges/downloadable-apps

That depends… 😉

Both alive, and dead. Which one you see depends on which of the Many Worlds has become your reality.

Thanks

good question - in many ways "similar". Here is a very good set of 1D examples of a wave packet in different conditions: ua-cam.com/video/v0UIGl4cTD0/v-deo.htmlfeature=shared

@@logicedges Huh. I was half joking. Half serious-curious. I can't decide if that's 1D, 2D or 1.5D.

🤣

😖 we’ve been defeated

Yes; it’s superposition is spread out in an area defined by its quantum wave mechanics.

yes :)

the shape of an atoms is ... strange to say the least ! 👍

Yes - your clarification on the details of the animation are all correct :) The title - which has proved to be complex - or an over-simplification - which I guess is inevitable (take your pick!) doesn't give all details. So: "Electron" refers to the plausible wave packet that could represent an electron that is not in a particular state; "orbital" refers to the evolving spread of that wave packet that has only been calculated by the 2D Schrödinger equation Cartesian coordinates and remains constrained (or attracted) to the midpoint of the plot area using a 1/r potential ... such as an atom ... but only in a 2D cartesian coordinate space. I hope that provides near final(?!) clarification of the words in the video title of, yes, a difficult to grasp "object"! 😮👍

@@logicedges I think that it might be best to remove the word "atom" and replace it with a 2D 1/r radial potential well... 😉

@@landsgevaer 👍 Certainly and sadly the simple words in the title add to the complexity of understanding the animation. It's looking as tho' this will be solved by making the title more opaque and harder to understand. 🤔 ... 🥴

If still interested I've added a comment with an observation (8th June)

Hydrogen has a full set of p etc. orbitals as well. They are just not the ground state. This video doesn't show the ground state either btw.

The title with "orbiting" is all about seeing the development of the initial wave packet which was not related to any particular set of energy states. Eigen vector and value analysis of the frames would be useful/interesting.

Well do it yourself and post it on UT .

@@logicedges Oh, I must have misunderstood the video then. Sorry about that

@@landsgevaer I must have mistyped. I actually meant electrons, not orbitals

One can compute its orbital momentum (as a super position at least). That still kind of justifies the word.

The model places a "nucleus" centred in the middle of the screen.

yes

It's both

Not possible. When two electrons are in the same orbital the system is no longer solvable *exactly.* Means there is no equation derivable to plot. However, you can still calculate the wavefunctions numerically using the Perturbation Theory, which considers each electron around the nucleus individually, then accounts for the repulsion between the electrons and you get an approximate solution. My guess is he'd have to do this each frame of the video as a function of time.

if he keeps using 2d space then the shapes the electrons will take on will not look the same as they would be in 3d space

If still interested I've added a comment with an observation (8th June)

How so?

@@af6462 How am I not convinced? Beats me.

@@gibbogle wow riveting stuff, then why comment?

​@@af6462 Because it's a mock-up based on an equation not an actual video of the true situation. It might be useful but it does not convinced me any theory concerning what subatomic particles are, if they actually are particles, or if any of the theories are remotely close to the true reality. But please tell me. What did you learn by watching this video? What part of any theory does it prove or even support? I don't believe atoms are made of particles. I believe the basic components are formless. No form whatsoever. Because atoms give structure... atoms give form. Then how can subatomic particles have form? So what would you call this visual representation? The formless nature of courage? The formless nature of love? Fear? hope? Cowardice? We recognize those things when we see them but they are not made of atoms they have no form. Play arise from things which are living creatures which are made of atoms therefore having form. And it seems evident that atoms give form. But why should we assume that the basic components of the atom have the same characteristics? The so-called subatomic "particles". How could such particles have form if they have no atomic weight? In what way has it been proven that they have any mass at all.

@@af6462 Why do you?

Thanks

Not quite - see previous comments/etc. which have clarified the video title to be edited to ... "orbiting" ... "its atom". It's easy to slip up on title texts when publishing on youtube without an editor ... and then there's comments ... :/ ;)

While yes, you’re of course correct, I think this is a little pedantic and it’s safe to say most people know what they meant.

@@deathvideogame Correcting _fundamental_ mistakes is pedantic?

"When the wise man points at the moon, the monkey looks at the finger.."

@@oosmanbeekawooThank you for this excellent description of the “pedantic monkey.” Lol

Electrons are not illusions. They are fundamental particles that have been experimentally verified and are essential components of atoms and matter. The behaviour of electrons can be counterintuitive but this doesn't make electrons unreal.

Those are some words.

what

Absolute nonsense

Idk wtf crack you have to be on to get that photons are real but then think electrons aren't.

I think not necessarily - this time dependent Schrödinger equation model only provides the evolution of any given wave function / wave packet over time without changing energy. The initial wave packet can be built from a spectrum of energy levels which I've not calculated - some work to do there!

One would need to include em field in hamiltonian to get the photon emission, im not sure but I think it would be much more complicated calculation.

Pair production is not a "mystery", where did you get that idea from? And electrons don't simply orbit positrons - both have the same mass, so they could only orbit each other simultaneously. And those orbits would not be stable anyway. So your alleged "perfect" explanation has already two glaring errors.

You need to do more research. One model (that he is obviously refering to) views the photon as orbiting electron/positron pairs. Attitudes....jeez.

@@dananorth895 I have a PhD in particle physics, but nevertheless I never heard of that model. Where did you get that from?

@@dananorth895That is precisely the theory I referred to. And Pair Production is in fact a mystery because no physicist understands how it works. They just know if one aims a powerful Triton laser at a proton rich metal like lead, uranium, gold etc., they produce one electron and one proton. Obviously we are witnessing the photoelectric effect, which can only mean that there was an electron absorbed from the photon, with a different electron emitted on the far side. There are models showing that a position (anti-electron with no nucleus) somehow has the equivalent of two protons associated with it. In this case, one is absorbed by the metal while the other is emitted on the other side. We aren’t magically creating matter from energy, we are witnessing spallation and the photoelectric effect. That Japanese student who modeled shells in various particles like protons in the 80s might be able to explain it better. In the meantime I suggest watching the computer rendition of the photon traveling through the tube as captured by the “world’s fastest camera” a few years back. We definitely see magnetic lobes in the photon, with plumes of plasma erupting off the surface and being recaptured and looking very much like this video only much faster. And since I’m on that subject, take note of the shocking fact that the tube lights up BEFORE the photon passes through, meaning the photon is like a lantern that produces the light and is not the light itself!!!! The only suggestion I have is that it is like a small sun where the photosphere is producing light via some kind of incandescence, and the light in this case is very excited infrared photons. If I’m wrong, then we are witnessing a plasma made of quarks or fermions or some smaller order of matter. Either way, E = MC2 simply means that energy is just highly excited matter which is smeared out in what I call a dissociated state and thus barely registers as a force with our current detectors. And by extension, matter is slow or even frozen energy.

If still interested I've added a comment with an observation (8th June)

The initial condition / wavefunction is a plane wave of a fixed frequency and phase for a momentum moving vertically upwards on the screen and the magnitude/amplitude is the visible circular / 2D Gaussian function. The Gaussian function is spread out so that there is some uncertainty in the position and some uncertainty in momentum. This would satisfy the Heisenberg uncertainty principle which the Schrödinger equation also maintains. One of the things that makes quantum physics beautiful.

@@logicedges Why did you choose an electron moving vertically upwards? And if it's a plane wave, why is the wave function shown circular?

@@bjornfeuerbacher5514 It isn't a plane wave since he applied a gaussian envelope. The phase information is not shown in the video. Not sure how he handled the third dimension, if he speaks of a 2D gaussian.

@@landsgevaer He wrote himself that it is a plane wave above. So why don't you tell him that he is wrong about that instead of me? The whole animation is 2D (that's stated already in the title of the video), there is no third dimension involved.

@@bjornfeuerbacher5514 That sentence continued a bit further, I think. He wrote it is a plane wave *with a gaussian amplitude*. I don't think a plane wave can have a gaussian amplitude, so that is a modification.

yes - later screens required and work to do ...

Good question :) Indeed hybrid - which in some ways makes interpreting it all more complex I think including the meaning of "orbiting" which has raised comments. Details of the initial state to be provided ...

Details of the initial state / wave packet set up in "How to draw ... (example codes)" page here sites.google.com/site/logicedges/how-to-draw#h.caqf7q1byr0y

Wouldn't the final state be a phased locked standing wave related to electron energy and fixing its orbit?

P.S. the transition waveforms might also be interpreted as absorbtion/emission perturbations/interactions which potentially can cause jump in energy/orbital levels.

If still interested I've added a comment with an observation (8th June)

Yes - but with spread of wavefunction developing and eventually settling to a more stable state ... it's a transition from a somewhat arbitrary initial condition.

How does hydrogen atom generate so many Spectral lines?

Simply from all the possible transitions between each pair of energy levels of the electron orbitals given by the Schrödinger model of hydrogen or the standing waves Bohr atomic model.

Thank you :)

yes, see recent comment

Yes - the attractive -1/r potential is centred in the middle of the screen. Further details used for the initial state of the wave function / wave packet are in the code in the "How to draw ..." page sites.google.com/site/logicedges/how-to-draw#h.caqf7q1byr0y A sinusoidal wave constrained/modulated with a 2D Gaussian function placed so that its initial motion is perpendicular to the radius - I was imagining placing an electron near a proton and then "throwing" it into an "orbit" and seeing how the system would develop.

@@logicedges yes that makes more sense. That's a beautiful and practical illustration of how a wave can nevertheless produce what we classically consider to be orbital motion. Well done!

👍

If still interested I've added a comment with an observation (8th June)