When I hear that, even if it's just a tee shirt, I unsubscribe.

I do that with all the channels I listen to, and I let them know that when politics come in, listeners will go out.

I suspect they do just fine without me though.

They have lots of good educational videos from the Great Courses

This is a great site, too. You can scroll large or small. It's fascinating. You can click on objects to get info about them.

https://htwins.net/scale2/

At 02:00 into the video around when he talks about the LHC reaching increasingly higher energies and talks about subatomic particles, he goes to an old standby of graphics that seems to imply a "little solar system" type of model for objects which are actually necessarily described by quantum mechanics. His model looks to be something like a sphere with an illuminated center and with illuminated points chasing each other around great circles. It's not exactly a "little solar system", but it hints strongly at that. That's not really quantum mechanics.

If you want to get a feel for it, take a look at the plots of the Ylm(theta,phi) functions (aka, spherical harmonics) that give the angular distributions related to the orbitals in the hydrogen atom. They help establish the wave function: also, there's a radial part that has to be considered. I'm not even talking about spin being included here, but that is also needed.

The point of calculating wave functions is that through them one gets access to probability distributions, so that one can calculate expectation values for measurable quantities.

Anyway, it's more complicated than what the recommended channel implies/presents. While that channel may be better than those other channels, using misleading graphics right off the bat does not exactly commend his channel unless one wants to instill misconceptions deep and early.

Here is a reference that you can look at if you want to work on solving the hydrogen atom (i.e., finding its wave functions).

That page is sort of in the middle of solving that problem, but it discusses the spherical harmonics.

Here is a better YouTube channel for good information on science. It tries to be accurate:



From your past posting, one surmises that you have good familiarity with computers. If you want to simulate the spherical harmonics for yourself, you could buy Mathematica or get a copy of SAGE (https://www.sagemath.org/) which is open-source mathematical software. There are online resources that illustrate all this as well, but doing it for yourself is a better way to learn it.

My point is to warn people off from some YouTube channels and head them toward one that is better. Anton Petrov is not targeting real science buffs. He is just presenting information in low-level lay people's format. It's not my source of information, but so many of the channels are so, so terrible that finding a basic channel for people who are just looking for general information is very difficult.

Not everyone really wants to understand quantum mechanics. But, people do need a more or less reliable source to debunk some of the genuine nonsense being presented out there. I pointed to one channel that provides decent information on those subjects in lay terms.

"...so, so terrible..." Agreed. There is a lot of complete nonsense that needs to be fended off.

His channel may well be a good step along the path of providing science information to the layman, but, one would hope that as a science presenter, he would show enough care to avoid such misleading graphics. Quantum mechanics is confusing enough without being dragged backwards into a model that was generally abandoned after Sommerfeld.

Nevertheless, my apologies for a post that probably came across as condescending - from your posts over the years, I only am approximately aware of your interaction with computers and not your broader background.

was the one I saw during my school years in the 1950s-60s. It was already outdated then.

It is a very simplistic model, of course, but, and this is important, it allows for a simple explanation of protons, neutrons, and electrons. More accurate models require a lot more explanation, and most people aren't actually interested in learning at that level of complexity.

Nuclear and subatomic physics are complicated concepts. In many ways, the simpler models are sort of like Newton's laws. While they don't apply in all cases, they do apply in our particular physical world, so they are very useful. Similarly, simple atomic models lead the way to basic chemistry without complicating things for younger students. Later, those whose interest in science leads them to learn more get more information that helps them understand at a more complex level.

So it is in many scientific disciplines. Let's say, for example, we're talking about minerals. We can use simple atomic models to illustrate crystal structures and lattices. There is no need for advanced crystallography except for those students who advance to becoming mineralogists. So, simpler explanations often help people understand the basics and appreciate the science, without drowning in complexity.

At some point, discussions of many things end up in discussions of various theories to explain the same topics. At that point, almost everyone drops out of the discussion because the discussions and theories no longer make sense without sufficient background knowledge. Quantum mechanics is like that, as are discussions of what gravity actually is.

I find that stuff fascinating, but the discussions often involve math I'm not comfortable with. Fortunately, there are people who do their best to write explanations that help people grasp at least a little understanding. The technical jargon of subatomic physics and high energy physics is confusing to almost everyone. Spin, up and down, and various other properties only have meaning if you understand what's being discussed. Few have that level of understanding, so they're naturally confused.

So, simplified explanations, while technically incorrect, can serve to help people get a sense of complex theories. That's enough in most cases. The very best science writers for lay readers do a pretty good job, even though they get a lot of blowback when they don't go into enough depth. It's a tough gig.

https://www.youtube.com/c/scishowspace

and it's non-space counterpart

https://www.youtube.com/c/SciShow

My first favorite is Dr. David Kipping at Columbia University. His channel is Cool Worlds Lab (Earth is a cool world not to be confused with a hot Jupiter which are common exoplanets). The best part is nothing big will happen in Astrophysics without these guys weighing in so you can ignore the "scientists are shocked" or "scientists cant believe" click bait.

P.S. MineralMan - I think you are a Wonderful Person too

One of my favorites:

&t=169s

-Airplane

Everyone is a wonderful person to Anton.