Latest / Talking Science / Atoms – What Everything Is Made Of

Transcript

Atoms – What Everything Is Made Of · Talking Science

0:00
So I want you to look down at your hands for
0:02
a second, like really look at them. Yeah, just
0:04
take a good look. Right. And, you know, feel
0:06
the solid wood of the desk you might be sitting
0:09
at. Every instinct you have tells you that this
0:11
world is just made of solid stuff. Of course
0:13
it does. And that's our entire daily experience.
0:16
Exactly. But mathematically, scientifically,
0:20
according to the sorts material we're looking
0:22
at today, you are almost entirely empty space.
0:26
It's. It is a profoundly counterintuitive reality,
0:29
isn't it? Yeah. We spend our entire lives interacting
0:32
with what feels like this unyielding, dense physical
0:35
world. But the raw numbers tell a completely
0:38
different story. And I want to welcome everyone
0:40
to today's deep dive into this specific source
0:43
because the mission here is to figure out this
0:45
exact mystery. Like, how do we know atoms are
0:49
real? Why is the classic atom model wrong? And,
0:51
well, why do things feel solid if they're not?
0:54
It's a huge topic. It is. And the source material
0:56
actually provides this unbelievable visual to
0:59
put the true scale into perspective. I mean,
1:01
I love this analogy. The stadium one. Yeah, the
1:03
stadium one. So imagine scaling a single atom
1:06
up so its center, the nucleus, is the size of
1:09
a standard glass marble. Okay, a marble. Right.
1:13
Now take that marble and set it right in the
1:15
middle of a massive sports stadium on the 50
1:18
-yard line. The outer boundary of that atom...
1:22
the electrons, they would be way out by the highest
1:25
seats in the grandstands. Just hovering way up
1:27
there in the nosebleed. Exactly. And everything
1:29
in between that marble on the field and those
1:32
upper deck seats is absolute total vacancy, like
1:35
nothing at all. And that staggering proportion
1:38
applies to literally everything. The screen you're
1:40
looking at right now, the chair you're sitting
1:41
in, the cells in your own body, matter is just
1:45
overwhelmingly a void. Okay, let's unpack this
1:48
because that brings up the big driving question.
1:50
If I am mostly nothing and the desk is mostly
1:52
nothing, why doesn't my hand just pass straight
1:54
through it? Right. Why does empty space push
1:56
back? Yeah. Why does empty space feel hard? Well,
1:59
that illusion of solidity is kind of the ultimate
2:01
mystery we're unpacking today. But, you know,
2:03
before we can even explain why empty space pushes
2:06
back against your hand, we really have to trace
2:09
how humanity managed to discover this invisible
2:12
architecture in the first place. That makes sense.
2:14
We can't solve the solidity mystery without knowing
2:17
what matter actually is. So how did we figure
2:20
out that atoms are real when we can't even see
2:23
them? I mean, thousands of years ago, before
2:25
microscopes or labs, people were already... arguing
2:28
about this, right? Oh, absolutely. The Greek
2:30
philosophers around 400 BC were really chewing
2:33
on this. They proposed that if you took a piece
2:35
of matter and just kept cutting it in half over
2:37
and over, you'd eventually hit a wall. Like a
2:40
fundamental limit. Exactly. They imagined this
2:43
hypothetical indivisible unit that they called
2:45
Atomos, which literally translates to uncuttable.
2:48
Uncuttable, right. But, I mean, they reasoned
2:50
this out purely from logic. They just felt reality
2:52
couldn't be divided infinitely. However, that
2:55
was competing with a very intuitive counter theory
2:58
championed by other thinkers that matter is just
3:01
a smooth continuum. A continuum, like meaning
3:04
you could just keep slicing it forever. Yeah.
3:07
The idea was that if you had an infinitely sharp
3:09
knife, you could just keep slicing a drop of
3:11
water forever and ever. And it would always just
3:14
be a smaller, continuous puddle of water. Which,
3:17
I mean, that sounds completely plausible if you're
3:20
just looking at the world with the naked eye.
3:22
Water looks continuous. Smoke looks continuous.
3:25
It really does. So how did we actually move from
3:28
this ancient philosophical debate in Greece to
3:31
hard scientific proof? Well, the breakthrough
3:34
didn't come from, you know, building a better
3:37
magnifying glass to look closer. It actually
3:39
came from chemistry, specifically from weighing
3:42
things. Weighing things. Yeah. In the early 1800s,
3:45
a scientist named John Dalton started meticulously
3:48
weighing chemicals before and after they reacted.
3:51
And you notice this stark, completely unbreakable
3:54
pattern. Okay, what were the pattern? Elements
3:56
always combine in fixed, simple, whole number
3:59
ratios by mass. Oh, I see. Let me visualize this
4:02
to make sure I grasp the mechanics here. If I
4:04
have, say, 10 grams of oxygen, and I want to
4:07
make water. It will only ever react with a very
4:10
specific, rigid amount of hydrogen. Exactly.
4:13
So say it needs exactly 1 .25 grams of hydrogen.
4:17
If I toss in 2 grams of hydrogen, that extra
4:20
0 .75 grams, it just sits there, completely ignored
4:23
by the oxygen. Yes. The chemical reaction just
4:26
stops cold. The oxygen absolutely refuses to
4:29
absorb any more hydrogen than that strict mathematical
4:32
ratio dictates. So what does this all mean? I
4:36
mean, if matter were a continuous smooth paste
4:39
like some of the Greeks debated, elements should
4:41
be able to blend in any random messy proportion,
4:43
right? Right, you could just mix them endlessly
4:45
like stewing different colors of paint together.
4:47
But because the oxygen only pairs with an exact
4:49
amount of hydrogen and just ignores the rest,
4:51
they must be pairing off like... Like dance partners.
4:55
That's a perfect analogy. Like one discrete unit
4:57
of oxygen grabbing two discrete units of hydrogen.
5:00
When there are no more dancers on one side, the
5:02
music stops and the mixing just ends. And that
5:05
dance partner mechanism is really the only logical
5:07
explanation for Dalton's arithmetic. Chemistry
5:11
proved that matter comes in these discrete blocks
5:13
that snap together in specific quantities. Basic
5:16
math. you know, not a microscope, force the atom
5:20
into reality. Which is deeply fascinating and
5:22
kind of ironic, honestly. Chemistry proves these
5:25
uncuttable blocks exist, so physics immediately
5:28
decides to try and crack them open. Naturally.
5:31
Yeah, the era of the uncuttable atom officially
5:33
ended in 1897. That's when J .J. Thompson discovered
5:37
the electron. And the electron is what, exactly?
5:39
It's a particle, thousands of times lighter than
5:42
the atom itself, and it carries a negative electrical
5:44
charge. Now, since atoms as a whole are electrically
5:47
neutral, Compson deduced there had to be some
5:50
positive charge hiding in there to balance things
5:53
out. Right. You need a positive element to cancel
5:56
out the negative electrons so the whole atom
5:58
stays neutral. Exactly. So he proposed what's
6:00
known as the plum pudding model. He pictured
6:02
the atom as this diffuse, spongy sphere of positive
6:06
charge. That's the pudding with those little
6:08
negative electrons embedded inside it like plums.
6:10
A squishy, continuous blob of positive charge.
6:14
Yep. Okay, but that implies if you shot something
6:17
at it, it would be like firing a bullet into
6:19
a cloud of dense smoke. It would just go right
6:21
through. Right. Which brings us to Ernest Rutherford's
6:24
laboratory about a decade later. They set up
6:27
an experiment where they took a source firing
6:29
alpha particles. And alpha particles are like
6:31
microscopic bullets, right? Exactly. Heavy, highly
6:35
energetic, positively charged, microscopic bullets.
6:38
And they aimed them at an impossibly thin sheet
6:41
of gold foil. So... Based on Thompson's plum
6:45
pudding model, those heavy, fast -moving positive
6:48
bullets are encountering a diffuse, spongy positive
6:52
cloud. Which means they should shred straight
6:55
through it. They shouldn't even slow down. A
6:57
spongy cloud of positive charge just shouldn't
6:59
have the dense concentrated mass required to
7:01
deflect something moving that heavy and that
7:03
fast. Did they go straight through? Well, the
7:05
laboratory setup involved these researchers literally
7:07
sitting in the dark, waiting for their eyes to
7:10
adjust, and watching for tiny flashes of light
7:12
on a zinc sulfide screen to see where those bullets
7:15
landed. Wow, tedious work. Incredibly. Now, most
7:19
of the particles did sail straight through. Exactly
7:22
as you'd predict. But a tiny, rare fraction of
7:25
them bounced back at severe angles. Some even
7:28
rebounded almost straight back at the source.
7:30
And Rutherford famously said this was as incredible
7:33
as if you fired a 15 -inch naval artillery shell
7:36
at a sheet of tissue paper and the shell bounced
7:38
back and hit you. It completely shocked them.
7:41
The sheer violence of that deflection just shattered
7:44
the plum pudding model entirely. Because the
7:47
only physical way an artillery shell bounces
7:49
off tissue paper is if there is a microscopic
7:51
and possibly dense boulder hiding inside the
7:54
tissue. Exactly. That was the big takeaway. So
7:57
all the positive charge and almost all the physical
7:59
mass of the atom isn't a diffuse sponge at all.
8:01
It is entirely concentrated in an unbelievably
8:04
tiny central region. A nucleus. Right. Most of
8:07
the alpha particles missed it because the atom
8:09
is mostly empty space. But the bullets that scored
8:11
a direct hit collided with a brick wall. That's
8:14
how they found the core of the atom without ever
8:16
actually seeing it. Yeah, that violent laboratory
8:18
experiment gave us the core architecture of the
8:21
modern atom. At the absolute center is the nucleus,
8:24
packing in the protons. Those protons carry the
8:28
positive charge, and their count acts as the
8:30
absolute identity of the element. Like one proton
8:33
is always hydrogen, six is always carbon, and
8:36
so on. You got it. And we also have neutrons
8:38
packed into that dense center. They're neutral,
8:41
carrying no electrical charge, but they add significant
8:44
mass. So if you change the number of protons,
8:47
you get a completely different element. But if
8:49
you just add a neutron... It remains the exact
8:51
same element, just a heavier version. Correct.
8:53
That's called an isotope. Those heavier isotopes
8:56
act identically in chemical reactions, but that
8:59
extra mass crammed into the nucleus can make
9:01
it unstable. And that instability is what causes
9:04
the nucleus to slowly decay, which is the precise
9:08
mechanism radioactive dating uses to calculate
9:11
the age of ancient artifacts and fossils, right?
9:13
Exactly right. Okay, so that's the center. Then
9:16
way out in the empty space, orbiting this dense
9:18
core, are the negative electrons. If you add
9:22
or remove one of those outer electrons, the positive
9:25
and negative charges are no longer perfectly
9:27
balanced. Right, which gives the whole atom a
9:30
net electrical charge, turning it into an ion.
9:33
But I want to pause on something you just said.
9:34
Oh, what's that? You mentioned the electrons
9:37
orbiting the core. That brings us to the classic
9:39
science classroom poster from 1913. Oh, yeah.
9:43
The heavy nucleus acts like the sun, and the
9:46
electrons orbit around it in neat, perfect little
9:49
circles, just like planets in a solar system.
9:51
Right. It's the universally recognized symbol
9:54
of atomic science. I mean, I have that image
9:56
burned into my brain from middle school. What's
9:58
fascinating here is it is universally recognized
10:01
and it is completely undeniably incorrect. Wait,
10:05
why is it wrong? It makes perfect sense visually.
10:07
It fails due to a foundational, unbreakable rule
10:10
of classical physics. An accelerating charged
10:13
particle must radiate away its energy. Hold on.
10:16
I need to push back on that for a second. When
10:19
I am driving my car around a circular track at
10:21
a steady 50 mph, my speed isn't changing. I am
10:25
not accelerating. Your speed is constant, sure,
10:28
but your direction is constantly changing. In
10:31
physics, any change in velocity, which includes
10:34
a change in direction, is technically classified
10:37
as an acceleration. Oh, I see. Because an electron
10:40
is moving in a circle, it is permanently accelerating.
10:43
And since it carries a negative charge, classical
10:45
physics dictates it must constantly bleed off
10:48
energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation
10:51
as it turns. So if it's bleeding energy just
10:54
by the act of turning, it would lose the fight
10:56
against the positive magnetic pull of the nucleus.
10:59
It wouldn't stay in a stable orbit. it would
11:01
inevitably spiral inward and just crash into
11:03
the center. In a tiny fraction of a second. If
11:06
that solar system model were actually accurate,
11:08
every atom in the universe would have collapsed
11:10
into itself almost immediately after forming.
11:12
Well, considering you and I are sitting here
11:14
breathing air and talking, and all our atoms
11:17
haven't collapsed into microscopic black holes,
11:20
classical physics must be missing a massive piece
11:23
of the puzzle here. It was. Classical physics
11:26
essentially predicted the immediate destruction
11:28
of the universe. To save the atom, scientists
11:31
had to throw out those old rules and step into
11:34
the strange probabilistic mechanics of the quantum
11:37
realm, completely redefining what an electron
11:39
actually is. Okay, so how does quantum mechanics
11:41
stop the spiral of death? By discarding the idea
11:45
of a trial path altogether. Electrons don't orbit.
11:49
They don't have definite continuous positions.
11:51
Instead, they exist in orbitals, which are these
11:54
three -dimensional probability regions. Probability
11:56
regions? What do they look like? Some of these
11:58
regions are spherical. Some look like dumbbells.
12:00
Others are these complex multi -lobe shapes spanning
12:03
out into the empty space. So it's not a tiny
12:05
moon zipping around a track. It is a fog of maybe.
12:09
surrounding the nucleus. The electron isn't moving
12:12
from point A to point B inside that fog. It just
12:14
exists as a spread -out likelihood until it interacts
12:17
with something. A literal cloud of probability.
12:20
And to prevent that cloud from collapsing into
12:22
the nucleus, quantum mechanics introduces quantization.
12:26
Electrons can only exist in specific, discrete
12:29
energy states. Okay, I often hear this compared
12:32
to a ladder. Where an electron can be on the
12:35
first rung or the second rung, but absolutely
12:37
cannot hover in the empty air between them. But
12:40
why? What physical mechanism forces them to only
12:43
exist on those specific rungs? The latter is
12:46
a common visual, yeah. But a better way to understand
12:48
the underlying why is to look at a guitar string.
12:51
A guitar string, okay. When you pluck a guitar
12:53
string, it vibrates in standing ways. You can
12:57
have a wave with one peak or two peaks or three
12:59
peaks. But because the string is firmly pinned
13:01
down at both ends, it is physically impossible
13:04
to have a wave with one and a half peaks. Right.
13:06
The wave would just cancel itself out and simply
13:08
fail to exist. The physical math of the string
13:10
doesn't allow for a fraction of a wave. Exactly.
13:13
Because an electron in the quantum realm behaves
13:16
as a wave, its probability cloud must form a
13:19
perfect... continuous standing wave around the
13:21
nucleus. It can vibrate at frequency one or frequency
13:24
two, but it physically cannot exist at a frequency
13:27
of 1 .5. Those forbidden intermediate zones simply
13:31
cannot support the electron's mathematical wave.
13:34
That mechanism makes so much more sense than
13:36
a ladder. It is acoustic resonance. So they leap
13:39
instantaneously from one valid wave state to
13:42
another by absorbing or emitting a photon of
13:45
light with the exact amount of energy needed
13:47
to bridge that frequency gap. Yes. And because
13:50
these valid wave states are completely unique
13:52
to each individual element, the light they emit
13:55
creates a highly specific wavelength. Here's
13:57
where it gets really interesting for everyday
13:59
life. This is exactly why sodium street lamps
14:01
have that harsh, distinct orange glow. That orange
14:05
light is the visual signature of sodium electrons
14:07
dropping between their specific resonant quantum
14:10
wave states. It is the identical mechanism astronomers
14:13
use to analyze stars trillions of kilometers
14:15
away, too. Every element projects a spectral
14:18
fingerprint, like a unique barcode of light generated
14:21
by its specific quantum wave states. So the quantum
14:24
wave states give us glowing street lamps and
14:27
allow us to map the chemical composition of entire
14:30
galaxies. That's incredible. But back to the
14:33
collapse problem. Right. If they are constantly
14:35
stepping down these resonant wave states, shedding
14:38
energy as light, why don't they eventually hit
14:40
the absolute bottom and crash into the nucleus
14:43
anyway? Because there is a fundamental lowest
14:46
frequency the wave can maintain, known as the
14:49
ground state. Once an electron reaches that ground
14:52
state, there is simply nowhere further to fall.
14:54
It just hits the floor. Yeah, it cannot lose
14:56
any more energy because no lower wave pattern
14:58
can physically exist around that nucleus. That
15:00
mathematical limit guarantees the absolute stability
15:03
of the atom. So the universe is basically saved
15:06
by a baseline vibration. The atom is a dense
15:09
core surrounded by a massive empty stadium inhabited
15:12
by a ghostly probability fog that strictly obeys
15:16
quantum wave rules. You summed it up perfectly,
15:18
which brings us back to our central mystery.
15:21
Right. Right. If you are mostly empty space and
15:25
the wooden desk is mostly empty space governed
15:27
by ghostly probability fogs, where does the physical
15:32
sensation of a solid surface actually come from?
15:35
Because solidity clearly isn't physical stuff
15:37
violently colliding with other physical stuff.
15:40
It's primarily electromagnetic repulsion. The
15:43
outer boundaries of all your atoms are those
15:45
electron clouds, which, as we established, carry
15:48
a negative charge. Okay. As you press your hand
15:50
against the wood, the negative clouds in your
15:52
skin approach the negative clouds in the desk.
15:55
Like trying to push the negative poles of two
15:57
strong magnets together, they forcefully push
16:00
back. Exactly. At a microscopic range, that repulsion
16:04
is intensely strong. When you rest your arm on
16:07
the table, your atoms are not actually making
16:09
physical contact with the wood's atoms. You are
16:11
perpetually hovering on a microscopic cushion
16:13
of electromagnetic force. But wait, earlier we
16:15
established that an electron is just a fog of
16:18
maybe, a probability. How can a mathematical
16:21
probability exert a physical magnetic force that
16:24
physically stops my hand? Well, in quantum mechanics...
16:27
The probability isn't just our lack of knowledge
16:30
about where a tiny particle is hiding. The electron
16:33
physically manifests as that spread -out cloud
16:36
of charge. The negative electrical charge is
16:39
literally smeared across the entire probability
16:42
region. Ooh! Yeah, so when two of these smeared
16:45
-out fields get close, the fields themselves
16:47
repel each other. So I am officially hovering
16:50
on a field of smeared -out charge. You are. But
16:53
the source material mentioned a second, subtler
16:56
reason for solidity. Beyond just magnetism. Oh,
16:59
right. What was the second factor? It comes from
17:01
the Pauli exclusion principle. Electrons belong
17:03
to a class of particles called fermions, which
17:06
obey a very strict quantum law. No two electrons
17:09
can occupy the exact same quantum state simultaneously.
17:12
Meaning they absolutely refuse to share the same
17:15
physical space, energy level, and wave pattern.
17:18
Yes. If you try to force two atoms together past
17:21
their electromagnetic repulsion, their electron
17:24
clouds will be forced to overlap. Their electrons
17:26
would have to assume the same quantum state.
17:28
And the universe categorically prohibits this
17:31
overlap from occurring. So the rules of physics
17:33
act like a concrete wall. It is not a repulsive
17:36
force like magnetism pushing them apart. It is
17:39
just the sheer mathematical impossibility of
17:42
the overlap existing. Exactly. That categorical
17:45
refusal generates an effective resistance known
17:47
as degeneracy pressure. And it is incredibly
17:50
potent. The synthesis of this principle is staggering.
17:54
Because this exact same quantum rule, the refusal
17:57
of electrons to share a state, is the degeneracy
18:00
pressure that holds up a massive white dwarf
18:02
star, preventing it from being crushed by its
18:04
own astronomical gravity. It's amazing to think
18:07
about. The exact same mechanism stopping your
18:09
hand from passing through the desk stops a dead
18:12
star from collapsing into a black hole. Empty
18:14
space covered by rules becomes perfectly rigid.
18:17
Empty space with rules can be perfectly rigid.
18:19
It really leaves me wondering about our daily
18:21
relationship with this invisible world. We are
18:23
hovering on force fields of ancient and possibly
18:25
tiny probabilities. Can we ever actually hope
18:28
to interact with this microscopic realm directly?
18:31
We routinely interact with it now, but to grasp
18:34
how, we really need to feel the agonizing scale
18:37
we are dealing with here. A typical atom is about
18:40
a tenth of a nanometer across. Okay, a tenth
18:43
of a nanometer. If you look at a single millimeter
18:45
mark on a standard... ruler, you could line up
18:47
roughly 10 million atoms side by side across
18:51
that tiny gap. 10 million inside one single millimeter.
18:56
To put it another way, there are more individual
18:58
atoms in a single glass of water than there are
19:00
glasses of water in all of Earth's oceans combined.
19:03
It's a realm of existence so numerous it just
19:06
defies human intuition entirely. And visible
19:09
light is practically useless here, right? Completely
19:11
useless. Because the physical wave of a visible
19:13
light beam is hundreds of times larger than an
19:16
atom. So using light to see an atom is like...
19:19
Trying to feel the fine texture of a grain of
19:21
sand while wearing a giant thick winter glove.
19:24
That's a great way to put it. You simply cannot
19:26
resolve the image. We had to invent a way to
19:29
perceive them without light, which led to the
19:31
Scanning Tunneling Microscope, or STM. How does
19:34
that work? Instead of looking at the surface,
19:36
it feels the surface. It drags an unimaginably
19:39
sharp tip, sometimes ending in just a single
19:42
atom, incredibly close across the material. But
19:46
if they cannot touch because of the fierce repulsion
19:48
we just talked about, how does the tip actually
19:51
feel the surface? It measures a quantum effect
19:53
called tunneling. Remember how the electron is
19:56
a fog of maybe? Because it is a spread out probability
20:00
wave, that wave doesn't just hold at the hard
20:03
boundary of the atom. It decays, sure, but it
20:06
extends slightly into the empty space beyond.
20:09
So a tiny fraction of that probability fog actually
20:12
bleeds past the physical barrier of the atom.
20:15
Exactly. And if you bring the microscope tip
20:17
close enough, the electron's probability wave
20:20
overlaps with the tip. Even though there is an
20:22
impenetrable empty gap between them, there's
20:24
a distinct mathematical chance the electron just
20:26
appears on the tip. It tunnels through the barrier
20:28
without ever crossing the space in between. Yes.
20:32
And by measuring how many electrons casually
20:34
pop across that gap, a computer adjusts the height
20:38
of the tip to keep the flow constant. It reads
20:41
the electrical topography of the surface, literally
20:44
mapping the bumps of individual atoms. That is
20:48
wild. The precision is so immense today that
20:51
researchers don't just map them. They use the
20:53
tip of the microscope to coax single atoms along
20:56
a surface, arranging them one by one. It's the
20:59
ultimate paradox. No one has ever seen an atom
21:02
in the ordinary sense of using light, yet we
21:04
can pick them up and arrange them like microscopic
21:06
building blocks. It highlights the massive leap
21:09
from the ancient Greeks debating philosophy to
21:12
modern physics actually maneuvering the very
21:14
fabric of matter. It really does. You know, as
21:17
we wrap up this deep dive, I want to bring all
21:18
these cosmic and quantum scales back down to
21:20
you, the listener, because there is a profound
21:23
final note in the source material about the actual
21:26
atoms currently making up your body. the sheer
21:28
age of our component parts. Yes. Exactly. The
21:32
hydrogen swirling in the water of your cells
21:34
was forged minutes after the Big Bang itself.
21:37
It is billions of years old. The heavier elements,
21:40
the carbon in your DNA, the oxygen in your blood,
21:43
the nitrogen in your lungs, those required immense
21:46
pressure to form. They were forged inside the
21:49
crushing cores of ancient stars. Stars that lived
21:51
and died in violent supernovas long before our
21:54
own sun even ignited. And those ancient atoms
21:57
have been locked in primordial rocks. They've
21:59
drifted in ancient oceans. and they have built
22:01
the tissues of long extinct organisms over millions
22:04
of years. So to recap our journey today, you
22:07
are a temporary arrangement of stardust. You
22:10
are mostly empty space, you are incredibly ancient,
22:12
and you are held together by probability fogs
22:15
and force fields discovered barely a century
22:17
ago. It reframes completely what it means to
22:19
be a physical being. It changes everything. And
22:22
I want to leave you with one final lingering
22:24
thought to explore on your own. Building on this
22:28
idea, the source states that these atoms are
22:30
infinitely recycled and that nothing in you is
22:32
new except the pattern. Well, if every single
22:35
piece of physical matter inside you is just borrowed
22:37
from dead stars and will eventually leave you
22:39
to build a mountain or a raindrop or another
22:41
person, then who you are isn't your physical
22:44
matter at all. Your true identity is strictly
22:46
the invisible temporary software, the pattern,
22:49
that is borrowing these ancient atoms for a brief
22:51
cosmic moment. So what exactly is the nature
22:55
of that pattern?