Don't spend time on this video, it contains many misconceptions that will disturb you when learning further.
As you noted, electrons are simultaneously at all the positions covered by the wave function. And at an orbital, which is a stationary wave-function (but not all wave functions are stationary), there is nearly no evolution over time at all. It's nearly the idea of "immobile", which explains why the electron doesn't radiate light when it's a stationary wave function, except that p, d... wave functions have an orbital momentum and a magnetic momentum. Any video, any explanation that shows a point moving on an ellipse is contrary to quantum mechanics.
As spherical orbitals (1s, 2s... not 2p, 3p, 3d...), electrons have a strong probability density right at the nucleus. I don't know of an interaction that would limit the proximity of an electron with a proton or neutron, or with a quark blah blah blah. You may want to consider the nucleus as a point or as an object with some extension, much smaller than the electron's orbital.
The "speed" of the electron is a subtle idea. Because the electron is simultaneously everywhere, it's speed, momentum, kinetic energy is often given as a single global value. Then, the electron can have a mean kinetic energy, no mean momentum nor speed as it's centred on the nucleus, but nevertheless an orbital momentum. This is central to quantum mechanics, whose first task was to explain why the electron doesn't radiate photons and fall on the nucleus, and it's answer was to make the idea of movement more subtle.
Sometimes we need the kinetic energy or momentum of an electron within a limited volume of its wave function. This happens when an energetic photon ionizes an atom for instance, and the total energy and momentum are conserved. It's also necessary to compute the relativistic correction to the mass of the electron and its effect on the orbital's energy: only a local correction of the mass gives the experimentally observed values, not one global correction (my professor got it wrong here, many books too). So a local kinetic energy is useful and meaningful, and indeed, it's bigger near to the nucleus, up to really big values.
==========
My first suggestion would be to peep at the cute illustrations of orbitals there
https://winter.group.shef.ac.uk/orbitron/==========
My second recommendation is to choose very carefully your source of knowledge, even more so for quantum mechanics. QM is a century old, its interpretation evolved awfully much, but most books are brutally outdated and still propagate misconceptions and abandoned models dating back to Bohr or others. Things like "duality" and other philosophical concepts bring zero dot nothing to the understanding. Avoid also general public science reviews: the authors generally don't understand the topic and revert to images that obfuscate QM.
Even reputable authors carry bizarre and unjustified explanations. BUT
the maths tend to be correct in every book, probably because the authors didn't dare to alter a comma on something they don't grasp. So my third suggestion, if you know enough maths, is to
learn QM by its maths. Reject all images and explanations brought by the authors (especially when you see points or any evolution over time). Take the mathematical expression, and ask yourself "what does it imply for the electron, and
what is not implied".
For instance, do you see a time dependence in the orbital? No? Then, don't add any sort of trajectory for the electron.
Do you see any axis and rotation in the expressions for the spin on x, y, z of the electron? No? Then
there is none.
Does something in the wave function tell "I am only a way to compute a probability of presence"? No? Thrash.
Be as fundamentalist as an ayatollah with that. The maths tends to come unaltered from the few people who grasp QM. The blah blah around uses to be wrong. Even from the best authors. As an illustration, every second author or professor claims that the BCS model for superconductivity includes a Bose-Einstein condensate, which proves that every second author of QM book misunderstood both the BCS model and the Bose-Einstein condensates.
One possible exception is the collapse of the wave function in an interaction. Much of it is flawed, but some of it may survive. This seems to be an open question in the interpretation of QM - but I'm not on the edge.
And: read some
recent information from QM. For instance, the nice images of pentacene by atomic force microscope (AFM) corrects misconceptions that the dual slit experiment allows. Recent experiments (especially in Munich) made some cleaning among the many interpretations of QM and made QM itself more concrete in many ways.
Feyman wrote excellent books about QM, if the maths is accessible to you. He took care not to introduce mental representations not implied by experiments and the maths modelling. But he doesn't explicitly dismiss the wrong mental representations introduced by other authors, alas.
ChemBuddy | 
Chem Reddit | 
Topic: Miscellaneous Questions on electronic orbitals (Read 2976 times)