Key Experiments of Physics: Stern and Gerlach 1922
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 24 фев 2024
- One of the greatest riddles of nature, discovered in the heyday of quantum physics
Mind also my backup channel:
odysee.com/@TheMachian:c
My books: www.amazon.com/Alexander-Unzicker/e/B00DQCRYYY/ 
Наука
Throughout school all I got were cheap excuses for explanations. Natural philosophy is not priority, solving typical homework problems is. That's why I left college and became a free mind.
read steinmetz. the one called elemetrary lectures on electrical waves, transients and other impulses
Wasn't being a free mind what allowed you to leave college? 😉
Wow! This is my favorite video of yours so far Dr. Unzicker! I have seen you at the end of the video question the 3+1 dimensions model of reality, and then have a moment of silence and inner stillness! That was something truly profound! This question of the 3+1 dimensions of reality model is something of importance for me recently. For instance, the work of Dewey Larson and the recent revisions of his theory particularly by KVK Nehru, Bruce Peret, and Gopi Krishna Vijaya, often involving the use of quaternions and 3+3 dimensions, seems to me to have a lot to offer.
There is another short video about 3+1 spacetime (unsolved riddles), but also longer videos on quaternion ideas. Thanks!
I'm always delighted whenever you release a new video on RUclips, Dr. Unzicker. Thank you and I wish I could speak German as well as you speak English :-)
Lets sprechen wir deutschen: Röntgenstrahlen im deutschen Museum München oder Röntgenring 8?
When lecturing electrons about how they are supposed to behave make sure to use a metal ruler waved at them. During a lightening storm gets you the best educational lecture environment with the electrons. After coming up with the MRI game and nobody took to testing the theory of electron participation in creating light by watching variations I'd say.....well nothing
Thank you so much for this please do more historical videos
You cannot use electrons in stern-gerlach because the magnetic field will see the charge not the spin. You use neutral atoms with spin. We use a particular excited state of helium which has spin-1.
Should have mentioned that, thanks.
That it is still an unknown is amazing. The electron is not spinning but flipping at a ratio of 1 to 3 1/3 which matches exactly what wing nut do in space.
32 x Butterfly nut M8 for heater Flansch
1:44 The good Dr. really just sugar-coated the calculus for us. Bahaha, thanks doc!
i am so puzzled and fascinated by Stern Gerlach since i saw their oroginal video.
this looks REAL. this could be the last real experiment in the known physics.
I also did a real experiment dropping ball magnets and steel balls between two neudium magnets and showed that magnet balls fall mainly on the two extremes and the steel ball fall randomly and fill all the spece between the extremes. This simple experiment can be repeated by everyone in the kitchin as it is very simple.
hello, I think the experiment was meant to test the quantization of angular momentum. So in some sense, the result were quite expected. The unexplained was the prediction itself.
Haha, the prediction was unexpected, hahaha. I am astonished to hear such, really.
If we had the proper model of the electron and the proper model of the electromagnetic field we could explain their interaction easily and without any mystery. We should explain what is the electric charge and how is it created during the electron-positron pair creation. We should explain the inner energy flows of the electron. It seems that electrons and the electromagnetic field are made of the same stuff. Electrons could be some knots of energy flows. Once we have the model of the electron it would be obvious what the electron spin is and what the electric charge is. Perhaps the interaction of three-dimensional vawes could be useful.
I Like this idea, waves and their knots😮
Phipps-Taylor performed this experiment for H. The results are: two deflected rays plus a central ray without deflection.
Short and sweet but with a long headache afterwards, still I did enjoy it and for me that`s important.
In your video on charge particles as a lattice discontinuity or propagating fracture there must be something defining the orientation of the lattice. That is not simply a 3 space orientation but it should define or limit the spin orientations possible. In any 4, 5 or higher dimension space with a limited number of allowed orientations, that limit will feed down to a limited allowed 3 space orientations.
It's depend on polarisation modes. The higher dimensions are NOT physical dimensions but associated to phase space and momentum space generators which project these patterns into physical fix points which are the origin of physical momentum. Think of light reflections projections
The 3 dimensional physical reality can be decomposed to state vectors which are protected topologically by symmetry. You call this lorentz symmetry.
@@JAYMOAP The advantage of extra dimensions is that it removes action at a distance, spooky properties and unexplained probability's. In the 5th dimension the distance of an interaction can be zero. That's why Einstein liked the idea over the randomness of quantum mechanics. It is not negated by various things like lorentz symmetry its at another level. The math is not the mechanism. However both must relate.
@@hatac there is certain orbits in the moduli space which related to projections and it becomes real. However the 3 spatial dimension is a specific unique case topologically so you can't find extra dimensions physically
@@JAYMOAP I must admit that I'm an armature but who said I was looking for anything that was findable physically. That's the point, beyond 3 space we're not looking for that at all. Again math verses mechanism.
Important questions, and as you say it is not understood even today.
To understand the purpose of the experiment one must understand the known dynamics of the electron at that time: Electrons are created new every infinite (not literally) fraction of a second and come in two varieties of north and south pole flavours. Hence, as the whole silver atom moved through the setup the creation of brand new electron continues. The question that needed to be answered was to determine if the electrons created were of just one polarity or do they alternate. Because of the high mass of silver it was necessary to bias the magnets to enable detection of electron polarity. Because the results showed a bifurcating path it meant that electrons alternate sequentially their polarity as they are created. For comparison, the electrons in copper are of same polarity. This explains why (detail withheld) copper makes electricity that degrades and is harmful made up of two opposite polarity charges; while electricity made on silver wire does not degrade due to friction, can run by single wire and will not shock.
Of course, the above is branded as conspiracy theory or breaking physics laws in order to keep you in stone age.
Easy to prove, is IT?
@@jost2741 Yes, I can prove it and much more besides. But you must be a liberal democracy government, contact face to face with no less than six Intel personnel at my address and heed to my instructions - if you want to leapfrog all.
Not a riddle at all, rotation of the apparatus changes where the electron falls. The apparatus alters the angular momentum to the path of least resistance in relation to the orientation of the magnetic field. Turn the apparatus on its side and the electrons will now have a distribution of left and right. The spin measurement is changed by the device measuring it following the path of least resistance as determined by the orientation of the measuring device. This is a measurement problem giving incorrect interpretations, that is reproducible in a lab.
I think you missed the point. The problem he is mentioning is about the discrete distribution of the outgoing atoms instead of a continuous one.
Yes, positing the previous level of experience in this experiment is a good teaching technique, Socratic Method style, which allows those students with the appropriate aptitude for reduction of phenomena to the elemental aspects of the demonstrated function to apply known facts in Math-Physics.
Rabi oscillations / resonances relevant here. It's scratching some deep territory as the rabi resonance corresponding to the vacuum / ground state as well. Good video 👍
Here is my interpretation. Spin state is a probability distribution on a Spherical Shell. As the electron passes thru the magnetic field, two things happen.
1) The spin state is localized along the magnetic field axis thru the electron. The probability distribution converges to the Up or Down state for the particular axis. I like to imagine a gradient on the sphere from pole to pole, where equatorial states become 50% chance, and poles converge to 100% and 0% opposedly. (Up => Not Down, and Down => Not Up)
2) The magnetic field acts on the electron, only caring about the spin state along the magnetic field axis.
Thanks! Good to know that the two spin directions are what the experiment showed us. What were the cheap explanations right after the experiment? Do we have any reasonable explanation today?
The problem with the uniform distribution expectation is that it assumes that the electrons are not oriented by the magnetic field. Or at least too slowly for there to be any impact on their initial random distribution. This is not obvious and not a proven assumption. Physics is afflicted with ad hoc simplifying assumptions in every crack that render all the theorizing a steaming pile of BS. For example, the notion that particles do not interact with space(-time) and space is merely a coordinate system abstraction. We have a magic Higgs field pulled out of the air to impart mass (and inertia) when the space field is ignored. Finding a heavy particle in a collider does not establish the existence of any Higgs field. Tests need to be done to establish the action of this particle as a field mediator.
Thanks you axlander
For a great take on the Stern-Gerlach experiment, see "The Electromagnetic Universe 7th Ed." (Not to be confused with "The Electric Universe")
Trigger warning: It contains common sense.
Quantenphysik: Bei 4 Plank Längen, hat man die Quadratur des Kreises erreicht.
Kantenfüsik, noch ein Bier bitte
is it possible that the internal dynamics of the atom is causing the magnetic field to produce a quantumized outcome and that in natural unpressured conditions it is actually randomly distributed?
If Dirac sea of particles and anti particles are in play then the electrons only appear to orbit. The election never completes an orbit it hits a positron before doing so. The positrons pair is now freed up and biases towards the proton but there are lots of anti-particles to play with. So what trajectory does the anti-particle encountered is most likely to be snapped up by the nonvirtual electron? Its likely one repelled by the proton and influenced in spin orientation of the proton or nucleus. The electron created in that pair will have a related spin. So the real question is what's the magnetic polarization of the nuclei in the electron source? What other fields are influencing the nucleus? Is an electron oriented half way between up and down relative to the nucleus's magnetic field allowed? Or is that particle pair ejected out of the 'plane of orbit'?
Given that the Dirac sea also permeates the nucleolus and its neutrons appear to be a proton electron pair mediated by something we call a neutrino when it gets loose, is the to charges in that neutron also grabbing virtual particles leaving the opposite charged pair to become real? Is the neutrino just a probability pattern of the abandoned positrons and their collective energy and fields?
One model, I don't know the name, would have the nucleus being all protons some of which are paired with an electron just long enough to be neutral (the neutron) but the electron seems to hop between protons. This means the nucleus can be a stable lattice of positive and neutral charges but we can never say which is which because their mobile electrons are flipping about. However these intranuclear electrons all have spin and again creates a field that influences the out going electrons and positrons.
electron us a terminal end of the dieletric line of tension. thse lines must terminate on conductors. read steinmetz.
When are the scientists going figure out that the amount of gravity changes the measures of time and distance which changes the speed of light?
wrong on some many levels. gravity is dielectric acceleration, speed of light in not a speed at all but the rate of induction of the medium. magnetism gives rise to time . read steinmetz.
@@toymaker3474 I’m referring to the observations.
@@toymaker3474 A dielectric gravity should be easily blocked and alterable (there are no experiments to date that show gravity to be blocked). Mr Arp never gave a valid explanation to this hypothesis. "Dielectric gravity" is incompatible with Steinmetz's work as well - at least the latter has some reasonable experimental backing.
I would also like to know, when?
@@davestorm6718 Take the example of a charged needle and the orbiting drop of water. It needs to be charged because of all the surrounding mass. Regardless, things orbit at great distances and it’s probably not due to electromagnetic charges. So tell me, does the measures of time and distance change due to the amount of gravity nearby?
What if we keep rotating the electron source randomly to different directions?
I guess we still still get the 2 distribution of UP and DOWN?!
If so, then clearly we cannot think of electron spin in terms of traditional mechanical spin.
Also when electrons are being measured, they suddenly collapse from wave and start acting like particles. This means some spin like property of the wave is converted to a UP and DOWN mechanical spin like property.
What's the mathematical equivalent of this behavior or property?
Is there a mathematical function that can take infinite range and output only 2 values?
As a first stepping stone I would recommend you to assume that magnetic field lines are an observer which is setting the plane of the spin (perpendicular to it). The second stone is do not assume the spin source is an electron...
@@PavelHolub-or2ku So, what's the answer to my question?
@@itzchi I was thinking the underlining question is how electron and it's quantum spin works. If you are asking if there is a mathematical function which turns white noise into yes and no s COHERENT with who is asking I don't think there is such. On one hand it is extremely robust function on the other hand we don't want to occupy space which has no structure underneath.
Ich lese gerade Dieter Broers "Gedanken erschaffen Realität" - ein Buch in dem es auch um den "Spin" der Elektronen geht.
Faszinierend, dass die alten Weisen durch die moderne Quantenphysik bestätigt werden.
Aber gerade das ist ja Quatsch, Gedanken schaffen gar nichts reales, sie sind immaterielles Gut.
I have an experiment: How many seconds of intro does people accept even if they regard the content as mind blowing.
Good
Topic is worth taking up. But I felt this video is not up to level. Anyway ❤️ & regards Unzicker
Its a recreational vid
Professor, I think there is an explanation, and it's related somehow to the McCullagh electron (but with charges) and everything can be explained through vectors calculus. The problem is a bit skewed than the way it's seen right now. But mathematical, not spiritual or paranormal tough... 🤣
Super, endlich spricht mal jemand aus, was die Probleme der Gegenwärtigen Physik wirklich sind.
Ich hätte gerne die Gedanken von 4:07 bis 4:12 noch gehört, was zögern Sie uns mitzuteilen?
Ups...forgot to cut that :-)
I still can’t see why the silver atoms would not just reorientation themselves as they travel through the heterogeneous magnetic field.
Seems to me this that instead of spin, this could be an effect of the charge or magnetic fields in the Ag also being heterogeneous.
Thus although “Spin” must certainly exist, assuming this is the cause in this experiment may have hidden a more profound truth about the structure of many or all atomic and elemental particles.
Just a point of clarification: The silver atoms were not charged. They were neutral. It is just that they have an unpaired electron. This unpaired electron is what is "hopefully" being measured. So, the silver atom must then have some kind of "unbalance" that is driving the distribution being measured. It is assumed that this is the spin of the unpaired electron.
However, your question is totally valid. Why would the silver atom not be reoriented. I believe it would.
@@niekiejooste4637 it wouldn't align, it would precess. But really the best riposte to your theory would be, ok, lets not use spin-1/2 particles that have +1/2 and -1/2 spin states. Let's use spin-1. Now we get three spots instead of two, corresponding to +1. 0, and -1 spin states.
@@niekiejooste4637 totally agree.sorry if I wasn’t clear.
@@user-dx1bq3ps5z It sounds like you believe that the electron would react to the magnetic field like a gyroscope would react to a gravitational field. Why would you believe that?
@@user-dx1bq3ps5z your response is a perfect example of my point...
The math that describes spin, does absolutely nothing to help a person envision the true nature of spin.
there wasnt 2 points, there was a CONTINUOUS distribution but with 2 peaks (mods)
Agreed. If you read the original paper, it is clear that the pattern made is not 2 dots. It looks like 2 curved lines. There is a gap between the lines in the middle and they touch on the left and right sides.
If we accept that the magnetic field acts not only as a sorting mechanism, but actually acts on the electrons to align their spin directions, then the two curved lines are quite easily understood.
Accepting that the measuring process is what results in the distribution, rather than projecting "properties" onto the objects being measured explains a lot of the odd behaviours in QM.
@@niekiejooste4637 i guess he misspoke
@@sillysad3198 The issue is that in the general physics discourse they always refer to 2 dots or points. This is just patently incorrect and tends to drive a narrative that suggest something magical is happening.
@@niekiejooste4637 his native lang is german, he could be imagining "2 bright spots" and picked a wrong english word
@@sillysad3198 Sure. My reply is not a personal attack on the good professor. It is a point of explanation for the outcome of the experiment.
Folks, what is missing from this video is where the weirdness of this experiment manifests itself. It does so when you take the output of one apparatus and feed it into the input of an identical apparatus (or more). It really does get strange and is counter-intuitive:
Visit this link and scroll down to where it says "Sequential experiments"
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern-Gerlach_experiment
and give it a good read. Trust me.
I’ve got to the same interpretation as many others that commented on this video when I first watched it. Thanks for Wikipedia link. I’ve found no mystery in the experiments though. Let’s assume particles exit source spin oriented from 0° to 360° randomly with 0° being zenith. Experiment 1 forces particles spin oriented from >270° to 90° to
@@florianopohlmann9516 The only thing missing to confirm this would be to analyze the intensity of the beams (with, say a PMT or something similar). This way, you can confirm the beams are just lining up (and the other "disappeared" beam is simply inside the first - or "doubled up"). I need to check to see if they did this test. If this is the case, then what you said will be confirmed by experiment. Nobel Prize 4 U ! :)
Thank you for your kind reply. Please let me know what you find out. I’d be very surprised if particles vanish mid-flight though.
I will give it a good one
Just watch you fourth video from Demystified.
👌
Really easy to explain the magnetic field with the same force that pull the electrons one way or the other causes them first to align with the field
that's why the field is inhomogeneous, there may be a torque on the atoms, but the inhomogeneity of the field will nevertheless cause a deflection proportional to the magnetic moment.
@user-dx1bq3ps5z so my compass only points north because the earth is creating an inomogeneous magnetic field that defects it I that direction? How does it apply the 'deflective' force in such a many it can only affect directional acceleration of an object but not its orientation.
How does it attract the pole of the object in a manner that only applies to the object as a whole and not the individual pole causing the attraction?
I agree. Depending on the spin direction with which the electron approaches the magnetic field, it gets aligned one way or the other. The result is that the target shows what looks like a squashed oval. There is a gap in the middle, but the left are right sides touch. Almost like 2 curved lines touching on the ends with a gap in the middle. Read the original paper and that is what is shown, not 2 dots.
This was originally what was thought, until the outputs were sent to an identical apparatus, and so forth. The alignment idea falls completely apart. go here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern-Gerlach_experiment
and scroll down to "Sequential experiments"
@@davestorm6718 These sequential S-G experiments would support the argument that the measuring process is responsible for changing the alignment of the atoms. It is exactly like polarisation experiments where no light passes through 2 polarisers at 90 deg to each other, but by placing a third between the two, but at 45deg then some light does make it through. That can also simply be explained by the polarising filters causing "rotation" of the photons.
I wondered why it was just up or down spin.
Rotate the experiment through 90 degrees and they spin left to right, so its all ambiguous which is what hes getting at :)
Can we not postulate that magnetic field changes the direction of the spin (it produces a torque that reorients electrons in such a way that their spins allign with magnetic field).
you can. but take the output from one of the sides, say the 'up' part, and send it through another SG machine at 90 degrees. This will split it left and right. Fine so far. But, take all the output of that and recombine the paths, then send it through a SG machine identical to the first. All the spins will be 'UP' - you get one dot not two. Change things abit and take only the 'left' part of the second SG machine and send it through the third up/down machine. Now you magically get two dots, up and down 50/50. This is genuinely weirtd and cannot be explained classically.
@@user-dx1bq3ps5z This is exactly what was missing in this video and the reason why it's a mystery.
👍🏼
That's the thing, IF interpreted in terms of angular momentum. Little moons orbiting little planets. That's the fallacy of quantum mechanics and particle physics. Electron particles were nothing more than an assumption. They do not exist.
You are using the term "electron" and "atom" alternatingly for the particle having the spin. That is confusing to me. It probably should be "atom". Maybe the spin is caused by the electron, but it is confusing since in my head an electron is still a particle orbiting the nucleus in an atom and then it is hard to imagine an electron spin causing an atomic magnetic momentum. The electron cloud is apparently oriented in only two ways causing these quantized atomic magnetic moments. Maybe in response to the external magnetic field.
The total amount of atom angular momentum is determined by three contributions: orbital angular momentum of the electrons, nuclear spin (itself determined by 2 contributions) and intrinsic electron angular momentum (electron spin). Neglecting electron intrinsic spin it is impossible to accurately calculate the nature and size of certain line splittings in the discrete emission spectra of atoms.We know we have to attribute finite intrinsic angular momentum to fundamental particle, even point-like ones. No classical explanation of off-axis rotating charges is satisfactory. Dirac has shown a relativistic (of the 'Special' kind, not the 'General') connection for intrinsic spin.
How spin of all the atom's electrons contribute to total atom spin is determined by quite a few rules. These rules did not come into existence from pure imagination and theorising but were derived from large variety of observations of atomic spectra.
While it is not satisfactory to have no explanation that makes sense in terms of our experiencing of the macroscopic world in which we live, it is OK that the behaviour of matter at the microscopic level appears strange. It doesn't necessarily mean there is a fundamental misunderstanding. We simply don't have the mental faculty to imagine such a world from first-hand experience as we (through our brain) don't live at that level of the world and we don't need this understanding for our immediate survival.
@@gbormann71 thank you Gerd, very satisfactory your explanation 👍
Solar system/electron nucleus orbit analogy is completely wrong, as we all know.
Quantum mechanics expressed as probabilistic, with Hartree Fock theory, is not physics but probabilistic only.
Schrödinger wave mechanics, extended for multi electronic system, is IMO the path to understand the physics of quantum mechanics. So the electron is a wave like the photon, but with a mass and a charge. It does not have three degrees of polarization, like the photon, but two which is his spin orientation.
See my preprint "Real space quantum mechanics" on Hal science, Loiselet. Correct computations of ground energy state are made up to Boron atoms.
This formalism I present allows to express radiation electromagnetic field at atomic scale using the concept of transition current introduced by Roger Boudet. This formalism is powerfull and mathematically consistent. This goes far and could maybe replace QED cheating theory.
There is nothing fundamental about a wave. Perhaps one day in the future, physics can at least progress to the very basic understanding that a wave is an _emergent_ phenomenon.
Sorry that you wasted so much of your time and energy on a flawed theory. I know the feeling.
@@dobiacco My theory is correct with experimental datas... you have a theory to propose that confirms experimental data ?
We can mesure waves with our instruments, so this is already fine. If you have a New theory, that reproduce at least atomic energy levels, and then you can make New instruments to measure it come on Show me.
When you do some theoritical physics, you never waste your time, because the mathematics you have involved help you to better understand the behaviour of your object of interrest... or develop a New way of thinking for yourself.
What are your theories you developed ?
😇😎😇
Wo sind Sie?
I see no deck chairs for German towels. 😁
Otherwise, thank you. 👍👍👍
Zakynthos, Griechenland?
@@jost2741 Could be, I guess. Nice blue sky. 😁
Real physics? Lol the irony
How do two magnets get along together side by side? They don't like to have the same orientation. One will be up and one will be down. Come on you don't need to be a physicist to know that. And you give prizes to each other for this? Hahaha
This video is actually incomplete. To see the conundrum, you must take the output of one apparatus and feed it into the input of another, identical apparatus. That's where it gets weird.
go here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern-Gerlach_experiment
and scroll down to "Sequential experiments"
@@davestorm6718 Oh you mean like that movie called the human centipede?
Yes, but not as disgusting. lol!
@@davestorm6718 I really don't know why they don't just stick to electrostatics. There is infinite space and time between one detector and the next so the experimental centipede says nothing but it just gives something to feed into the human centipede of physicists.
Particles aren't real, they're just holes in space, like bubbles in water. So if you call your Channel "Real Physics" then you should be aware of that.
There are no electrons or anything else in atoms, just energy stored. Each atom behaves like an magnet and can repel mass, but attract and release energy. This is why atoms don't fuse together. The atoms in the experiment where merely pushed/pulled by the energy, like solar wind push mass. Solar wind is mostly energy as well, with some mass/atoms mixed in. Magnetism is also energy.
If you were living in seventeenth century you should be a great scientist. But now it is all over and nobody is going to care these scraps.