Hi everyone, thanks so much for your support. I'd like to thank this video's sponsor, Skillshare. The first 1,000 people to use this link will get a 1 month free trial of Skillshare: skl.sh/parthg07211
Hi parth! Its been a while .. I've been following your videos and its super useful too... Can you make a video on topic related to "Density of states"... I find this topic very confusing... What state are you talking about?what kind of density is?what's the intuition behind it....? It would be amazing to hear something from you... I am an undergrad student ..in my final years from Nepal..
Hello. I just wanted to thank you for making these physics videos. They really help with subjects that are normally too complicated for people who don’t study physics. Thank you and may the algorithm enjoy this comment!
Trust me, they are too complicated even for people who do study physics. What's worse, everything gets drowned in math and you end up unsure about even the very basics (everything is there in the formulas somewhere but I am never sure if I'm interpreting those correctly). It's quite hard to learn anything if you are not even sure what you're learning is correct.
Well ofc he can , but I guess he shouldn't , as there are many students out here who do not understand calculus or many other mathematical tools to have a grasp over what he is delivering .
@@maxwellsequation4887 Well ... I suppose you are too weak in grasping others logic as physics can be even expressed superficially in terms of philosophy, which I know isn't a very good perspective, but still enough to create a scientific enthusiasm and it doesn't take long time for an enthusiastic being to be diverted to real physics , all these channels on RUclips are here for that purpose ... In case you want detail videos , go hunt for MIT course ware or Lec playlist on RUclips ..
@@maxwellsequation4887 Also including mathematical tools in explaining physics is actually a wonderful idea, but only if you know those tools ... And I think concepts or the thought process can be very well expressed without mathematics... That's what he does !
I was JUST thinking how you really do justice to describing Alpha, the fine structure constant, and here you release this. Please do a more in depth one about Alpha!
I study physics as a hobby and I've had trouble with the concept of spin for a while. I've been reading a lot but you provided info that I hadnt encountered before. Great channel!
Think of it like this ... It's all about states. An electron is just an observable part of an election field. This field is coupled to the EM field (photons) as well as the weak, but that doesn't matter right now. So, an electron is permanently linked to the EM field, is if it is truly attached by by strings (sorta). When an electron rotates 360 degrees or 1 unit of spin it is in a different state. -1/2 to +1/2. It takes another rotation to take it back to its original state. That means that 2 electrons can sorta kinda be in the same place at once, as long as they have anti aligning angular momentum. Spin. That's why fermions are ordered , but bosons are not.
I am preparing for my grad level quantum mechanics course final and I am having trouble connecting the math to the reality right now and THIS VIDEO HELPED SO MUCH THANK YOU.
Is the idea here that in the reference frame of the electron, the electron isn't "moving" in a circle any more, the nucleus is? That would mean that, from the perspective of the electron, the angular momentum and magnetic field associated with "spinning charge" appears on the nucleus, but the inherent angular momentum of the electron stays with the electron, so they can interact. I put scare quotes there because I know the electron isn't classically orbiting, but I'm assuming the angular momentum still acts as if it were. It seems very quantum-weird if some angular momentum is independent of reference frame, but some is not. That might be what makes spin so important though. I'm confused how this all works in the frame of the nucleus though. If there's no magnetic field generated by the nucleus in its own frame, where does the interaction come from in that frame? Is it to do with the fact that the electron's frame is "accelerating" centripetally but the nucleus' isn't? Or perhaps it appears as a purely electric interaction? I may have to wait for that other video you mentioned about how fields change across reference frames to be less confused.
Oh THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU!!!!!!! you have no idea how long I've been looking for this information I have to dig through a whole bunch of other information to get to this one I am so glad that I stumbled on your video buddy you helped me with my homework BIG TIME 🎀
Apparently there was a calculation done that using an assumed radius of an electron if it were to have one that stated the surface would be travelling faster than light
@@pwnd785 lack of evidence is not no evidence, there is never a record, of an event before it happens , it predicts all the particles as of yet and at least 11 dimensionally speaking it make sense (so i here, im still working on gen relativity currently ) . , there was no evidence of the HIGGS practical till we got a cyclotron large enough , same for the supersymmetric particles, not sure how big of one we need but I'm fairly confident it is larger then the earth . if particles where "bubbles "in space-time " they could spin faster then light and not break relativity, due to the outer edge of the particle would literally be space-time but that's just an idea i had , no evidence of that , that I know of
I'm too lazy to go through THE "MIT courses" or to read whole books to understand certain concepts. Why don't we have short videos with "the not simple maths". Is it possible to have videos for people who knows calculs?
imagine being goodlooking enough to have your face covering half my screen. Thanks for the vid, got my final exam on atomic and molecular physics on monday, all well and good being able to do the maths, doesnt help when youve got no idea what any of it means.
Well I've been taught that spin is intrinsic angular momentum.....but this spin orbit coupling is really different for my intuition coz they are both different terms used here!!!
I'm skeptical of "it has angular momentum but it's not spinning". It seems morely likely it is spinning but in a way that's currently invisible eg a hidden dimension
Well, it may be spinning, but not in the classic way of understanding spin. They're best described as spinors. Because its a fermion, it has 1/2 spin, meaning that it takes two revolutions for it to return to its original configuration. One revolution knocks it perfectly out of phase. There's a good video explaining all of this by PBS Spacetime.
@@kidzbop38isstraightfire92 Interesting & well explained TY. Make a video? This connects with what I learnt about superconductors. I saw Penrose do the twisty thing with a glass & in the PBS video there's a rather amazing animation of a spinor. But PBS isn't good at explaining things so I didn't spend a lot of time on that video. I have to learn QM from DrPhysicsA 1st. He's the best IMO
After thousands of iterations of "there is nothing spinning" I saw a reference that claimed that photons can impart "torque" to something it collides with...? Is this also true of electrons?
My understanding is that spin in an electron is not actual spin because with the presumed mass and diameter of an electron, the equator of the electron would have to be moving faster than the speed of light for the electron to posses measured levels of angular momentum. Roy Kerr has a theory that the interior of a black hole is not actually a singularity gut a ring. Might the ring geometry also explain the angular momentum of an electron?
Explained in an interesting manner, It would have been nice if you would have included the example of 7 fine lines of H-alpha line of H-atom explained by Dirac & Lamb
Super... Cool... Wonder whether it is possible although it appears so to use the magnetic dipole moment to manipulate the spin of an electron without changing the electrons on the shell....this will create alternate atoms and elements.. super brilliant video.... the "spin" of an electron appears to be the gate of quantum physical matter manipultion.... Because the universe is expanding on time going forward.. the spin very much must have a ripple path the type which the universe can reverse back into itself seemslesy through the same avenue by which it expanded.... So it seems synchronicity is the prefect alignment of the total combine spin of an element with another element in such a colrelated way that the magnetic dipole moment of the first electron is pegged at a stable interval with the magnetic dipole moment of the other electron so that one takes the place of the other in any single moment of time.... Thus bringing about a seemless correlation to the coexistence of two elements sharing the same space and time..... and to think about the simple spin aligning atoms and elements adding density and mass to atoms....or The collective manipulator of the magnetic dipole moment that powers the spin and keep the whole electromagnetic structure of existence could very well be coming from black holes digesting other galactic masses.... Since it is proven the energy is transferred out and recycled... This could very well be the reason for angular momentum and the reason for the pendulum like effect that is manifested in the spin.... On a macro scale the black holes and thier goings on could be well be the main cause of momentums of the spin rate. When we can index and document the index of spin.. like say the periodic table .. we should be able to function outside of the light spectrum.... And dare me say even enter celestial realms.... for when we can make adjustments to the spin of and electron we can then harness the electromagnetic power of thought amplified by machine help(AI). and project thoughts upon structures that can change that structure on a quantum level bringing about a totally different structure in components and mass than the one before .....
I'm a self-proclaimed youtube science video channels expert, and I can safely say: good stuff. Liked and subscribed. The smallness of the distances between my face-monitor and your face-camera, felt like if we almost kissed :P
I love your content 💯. Please do some more videos, like, a day in life, study with me and lab tours where you show yourself working on a project or experiment side by side explaining what you are doing.📒📕📚📖🔭🔬📡🔧💻
as magnetism is only electic field viewed via relativity. is there a simiar explanation with the spin and magnetic dipole? is there a frame of reference were the magnetic field vanishes and only relativistic effects and electric field remain?
This follows page 4:00 How can we say a charged particle moving along a curved path as a start (in order to prescribe a magnetic property) without explaining how the path came to be curved in the first place? Continue so we are as good as entering a mental game, player define the rule/law. On the other hand, a charged particle will travels in a linear path between anode and cathode unless additional force E and or B is acting at it. A charged particles of isotropic mono pole electric field DOES NOT induce magnetic field when spinning on its own axis. Unless it is either captured into orbit by a much heavier body neutron, stumbled into another electric field, magnetic field, some or all of above.
Pls. Make a video explaining how two moving charged particle supposedly break newtons third law and how it inspired Einstein to develop the special relativity
Great video! I enjoy them so much, i like your visualization. I‘m actually going to write an exam about this topic next wednesday😎 8:50: Does it mean that the degeneracy vanishes with the spin-orbit coupling for every L? May I add something to 6:56: I think it would have been a bit better if you rearranged the L and S, such that it had fitted better to the expression before (As L comes from the magnetic field and S from the dipole moment).
Excellent. I remember spdf from college and yes, I thought each orbital had the same energy. Interesting to find out that it doesn’t. Has this always been known?
Good video, could you talk more about the L=0 case? Does this not mean that the electron has 0 angular momentum, meaning that it is not "orbiting" around the nucleus?
I just have different opinion about "spin" of particles, maybe because of entanglement effect, somehow this orientation cause by magnetic charge can be happen. Remember there's no true north of a magnetic bar, if you can salami slice it into hair thin, where's now the north of it? is it still in the pole side or change to the border side of the slice? I just wants to pointing out that Stern-Gerlach must be reviewed, so maybe in the near future, my prediction about particle had "clocks" and possibly those clocks exists in any particles might breaks "commonality" of them caused by entanglement itself.
When you say that an electron in isolation still behaves as if it has angular momentum, how is angular momentum defined in this context? What is it doing that indicates it has angular momentum? I haven't found an explanation I understand yet.
I don't believe anybody really understands where the intrinsic angular momentum of an electron comes from. I like to think of it as the electron being some kind of little vortex in the undetectable fabric of space-time, and that vortex gives rise to angular momentum. Remember, scientists still don't really know what the fabric of space-time is really made of. So there are likely things going on deep down inside that we still cannot detect or still do not understand. I guess the mysteries are what keeps it so exciting, and keeps us coming back for more.
@@Beerbatter1962 i was not asking where the intrinsic angular momentum of the electron came from. I asked two questions: 1. How is this intrinsic angular momentum being DEFINED by physicists? 2. What is the electron DOING that tells us it has this intrinsic angular momentum? Without even a basic definition, a claim that electrons have intrinsic angular momentum is as meaningless as the statement protons have the gweberton property (something I made up just now).
Ah, ok. 1. From Wikipedia: The SI unit of spin is the same as classical angular momentum (i.e. N·m·s or kg·m2·s−1). In practice, spin is given as a dimensionless spin quantum number by dividing the spin angular momentum by the reduced Planck constant ħ, which has the same dimensions as angular momentum, although this is not the full computation of this value. Very often, the "spin quantum number" is simply called "spin". The fact that it is a quantum number is implicit. 2. The electron deflects in a magnetic field, among many other observed effects.
@@Beerbatter1962 Okay they have the same units and electrons deflect in magnetic fields, but why does that tell us they have intrinsic angular momentum. Why is a magnetic field needed?Is it possible that the field has angular momentum, the electron has none, and the field gives the electron angular momentum? Also how is it being DEFINED? Units are not a definition. I can tell you that energy has units of Newton Meters or Juoles. That does not tell you what I mean by energy. A definition such as the ability to do work is a bit better.
@@alexandertownsend3291 I believe this is the sequence of events that lead to the modern notion of quantum spin: Electrons are deflected in a magnetic field. How can that be? The electron must have it’s own magnetic field. How? Moving charges generate their own magnetic field. So the electron must be “spinning.” But because of the calculation above, the electron can’t be actually spinning. But it has angular momentum, because of the deflection. To resolve that paradox, physicists say that spin is an “intrinsic” angular momentum.
hey Parth, would you consider a video about the heat equation? I've seen recently your video about the wave equation, going through every aspect of it, and I thought that it could be interesting if you did the same thing with the heat equation :) cheers!
@Parth - how are scientists so sure that an electron *does NOT* spin when it is considered a point particle ? Or that it has zero (instead of tiny) dimension ? Just because it is spinning does not mean that it has to behave like a classical charged and spinning particle emitting radiation.
I'm not sure if the volume of the music was too loud in the intro or if the music was too good, but I was groovin' and it was distracting. I just watched it twice to better pay attention.
Brain: Would like to ask for indebth understanding of the SpinOrbitCoupling,Hybridization,Finestructure of 4sp3 Carbon diamond with 4 nearest neighbors keeps me up at night.
The spin quantum numbers are opposite in two electrons in the same orbital so the net magnetic field is 0 okay so how the opposite spin generate attraction between two opposite pole to reduce repulsion?
Something I don't get about electron/particle spin that I haven't seen brought up anywhere: It's repeated in every spin-explainer that the particles aren't ACTUALLY spinning... but if they act like they're spinning, in what manner are they not spinning? What measurable difference would there be between an electron with angular momentum but which isn't literally spinning, and one that has angular momentum because it IS literally spinning?
There’s many factors. One is that an electron doesn’t exist in reality. There’s no physical object to spin. Plus, however this works, it take 720 degrees to spin to it’s zero location. And saying it doesn’t exist i mean that its a wave and the only time it comes into our reality is when it actually hits something. Otherwise it’s a wave.
@@mclark23 Yes, I am aware of the assertion that electrons don't physically exist, as is standard in the Copenhagen interpretation. But it's merely that: An assertion. If the notion that the electron spin doesn't refer to actual spinning is a matter of the Coponhagen, then it shouldn't be shoved into explanations about spin as if it's fact.
Badly Drawn Turtle i think we’re talking more about language than science. I think he mentioned hand waving which means guessing or making assertions without proof. So you are right but i think the limits are the fact that it’s a 10 minute video and slmost any point can have a whole book written about.
I think it just means that one should not take a model derived from experience with macroscopic objects literally. An electron cnnot be understood by comparison to a billiard ball. We borrow terminology from the macroscopic world because we need terminology at the atomic level, but we understand that it is a different world with its own rules.
Not sure about this video. It promised to explain the relevance of spin, but it seems your point is that the fine structure is more relevant as a differentiating factor between the “dot values”?
He’s saying that for the sake of visualization. The electrons are more like waves and almost don’t exist. You have to remove the particle idea from your mind to picture the real electron bur for the sake of understanding orbital energy levels the planetary model is a good way to visualize an atom.
4:44 - What is another external magnetic field!!! Is it due to the same electron in its orbit around the nucleus. Do you mean the intrinsic angular momentum interacts with extrinsic angular momentum of the same electron. It appears to be so from the dot product. But it requires to be stated little more emphatically rather than made to infer from the equation... Also how do you say 'if the electron is taken out of the atom and is not revolving or spinning it will still have angular momentum' (you could just mention 'this has been proven by some experiment')
hey Parth I am confused help me here electron not falling into the nucleus is because it behaves like a wave with its energy spread around the nucleus but we need angular momentum to explain its electro magnetic properties. how does an electron in a atom exhibit electromagnetic field and still stays as a wave?
Do paired electrons have a quadrupole moment? If so, if we pass an electric current through a metal, do these quadrupole moments line up or change in magnitude? Would alternating a current at the electron's Larmor frequency cause these spins to move in opposite directions about an externally applied fixed magnetic field, generating a rotating "bound" spin current that "alternates" at the Larmor frequency? And finally, does this make it possible to harvest the relative kinetic energy between paired electrons by means of the inverse spin hall effect to generate very high frequency orthogonal charge currents?
The fact that fundamental particles have an intrinsic angular momentum seems to indicate that the association of curved paths and rotations of objects with its angular momentum is incidental.
Parth G I love the way you explain physics concepts on a very fundamental level..But a question has been bugging me for quite a few time now.. My question is that we now if a body has done one rotation it has rotated 360° but in case if a election one rotation is equivalent to 720°..can you explain why is that?....... Thank you
Hi Jitu. Since we cannot grab any elementary particles and perform rotations on them, the term rotation in this context is used to describe a mathematical transformation, that would lead to a rotation by a certain amount (eg. 360 deg) if it would be applied to a macroscopic object. In the case of an electron the mathematical transformation that is used, needs to be a 720 deg rotation operation to put the spin back into position. To understand this, maybe this helps: Spin-Up and Spin-Down are separated by 180 deg in regular space. But they are only separated by 90 deg in the mathematical vector space that is used to describe the properties of spin. Why is this 90 deg? If you represent the spin states by vectors, you can define a dot product for Spin-Up and Spin-Down. At 0 deg separation the dot product is maximum, at 90 deg it is 0 (see Parth's explaining that at TC 6:05). In between it changes with the sinus of the separation angle alpha in (mathematical) vector space. So, in 'real' space the rotation needs to be 2*alpha in order to get a rotation of alpha in the mathematical vector space that is used to describe the spin. I hope this helps a bit. Best regards, Frank
Cr*ckhead hypothesis: String theory suggests that we've got a few extra spatial dimensions, and one of the proposed explanations for why we can't notice them is because those other dimensions are small and looped in on themselves (I guess sort of like a torus/cylinder). If all electrons have linear momentum in (one of) those dimensions (for whatever reason), would that result in electrons appearing to have intrinsic angular momentum?
Physicists speak as if they are certainly sure of it but everything in today's science is just a model that closely approximate that particular phenomenon. But there is no guaranty for sure if that model will hold on to continued scrutiny year by year. No body speaks about the fact that it is not the absolute idea.
Subshells... all this had me think about... what's the deal with fixed Nitrogen? And Fluorine... why is chlorine trifluoride, the "NOPE" chemical, so nasty? I'm trying to think through the shapes of the chemical bonds without having the background to grasp what I'm seeing. I have to be careful, lest I have brain gunk dribble out of my ears.
They dont, they can be in pairs, sharing an orbital and being of different spins, but they can exist alone in an orbital, the diagram is an oversimplification, is not bad but never will be a entirely good representation because what we can represent will be always a simplification
@@kushagrapandey7256 Maybe I didn't understand what do you mean by "electrons exist in pairs" because is clear that in the hydrogen atom, there is only one electron, so no pair there. So please explain what do you mean with the first comment so there is not a misunderstanding in here
@@kushagrapandey7256 yes, is common but not a general rule or something that defines their overall behavior, all cases we describe because this theory is probabilistic, are simplifications because when we consider for example the electrons of carbon, with 6 electrons there are 2 (here is true the pair tendency you point) in orbital 1s, another 2 in orbital 2s, and the next 2 will be most likely in different p orbitals than in the same one. I understand what you are talking about, but is not so general and the diagrams in the video are not taking count of this interaction, he said that the hyperfine structure is not described here and in a way is right to use the analogue of how is here represented
There's a tremendous collab video of veritasium and minutephysics on RUclips about how do magnets work ... The video talks about how a magnetic field for one reference frame behaves like electric field for another... You must check it out!!!
Hi everyone, thanks so much for your support. I'd like to thank this video's sponsor, Skillshare. The first 1,000 people to use this link will get a 1 month free trial of Skillshare: skl.sh/parthg07211
Why is this comment marked as being from 5 days ago?
@@mr.winter538 because he uploaded it as private, and commented 5 days ago.
@@mr.winter538 Because positrons go backwards in time like in the movie Tenet & so does Parth
9:01 Thanks for sharing another way of understanding subshells!
Hi parth!
Its been a while ..
I've been following your videos and its super useful too...
Can you make a video on topic related to "Density of states"...
I find this topic very confusing...
What state are you talking about?what kind of density is?what's the intuition behind it....?
It would be amazing to hear something from you...
I am an undergrad student ..in my final years from Nepal..
Hello. I just wanted to thank you for making these physics videos. They really help with subjects that are normally too complicated for people who don’t study physics.
Thank you and may the algorithm enjoy this comment!
Trust me, they are too complicated even for people who do study physics. What's worse, everything gets drowned in math and you end up unsure about even the very basics (everything is there in the formulas somewhere but I am never sure if I'm interpreting those correctly). It's quite hard to learn anything if you are not even sure what you're learning is correct.
Great video! I recommend a book called "The story of spin" as extensive reading to this topic
Thanks for recommendation.
Pdf available?
@@electro66464 I didn't find it online. So I recommended my university's library to buy it. Took me a year to read that book lol
@@whatslin it's available on libgen
9:01 I never visualised subshells like that. Thanks man!
@Physics guy yeah, i mean, grade 11 to accurate...😅
Thanks for the clean presentation, no clownery, no incessant background music. Thanks!
Hey Parth, can you please make a video in which you don't "keep the maths as simple as possible"?
Well ofc he can , but I guess he shouldn't , as there are many students out here who do not understand calculus or many other mathematical tools to have a grasp over what he is delivering .
@@beyondhumanrange6196 and they don't have to necessarily see the video?
@@beyondhumanrange6196 by your logic, he should talk about some politics because there are billions who are too stupid to understand physics.
@@maxwellsequation4887 Well ... I suppose you are too weak in grasping others logic as physics can be even expressed superficially in terms of philosophy, which I know isn't a very good perspective, but still enough to create a scientific enthusiasm and it doesn't take long time for an enthusiastic being to be diverted to real physics , all these channels on RUclips are here for that purpose ... In case you want detail videos , go hunt for MIT course ware or Lec playlist on RUclips ..
@@maxwellsequation4887 Also including mathematical tools in explaining physics is actually a wonderful idea, but only if you know those tools ... And I think concepts or the thought process can be very well expressed without mathematics... That's what he does !
As someone who has had to explain things like this to lay people on many occasions I am simply astounded by how easy you make it look.
As a chemistry student it's really essential for spectroscopy
I was JUST thinking how you really do justice to describing Alpha, the fine structure constant, and here you release this.
Please do a more in depth one about Alpha!
I study physics as a hobby and I've had trouble with the concept of spin for a while. I've been reading a lot but you provided info that I hadnt encountered before. Great channel!
Think of it like this ... It's all about states. An electron is just an observable part of an election field. This field is coupled to the EM field (photons) as well as the weak, but that doesn't matter right now. So, an electron is permanently linked to the EM field, is if it is truly attached by by strings (sorta). When an electron rotates 360 degrees or 1 unit of spin it is in a different state. -1/2 to +1/2. It takes another rotation to take it back to its original state.
That means that 2 electrons can sorta kinda be in the same place at once, as long as they have anti aligning angular momentum. Spin. That's why fermions are ordered , but bosons are not.
Thank you for the dot product explanation!
Well Done. Clear and to the point. Thanks
Yo mate amazing video as usual
Wow this is so fascinating! I wish you had a whole class on this!
I really appreciate how the volume of his videos is not high, unlike so many channels that blast amplitude to be exciting it whatever.
I am preparing for my grad level quantum mechanics course final and I am having trouble connecting the math to the reality right now and THIS VIDEO HELPED SO MUCH THANK YOU.
Is the idea here that in the reference frame of the electron, the electron isn't "moving" in a circle any more, the nucleus is? That would mean that, from the perspective of the electron, the angular momentum and magnetic field associated with "spinning charge" appears on the nucleus, but the inherent angular momentum of the electron stays with the electron, so they can interact. I put scare quotes there because I know the electron isn't classically orbiting, but I'm assuming the angular momentum still acts as if it were.
It seems very quantum-weird if some angular momentum is independent of reference frame, but some is not. That might be what makes spin so important though.
I'm confused how this all works in the frame of the nucleus though. If there's no magnetic field generated by the nucleus in its own frame, where does the interaction come from in that frame? Is it to do with the fact that the electron's frame is "accelerating" centripetally but the nucleus' isn't? Or perhaps it appears as a purely electric interaction?
I may have to wait for that other video you mentioned about how fields change across reference frames to be less confused.
Yes I was confused at that part as well (why the electron experiences magnetic field but a nucleus doesnt)
Maybe it is be purely electric interection in frame of reference of nucleus
Oh THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU!!!!!!! you have no idea how long I've been looking for this information I have to dig through a whole bunch of other information to get to this one I am so glad that I stumbled on your video buddy you helped me with my homework BIG TIME 🎀
how do we know that an electron is NOT spinning ? if it is a point, or even a perfect sphere , there is no way to determine if it is spinning or not ?
Apparently there was a calculation done that using an assumed radius of an electron if it were to have one that stated the surface would be travelling faster than light
@@pwnd785 Doesn't Super symmetry allow this, I mean it predicts Tachyons travel faster then light ?
Cheyne Simons is there actually any evidence for supersymmetry? So far we haven’t been able to detect any of the hypothesised supersymmetric particles
@@pwnd785 lack of evidence is not no evidence, there is never a record, of an event before it happens , it predicts all the particles as of yet and at least 11 dimensionally speaking it make sense (so i here, im still working on gen relativity currently ) . , there was no evidence of the HIGGS practical till we got a cyclotron large enough , same for the supersymmetric particles, not sure how big of one we need but I'm fairly confident it is larger then the earth . if particles where "bubbles "in space-time " they could spin faster then light and not break relativity, due to the outer edge of the particle would literally be space-time but that's just an idea i had , no evidence of that , that I know of
wow wow wow, clear to the point and compact.... Subscribed
Well explained. Thanks, Parth.
I think you just answered some questions I had on the Pauli exclusion principle. Just a novice trying to understand. Thanks.
Very good content.. Thank you
Thanks! Love from Sweden
I'm too lazy to go through THE "MIT courses" or to read whole books to understand certain concepts. Why don't we have short videos with "the not simple maths". Is it possible to have videos for people who knows calculs?
ruclips.net/user/PhysicsExplainedVideos
You’re welcome
Bro.... please never stop uploading ❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️
#8 after 6 minutes... you guys are quick. Great video as always.
Great visualization at 9:07 of energy levels [ 1s2 | *2s2 2p6* | 3s2 3p6 | *4s2 3d10 4p6* | 5s2 4d10 5p6 | *6s2 4f14 5d10 6p6* | 7s2 5f14 6d10 7p6 ]
imagine being goodlooking enough to have your face covering half my screen. Thanks for the vid, got my final exam on atomic and molecular physics on monday, all well and good being able to do the maths, doesnt help when youve got no idea what any of it means.
PBS Spacetime just did an episode about spin.
Thank you so much
I thought judging by the title, you would talk about ferromagnets
Great sir 👏
Well I've been taught that spin is intrinsic angular momentum.....but this spin orbit coupling is really different for my intuition coz they are both different terms used here!!!
Very clearly articulated.
The best explanation of physics, thanks!
I'm skeptical of "it has angular momentum but it's not spinning". It seems morely likely it is spinning but in a way that's currently invisible eg a hidden dimension
Well, it may be spinning, but not in the classic way of understanding spin. They're best described as spinors. Because its a fermion, it has 1/2 spin, meaning that it takes two revolutions for it to return to its original configuration. One revolution knocks it perfectly out of phase. There's a good video explaining all of this by PBS Spacetime.
I’d love an exposition on how string theory handles this. I’ll bet the strings actually spin.
@@kidzbop38isstraightfire92 Interesting & well explained TY. Make a video? This connects with what I learnt about superconductors. I saw Penrose do the twisty thing with a glass & in the PBS video there's a rather amazing animation of a spinor. But PBS isn't good at explaining things so I didn't spend a lot of time on that video. I have to learn QM from DrPhysicsA 1st. He's the best IMO
After thousands of iterations of "there is nothing spinning" I saw a reference that claimed that photons can impart "torque" to something it collides with...? Is this also true of electrons?
Good explanation sir. Thank you
My understanding is that spin in an electron is not actual spin because with the presumed mass and diameter of an electron, the equator of the electron would have to be moving faster than the speed of light for the electron to posses measured levels of angular momentum. Roy Kerr has a theory that the interior of a black hole is not actually a singularity gut a ring. Might the ring geometry also explain the angular momentum of an electron?
Explained in an interesting manner, It would have been nice if you would have included the example of 7 fine lines of H-alpha line of H-atom explained by Dirac & Lamb
Super... Cool... Wonder whether it is possible although it appears so to use the magnetic dipole moment to manipulate the spin of an electron without changing the electrons on the shell....this will create alternate atoms and elements.. super brilliant video.... the "spin" of an electron appears to be the gate of quantum physical matter manipultion.... Because the universe is expanding on time going forward.. the spin very much must have a ripple path the type which the universe can reverse back into itself seemslesy through the same avenue by which it expanded.... So it seems synchronicity is the prefect alignment of the total combine spin of an element with another element in such a colrelated way that the magnetic dipole moment of the first electron is pegged at a stable interval with the magnetic dipole moment of the other electron so that one takes the place of the other in any single moment of time.... Thus bringing about a seemless correlation to the coexistence of two elements sharing the same space and time..... and to think about the simple spin aligning atoms and elements adding density and mass to atoms....or The collective manipulator of the magnetic dipole moment that powers the spin and keep the whole electromagnetic structure of existence could very well be coming from black holes digesting other galactic masses.... Since it is proven the energy is transferred out and recycled... This could very well be the reason for angular momentum and the reason for the pendulum like effect that is manifested in the spin.... On a macro scale the black holes and thier goings on could be well be the main cause of momentums of the spin rate.
When we can index and document the index of spin.. like say the periodic table .. we should be able to function outside of the light spectrum.... And dare me say even enter celestial realms.... for when we can make adjustments to the spin of and electron we can then harness the electromagnetic power of thought amplified by machine help(AI). and project thoughts upon structures that can change that structure on a quantum level bringing about a totally different structure in components and mass than the one before .....
I'm a self-proclaimed youtube science video channels expert, and I can safely say: good stuff.
Liked and subscribed.
The smallness of the distances between my face-monitor and your face-camera, felt like if we almost kissed :P
Awesome as always
I love your content 💯. Please do some more videos, like, a day in life, study with me and lab tours where you show yourself working on a project or experiment side by side explaining what you are doing.📒📕📚📖🔭🔬📡🔧💻
this has got to be the one millionth video where he's being sponsored by skillshare lol. PARTH, ARE THEY HOLDING YOU HOSTAGE???!!!
Have you considered sponsor loyalty?
@@Beerbatter1962 lol
as magnetism is only electic field viewed via relativity.
is there a simiar explanation with the spin and magnetic dipole?
is there a frame of reference were the magnetic field vanishes and only relativistic effects and electric field remain?
My main man
This follows page 4:00
How can we say a charged particle moving along a curved path as a start (in order to prescribe a magnetic property) without explaining how the path came to be curved in the first place? Continue so we are as good as entering a mental game, player define the rule/law.
On the other hand, a charged particle will travels in a linear path between anode and cathode unless additional force E and or B is acting at it.
A charged particles of isotropic mono pole electric field DOES NOT induce magnetic field when spinning on its own axis. Unless it is either captured into orbit by a much heavier body neutron, stumbled into another electric field, magnetic field, some or all of above.
Pls. Make a video explaining how two moving charged particle supposedly break newtons third law and how it inspired Einstein to develop the special relativity
Great!
Great video! I enjoy them so much, i like your visualization. I‘m actually going to write an exam about this topic next wednesday😎
8:50: Does it mean that the degeneracy vanishes with the spin-orbit coupling for every L?
May I add something to 6:56:
I think it would have been a bit better if you rearranged the L and S, such that it had fitted better to the expression before (As L comes from the magnetic field and S from the dipole moment).
Degeneracy does not vanish for L=0. As no angular momentum so no spin-orbit coupling.
Please make LONGER videos
Excellent. I remember spdf from college and yes, I thought each orbital had the same energy. Interesting to find out that it doesn’t. Has this always been known?
What is a merch. I have never heard the term before. thanks.
Good video, could you talk more about the L=0 case? Does this not mean that the electron has 0 angular momentum, meaning that it is not "orbiting" around the nucleus?
Another one on quantum mechanics 😀
I just have different opinion about "spin" of particles, maybe because of entanglement effect, somehow this orientation cause by magnetic charge can be happen. Remember there's no true north of a magnetic bar, if you can salami slice it into hair thin, where's now the north of it? is it still in the pole side or change to the border side of the slice? I just wants to pointing out that Stern-Gerlach must be reviewed, so maybe in the near future, my prediction about particle had "clocks" and possibly those clocks exists in any particles might breaks "commonality" of them caused by entanglement itself.
When you say that an electron in isolation still behaves as if it has angular momentum, how is angular momentum defined in this context? What is it doing that indicates it has angular momentum? I haven't found an explanation I understand yet.
I don't believe anybody really understands where the intrinsic angular momentum of an electron comes from. I like to think of it as the electron being some kind of little vortex in the undetectable fabric of space-time, and that vortex gives rise to angular momentum. Remember, scientists still don't really know what the fabric of space-time is really made of. So there are likely things going on deep down inside that we still cannot detect or still do not understand. I guess the mysteries are what keeps it so exciting, and keeps us coming back for more.
@@Beerbatter1962 i was not asking where the intrinsic angular momentum of the electron came from. I asked two questions:
1. How is this intrinsic angular momentum being DEFINED by physicists?
2. What is the electron DOING that tells us it has this intrinsic angular momentum?
Without even a basic definition, a claim that electrons have intrinsic angular momentum is as meaningless as the statement protons have the gweberton property (something I made up just now).
Ah, ok.
1. From Wikipedia: The SI unit of spin is the same as classical angular momentum (i.e. N·m·s or kg·m2·s−1). In practice, spin is given as a dimensionless spin quantum number by dividing the spin angular momentum by the reduced Planck constant ħ, which has the same dimensions as angular momentum, although this is not the full computation of this value. Very often, the "spin quantum number" is simply called "spin". The fact that it is a quantum number is implicit.
2. The electron deflects in a magnetic field, among many other observed effects.
@@Beerbatter1962 Okay they have the same units and electrons deflect in magnetic fields, but why does that tell us they have intrinsic angular momentum. Why is a magnetic field needed?Is it possible that the field has angular momentum, the electron has none, and the field gives the electron angular momentum?
Also how is it being DEFINED? Units are not a definition. I can tell you that energy has units of Newton Meters or Juoles. That does not tell you what I mean by energy. A definition such as the ability to do work is a bit better.
@@alexandertownsend3291 I believe this is the sequence of events that lead to the modern notion of quantum spin:
Electrons are deflected in a magnetic field. How can that be? The electron must have it’s own magnetic field. How? Moving charges generate their own magnetic field. So the electron must be “spinning.” But because of the calculation above, the electron can’t be actually spinning. But it has angular momentum, because of the deflection. To resolve that paradox, physicists say that spin is an “intrinsic” angular momentum.
WOW, this chanel is so beautiful
Did you just manage to slip in some self-promotion during a paid sponsorship segment? You sir, are a god among gods.
hey Parth, would you consider a video about the heat equation? I've seen recently your video about the wave equation, going through every aspect of it, and I thought that it could be interesting if you did the same thing with the heat equation :) cheers!
@Parth - how are scientists so sure that an electron *does NOT* spin when it is considered a point particle ? Or that it has zero (instead of tiny) dimension ?
Just because it is spinning does not mean that it has to behave like a classical charged and spinning particle emitting radiation.
@parth How is spin and angular momentum measured experimentally?
I'm not sure if the volume of the music was too loud in the intro or if the music was too good, but I was groovin' and it was distracting. I just watched it twice to better pay attention.
Brain: Would like to ask for indebth understanding of the SpinOrbitCoupling,Hybridization,Finestructure of 4sp3 Carbon diamond with 4 nearest neighbors keeps me up at night.
The spin quantum numbers are opposite in two electrons in the same orbital so the net magnetic field is 0 okay so how the opposite spin generate attraction between two opposite pole to reduce repulsion?
in the case of electrons frame how you say that there is an external magnetic field isn't it internal magnetic field
Do neutrons (generally speaking, particles with no electric charge) have spin?
Something I don't get about electron/particle spin that I haven't seen brought up anywhere: It's repeated in every spin-explainer that the particles aren't ACTUALLY spinning... but if they act like they're spinning, in what manner are they not spinning? What measurable difference would there be between an electron with angular momentum but which isn't literally spinning, and one that has angular momentum because it IS literally spinning?
There’s many factors. One is that an electron doesn’t exist in reality. There’s no physical object to spin. Plus, however this works, it take 720 degrees to spin to it’s zero location. And saying it doesn’t exist i mean that its a wave and the only time it comes into our reality is when it actually hits something. Otherwise it’s a wave.
@@mclark23
Yes, I am aware of the assertion that electrons don't physically exist, as is standard in the Copenhagen interpretation. But it's merely that: An assertion. If the notion that the electron spin doesn't refer to actual spinning is a matter of the Coponhagen, then it shouldn't be shoved into explanations about spin as if it's fact.
Badly Drawn Turtle i think we’re talking more about language than science. I think he mentioned hand waving which means guessing or making assertions without proof. So you are right but i think the limits are the fact that it’s a 10 minute video and slmost any point can have a whole book written about.
I think it just means that one should not take a model derived from experience with macroscopic objects literally. An electron cnnot be understood by comparison to a billiard ball. We borrow terminology from the macroscopic world because we need terminology at the atomic level, but we understand that it is a different world with its own rules.
So many things.
Not sure about this video. It promised to explain the relevance of spin, but it seems your point is that the fine structure is more relevant as a differentiating factor between the “dot values”?
Hello sir
Today's people will watch swb series or any entertaining vid on utube , but they will hesitate to see your knowledgefull vid.
This is true fact😔
a new spin on electron theory.
Does electron rotate around the nucleus? Some videos is RUclips say "no". Yours suggests it does.
He’s saying that for the sake of visualization. The electrons are more like waves and almost don’t exist. You have to remove the particle idea from your mind to picture the real electron bur for the sake of understanding orbital energy levels the planetary model is a good way to visualize an atom.
4:44 - What is another external magnetic field!!! Is it due to the same electron in its orbit around the nucleus. Do you mean the intrinsic angular momentum interacts with extrinsic angular momentum of the same electron. It appears to be so from the dot product. But it requires to be stated little more emphatically rather than made to infer from the equation...
Also how do you say 'if the electron is taken out of the atom and is not revolving or spinning it will still have angular momentum' (you could just mention 'this has been proven by some experiment')
Are magnetic fields same to electromagnetism spectrum..?
Is there a limit to how many electrons can occupy a given sub-shell; like with each shell having a limit to how many electrons can occupy that shell?
hey Parth I am confused help me here electron not falling into the nucleus is because it behaves like a wave with its energy spread around the nucleus but we need angular momentum to explain its electro magnetic properties. how does an electron in a atom exhibit electromagnetic field and still stays as a wave?
Do paired electrons have a quadrupole moment? If so, if we pass an electric current through a metal, do these quadrupole moments line up or change in magnitude? Would alternating a current at the electron's Larmor frequency cause these spins to move in opposite directions about an externally applied fixed magnetic field, generating a rotating "bound" spin current that "alternates" at the Larmor frequency? And finally, does this make it possible to harvest the relative kinetic energy between paired electrons by means of the inverse spin hall effect to generate very high frequency orthogonal charge currents?
Halley's is an electron. The sun is a nucleus. Craig Lewis Stevens-Tapley Effect
How would solvated electrons behave in a changing magnetic field?
1st view
The fact that fundamental particles have an intrinsic angular momentum seems to indicate that the association of curved paths and rotations of objects with its angular momentum is incidental.
Parth G I love the way you explain physics concepts on a very fundamental level..But a question has been bugging me for quite a few time now.. My question is that we now if a body has done one rotation it has rotated 360° but in case if a election one rotation is equivalent to 720°..can you explain why is that?....... Thank you
Hi Jitu. Since we cannot grab any elementary particles and perform rotations on them, the term rotation in this context is used to describe a mathematical transformation, that would lead to a rotation by a certain amount (eg. 360 deg) if it would be applied to a macroscopic object. In the case of an electron the mathematical transformation that is used, needs to be a 720 deg rotation operation to put the spin back into position. To understand this, maybe this helps: Spin-Up and Spin-Down are separated by 180 deg in regular space. But they are only separated by 90 deg in the mathematical vector space that is used to describe the properties of spin. Why is this 90 deg? If you represent the spin states by vectors, you can define a dot product for Spin-Up and Spin-Down. At 0 deg separation the dot product is maximum, at 90 deg it is 0 (see Parth's explaining that at TC 6:05). In between it changes with the sinus of the separation angle alpha in (mathematical) vector space. So, in 'real' space the rotation needs to be 2*alpha in order to get a rotation of alpha in the mathematical vector space that is used to describe the spin.
I hope this helps a bit. Best regards, Frank
@@boyanfg thank you so much...
Cr*ckhead hypothesis: String theory suggests that we've got a few extra spatial dimensions, and one of the proposed explanations for why we can't notice them is because those other dimensions are small and looped in on themselves (I guess sort of like a torus/cylinder). If all electrons have linear momentum in (one of) those dimensions (for whatever reason), would that result in electrons appearing to have intrinsic angular momentum?
If magnetic fields are generated by spin, then it follows that all electrons in an electric wire with DC current all have the same spin!? Why?
why commutator of angular momentum and spin is equal to zero (L.S)=0
I think I missed it. What effect does electron spin have on it's orbit?
Physicists speak as if they are certainly sure of it but everything in today's science is just a model that closely approximate that particular phenomenon. But there is no guaranty for sure if that model will hold on to continued scrutiny year by year. No body speaks about the fact that it is not the absolute idea.
Wonder if the gravity affects the orbit of the spin...
Subshells... all this had me think about... what's the deal with fixed Nitrogen? And Fluorine... why is chlorine trifluoride, the "NOPE" chemical, so nasty? I'm trying to think through the shapes of the chemical bonds without having the background to grasp what I'm seeing. I have to be careful, lest I have brain gunk dribble out of my ears.
Do protons have spin?
Quantum dice design?what cud it refer to?that god does not play dice😂..amzng vid btw
You mentioned that there are real world effects, but you did not say what they are?
The electrons exist in pairs , unlike the diagram shown.
They dont, they can be in pairs, sharing an orbital and being of different spins, but they can exist alone in an orbital, the diagram is an oversimplification, is not bad but never will be a entirely good representation because what we can represent will be always a simplification
@@yaskynemma9220 please explain their solitary existence .
@@kushagrapandey7256 Maybe I didn't understand what do you mean by "electrons exist in pairs" because is clear that in the hydrogen atom, there is only one electron, so no pair there. So please explain what do you mean with the first comment so there is not a misunderstanding in here
@@yaskynemma9220 electrons if present in even numbers have a tendency to exist in pairs .
@@kushagrapandey7256 yes, is common but not a general rule or something that defines their overall behavior, all cases we describe because this theory is probabilistic, are simplifications because when we consider for example the electrons of carbon, with 6 electrons there are 2 (here is true the pair tendency you point) in orbital 1s, another 2 in orbital 2s, and the next 2 will be most likely in different p orbitals than in the same one.
I understand what you are talking about, but is not so general and the diagrams in the video are not taking count of this interaction, he said that the hyperfine structure is not described here and in a way is right to use the analogue of how is here represented
So why does an Electron experience a magnetic field but a nucleus doesn't? I was a little confused at that part
There's a tremendous collab video of veritasium and minutephysics on RUclips about how do magnets work ... The video talks about how a magnetic field for one reference frame behaves like electric field for another... You must check it out!!!
The concept of “spin” is because our model is wrong.
Can't believe it