@@SantiagoItzcoatl Because we're not conscious of it's position. Double slit experiment or Schrödinger's cat. Once you look and become conscious of it's position only then is it 100% until then it stays 50/50...Perhaps?
@@bad-bunnyblogger8171 I've always hated the Schrodingers cat thing but it might be true in this case. Got me racking my brain on this one. Now plugging a USB in will never be the same.
Basically, the Electron doesn't have Angular Momentum because it's spinning. It has Angular Momentum because yes. It just checked "yes" in the Angular Momentum option.
The electron has the inherent property of angular momentum but it's not spinning. Spin describes an effect produced but not a physical cause, an innate cause. It's beautiful man.
For something to spin in the classical sense it has to consist of more than one particle. You need two points to measure an angle. You can tell if a ball is spinning because you feel the friction when you touch it. You can even stop it from spinning by cancelling out its angular momentum. But friction is a macroscopic effect that requires millions of atoms bound together. Because a particle is the smallest division possible there is no actual surface or friction. I think the only analogy would be to have another anti-particle with exact opposite “spin” collide. In the quantum world that just annihilates both particles though. Without spin they can’t even exist.
I really appreciate the determination to not dumb down the subject matter, even though most people (including myself) won’t really get it. There are dozens of channels that will explain quantum mechanics with flawed analogies and misleading visual aids for the sake of accessibility, but the real meat of quantum mechanics isn’t so easily digestible. Quantum mechanics is a confusing and difficult subject, and to present it otherwise is more misleading than helpful.
Quite. "Dumbing down" an explanation most often necessitates leaving out important details. Doing that leaves unanswered questions, thus making the explanation less intelligible. It is natural for human beings to be curious, but not everything is within our ability to comprehend.
@David Bytheway electrical engineering was fantasy class? I just finished quantum II and honestly by the end of perturbation theory I was like wtf am I even learning. The professor uses quantum to do molecular modeling and even said that a lot of quantum simply is too cumbersome or incomplete to really apply with any effectiveness. If anything, quantum is the fantasy physics, at least we can use the whole electrical engineering class to do something lol
I didn't understand everything, but I feel like I'm becoming smarter watching this kind of content. The visualisation of untangable cube was mind-blowing. And the ball exceptionally insane.... Thank you for your great efforts
@@cristianjuarez1086 Well, in a sense it is a component of it: you can build stuff using the bricks of your acquired knowledge. I think of knowledge as having more tools at the disposal of my brain to build more complex things than my brain would be able to, without. Knowledge is also probably the only thing at your disposal to change a genetically fixed feature (intelligence).
@Kelvin Yes, that comes right after the professor gives up on trying to make sense of what spin intuetively is and go for the shut up and calculate approach that he'll adopt for the rest of the course..
I feel like a good analogy of spin 1/2 is a mobius strip. The first time around you end up on the other side but go around again and you get to the beginning.
@@harmsc12 I don't know. I just have the habit of plugging it in ASAP. I could rationalize and say that it takes less time to fail and try again than to look and see which was is correct before plugging it in.
im 12mins in and this explained a lot more about spinors and angular position to me than 2 takes of introduction to nuclear magnetic resonance. much thanks!
What I love about this show is that it takes university level subjects and makes them digestible to anyone with a low level physics background. It’s wonderful
@@fattyMcGee97 ill take your word for it (or ill find out as I watch more of their videos)! im not really a follower of this channel and my background is in plants and biochemistry... quantum physics just flies over my head 😭 even tho it was discussed in my university classes and its in the text books, its so difficult to digest :') very thankful for channels like this that help by providing different narratives or better visualizations (sorry for semi unloading there was a deleted comment about how i must be lying about not understanding something like this because it just takes 2 pages in a physics book and how could i not understand it after taking "complex" classes 🤣😭)
I knew a spinner once, and she was pretty cool. Ended up learning nothing about spin though, so figured it was a matter of time before this video was made.
@Thee Cat, nuclear magnetic resonance does not really have anything to do with spin angular momentum, so I'm not sure if/why you expect a course on NMR to delve into the details of spin.
@@rheticus5198 I originally saw that spin video with lots of tendrils, which kept moving and didn't get tied in knots, in www.quantamagazine.org/ at least a couple of years ago. I haven't been able to find it again, but maybe I should look again.
I am living proof of my own quantum theory which states that it's possible to both love quantum mechanics, and hate quantum mechanics at the same time.
9:59 - Matt: "So, think of electrons as being connected to all other points in the universe by invisible..." Me: "I got it! I got it! Strings! Like the theory!" Matt: "...strands."
Yes, who died 33 years ago. You example is stupid. This way you can also say that electric motor or generator or radio cannot exist because Christian Oersted could not see all this available.
@@mknone40 Feynman was right then and the statement still stands. We understand a lot about quantum mechanics but no one understands how the things we "know" to be true of quantum mechanics align with what we know to be true about general relativity. If anyone truly understood the physics underlying the quantum work then we would already have a theory of everything. The fact that physicists cannot reconcile quantum mechanics with general relativity is itself proof that we do not understand how either work very well.
@@tmoore121 its more that quantan mechanics is so alien to our thinking that no one truly understands it on an intuitive level. Its sort of like higher dimensions, we can solve problems and do math but we will never have a geometric intuition about it like in 2 or 3 dimensions.
The short answer starts at 09:15. I love the video, thank you so much! The arm+mug and the ribbon diagram is the best explanation I've seen. Too bad I was stuck with teachers making us memorise numbers of spins years ago. Still thankful to my school education but this is the jam. I hope this is the way they'll teach students later. It's so much easier to understand than some random number and static diagram.
@@mja2239 It was a higher cert, so something similar to an extra grade after high school (hs) or pre-university. It was done at a hs and considered hs, that's why I said school.
Halfway through this excellent presentation, my head felt like it was spinning, except it was not otherwise I would have entangled myself in knots unless I remembered to rotate completely around twice. Time for a Baileys on ice!
You do realize the spinning continued and will for a long time:?) We are all entwined in Gauss's Gordian Space Knot. As long as we believe space is measurable we are on a roll. Gauss warned us.
@@julianshepherd2038 Just - stop and take a deep breath, then realize indefinite means to not definitely know. To role around once does not give one the ability to define infinitely know.
In reality, the start of its spin can not be known precisely until one of its revolutions has occurred and then only within approximations. Heisenberg can be certain of that:?) So, blame him for add-nausea.
I understood the whole thing, he's just reading from the Star Trek technobabble bible that Scotty and LaForge use. For example, if you were paying attention, his condition is the result of a horrible transporter accident. His quantum spin function was thrown out of phase by 360 degrees during transport by the phase inducers and now he's Australian.
Thank you so much for this video. I've been a physics professor for years but had never seen spinors explained as you do in the video with the bands connecting the electrons to the space-time fabric. I just kind of accepted it as a weird QM feature that was mathematically accounted for by the imaginary nature of the phase. I had figured there was no physical analog for it at all. So your tea cup analogy animated graphics were an eye opener for me. The graphics were still hard for me to see until I slowed down the video and created screen shots at 0, 360, and 720 degrees of rotation. wow. just wow. Just a great way to visually see how this works.
It's an OK theory. How anything can be derived from having no real images of electrons or photons is more interesting than the theory itself... My profile picture you see is a real photon, photons assemble into a disc like structure which I also have acquired images and videos of and without recognition I am having a lot of fun with what comes of this type of research and experimentation.
A "spinor" is really just a few trillion EM Dipole Particles from the EM "field" caught in a condensing Vortex just short of liquification into a Bose Einstein Condensate of EM Dipole Particles that have a mass of about ~~10^(-90) to 10^(-93) kg each. There are about 10^(72) EM dipole Particles per cubic meter of vacuum with a total mass of 10^(-18) kg of EM dipoles in each cubic meter the vacuum in our solar system all moving at an RMS velocity of "c". THIS IS DARK MASS AND ENERGY. It is just the EM Field Dipoles. The EM field is a Bose Gas of Planck sized EM Dipole Particles. Already proven to be real and the fill the vacuum to form what u call the EM Field.
Wrong. QM is a relic of 100 years of backwards metaphysical thinking. Electrons are infinitesimally thin shells with complex supercurrent surface motion which gives rise to spin. All quantum characteristics can be fully modeled classically with ZERO need of any of the nonsensical self-contradictory quantum mechanics hocus pocus bullpoo.
9:30 for those wondering how this is possible, the trick is that any specific ribbon goes up on one turn, and down on the next. Thus, its orientation with respect to the cube alternates, and so it undoes its previous twist. Same idea with the arm holding a cup.
I watch these videos when I can't sleep. The journeys that these subjects takes me to is so comforting. We are so lucky to live in a time where we can begin to understand our reality. It feels like being a billionaire
I sort of understanding it from going lighting and shaders in games but yeah even though I use the calculations I have trouble wrapping my head around it. Oh, that's the algorithm for refraction ok if you say so seems to work lol.
Sheldon: I don't know why it works this way, but this way is the only way it works... Leonard: I can confirm this, it does work for some reason. Howard: Well, ok, whatever you say guys. Ill just do it that way then. Raj: ... Penny: Still? Omg, I need a drink...
dang, one day maybe we can learn epistemology, and we finally can stop knowing anything except then we'd be thinking and the masons would have to tell everyone you're a meth addict
Someone in the comments: "technically if you returned to Earth at the speed of light your energy would destroy the entire planet on impact even as a tiny human"
I love the humorous comments, BUT I also respect the serious investigators, theorists and mathematicians who have worked for well over a century to provide an understanding of our universe.
this cup practical example is quite cool. i noticed while the mug towards itself stays spinning in the same direction. but you add an aditional angle as well with the 2nd rotation to free yourself. so technically its the principle of changing phase in a wavelength with same amplitude height. and overlay them. when you untwist the 2nd wave starts. but not before that point in time. we see this as proof when the cup shows its opening so we can see its inside bottom towards us 09:28. while at start the opening was not seen to the viewer. meaning it gives also proof that electrones should understood in 3 dimensions to grasp this better. spin can be applied not only in a specific direction horizontally understood. but also vertical and diagonal. depending on how you tilt its axis. an EM field can influence and change angles that way. this explains the magnet experiment and change of direction as an effect, quite well. in this sense i would say you can understand spinning in left or right direction as one of the poles. while spinning that happens towards a change of axis. as the other of the poles for North and Southpole principle. i wonder how this would change the view for this chessboard design ball's spin. cause its only spinning in one direction horizontically. what if we add also axis tilt spinning as well.
I like how your videos have become steadily more and more complex over time. It illustrates how scientific research has become more and more abstract and cryptic as we have basically discovered the majority of simple and fairly complicated aspects of reality, and are now deciphering the inner workings. Sort of how everyone can use an iPhone but very few can actually take one apart and know what to do with it, and even less know how it was actually designed to work how it does.
We are not even close to the inner workings my friend. The more you know the more you realize how little you do. We’ve only pulled a shot glass from the ocean. Thats why the deeper we go the less “math and science” it really feels. In your own words “cryptic”. The inner workings are likely beyond any and all human ability to perceive or understand. And we should be cool with that.
The biggest issue I have with understanding physics is that certain words mean very specific things in physics that may or may not correlate with the common definition of a word
kinda true, probably because the "common definition" of words changes according to common use lol. Science needs its definitions to be more precise so the same experiments/simulations can be repeated anywhere & get the same results, thinking like that I think the reduced ambiguity in the definitions makes it easier to build onto your understanding over time
Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules: When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. (More spatial curvature). What if gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks. (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are actually a part of the quarks. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Force" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" make sense based on this concept. Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else.
That's really the fault of 'common usage', not physics. I don't think there's a word used in physics that doesn't have the same use in ordinary conversation though. It's just that common use may have other meanings that are sloppy and most definitely NOT physically correct. Think of the word 'energy' that gets used in the most bizarre ways outside of physics. In physics, it's a very rigid, mathematical term with only one meaning. 'Gravity' is another one, especially when applied to people. Then there's 'weight', which gets abused all the time. In fact, many 'discoveries' in physics were actually a realization that people had failed to recognise that ordinary language being applied was in fact sloppy and vague. Einstein's discovery of special relativity was exactly that. He was led to question the word 'simultaneous' and try to work out what it actually meant. The truth was a real surprise, that it doesn't exist.
The electron "spins" suggests that it might stop spinning, or that it didn't have to spin. But spin is _intrinsic_ to the electron, can't be removed from it. So 'has spin' is actually a rather strong statement: it's a property of the electron as much as mass or electric charge.
I absolutely LOVE how the animations include little details to help understanding. Stern-Gerlach has always made sense to me, but for some reason this time I started having questions, but they were answered simply by seeing that the Stern-Gerlach animation did shoot silver atoms at slightly less than perfectly straight angles, and that they did form a bit of a semicircle at the top and bottom of the screen. Answered some questions I had about the deflections and the experiment that for some reason I'd never had till now, but immediately had answered.
Well no, it should be your English prof or your logic prof who might appropriately 'almost get a heart attack'. In the case of the English prof the statement would be a redundancy and therefore very poor use of the language. In the case of the logic prof the statement would be a tautology. All arrows have to point in a direction; can't be otherwise (unless the arrowhead is removed, I suppose). However, keep in mind that one discipline is not 'authorized' to take a previously defined concept and redefine it for its own purposes and claim that is the sole use of the term. This has been done. I have heard astronomers argue that Greeks 'misused' the term planets. Strange to make that claim. The English word planets is based on the Greek word (Latinized) _planetes_ which means wanderer. The Greeks were using this word quite appropriately to designate objects in the sky that moved (i.e. they were not stationary stars) but modern scientists in one of the biggest brain-farts in history and one of the greatest anachronisms ever used in logic were wrong (don't ever let an astrophysicist tell you history). All of this brings us to what Matt said and I would say he is right and your poor Math prof would be wrong. Have a look at the following explanation of Vector (the article does point out that there is a difference in the term Vector when used in physics as opposed to mathematics. As I said, one discipline can't appropriate a definition for its own purposes and require that to be the only definition acceptable.) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclidean_vector I also recall what I was taught (more than 50 years ago) that velocity was vectored speed. I.e., velocity has an arrow (of direction) speed doesn't.
The word vector is used for a bunch of different things depending on context. Here it was used as a short hand for "the vector representation of the rotation group".
Almost is still quantified as zero heart attacks, right? Also, I don't understand how having a heart attack would he regarded as a viable math-proof. Tell your professor to try harder next time, lol! Yeah, science be brutal like that. Zero fraks given for feelings (aka biases), just based AF.
Why? He doesn't say anything about the dimensionality of the space. I suppose you might include that they have a magnitude as well as a direction. But assuming n-dimensions space, I think that's a fine description.
The Ohanian idea connecting spin to the "Dirac field" sounds enticingly intuitive for such an unintuitive realm. Would love to see an episode exploring that further!
I've been evangelizing for that for a while--Belinfante figured it out in the 1930s. Treat the Dirac (or Maxwell) field *as a field*, and you can derive an energy-momentum density corresponding to the spin that is actually swirling around in space. It just doesn't correspond to the moving matter in a spinning ball.
That's interetsing, @@MattMcIrvin. Since it works for the Maxwell Field, too, that would probably make a better SpaceTime video (to separate it from the subject of spinors).
(I think there is even a way to "derive" it nonrelativistically from the Schrödinger equation, using a slightly shady trick invented by Richard Feynman. But that is another story I want to write up in more detail someday.)
@@bumpty9830 Yes! Consider it as a field, then canonically derive the space-time symmetrized stress-energy tensor, but interpreting the squared gradient as (grad dot sigma) squared. I *think* you get out Belinfante's spin momentum density in the nonrelativistic limit. Feynman used essentially the same trick to derive g=2 from the gauge substitution. At least according to J. J. Sakurai, but Sakurai never gave a reference. I assume Feynman wrote it on a napkin or something.
I keep thinking "Yeah, I understand the fundamentals, you know, the basic stuff" and then PBS tosses me a new video to watch and I realize I know practically nothing.
This was really hard to follow. I learned nothing because nothing was explained. Just a bunch of jibberish. It’s was like hearing “the reason for life is because of 42” ooookayyyy and the point?! Just threw around a bunch of words. If I had defined every word he used to explain this crap, I wouldn’t need it explained in the first place. Talking slow doesn’t help, it’s infuriating. I still never got the point. If not a spin, what is it. I’m sure someone can explain it in two sentences in plain English. I’m no by no means average learning or below but wowzers it just drones. Seek new work. Idk is it me? Should I pay real attention to this vid?
@@Wtfinc Teehehe, welcome to quantum mechanics. You must be new to the scene, soon you should understand there are no answers... just a bunch of hypotheticals and claims.
@@Wtfinc Here's my take in case it helps: Classical spin refers to the intuitive way any ordinary object spins, like a basketball. For everyday objects, spinning just means that particles in that object are moving in an orbit. The rubber molecules in the basketball are moving around the axis of rotation in the middle of the basketball. That movement of those rubber particles over distance means they have inertia that other objects can steal. When they comes into contact, everyday objects can transfer that inertia, or transfer that angular momentum the way gears do. In quantum mechanics, the particles are thought to be 0-diminsional points in space (aka point particles). They have zero width or height, and take up no space. Consequently, there is nothing orbiting anything. There is no movement over any distance we associate with spin. Even the idea of an object having "orientation" loses meaning when that object has no features that can be closer or further away. For example, we can talk about the close side of the moon pointing away towards us, because it is the close side. If something doesn't even have a close side (or a far side), can it point in any direction? Nonetheless, physicists say those point-particles have "spin", because those 0-dimensional particles can still impart angular momentum on stuff around them like gears. ...Skipping to the computer renders, I think of the ribbons as being the spacetime fabric being dragged around the center. This interpretation lets the fabric of space stay completely connected and continuous in all directions without tearing. I don't know if you've watched any videos on the ergosphere of a black hole, but the idea is that moving spacetime fabric will drag things along with it. Like how moving an art canvas will move whatever is painted on it. Since those ribbons connections don't endlessly accumulate more twist as the particles continue to spin, the spacetime fabric doesn't need to stretch infinitely either. Heck, maybe the particle is just a description of the twisted knot in spacetime itself. As for the "1/2 spin" idea, the ribbon connections are a good analogy for fermions, since both fermion particles and those ribbons only reach their initial configuration after rotating 720 degrees. (If you watch the renders closely, a 360° spin will flip the ribbons from going under or over the center.)
@@boblabla4756 far from new. I purley dislike how convoluted it was. they care only about watch time. there is no reason to talk so damn slow and add so much garbage. sorry but its the impression I get. even at 1.5x I found my self yelling for him to get to the point. at one time it sounded like he was going to make one and it never came.
Intellectually challenging but wonderfully well presented and fascinating video which has given me my first real glimpse into what spinors are about. Please let's have lots more of these.
@@Mr.Opinion Quantum mechanics is an incomplete theory and at the rate it's going, it seems like scientists are attempting to convert it into a non-theistic religion. Think about it, with religion you have the trust the word of scripture to be truth without being able to confirm it for yourself and with quantum mechanics you have to trust the words of scientists you don't even know as truth without having the means to test it for yourself.
@@TheZombiesAreComing I agree that Quantum mechanics is not fully complete, just like any other theory. They are just progressively better and better stepping stones of explanation and understanding. I also agree that at times science can become quite dogmatic and therefore religious like. As for your second point, I don't think that can hold up because there are millions of experiments that couldn't be tested for reasons of time, money, equipment, qualification, etc. Its not about faith, its about explanatory power. If your theory helps explain things that other theories can't explain, such as the behavior of subatomic particles (like electrons; which are crucial for understanding chemistry), then there is explanatory power. There are predictions made based on the theory and they seem to hold up against the tests we throw at it. Many people have tried to, but these core theories in physics are hard to falsify in any way.
@@TheZombiesAreComing I'd agree that the struggle to make testable predictions is a valid critique of cutting edge theoretical physics, *BUT* I think there is still an important gap distinguishing it from religion. Consider how in 1930, when Wolfgang Pauli was proposing the existence of the neutrino, he said something like, "I have committed the cardinal sin of a theorist... I made a prediction which can never be tested, because this particle is so weakly interacting that it may never be seen." We have since detected them in salt mines shielded from other kinds of cosmic radiation, create them on demand, and send them to other research stations right through the earth's crust. We can now in high confidence that roughly ~400 billion neutrinos pass through your body without interacting with it, every second. But remember that in his day, the idea was thought unproveable. You might argue that until someone invents a test, it is not scientific, and I'd agree. However, the idea was never baseless or unjustified the way faith based religious doctrine is. The neutrino was invented as a necessity born of mathematics. Without it, the decay of specific atomic nuclei would actually violate conservation of energy. Similar to how energy carrying photons are emitted by atoms when electrons fall into smaller orbital shells, the release of weak force energy from decaying atoms suggested either that an unknown virtual particle carrying away miniscule amounts of energy, OR that or energy was spontaneously ceasing to exist. The latter seemed extremely unlikely for an avalanche of reasons. Conservation of energy isn't just an arbitrary rule we've observed, it's implied by the form of the quantum Hamiltonian. Rejecting it destroys unitarity and which would result in FTL signaling. It would suddenly be inconsistent with a ton of different aspects of physics. (Scientific understanding is like a low resolution photograph that starts blurry and keeps getting clearer. Adding resolution may change the picture in subtle ways, but adding detail to a picture of a orange cat won't suddenly change it into a purple unicorn.) Another distinction between blind religious belief, is that the idea was not held as sacred. Scientists hold beliefs in the form of probabilities, not true/false statements. They update their beliefs, shifting them towards "more probable" or "less probable", every time they find new evidence. Pauli did not say "this is true". If anything, was hesitant to publish his idea proposing neutrino before writing his peers to corroborate his findings asking them to scrutinize them. Issues like modern string theory have the same problem. As we dig deeper and deeper, testing is becoming harder and harder. But unlike a religion: 1. No idea is held as beyond scrutiny, 2. Nothing is claimed as absolutely known, and 3. The ideas that have risen to the top really do have strong reasons supporting them. ...Even if the reasoning and concepts are extremely esoteric and opaque to laymen who do not dedicate their lives to studying them for themselves. Granted, that barrier to comprehension begets to deferring to the experts, which is a different problem. Nonetheless, there ARE always answers to the questions "why do physicists credit that idea?" By contrast, when priests tell you what their god(s) want ("Zeus wants you to sacrifice a lamb"), there isn't a rigorous logical process for investigating what they claim to know.
@@TheZombiesAreComing you could have just said : "reading _books about recycled Zeus for jewish , written by fishermen 2000 years ago... is way easier to understand , than professional physics done through centuries of_ research" You would sound far more honest 😂
I'm glad this was broken down by showing the *_first principles_* of how it was discovered through the experiments. Tons of other videos don't even bother doing that which makes it way more confusing than it needs to be.
Dude not gonna lie, the only reason I listen to this channel is to go to sleep. it truly is magic. PBS space time has not failed to knock me out me in almost 2 years.
i understood everything until he started speaking :'D okay but im still so amazed at how people can come up w such theories like i cant express how much i respect them omh
It's pretty incredible. All the while it's happening your mind is thinking - won't end well, won't end well, oh - it does. What did I miss - and when? This would make a calming, hypnotic visual for babies - in the hope they can grow up to explain electron spin but non-spin to their parents.
@@debbiehenri345 I literally took 2 belts, linked them together with a clip and wedged each end in opposite doors. It took a few tries, but it is possible to turn the clip a full 720 degrees and unwind the belts; the trick to to move the first belt over, the other under. Then when going for round 2, move the first belt Under, the other Over.
This is why I always told my pupils "Electrons have a property that we call spin, but it's just a convenient label, so we can say that one is opposite to another." Of course, then we had to go on and treat spin as though it meant something!
That's exactly wrong. The spin of the electron is just like the spin of a bicycle wheel, if you switch the spin of the electron it can transfer its angular momentum to the bicycle wheel. The electron is actually spinning, except it doesn't have a size.
@@jmckendry84 They are exactly spinning in the manner of a bicycle wheel, except without internal moving parts. You can transfer their spin to the wheel simply by flipping a magnetic field around the (iron) bicycle wheel, which flips all the magnetic-electron spins, and sets the wheel spinning a small but measurable amount, this is the extremely famous Einstein de-Haas experiment. The ONLY reason people don't say the electron is literally spinning is because it has no moving parts. If the spin was due to moving parts, it would have to be integer spin, not spin 1/2, and it would require superluminal speed for the parts. But aside from having no moving parts, the electron spin is exactly the same as a bicycle wheel.
@@annaclarafenyo8185 "But aside from having no moving parts, the electron spin is exactly the same as a bicycle wheel." Understand what you're saying but surely you can see the irony with this statement as a bicycle wheel is in fact a 'moving part'.
@@TheDarkblue57 "Spin without moving parts" is very easy to understand. "Spin is magic and quantum and has no classical analog" is not only false, but highly misleading, because quantum electron spin and quantum bicycle wheel spin are the same sort of thing, the only difference appears when you look inside to see what parts are moving.
Intrinsic angular momentum, aka “spin” because when talking about something it’s just easier to use a word that doesn’t accurately describe it, unless both people know the idea behind “spin” in the context. But if people don’t understand what “spin” is they’ll think it’s actually spin. I think.
I think this happens to quite a few terms now. Like, I keep hearing people use osmosis instead of diffuse, not realising osmosis is specifically about water potential.
@@dalefirmin5118 Well at least there they always adding in the word quark so sort of a heads up it not your normal and flavor :) Still be nice they use totally different from normal words. At least one of the substitution fake languages that have been used in some fiction. Substitution, my term I think, is were they just assign a different sound and spelling to words in a already existing language.
When cars still had mechanical distributors you had to rotate them through 720 degrees (two rotations) to return to the original position because the engine was 4 stroke
One thing about this model stands out to me. To me, the ribbon-like structure of the connections implies that the electron itself is not point like but more like a small bar magnet. Basically a infinitesimally small dash or hyphen, spinning in the fabric of the electro-magnetic field.
This was one of those breakthrough videos for me where something clicks, hard, and I make progress. God that was awesome. Thanks all involved in this vid.
My next question would be - if electrons don’t “spin” in the conventional sense like we’ve been taught, then how does this quantum spin/spinner with multiple directionality reconcile with the concepts of “up spin” and “down spin” directionality?
It's still the direction of the angular momentum vector. This may not correspond to a classical rotating object but it IS angular momentum, just like that of a spinning ball--angular momentum is only conserved if you include it--and it exhibits phenomena like precession. It's even possible to express it in terms of a circulating energy/momentum density that is a function of the electron field--this is something Belinfante figured out in the 1930s. It's just that the momentum circulates around the borders of the particle's wave packet, rather than in some sense within the particle.
They do spin. Its just a trick of the intellectual elites to maintain power, status and control over the masses to insist that electrons don't spin. By creating a difficulty where none exists they preserve their air of superiority over the simpleton masses who are too stupid to understand such lofty concepts. lol.
Spin is a way to describe the continuous rotation of a point in space without needing to rip the space structure and then rotate, just geometrically move it in a clever way so that everything keeps connected, and in this case something rotated 360 degrees and and does not need to come back... it can keep on going, but two full turns are needed to undo the twist that a full rotation does
@Thomas A. Anderson Never did call him a monke, I actually think his comment is genius, but who cares what is actually said and the deeper meaning behind it, almost as if you were born to be my "Case-in-point." Congratulations! Darwin says to look both ways before crossing a roundabout; you might be driving.
@Thomas A. Anderson Physicists are fundamentally wrong about at least one aspect of the standard model right now as we speak. Scientists are just as human as you or I and there is no such thing as a purely rational human being. They have the same biases, they are just as susceptible to pride and spite and even greed. So yes, I will mock some of the more bizarre things about the science we have right now.
A spinor is the thing between a scalar and a vector. Higgs is scalar field, Fermions are spinor fields, Bosons are vector fields. You can also call them spin 0, 1/2 and 1 fields (from symmetry).
This is the first time I see the experiment of the iron rod rotating when exposed to a magnetic field, and it's the first time I finally understand what brought physicists to call it spin. Hours and hours of videos, and what this "angular momentum" they were talking about has been made apparent to me only now.
1/2 spin is nicely represented as a mobius strip. It shows how a particle has to traverse a mobius strip twice to be in the starting position, which isn't the case of a ball/sphere. For a fiction novel I'm writing, a theoretical particle behaves like a mobius strip, acting as a roundabout for all other particles instead of a stoplight intersection that demands an increase in entropy. Just found it funny that the only real physics I know is research I've done to loosely justify my fake physics
Also, the Pauli exclusion principle applies to them in a loose sense, because you can't have two nested Mobius strips. If you take 2 layers of paper and try to make a Mobius strip, you just get 1 big loop. I wonder if there is any significance to this, or if it's just a coincidence. (Probably the latter.)
@@paulmichaelfreedman8334 as someone with zero experience in the field, i vaguely recall hearing that said boson (/bosons) would be one or more gamma ray photons
My stepbrother did the exact same thing. I was pissed because I would always pick his brain about physics stuff. Now that I have this channel and all those Stanford lectures, I don't really need to do that anyway.
@@user-otzlixr then I got a job that pays well and I dont have to work insane hours. Plus I still do a lot of math problems which I love. Honestly data science is the best career for a jaded physicist
lol. this seemed very jargony to me at first, but once i got what he meant, it was simple. it just means it's something binary (that can have only two states), and that there just isn't anything familiar to us according to classical mechanics, that is anything like it. so we have to make something up, or just pick something that is close to the specific criteria needed that i just described (being binary)
Well, the ribbons don’t actually exist. It’s a way to conceptualize or visualize how spinning it 720° (or twice) will return the electron to its original state.
"Electrons DO NOT Spin" Yes, but it is a good way help explain some of their behavior in an understandable way. Maybe it should be called electron splefle.
This might be the best introductory explanation of quantum mechanics that I've ever seen. It integrated a bunch of discrete concepts that I had floating around in my brain and made them connect in a more meaningful way. Still, I find it frustrating that we haven't made more progress toward grand unification and more satisfying answers as to "why" the fundamental particles and constants have the values and properties that they do.
@@levyroth I really don't worry about why, I just want to know how gravity and the nature of the fundamental constants have escaped full understanding. That's why I put "why" in quotes.
@@steventhrasher3495 (To the best of my recollection, this video hit the highlights of about 1/3 of our quantum physics class) In 18 minutes? wow. The whole lot in 54 mins. and no student debt.
@@bobblue_west well, obviously not in the level of detail and with feedback on the mathematics, etc. Actually working with this on paper and thinking through its implications is pretty mind-warping and time-intensive (pun points!). That said, from a conceptual level, it's an amazing presentation, and like you point out, without debt. :-)
can someone explain how Lorentz's explanation of the Zeeman affect makes sense? Why would different magnetic field cause the energy levels to split? Before that, what does it even mean that the energy levels split? Is there like a glossary or index for all these terms because it's hard to get anything more than a surface level understanding without fully understanding all these terms
Are you referring to the fact that a "magnetic" force is just an electrostatic force under the Lorentz transform? Energy levels splitting in a magnetic field means that, for each normally observed energy level, there emerge two energy levels in a magnetic field. You can think about this in terms of the Hamiltonian. The external magnetic field demands a new term in the Hamiltonian which can have two values, one negative and one equally positive, let's call them -M and +M, corresponding to a particle being aligned with the field or anti-aligned with the field. There is no case where M is zero if the particle can't have 0 spin. There needs to be an energy level for each unique value of the Hamiltonian, but none of the original levels E can be in the Hamiltonian with that magnetic term added, only E + M and E - M. Thus, each E "splits" into E + M and E - M. Tl;dr the magnetic field either raises or lowers the energy of particles with non-zero spin. They can't have the same energy as they had without the magnetic field.
So electrons can occupy certain energy levels - orbits - around the nucleus. Photons emitted are at frequencies (hence energy levels) equal to the gaps between those energy levels. The magnetic field was theorized to change the energy levels of the orbits in certain ways, depending on orientation of the orbit. Hence more distinct gaps.
that's amazing, and it highlights one of the most fundamental parts of all of science, that we are never observing the concepts in question, but their interactions with our sensors and each other
9:30 - rotating cube, and six ribbons from it going to distant fixed points. The ribbons twist and untwist. Also, the ribbons do not collide. All this happens while there are six ribbons doing this 720-degree dance. After watching the ribbon twist dance about ten times, I wondered if we could add more ribbons. Then I saw that, immediately afterwards, you showed many more ribbons all doing the same dance, and still not touching and still not becoming entangled. I also notice that two of the ribbons go vertically (after their initial twists close to the rotating cube). These ribbons are aligned along the axis of rotation. The other ribbons are NOT aligned along the axis of rotation. Yet, all six ribbons twist and untwist themselves correctly. This is a mind-blowing piece of geometry and I want one. I want one now. I want lots of them hanging from the ceiling of every room in my house. Alice in Wonderland didn't have anything like this.
@@jv-lk7bc ...and a psychologist enters the fray. Luckily, I am (among other things) a mathematician, engineer and programmer, so I could indeed construct that which I desire.
Spinners question: Is it the "strings" around the electron that are 'unwinding' which gives the impression of rotation? Like a heavy washer on a twisted rubber band. Its the rubber band that affects the rotation of the washer, not the washer changing the state of the band. In this case, its the warping of space-time instead of a rubber band, the electron is the washer.
The cube rotating made me nauseous, but the sphere rotating made me so dizzy that I nearly fell off my seat! It wasn't because of watching the movement, it was because I had an internal construct in my mind's eye that replaced my gyroscope for a second 🤢
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
Electron spin explained: Imagine a ball that is rotating, except it's not a ball and it's not rotating.
this is the best
:)
🤣🤣🤣🤣
I fully understand now.
Yes, but the ball has to spin twice
Finally an explanation of why you have to rotate USB plugs twice before they'll go in!
sounds like a joke, but it is actually true!
@@SantiagoItzcoatl Because we're not conscious of it's position. Double slit experiment or Schrödinger's cat. Once you look and become conscious of it's position only then is it 100% until then it stays 50/50...Perhaps?
brilliant
This is freakishly true!
@@bad-bunnyblogger8171 I've always hated the Schrodingers cat thing but it might be true in this case. Got me racking my brain on this one. Now plugging a USB in will never be the same.
7:46 Physicists were excited, but only in discrete amounts, probably.
Continuous excitement can be hazardous to your health
Underrated Comment
No doubt. I've definitely observed excitement jump from one quantum level to another spontaneously
they are excited and grounded at the same time. Super!
In specific quanta perhaps?
Basically, the Electron doesn't have Angular Momentum because it's spinning. It has Angular Momentum because yes.
It just checked "yes" in the Angular Momentum option.
The electron has the inherent property of angular momentum but it's not spinning. Spin describes an effect produced but not a physical cause, an innate cause. It's beautiful man.
Absolutely incorrect
@@tintweezl
It's just like something being wet without ever having contact with any sort of liquid?
@@JohnSmendrovac
Well, that does not surprises me...
For something to spin in the classical sense it has to consist of more than one particle. You need two points to measure an angle. You can tell if a ball is spinning because you feel the friction when you touch it. You can even stop it from spinning by cancelling out its angular momentum. But friction is a macroscopic effect that requires millions of atoms bound together. Because a particle is the smallest division possible there is no actual surface or friction. I think the only analogy would be to have another anti-particle with exact opposite “spin” collide. In the quantum world that just annihilates both particles though. Without spin they can’t even exist.
Physics: “For that to make sense…”
Quantum Mechanics: “I’m gonna stop you right there.”
lol
*hold my beer*
I’m gonna stop you but as soon as I’ll do it I won’t know where
@@hyperduality2838 lol
@@hyperduality2838 lmao
I really appreciate the determination to not dumb down the subject matter, even though most people (including myself) won’t really get it. There are dozens of channels that will explain quantum mechanics with flawed analogies and misleading visual aids for the sake of accessibility, but the real meat of quantum mechanics isn’t so easily digestible.
Quantum mechanics is a confusing and difficult subject, and to present it otherwise is more misleading than helpful.
Totally agree. Which is probably why this is the first time I really started to feel like I was able to grasp it.
Quite. "Dumbing down" an explanation most often necessitates leaving out important details. Doing that leaves unanswered questions, thus making the explanation less intelligible. It is natural for human beings to be curious, but not everything is within our ability to comprehend.
@@iamtheiconoclast3 ppupp III I I lllllljjjjjli
Give it to me straight, doc. No sugar coating!
@David Bytheway electrical engineering was fantasy class? I just finished quantum II and honestly by the end of perturbation theory I was like wtf am I even learning. The professor uses quantum to do molecular modeling and even said that a lot of quantum simply is too cumbersome or incomplete to really apply with any effectiveness. If anything, quantum is the fantasy physics, at least we can use the whole electrical engineering class to do something lol
That double spin example was probably the best I've seen.
And also the weirdest.
9:24
I didn't understand everything, but I feel like I'm becoming smarter watching this kind of content. The visualisation of untangable cube was mind-blowing. And the ball exceptionally insane.... Thank you for your great efforts
I dont want to be that guy but being smarter is not just knowing things
@@cristianjuarez1086 you are right
@@cristianjuarez1086 Well, in a sense it is a component of it: you can build stuff using the bricks of your acquired knowledge. I think of knowledge as having more tools at the disposal of my brain to build more complex things than my brain would be able to, without. Knowledge is also probably the only thing at your disposal to change a genetically fixed feature (intelligence).
@@cristianjuarez1086Well, you’re being “that guy”. I don’t think the OP was implying that just knowing facts is all there is to “smartness”.
@kuribojim3916 nah, data is not the same as information, and having information but being dumb to use it is just an example of how you're wrong
Spin is always explained the same way in Physics classes:
"Imagine a charged ball spining
But it is not a ball, has no charge and doesn't spin"
Students to high school physics teacher: "How does charge work?"
Teacher: *head explodes*
The isn't really and intuitive way to describe this weird thing, to describe it you'd need a weird explanation like this!
I think it *does* have charge, at least...
I thought electrons were negatively charged.
@Kelvin Yes, that comes right after the professor gives up on trying to make sense of what spin intuetively is and go for the shut up and calculate approach that he'll adopt for the rest of the course..
"Electrons are spinning, but for legal reasons, I have to deny that"
Precession to be precise.
Good ONE
At a pub quiz night, one question was "What is the last word in the Bible?" and my mate, who went to Bible class, immediately said "Coincidental." XD
@@PrinceWesterburg Of course he was completely wrong. Never take another person's word for anything, especially in a pub.
The physical law requires that I answer "no."
Slow clap for whoever made the spinning electron visuals.
it just blew my mind... finally an actual visual that can help explain why its NOT actually spinning lmao
@@dan7291able time stamp?
Exactly what I was thinking. That took some time and knowledge regardless of how strong their ability. Also, really cool visual explanation!
@@DanielW607 9:49
@@MrFedX quaternions are neat
I feel like a good analogy of spin 1/2 is a mobius strip. The first time around you end up on the other side but go around again and you get to the beginning.
Or that puzzle of fliping a sphere inside out without creasing.
thank you
69
Bingo!
but youre not travelling in a circle and youre not rotating in and out.. besides that,, youre almost correct
So USB type A connections are Spinors, gotcha.
No, the joke is that they're spin 1 particles. You try it, flip it, try it, and then flip it again.
No. Rather, they are in quantum superposition of two states (up or down) and they collapse to one when you measure it (try to plug in).
@@selforganisation Unfortunately the always seem to collapse to the undesired state.
@@Ethan_Simon Am I the only one who looks at the plug and socket before trying to connect them?
@@harmsc12 I don't know. I just have the habit of plugging it in ASAP. I could rationalize and say that it takes less time to fail and try again than to look and see which was is correct before plugging it in.
im 12mins in and this explained a lot more about spinors and angular position to me than 2 takes of introduction to nuclear magnetic resonance. much thanks!
What I love about this show is that it takes university level subjects and makes them digestible to anyone with a low level physics background. It’s wonderful
@@fattyMcGee97 ill take your word for it (or ill find out as I watch more of their videos)! im not really a follower of this channel and my background is in plants and biochemistry... quantum physics just flies over my head 😭 even tho it was discussed in my university classes and its in the text books, its so difficult to digest :') very thankful for channels like this that help by providing different narratives or better visualizations
(sorry for semi unloading there was a deleted comment about how i must be lying about not understanding something like this because it just takes 2 pages in a physics book and how could i not understand it after taking "complex" classes 🤣😭)
Yeah I’ve listened to Roger Penrose talks on spinors & they were pretty much incomprehensible for a layperson. This was much more helpful.
I knew a spinner once, and she was pretty cool. Ended up learning nothing about spin though, so figured it was a matter of time before this video was made.
@Thee Cat, nuclear magnetic resonance does not really have anything to do with spin angular momentum, so I'm not sure if/why you expect a course on NMR to delve into the details of spin.
Man whoever does the 3D graphics and animations for this channel is amazing.
Always impressive. The animation at 9:30 is fantastic. This is a really nice description of spin.
@@rheticus5198 i guess that is a common known animation from wikipedia.
I donated the Wikipedia animations to the public domain a few years back. Was super cool to find them featured here!
@@rheticus5198 I originally saw that spin video with lots of tendrils, which kept moving and didn't get tied in knots, in www.quantamagazine.org/ at least a couple of years ago. I haven't been able to find it again, but maybe I should look again.
@@JasonHise64 Loved the article you shared on twitter about this topic. Is there more recent work you know of?
I am living proof of my own quantum theory which states that it's possible to both love quantum mechanics, and hate quantum mechanics at the same time.
I've collapsed into "I hate QM but admit its results" state.
@@whoprofits2661 by the action of which observer?
@@haraldjorch708 Why, myself of course
Until they print your obituary stating that you loved it, collapsing the wave function.
So you live in a state of both hate and love at the same time until such time as you take a measurement? 😂
9:59 - Matt: "So, think of electrons as being connected to all other points in the universe by invisible..."
Me: "I got it! I got it! Strings! Like the theory!"
Matt: "...strands."
Probably why they chose a different word.
Same. lol
Nothing in nature is that easy...There's always a 'huh' moment after every 'aha' one... :)
Funny :)
see: the strand conjecture (strands with rational tangles, not strings)
"I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics."
. -Richard Feynman, Nobel-prize-winning 20th Century quantum physicist
Hahaha Omg that’s SOOO ironic!!
Its self learned machine learning - My guess.
Yes, who died 33 years ago. You example is stupid. This way you can also say that electric motor or generator or radio cannot exist because Christian Oersted could not see all this available.
@@mknone40 Feynman was right then and the statement still stands. We understand a lot about quantum mechanics but no one understands how the things we "know" to be true of quantum mechanics align with what we know to be true about general relativity. If anyone truly understood the physics underlying the quantum work then we would already have a theory of everything. The fact that physicists cannot reconcile quantum mechanics with general relativity is itself proof that we do not understand how either work very well.
@@tmoore121 its more that quantan mechanics is so alien to our thinking that no one truly understands it on an intuitive level. Its sort of like higher dimensions, we can solve problems and do math but we will never have a geometric intuition about it like in 2 or 3 dimensions.
I love it when Matt breaks the rules of causality and goes so fast that he becomes Gabe.
The biggest of Gabes ~ Heromarine.
I really miss Gabe. His speed was only tied by his sheer pleasure to explain. o7 Gabe, long live your youtube presents.
Naw Gabe sucks he's just jealous space time became a thing
The short answer starts at 09:15. I love the video, thank you so much! The arm+mug and the ribbon diagram is the best explanation I've seen. Too bad I was stuck with teachers making us memorise numbers of spins years ago. Still thankful to my school education but this is the jam. I hope this is the way they'll teach students later. It's so much easier to understand than some random number and static diagram.
Oh wow, at that point I got it, thank you for the timestamp! I don't get anything else, but that little bit with the ribbons is amazing!
Dq
It's the only thing I don't like about his videos I like the simple explanation then going into the complex!
Teachers taught you this in school?
@@mja2239 It was a higher cert, so something similar to an extra grade after high school (hs) or pre-university. It was done at a hs and considered hs, that's why I said school.
Halfway through this excellent presentation, my head felt like it was spinning, except it was not otherwise I would have entangled myself in knots unless I remembered to rotate completely around twice. Time for a Baileys on ice!
I need to vapourize some herbs too, because I have stomach problems.
You do realize the spinning continued and will for a long time:?) We are all entwined in Gauss's Gordian Space Knot. As long as we believe space is measurable we are on a roll. Gauss warned us.
@@RichardAlsenz that's not really helping the nausea
@@julianshepherd2038 Just - stop and take a deep breath, then realize indefinite means to not definitely know.
To role around once does not give one the ability to define infinitely know.
In reality, the start of its spin can not be known precisely until one of its revolutions has occurred and then only within approximations. Heisenberg can be certain of that:?) So, blame him for add-nausea.
i perfectly understood everything until the first sentence
I understood the whole thing, he's just reading from the Star Trek technobabble bible that Scotty and LaForge use.
For example, if you were paying attention, his condition is the result of a horrible transporter accident. His quantum spin function was thrown out of phase by 360 degrees during transport by the phase inducers and now he's Australian.
You and I are in perfect agreement with each other. 👍🏽😶🤦🏽♂️🤣
@Walter Morris why such a specific number?
The more information you learn about a subject, the less certain you can be that it’s true. That’s the Donald exclusion principle.
Great... I'll join you to understand everything... Atleast till the 1st sentence...
Thank you so much for this video. I've been a physics professor for years but had never seen spinors explained as you do in the video with the bands connecting the electrons to the space-time fabric. I just kind of accepted it as a weird QM feature that was mathematically accounted for by the imaginary nature of the phase. I had figured there was no physical analog for it at all. So your tea cup analogy animated graphics were an eye opener for me.
The graphics were still hard for me to see until I slowed down the video and created screen shots at 0, 360, and 720 degrees of rotation. wow. just wow. Just a great way to visually see how this works.
It's an OK theory. How anything can be derived from having no real images of electrons or photons is more interesting than the theory itself... My profile picture you see is a real photon, photons assemble into a disc like structure which I also have acquired images and videos of and without recognition I am having a lot of fun with what comes of this type of research and experimentation.
@@FlameAlchemyIO But isn't that picture only possible through theories upon theories used in practice?
A "spinor" is really just a few trillion EM Dipole Particles from the EM "field" caught in a condensing Vortex just short of liquification into a Bose Einstein Condensate of EM Dipole Particles that have a mass of about ~~10^(-90) to 10^(-93) kg each.
There are about 10^(72) EM dipole Particles per cubic meter of vacuum with a total mass of 10^(-18) kg of EM dipoles in each cubic meter the vacuum in our solar system all moving at an RMS velocity of "c". THIS IS DARK MASS AND ENERGY. It is just the EM Field Dipoles.
The EM field is a Bose Gas of Planck sized EM Dipole Particles. Already proven to be real and the fill the vacuum to form what u call the EM Field.
Wrong. QM is a relic of 100 years of backwards metaphysical thinking. Electrons are infinitesimally thin shells with complex supercurrent surface motion which gives rise to spin. All quantum characteristics can be fully modeled classically with ZERO need of any of the nonsensical self-contradictory quantum mechanics hocus pocus bullpoo.
@@byoshizaki1025 Is there any name or model to that theory, maybe like a drawing or something?
9:30 for those wondering how this is possible, the trick is that any specific ribbon goes up on one turn, and down on the next. Thus, its orientation with respect to the cube alternates, and so it undoes its previous twist.
Same idea with the arm holding a cup.
I watch these videos when I can't sleep. The journeys that these subjects takes me to is so comforting. We are so lucky to live in a time where we can begin to understand our reality. It feels like being a billionaire
Indeed yes, Sir! We are lucky to be us, at this time in Earth-history.
Same here. It's became a routine of some sort..
It feels like learning the lore of a mysterious game in alpha that the community hasn't quite figured out yet.
Except with less personal space travel, and a lot, lot less money.
I am sure it is re-assuring to assume that at least someone somewhere is beginning to understand our reality. I'm still in the dark.
This man was my professor in ASTRONOMY 101 at Lehman College,New York.
He's really good!
Good for you😌👍🏼
It must be really fun listening to this dude while also understanding every word he says!
@@visheshreddy4293 xD ikr
He is also wrong:?)
@@RichardAlsenz just for my own understanding, what parts wrong?
brain: don't watch it ur not gonna understand it
me: *watches anyways*
brain: i told you so
You: misses 15 seconds of the video
Rest of the video: X Æ A-12那是
Formulated like that: watch it ur gonna understand it? 😄
I'll bet he had you reach out to a star and hold it....as he was speaking.
Every damn time.
I went really fast from "this seems impossible" to "of course this happens" in the mug/cube/sphere part. Great visualisation!
Amazing video. *PBS Space Time, Isaac Arthur, and The Exoplanets Channel are my favorite channels.*
You forgot anton petrov
Commenting this early... You definitely didn't finish it. Did you start it?
I like astrum too
Try Event Horizon, and John Michael-Godier. Although you're probably well aware if you frequent Isaac Arthur's channel.
Cool worlds also
PBS: "Sounds reasonable, right?"
Me, knowing nothing about anything: "....n.. y.... ye.... Yes? ...! ?"
I sort of understanding it from going lighting and shaders in games but yeah even though I use the calculations I have trouble wrapping my head around it. Oh, that's the algorithm for refraction ok if you say so seems to work lol.
Sheldon: I don't know why it works this way, but this way is the only way it works...
Leonard: I can confirm this, it does work for some reason.
Howard: Well, ok, whatever you say guys. Ill just do it that way then.
Raj: ...
Penny: Still? Omg, I need a drink...
you know enough to know what you don't know. That's something you know about :D
dang, one day maybe we can learn epistemology, and we finally can stop knowing anything
except then we'd be thinking and the masons would have to tell everyone you're a meth addict
Whenever i think I'm smart I watch Spacetime...brings me right down to earth....faster than the speed of light
Absolutely 😁
Someone in the comments: "technically if you returned to Earth at the speed of light your energy would destroy the entire planet on impact even as a tiny human"
Also energy that you will require to do that will only turn you into photons or disintegrate you into energy
If you could travel at the speed of light...you couldn't...because your mass would be infinite...😁
technically if you returned to Earth at the speed of light your energy would destroy the entire planet on impact even as a tiny human
Props to this guy for teaching _without blinking_
He only blinks when you are not observing him. Until then he is both blinking and not blinking simultaneously.
He blinks at about 7:47
I love the humorous comments, BUT I also respect the serious investigators, theorists and mathematicians who have worked for well over a century to provide an understanding of our universe.
It's not the electron spinning now, it is my head.
Technically your head also has electrons..
…and yet your head had no classical rotation. Hmmm…
Better spin it again. Always watch Spacetime in pairs.
@@helloworld610 -- true but as he pointed out, they are not spinning :)
That's called conservation of momentum, MrWildbill47.
😂🤣😂
Gabe's cameo just made my day better, he should show up for co-hosting a whole episode one of these days
this cup practical example is quite cool.
i noticed while the mug towards itself stays spinning in the same direction. but you add an aditional angle as well with the 2nd rotation to free yourself.
so technically its the principle of changing phase in a wavelength with same amplitude height. and overlay them.
when you untwist the 2nd wave starts. but not before that point in time.
we see this as proof when the cup shows its opening so we can see its inside bottom towards us 09:28. while at start the opening was not seen to the viewer.
meaning it gives also proof that electrones should understood in 3 dimensions to grasp this better. spin can be applied not only in a specific direction horizontally understood. but also vertical and diagonal. depending on how you tilt its axis. an EM field can influence and change angles that way. this explains the magnet experiment and change of direction as an effect, quite well.
in this sense i would say you can understand spinning in left or right direction as one of the poles.
while spinning that happens towards a change of axis. as the other of the poles for North and Southpole principle.
i wonder how this would change the view for this chessboard design ball's spin. cause its only spinning in one direction horizontically. what if we add also axis tilt spinning as well.
I like how your videos have become steadily more and more complex over time. It illustrates how scientific research has become more and more abstract and cryptic as we have basically discovered the majority of simple and fairly complicated aspects of reality, and are now deciphering the inner workings. Sort of how everyone can use an iPhone but very few can actually take one apart and know what to do with it, and even less know how it was actually designed to work how it does.
It's called bullshit
@@ThreeDaysOfDan Which parts do you consider to be bullshit?
We are not even close to the inner workings my friend. The more you know the more you realize how little you do. We’ve only pulled a shot glass from the ocean. Thats why the deeper we go the less “math and science” it really feels. In your own words “cryptic”. The inner workings are likely beyond any and all human ability to perceive or understand. And we should be cool with that.
@@EODReddFox Man-machine hybrids it is then
@@ls200076 guess so, im sure there are some fools out there who want to Skynet us.
"whatever crazy theory we haven't figured out yet." priceless. I want a t-shirt with that on it. love it.
Me want t-shirt with cheesy quote on
Everything's better with classically non-describably two-valuedness.
Worked for Prince.
You classically non-describably two-value me 'right round baby, right 'round
Like an electron baby right 'round, right 'round
guess it sounds better in german
@@matroqueta6825 I love that the "right rounds" come in pairs of two since it's describing a fermion lol.
What about fouredvalveness. Automotive got that down pat...
This was properly painful, and I want to suffer even more from this in future episodes. 🧠
Pain is a catalyst, necessary for perpetuating the outcome that is growth :)
I got 'entanglement' in my brain cells listtening to this 🤣
The biggest issue I have with understanding physics is that certain words mean very specific things in physics that may or may not correlate with the common definition of a word
kinda true, probably because the "common definition" of words changes according to common use lol. Science needs its definitions to be more precise so the same experiments/simulations can be repeated anywhere & get the same results, thinking like that I think the reduced ambiguity in the definitions makes it easier to build onto your understanding over time
@@tubester358 oh indeed. It's just more difficult to understand if you don't have the glossary at hand :)
Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules:
When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. (More spatial curvature). What if gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks. (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are actually a part of the quarks. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Force" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" make sense based on this concept. Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else.
That actually is true to all and every science field
That's really the fault of 'common usage', not physics. I don't think there's a word used in physics that doesn't have the same use in ordinary conversation though. It's just that common use may have other meanings that are sloppy and most definitely NOT physically correct. Think of the word 'energy' that gets used in the most bizarre ways outside of physics. In physics, it's a very rigid, mathematical term with only one meaning. 'Gravity' is another one, especially when applied to people. Then there's 'weight', which gets abused all the time.
In fact, many 'discoveries' in physics were actually a realization that people had failed to recognise that ordinary language being applied was in fact sloppy and vague. Einstein's discovery of special relativity was exactly that. He was led to question the word 'simultaneous' and try to work out what it actually meant. The truth was a real surprise, that it doesn't exist.
At least I understand why physicists say "the electron has spin" and not "the electron spins". Or do I?
"Hey, vsauce, Michael here!"
To paraphrase Drew Carey: "Quantum Physics, where the names are made up and the forces aren't real."
I hear that.
The electron "spins" suggests that it might stop spinning, or that it didn't have to spin. But spin is _intrinsic_ to the electron, can't be removed from it. So 'has spin' is actually a rather strong statement: it's a property of the electron as much as mass or electric charge.
I think you got it!
Bosons: " Hey fermions wanna come to the party?"
Fermions: "How about no."
Fermions: "La la la la la - I can't hear you."
@Armenias Thunk then why do they smell so bad?
Cooper Pairs: "Am I cool enough to come?"
@@nikoglucina4173 No way, nuclear bomb is a lie (in this context).
@@hartunstart damn. I'm typing on a lie right now 🤥
I absolutely LOVE how the animations include little details to help understanding. Stern-Gerlach has always made sense to me, but for some reason this time I started having questions, but they were answered simply by seeing that the Stern-Gerlach animation did shoot silver atoms at slightly less than perfectly straight angles, and that they did form a bit of a semicircle at the top and bottom of the screen. Answered some questions I had about the deflections and the experiment that for some reason I'd never had till now, but immediately had answered.
Gabe! Haven't seen him in a while!
I know right? It's good to see him, he was great in his own right (Matt obviously is great as well)
Right! I saw him and actually pointed at the screen. It's been to long.
Exactly what I thought!!!
Gabe taught me do much on this channel! Thank you Gabe
quantum tunneled from the past to the present to make a guest appearance in this video
An impressive amount of information packed into a mere 18 minutes.
I haven't got 18mins so ..what do electron do if they DO NOT Spin?
Video: “Vectors are just arrows pointing in a direction.”
My math prof: [almost gets a heart attack]
Well no, it should be your English prof or your logic prof who might appropriately 'almost get a heart attack'. In the case of the English prof the statement would be a redundancy and therefore very poor use of the language. In the case of the logic prof the statement would be a tautology. All arrows have to point in a direction; can't be otherwise (unless the arrowhead is removed, I suppose).
However, keep in mind that one discipline is not 'authorized' to take a previously defined concept and redefine it for its own purposes and claim that is the sole use of the term. This has been done. I have heard astronomers argue that Greeks 'misused' the term planets. Strange to make that claim. The English word planets is based on the Greek word (Latinized) _planetes_ which means wanderer. The Greeks were using this word quite appropriately to designate objects in the sky that moved (i.e. they were not stationary stars) but modern scientists in one of the biggest brain-farts in history and one of the greatest anachronisms ever used in logic were wrong (don't ever let an astrophysicist tell you history).
All of this brings us to what Matt said and I would say he is right and your poor Math prof would be wrong. Have a look at the following explanation of Vector (the article does point out that there is a difference in the term Vector when used in physics as opposed to mathematics. As I said, one discipline can't appropriate a definition for its own purposes and require that to be the only definition acceptable.) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclidean_vector
I also recall what I was taught (more than 50 years ago) that velocity was vectored speed. I.e., velocity has an arrow (of direction) speed doesn't.
The word vector is used for a bunch of different things depending on context. Here it was used as a short hand for "the vector representation of the rotation group".
Almost is still quantified as zero heart attacks, right? Also, I don't understand how having a heart attack would he regarded as a viable math-proof. Tell your professor to try harder next time, lol!
Yeah, science be brutal like that. Zero fraks given for feelings (aka biases), just based AF.
Why? He doesn't say anything about the dimensionality of the space. I suppose you might include that they have a magnitude as well as a direction. But assuming n-dimensions space, I think that's a fine description.
Because in the context of Euclidean geometry, they are. Though IIRC angular momentum is a pseudovector.
The Ohanian idea connecting spin to the "Dirac field" sounds enticingly intuitive for such an unintuitive realm. Would love to see an episode exploring that further!
I've been evangelizing for that for a while--Belinfante figured it out in the 1930s. Treat the Dirac (or Maxwell) field *as a field*, and you can derive an energy-momentum density corresponding to the spin that is actually swirling around in space. It just doesn't correspond to the moving matter in a spinning ball.
That's interetsing, @@MattMcIrvin. Since it works for the Maxwell Field, too, that would probably make a better SpaceTime video (to separate it from the subject of spinors).
(I think there is even a way to "derive" it nonrelativistically from the Schrödinger equation, using a slightly shady trick invented by Richard Feynman. But that is another story I want to write up in more detail someday.)
Is it the Pauli spinor version of the Schroedinger equation you're referring to, @@MattMcIrvin ?
@@bumpty9830 Yes! Consider it as a field, then canonically derive the space-time symmetrized stress-energy tensor, but interpreting the squared gradient as (grad dot sigma) squared. I *think* you get out Belinfante's spin momentum density in the nonrelativistic limit.
Feynman used essentially the same trick to derive g=2 from the gauge substitution. At least according to J. J. Sakurai, but Sakurai never gave a reference. I assume Feynman wrote it on a napkin or something.
Y’know, 90% of the time I have this channel on as background noise, but the few times I pay attention and grasp SOME of it are very satisfying.
I keep thinking "Yeah, I understand the fundamentals, you know, the basic stuff" and then PBS tosses me a new video to watch and I realize I know practically nothing.
I thought it was just me.
Dunning and Kruger, when I was young I learned about them and from them I learned to always assume myself incompetent
i feel like the QM dunning kruger graph is just an exponential decay approaching 0 on the confidence scale
I liked the computer graphics!
This was really hard to follow. I learned nothing because nothing was explained. Just a bunch of jibberish. It’s was like hearing “the reason for life is because of 42” ooookayyyy and the point?! Just threw around a bunch of words. If I had defined every word he used to explain this crap, I wouldn’t need it explained in the first place. Talking slow doesn’t help, it’s infuriating. I still never got the point. If not a spin, what is it. I’m sure someone can explain it in two sentences in plain English. I’m no by no means average learning or below but wowzers it just drones. Seek new work. Idk is it me? Should I pay real attention to this vid?
@@Wtfinc Teehehe, welcome to quantum mechanics.
You must be new to the scene, soon you should understand there are no answers... just a bunch of hypotheticals and claims.
Probably because everything flowed so nicely.
@@Wtfinc Here's my take in case it helps:
Classical spin refers to the intuitive way any ordinary object spins, like a basketball.
For everyday objects, spinning just means that particles in that object are moving in an orbit. The rubber molecules in the basketball are moving around the axis of rotation in the middle of the basketball. That movement of those rubber particles over distance means they have inertia that other objects can steal. When they comes into contact, everyday objects can transfer that inertia, or transfer that angular momentum the way gears do.
In quantum mechanics, the particles are thought to be 0-diminsional points in space (aka point particles). They have zero width or height, and take up no space.
Consequently, there is nothing orbiting anything. There is no movement over any distance we associate with spin. Even the idea of an object having "orientation" loses meaning when that object has no features that can be closer or further away.
For example, we can talk about the close side of the moon pointing away towards us, because it is the close side. If something doesn't even have a close side (or a far side), can it point in any direction?
Nonetheless, physicists say those point-particles have "spin", because those 0-dimensional particles can still impart angular momentum on stuff around them like gears.
...Skipping to the computer renders, I think of the ribbons as being the spacetime fabric being dragged around the center. This interpretation lets the fabric of space stay completely connected and continuous in all directions without tearing. I don't know if you've watched any videos on the ergosphere of a black hole, but the idea is that moving spacetime fabric will drag things along with it. Like how moving an art canvas will move whatever is painted on it.
Since those ribbons connections don't endlessly accumulate more twist as the particles continue to spin, the spacetime fabric doesn't need to stretch infinitely either. Heck, maybe the particle is just a description of the twisted knot in spacetime itself.
As for the "1/2 spin" idea, the ribbon connections are a good analogy for fermions, since both fermion particles and those ribbons only reach their initial configuration after rotating 720 degrees. (If you watch the renders closely, a 360° spin will flip the ribbons from going under or over the center.)
@@boblabla4756 far from new. I purley dislike how convoluted it was. they care only about watch time. there is no reason to talk so damn slow and add so much garbage. sorry but its the impression I get. even at 1.5x I found my self yelling for him to get to the point. at one time it sounded like he was going to make one and it never came.
Intellectually challenging but wonderfully well presented and fascinating video which has given me my first real glimpse into what spinors are about. Please let's have lots more of these.
This both makes complete sense while being utterly nonsensical… you have me hanging off the edge of my seat for the next episode. I’m fascinated!
that is quantum mechanics in a nut shell
@@Mr.Opinion
Quantum mechanics is an incomplete theory and at the rate it's going, it seems like scientists are attempting to convert it into a non-theistic religion.
Think about it, with religion you have the trust the word of scripture to be truth without being able to confirm it for yourself and with quantum mechanics you have to trust the words of scientists you don't even know as truth without having the means to test it for yourself.
@@TheZombiesAreComing
I agree that Quantum mechanics is not fully complete, just like any other theory. They are just progressively better and better stepping stones of explanation and understanding. I also agree that at times science can become quite dogmatic and therefore religious like.
As for your second point, I don't think that can hold up because there are millions of experiments that couldn't be tested for reasons of time, money, equipment, qualification, etc. Its not about faith, its about explanatory power. If your theory helps explain things that other theories can't explain, such as the behavior of subatomic particles (like electrons; which are crucial for understanding chemistry), then there is explanatory power. There are predictions made based on the theory and they seem to hold up against the tests we throw at it. Many people have tried to, but these core theories in physics are hard to falsify in any way.
@@TheZombiesAreComing I'd agree that the struggle to make testable predictions is a valid critique of cutting edge theoretical physics, *BUT* I think there is still an important gap distinguishing it from religion.
Consider how in 1930, when Wolfgang Pauli was proposing the existence of the neutrino, he said something like, "I have committed the cardinal sin of a theorist... I made a prediction which can never be tested, because this particle is so weakly interacting that it may never be seen."
We have since detected them in salt mines shielded from other kinds of cosmic radiation, create them on demand, and send them to other research stations right through the earth's crust. We can now in high confidence that roughly ~400 billion neutrinos pass through your body without interacting with it, every second.
But remember that in his day, the idea was thought unproveable. You might argue that until someone invents a test, it is not scientific, and I'd agree. However, the idea was never baseless or unjustified the way faith based religious doctrine is.
The neutrino was invented as a necessity born of mathematics. Without it, the decay of specific atomic nuclei would actually violate conservation of energy.
Similar to how energy carrying photons are emitted by atoms when electrons fall into smaller orbital shells, the release of weak force energy from decaying atoms suggested either that an unknown virtual particle carrying away miniscule amounts of energy, OR that or energy was spontaneously ceasing to exist. The latter seemed extremely unlikely for an avalanche of reasons.
Conservation of energy isn't just an arbitrary rule we've observed, it's implied by the form of the quantum Hamiltonian. Rejecting it destroys unitarity and which would result in FTL signaling. It would suddenly be inconsistent with a ton of different aspects of physics.
(Scientific understanding is like a low resolution photograph that starts blurry and keeps getting clearer. Adding resolution may change the picture in subtle ways, but adding detail to a picture of a orange cat won't suddenly change it into a purple unicorn.)
Another distinction between blind religious belief, is that the idea was not held as sacred. Scientists hold beliefs in the form of probabilities, not true/false statements. They update their beliefs, shifting them towards "more probable" or "less probable", every time they find new evidence.
Pauli did not say "this is true". If anything, was hesitant to publish his idea proposing neutrino before writing his peers to corroborate his findings asking them to scrutinize them.
Issues like modern string theory have the same problem. As we dig deeper and deeper, testing is becoming harder and harder.
But unlike a religion:
1. No idea is held as beyond scrutiny,
2. Nothing is claimed as absolutely known, and
3. The ideas that have risen to the top really do have strong reasons supporting them.
...Even if the reasoning and concepts are extremely esoteric and opaque to laymen who do not dedicate their lives to studying them for themselves.
Granted, that barrier to comprehension begets to deferring to the experts, which is a different problem. Nonetheless, there ARE always answers to the questions "why do physicists credit that idea?"
By contrast, when priests tell you what their god(s) want ("Zeus wants you to sacrifice a lamb"), there isn't a rigorous logical process for investigating what they claim to know.
@@TheZombiesAreComing you could have just said : "reading _books about recycled Zeus for jewish , written by fishermen 2000 years ago... is way easier to understand , than professional physics done through centuries of_ research"
You would sound far more honest 😂
Unapologetically obscure content presented as lay-accessible stories. Love it.
When he says, "Sounds reasonable!" We're like, "Yeah, totally!"
Lmao
Yup, don't understand why it's reasonable. Why would having a dipole moment allow split into three levels only?? :S
I recommend you the exoplanets channel
I'm glad this was broken down by showing the *_first principles_* of how it was discovered through the experiments. Tons of other videos don't even bother doing that which makes it way more confusing than it needs to be.
How about next episode: "What's Charge"
Good one.
Charge is 4.99, cash or credit?
Yes, I'd like to know.
the thing Cardi B catches
Yes yes yes yes yes
I was incredibly confused about the idea of spin in a point-sized onject, until I realized it was just a nonsense term.
Welcome to every term given to every object or phenom in physics.
It's not completely nonsense though. Quantum spin still has an effect on classical angular momentum, that's why we call it spin to begin with.
Quantum Angle might have been a better name tbh
@@cageybee7221 wouldn't "angle" imply that there is no "inertia-like state" to affect "momentum-like" circular activities?
@@letsomethingshine _quantum angular momentum_ sounds like a spell but i guess it would be even more accurate.
edit: spelling
This guy is magic. Listening to him always sends me to sleep. Never fails.
Helped me with sleep for almost a year
Dude not gonna lie, the only reason I listen to this channel is to go to sleep. it truly is magic. PBS space time has not failed to knock me out me in almost 2 years.
@@ahmadirshaid7545. Is there any other reason?
I think the true magic is that he can make me fall asleep when I need to sleep and make me super awake when I need to be super awake.
And I thought I was alone
Infinite knots within the universe, perfectly woven.
i understood everything until he started speaking :'D
okay but im still so amazed at how people can come up w such theories like i cant express how much i respect them omh
Its my goal in life to make it through an entire one of this videos, without confusion. Not there yet.
That animation broke my brain.
It's pretty incredible. All the while it's happening your mind is thinking - won't end well, won't end well, oh - it does. What did I miss - and when?
This would make a calming, hypnotic visual for babies - in the hope they can grow up to explain electron spin but non-spin to their parents.
@@debbiehenri345 I literally took 2 belts, linked them together with a clip and wedged each end in opposite doors. It took a few tries, but it is possible to turn the clip a full 720 degrees and unwind the belts; the trick to to move the first belt over, the other under. Then when going for round 2, move the first belt Under, the other Over.
So.... are you related to those crystal skulls then?
@@AmryL would you CUT IT OUT dude..youre gonna implode the universe or something, put the belt AWAY
This is why I always told my pupils "Electrons have a property that we call spin, but it's just a convenient label, so we can say that one is opposite to another."
Of course, then we had to go on and treat spin as though it meant something!
That's exactly wrong. The spin of the electron is just like the spin of a bicycle wheel, if you switch the spin of the electron it can transfer its angular momentum to the bicycle wheel. The electron is actually spinning, except it doesn't have a size.
@@annaclarafenyo8185 no, you are exactly wrong. Electrons are *not* actually spinning in a similar fashion to the bicycle wheel.
@@jmckendry84 They are exactly spinning in the manner of a bicycle wheel, except without internal moving parts. You can transfer their spin to the wheel simply by flipping a magnetic field around the (iron) bicycle wheel, which flips all the magnetic-electron spins, and sets the wheel spinning a small but measurable amount, this is the extremely famous Einstein de-Haas experiment.
The ONLY reason people don't say the electron is literally spinning is because it has no moving parts. If the spin was due to moving parts, it would have to be integer spin, not spin 1/2, and it would require superluminal speed for the parts. But aside from having no moving parts, the electron spin is exactly the same as a bicycle wheel.
@@annaclarafenyo8185 "But aside from having no moving parts, the electron spin is exactly the same as a bicycle wheel."
Understand what you're saying but surely you can see the irony with this statement as a bicycle wheel is in fact a 'moving part'.
@@TheDarkblue57 "Spin without moving parts" is very easy to understand. "Spin is magic and quantum and has no classical analog" is not only false, but highly misleading, because quantum electron spin and quantum bicycle wheel spin are the same sort of thing, the only difference appears when you look inside to see what parts are moving.
Intrinsic angular momentum, aka “spin” because when talking about something it’s just easier to use a word that doesn’t accurately describe it, unless both people know the idea behind “spin” in the context. But if people don’t understand what “spin” is they’ll think it’s actually spin. I think.
I think this happens to quite a few terms now. Like, I keep hearing people use osmosis instead of diffuse, not realising osmosis is specifically about water potential.
Don't even get me started on the colors and flavors of quarks.
@@dalefirmin5118 Well at least there they always adding in the word quark so sort of a heads up it not your normal and flavor :)
Still be nice they use totally different from normal words. At least one of the substitution fake languages that have been used in some fiction. Substitution, my term I think, is were they just assign a different sound and spelling to words in a already existing language.
16:10 "the low GRAVITATIONAL entropy MASSIVELY outWEIGHed the MATTER entropy". What a confusing choice of words 😱🤣
The most interesting part was that 720° rotation. Totally surprised!! 🙀
Loved the animations.
Yeah, I never thought it that way. Quantum physics is amazing and weird.
Yep. Last time I was that blown away I learned about the double slit experiment 15(ish?) Years ago
Everyone's cool until geometry does a triple pirouette off the handle.
When cars still had mechanical distributors you had to rotate them through 720 degrees (two rotations) to return to the original position because the engine was 4 stroke
One thing about this model stands out to me. To me, the ribbon-like structure of the connections implies that the electron itself is not point like but more like a small bar magnet. Basically a infinitesimally small dash or hyphen, spinning in the fabric of the electro-magnetic field.
Or just nothing lol,pure "bar" of information
You rock! I can imagine those long hours studying to get that level of knowledge! Chapeau bas, extremely impressed!
This was one of those breakthrough videos for me where something clicks, hard, and I make progress. God that was awesome. Thanks all involved in this vid.
Today's episode is scoring a 7.5 on the mind-blow-o-meter. Many re-watches will be required.
My next question would be - if electrons don’t “spin” in the conventional sense like we’ve been taught, then how does this quantum spin/spinner with multiple directionality reconcile with the concepts of “up spin” and “down spin” directionality?
It's still the direction of the angular momentum vector. This may not correspond to a classical rotating object but it IS angular momentum, just like that of a spinning ball--angular momentum is only conserved if you include it--and it exhibits phenomena like precession.
It's even possible to express it in terms of a circulating energy/momentum density that is a function of the electron field--this is something Belinfante figured out in the 1930s. It's just that the momentum circulates around the borders of the particle's wave packet, rather than in some sense within the particle.
@@MattMcIrvin Makes more sense now, thank you for your insights
They do spin. Its just a trick of the intellectual elites to maintain power, status and control over the masses to insist that electrons don't spin. By creating a difficulty where none exists they preserve their air of superiority over the simpleton masses who are too stupid to understand such lofty concepts. lol.
It’s to distuinguish the tipe of polarization on the magntic field
Actually up spin and down spin have no classical analogue in real world..
I didn't even understand why his arm didn't fall off.
Cause it is spinning
Try it for yourself; first the cup goes under your arm, then over your head.
Cyborg enhancement.
He just turned his wrist which oddly looked like a contortion.
It's pretty easy to do. Just practice with an empty cup and work towards keeping it pointing up.
Electrons: “I’ll try spinning, that’s a good trick!”
Now this is pod racing
I simply can't get away from Star Wars references and I love it.
joke swift like a knife, I love it
@@hyperduality2838 Duality is perhaps the _most_ fundamental of all universal properties
This is where the fun begins...
Does that mean that USB connectors are spinors?
But that leads to the pathological result that USB-C connectors are bosons!
based
@@KekusMagnus 🤣🤣🤣
Except the way to orient a USB-A cable is typically to rotate it left-right-left, so I think it needs its own special class of mathematics.
@@JasonHise64 Actually its the other way round, USB C is spin 1/2 = fermion, and the others are spin 1 = boson
Spin is a way to describe the continuous rotation of a point in space without needing to rip the space structure and then rotate, just geometrically move it in a clever way so that everything keeps connected, and in this case something rotated 360 degrees and and does not need to come back... it can keep on going, but two full turns are needed to undo the twist that a full rotation does
“Trust the science!”
“Imagine a spinning ball except it’s not a ball and it’s not spinning.”
This is what separates humans from ape-descendants. One has a future, one does not. That's evolution, baby!
@Thomas A. Anderson
Never did call him a monke, I actually think his comment is genius, but who cares what is actually said and the deeper meaning behind it, almost as if you were born to be my "Case-in-point."
Congratulations! Darwin says to look both ways before crossing a roundabout; you might be driving.
Well, without science I wouldn't be able to make this comment on the internet. So I trust science!
@@martiddy I’m not saying not to trust science. I’m saying don’t turn scientists into prophets. They are regularly wrong.
@Thomas A. Anderson Physicists are fundamentally wrong about at least one aspect of the standard model right now as we speak. Scientists are just as human as you or I and there is no such thing as a purely rational human being. They have the same biases, they are just as susceptible to pride and spite and even greed. So yes, I will mock some of the more bizarre things about the science we have right now.
"Spinors are exceptionally weird and cool." Nothing like an accurate description of a thing. I totally understand now.
Weirdos please
@@rogerfoxtrot4306 Have some spinors.
A spinor is the thing between a scalar and a vector. Higgs is scalar field, Fermions are spinor fields, Bosons are vector fields. You can also call them spin 0, 1/2 and 1 fields (from symmetry).
@@andrewfulara5584 what
@@izdotcarter A 2D object in 3D space is close enough.
Sometimes I think this channel needs a channel to explain this channel.
This is the first time I see the experiment of the iron rod rotating when exposed to a magnetic field, and it's the first time I finally understand what brought physicists to call it spin. Hours and hours of videos, and what this "angular momentum" they were talking about has been made apparent to me only now.
1/2 spin is nicely represented as a mobius strip. It shows how a particle has to traverse a mobius strip twice to be in the starting position, which isn't the case of a ball/sphere.
For a fiction novel I'm writing, a theoretical particle behaves like a mobius strip, acting as a roundabout for all other particles instead of a stoplight intersection that demands an increase in entropy. Just found it funny that the only real physics I know is research I've done to loosely justify my fake physics
Also, the Pauli exclusion principle applies to them in a loose sense, because you can't have two nested Mobius strips. If you take 2 layers of paper and try to make a Mobius strip, you just get 1 big loop. I wonder if there is any significance to this, or if it's just a coincidence. (Probably the latter.)
@@carlb.9518 that's clearly just two 1/2 spin particles compositing into a boson ;)
Spoken like a true fiction writer
@@RedNomster As in a positron-electron annihilation: 1/2 - (-1/2) = 1 = boson?
@@paulmichaelfreedman8334 as someone with zero experience in the field, i vaguely recall hearing that said boson (/bosons) would be one or more gamma ray photons
i used to be a physics phd student but left the field to do data science. this channel is a gem. instant sub
My stepbrother did the exact same thing. I was pissed because I would always pick his brain about physics stuff. Now that I have this channel and all those Stanford lectures, I don't really need to do that anyway.
@@user-otzlixr then I got a job that pays well and I dont have to work insane hours. Plus I still do a lot of math problems which I love. Honestly data science is the best career for a jaded physicist
"classically non-describably two-valuedness" is also often abbreviated as NFI2v
??
lol.
this seemed very jargony to me at first, but once i got what he meant, it was simple.
it just means it's something binary (that can have only two states), and that there just isn't anything familiar to us according to classical mechanics, that is anything like it. so we have to make something up, or just pick something that is close to the specific criteria needed that i just described (being binary)
Fascinating presentation!! What are these ‘ribbons’ that connect to Spinners? Are they a field like gravity or a manifestation of space-time?
Magnetism?
Well, the ribbons don’t actually exist. It’s a way to conceptualize or visualize how spinning it 720° (or twice) will return the electron to its original state.
That rotating cube with the ribbons on it is MESSING WITH MY BRAIN.
Who did the artwork simulation? Does it really work? Why do we use commutators and slip-rings in electrical motors?
It's not so much that they figure this out....but the guys who come up with the experiments to prove how to figure it out.....that I think are Genius
Who are you and how come you just deciphered the mistery of spin to me? That is some astonishingly piece of knowledge. Thanks for that!
@Armenias Thunk no one said he didn't. But it's not a multiple-hour college class, it's a RUclips video, so he has to leave _some_ stuff out. 🙄
"Electrons DO NOT Spin" Yes, but it is a good way help explain some of their behavior in an understandable way. Maybe it should be called electron splefle.
Now I feel my head is spinning, but checking in the mirror - it is not.
Does this mean I have a Quantum Head??
It actually means that you have a classical head.
According to Roger Penrose, yes.
i graduated with an engineering degree and this is the first time spin was actually explained, ever.
Write to your school and tell them that. You may be able to get your tuition refunded.
And yet simultaneously not explained at all.
no one knows what spin really is, hence it is not taught, the word 'spin' is simply a placeholder adjective anyways and a misnomer
An engineering degree in what exactly..there is a lot of different degrees/paths and I doubt it would be of any use in almost all of them
@@hisheighnessthesupremebeing B.S.E.E. from an ABET accredited University here. Spin was never explained.
This might be the best introductory explanation of quantum mechanics that I've ever seen. It integrated a bunch of discrete concepts that I had floating around in my brain and made them connect in a more meaningful way. Still, I find it frustrating that we haven't made more progress toward grand unification and more satisfying answers as to "why" the fundamental particles and constants have the values and properties that they do.
Actually, I think CCC is a good answer to the latter (Conformal Cyclic Cosmology). Hard to prove, but addresses that exact question.
"Just because" We live in a deterministic reality anyway. No need to worry with why, just observe what it is and enjoy life.
@@levyroth I really don't worry about why, I just want to know how gravity and the nature of the fundamental constants have escaped full understanding. That's why I put "why" in quotes.
Thanks! This was the first time that the coffee mug analogy made sense to me.
I am now convinced that PBS Space Time is basically required for an undergraduate physics degree.
To the best of my recollection, this video hit the highlights of about 1/3 of our quantum physics class (physics for engineering students).
Or the other way, an undergrad physics degree is required to watch PBS Space Time
I did my gradiate studies without knowing about this channel, but it is indeed very cool!
@@steventhrasher3495 (To the best of my recollection, this video hit the highlights of about 1/3 of our quantum physics class) In 18 minutes? wow. The whole lot in 54 mins. and no student debt.
@@bobblue_west well, obviously not in the level of detail and with feedback on the mathematics, etc. Actually working with this on paper and thinking through its implications is pretty mind-warping and time-intensive (pun points!). That said, from a conceptual level, it's an amazing presentation, and like you point out, without debt. :-)
The great Gabe as a physics high school teacher.. that made.my head spin
can someone explain how Lorentz's explanation of the Zeeman affect makes sense? Why would different magnetic field cause the energy levels to split? Before that, what does it even mean that the energy levels split? Is there like a glossary or index for all these terms because it's hard to get anything more than a surface level understanding without fully understanding all these terms
Are you referring to the fact that a "magnetic" force is just an electrostatic force under the Lorentz transform?
Energy levels splitting in a magnetic field means that, for each normally observed energy level, there emerge two energy levels in a magnetic field. You can think about this in terms of the Hamiltonian. The external magnetic field demands a new term in the Hamiltonian which can have two values, one negative and one equally positive, let's call them -M and +M, corresponding to a particle being aligned with the field or anti-aligned with the field. There is no case where M is zero if the particle can't have 0 spin. There needs to be an energy level for each unique value of the Hamiltonian, but none of the original levels E can be in the Hamiltonian with that magnetic term added, only E + M and E - M. Thus, each E "splits" into E + M and E - M.
Tl;dr the magnetic field either raises or lowers the energy of particles with non-zero spin. They can't have the same energy as they had without the magnetic field.
So electrons can occupy certain energy levels - orbits - around the nucleus. Photons emitted are at frequencies (hence energy levels) equal to the gaps between those energy levels.
The magnetic field was theorized to change the energy levels of the orbits in certain ways, depending on orientation of the orbit. Hence more distinct gaps.
that's amazing, and it highlights one of the most fundamental parts of all of science, that we are never observing the concepts in question, but their interactions with our sensors and each other
I appreciate this channel so much. Thank you for all of the hard work and wonderful explanations!
9:30 - rotating cube, and six ribbons from it going to distant fixed points. The ribbons twist and untwist. Also, the ribbons do not collide. All this happens while there are six ribbons doing this 720-degree dance.
After watching the ribbon twist dance about ten times, I wondered if we could add more ribbons. Then I saw that, immediately afterwards, you showed many more ribbons all doing the same dance, and still not touching and still not becoming entangled.
I also notice that two of the ribbons go vertically (after their initial twists close to the rotating cube). These ribbons are aligned along the axis of rotation. The other ribbons are NOT aligned along the axis of rotation. Yet, all six ribbons twist and untwist themselves correctly. This is a mind-blowing piece of geometry and I want one. I want one now. I want lots of them hanging from the ceiling of every room in my house.
Alice in Wonderland didn't have anything like this.
You may find the having not half so satisfying as the wanting.
@@jv-lk7bc ...and a psychologist enters the fray.
Luckily, I am (among other things) a mathematician, engineer and programmer, so I could indeed construct that which I desire.
The ribbons need to be elastic.. They're changing length
Spinners question: Is it the "strings" around the electron that are 'unwinding' which gives the impression of rotation? Like a heavy washer on a twisted rubber band. Its the rubber band that affects the rotation of the washer, not the washer changing the state of the band.
In this case, its the warping of space-time instead of a rubber band, the electron is the washer.
And most quantum mechanics, SpaceTime doesn't really matter. You have to get to quantum gravity for that to make any sense.
Space and time are non physical. How do non physical concepts warp?
Question your sources.
The cube rotating made me nauseous, but the sphere rotating made me so dizzy that I nearly fell off my seat! It wasn't because of watching the movement, it was because I had an internal construct in my mind's eye that replaced my gyroscope for a second 🤢