Such dedication! Your twisted arm demo is so concrete and 'immediate' that it works considerably better than the (well-known?) doubly twisted belt demo, I think.
The problem as I see it lies in our implicit assumption that the most elemental substance can itself be made of a more elemental substance. When you make this assumption, you tend to carry other contingent assumptions along with it; e.g. concepts such as volume or orientation. This error is propagated in the language that we insist on using. An electron is *not* a particle in any common sense of the word, and redefining the word "particle" to include things that are actually half cycles of waves representing energy fluctuations means that any time we try to talk or think about an electron, we're imagining little marbles in our heads; which is physically wrong.
The 720 degree rotation that you demonstrated is also known as the Dirac belt trick. I first came across it in the book “Exploring the Physics of the Unknown Universe (1994)” by physicist Milo Wolff, and again more recently in a RUclips video by PBS Spacetime hosted by Astrophysicist Matt O’Dowd. I believe it is an extremely important phenomena that is not well understood. The 720 degree rotation preserves the continuity of space for fundamental particles of a class known as fermions or spin ½ particles. Many aether theories require the connections between fundamental particles and the aether to be maintained despite the spin of the fermions, which I expect is a real rotational spin and not just some abstract quantum number. It is this aether/matter 3-D spatial connection (commonly known as the electromagnetic field), which allows for proper wave/particle duality (not particle or wave, but particle and wave). Preserving the continuity of space at the most fundamental level is required by the Principle of Least Action, and the “belt trick” is how nature does it. (See Wikipedia’s article on the anti-twister mechanism)
It's nice to hear "Stern and Gerlach" in a proper accent. I think it's important to still remain critical about the conclusions of experiments like this. Rather than just stating the conclusion I would rather describe the experiment and then the conclusion that was made. Their experiment sent silver atoms - a structure of 47 protons, 60/62 neutrons and 47 electrons, through a magnetic field that is more intense towards one pole and weaker or more spread out at the other pole. They found that these silver atoms are 50% attracted towards the stronger magnetic filed and 50% attracted towards the weaker field. They concluded that this was caused by the spin property of the single unpaired electron in the atoms, causing them to align parallel or antiparallel with the field. In terms of 3d rotations, quaternions obviously have the ability to represent the orientation of particles through a 720 degree rotation, but better yet, they can be used in a continuous field to describe twists and knots in space which could represent particles for aether theories.
Thanks for adding this... well I am with you. Always describe the phenomenon precisely, without any assumptions. Maybe I should have done this. To my understanding, the special setting does not change the result, but I may be mistaken. Btw, I'd be interested to discuss further twists, knots, and topological defects in quaternions. Please contact me via ChannelInfo->Email.
You are absolutely correct. I have tried to post a similar note with link to another interpretation, but this post was blocked, I don't know by whom. Anyway, the spin problem is an example of general problem in many fields of science, when quite speculative interpretation of data with time becoming accepted as indisputable fact, without any evaluation of the exact experimental setup. Spin was needed as quantum number for quantum theory and this is the reason why "Stern and Gerlach" experiment was interpreted as detection of electron spin. It is very, very speculative and week experimental evidence of electron spin. From my point of view there is no spin, not for electron not for any particle.
@@TheMachian The Otto Stern experiment (known as the Stern-Gerlach experiment) was pivotal in showing the wave aspect of matter. Stern devised his molecular beam experiments using a variety of substances, but the one that was made famous used a beam of silver atoms. The experiments are beautifully described in the book “Great Scientific Experiments” by Rom Harre, and even includes an original photograph of the separation of the beams by Walter Gerlach.
What I don't understand (among other things) about the Stern Gerlach experiment is that the electrons split into two bands, those "up" and those "down", but they are always relative to the alignment of the magnet. So even if they were randomly aligned before entering the field, if we assumed they immediately become aligned on entering the field, then we'd get the same result.
if they are randomly aligned before entering the field then it is so. BUT after the measurement they are not randomly aligned any more, even if they were before.
@@sokoeuler236 I am having the same problem. Is there experimental evidence that the measurement itself is not the one aligning those spins into the most extreme positions of up and down?
Spin arises from the fact that the wave propagation that comprises matter is not spherical, but rather is looped into a torus, which is both rotating and everting at a ratio of 1:2. It has two axes (major and minor), so it takes two rotations for the wave to return to where it started.
Interesting demonstration postulation. Spin the book -2pi in our hand non slip under our shoulder caused our arm rotated CCW by -2pi. Repeat same book again in -2pi except this time passing above our shoulder caused our arm rotated CW by +2pi. In combined the book has accumulated 2 times -2pi rotation and our arm has accumulated +/-2pi. Is that a mechanical relationship? Resting on what path the suspension went through, passing either above or below our shoulder?
If you measure spin about one axis it is either spin up or spin down. If you remeasure it about that axis it will be either up or down in agreement with the previous measurement, so you now have knowledge of the spin. If you measure about a perpendicular axis it is random either way again. If you then remeasure about the first axis it is random yet again. You can know the spin about one axis at a time, but not about any perpendicular axis. This is an epistemological interpretation of quantum mechanics. We don't have any matching ontological interpretation, but we may not need one since spin is an ensemble-level property. If you fire a beam of spin up particles into a piece of lead hanging on a thread, then the lead starts to rotate. Spin is real angular momentum and not just a mathematical game. Not sure that this video explains anything new. Hope your arm is OK.
I find it interesting that the idea of spin at the atomic (electron) level is completely disconnected from the right hand rule of planetary and star rotation. The Coriolis Effect comes to mind. When draining towards our local counterspace (the condensed matter, superconducting, solid state core of the Earth), fluids obey a clockwise rotation in reference to the north pole of the magnetic field. On the side of the south pole of the field, the direction of flow reverses. The elegant simplicity of a fractal universe explains the same behavior of electrons in reference to a magnetic field at all scales.
Spin can be seen as differing from rotation simple in that spin can be seen as tethered rotation. It can be seen as living in S3, but it doesn't fill S3. The use of S3 is just to admit an account of tethering. I guess that the tethers are electric field lines, tethering the electron to something in its surroundings, presumably a nearby proton?
I have a slight problem. Is it true that we have no experimental observation of spin for free electrons? I cannot find it in the literature though there are mentions that it has not been done yet, but then again I did not search a lot. And if spin cannot be experimentally measured in fast charged particles how do we even know the spin of the Particle soup from particle colliders other than basic math of an assumption?
Suggested experiment: Manufacture two types of spherical electrets. Spin the negative spheres like tops near a stationary positive one. See what happens. This could be done in the ISS to eliminate most of the gravity.
Good physical explanation and the S3 sphere geometry certainly is intriguing... I still don't see how science can measure the magnetic field direction of a tiny magnet (particle) in a large magnetic field and NOT expect the tiny particle to align to it. It's what magnetism does. Also, the particles are always travelling at speed compared to their surroundings in these experiments.
Tiny magnets would align into one and only one position according to the measurement magnet. In this case we get two positions that show a differing deflection by that magnetic field.
@@dragoscoco2173 .. The way I see it is if you fired a magnet dead centre between two magnets with fields in the same direction or repelling each other the tiny differences in launch trajectory and tiny mass of the electron being perturbed by quantum vacuum energy it is going to be pulled slightly more by one magnet or the other, following a curved path to the detector. Many runs would create two blurred dots in equal numbers, or some bias if there is some erroneous setup bias.
Perhaps a quantum effect regarding the electron? Spin up/down? Electromagnetic waves can have all kinds of orientations, though the electric and the magnetic field of a radio wave transmitted in the air or in a vacuum differ in a kind of fixed way, while coming out of the same source. Anyway, thanks for the video.
A pedagogical explanation of the spinor (that describe spin 1/2) is given in my very short article on ResearchGate _What is a Spinor_ [Claude Pierre Massé].
Yes this is the same idea as diracs belt trick. What you dont know( yet) is that every electron is toroidally connected to another (elsewhere ) electron. ( electrons lower their magnetic field potential energy by this process ' which is why they.prefer to pair or entangle their spins. The toroidal connection is the physical analogue of the belt - this gives you the physicality / meaning you are chasing.
A whirl in a liquid or gas (or even in a pulled iron rod) automatically gets a spin in one of two possible directions (for known reasons), as long as there is a driving force keeping the whirl moving. I guess Huygen's ether theory will be back, one day.
I have been studying spin (indirectly) of photons and (directly) of phonons induced by photons and observe the strict application of the exclusion principal based on spin; cannot have same spin in both time and space simultaneously, but only in different time frame or space. After I get more data, I will send to you.
@@TheMachian haha ;) still.. Invention is not the product of logical thought -Albert Einstein (..even though the final product is tied to a logical structure.) Someone try a waterbucket with a closed lid and throw a picture of a cat that is/isnt uncertain if s/he likes watered biographies in there?
@@TheMachian If you would be interested enough to look into it, I would very much like to hear your take on his theory. Regardless, it is nice to see people going against the mainstream dogmatic thinking so pervasive in this day and age. I enjoy your channel very much. Keep up the great work and I look forward to your new "Unsolved Mysteries" video series. Herzlichen Glückwunsch!
I had a look to Bill Gaede. Thanks for mentioning. Incidentally, the word "rope" took my attention. Why? If our arm was constructed in such a way that we had not two but three points around which it can bend how many states of possible rotation could exist, instead of two? I find it an interesting problem for thinking about. Perhaps we that would be in analogy with spin > 1/2 ?
@@AroundPhysics You are quite welcome. I am glad to turn more people onto Gaede. His type of outside-the-box thinking is what physics needs. Regarding his "ropes", Gaede theorizes all atoms are interconnected via invisible structures which can clearly be seen when looking at how iron filings react to magnets, forming one continuous "rope" connecting all matter in the universe, from the micro to the macro. He goes into much detail regarding "torque" and how this creates heat/light/energy. I find the most interesting concept he's put forth is how these "ropes" condense into "cables" in the areas between galaxies, as evident when looking at cosmic dust and the superstructures they form, allowing for >light-speed intergalactic travel. Brilliant stuff, regardless of whether or not he is correct.
I don't have a higher education, however I do have a curious nature. I have been looking into the #electricuniverse model, and it seems to me that spin is an intrinsic property of matter, as all matter is electromagnetic. It comes from the spin of field aligned currents, as shown in plasma physics experiments and observations. As we know, the electromagnetic effect can scale from the macroscopic down to the subatomic level. I know this may sound far too simple, but the universe does what it does without supercomputers.
Many people with so-called higher education in physics are just parroting nonsense... however, regarding the electric universe, I think many things remain to be explained.
Wieder ein gutes Video, danke. Nach 100 Jahren muss man der Wahrheit ins Auge sehen und feststellen, dass sich die Physik als Wissenschaft in einer Sackgasse befindet. Das entschiedene an dem was Sie sagen sind nicht so sehr Ihre Lösungsansätze, die zwar interessant sind bei denen man aber unterschiedlicher Meinung sein kann, sondern Ihre berechtigte Kritik und das Zeigen der Schwachstellen im verkrusteten Elfenbeinturm der heutigen Physik. Ich glaube wir haben hier zunehmend mit einem soziologischen Problem zu tun, in dem das Geld eine nicht zu unterschätzende Rolle spielt.
What I don't understand about some of the explanations of spin is that most of the time it is referred to 'up' and 'down' spins when talking about electrons. But Einstein proved that there is no universal reference frame and no universal direction, everything is relevant to the observer. If you were in a room and a group of people observed electrons to be spinning up or down, somewhere else on the globe or on a different planet if someone was standing perpendicular relative to them- that person would be viewing the electrons to be 'right' or 'left' in their spin. The take away though, is that the electrons spin in opposite directions of each other imo
But what it could also mean is that there is an up/down, left/right, and in/out depending upon your orientation to the electron. However, these directions are only located in one place or plane per pair of directions, SO could this possible mean there is a universal axis?
It is indeed a mystery when obsolete physical assumptions are kept. Spin is not the same thing as intrinsic rotation, which is described properly in quantum mechanics only for composite systems, and is integral. Angular momentum and spin are both Noether conserved quantities associated to rotation of space (passive rotation,) and not rotation of the object (active rotation). Then according to the representation of rotation group, it is either integral or half integral. The spin representation has been discovered by Élie Cartan, and is well understood now. But is it not a representation of SO(3), but of its double cover SU(2).
If you say that spin is well understood and there is nothing left to explain, I heavily disagree. You are right that angular momentum conservation is related to rotations via the Noether theorem, but I cannot see a corresponding symmetry related to spin.
@@TheMachian The Dirac Lagrangian is invariant by space rotation, and the corresponding Noether current is the spin 1/2. The spin operators are elements of the Dirac algebra. The Dirac spinor has a similar 4π periodicity because it possesses several components.
I don't think this provides any additional insight. Eyeryone can see the rotation symmetry. But introducing a "current" just means that one wants to apply forcefully a formalism which is useful elsewhere. As mentioned and more elaborated in my book "The mathematical reality" (I can send you a copy), the Dirac algebra does not explain the very nature of spin. Thus let's close here, we might agree to disagree.
Why do we need screwdrivers and knitting needles ? In order to connect . Why 2 x spin ? Because as you showed us yourself : the first spin mooves the space around your hand, the second the space around your arm. In order to keep nature in balance, there need to be a connection between the inner space and the outer space. Difficult to explain how I see the world, but hopefully you kind of get my picture. I guess I understand the world in an old way, like yinyang ,Yggdrasil (the tree of life) or other old pictures of understanding.
enjoyed and liked. this arm movement need to go "viral" - btw when i point a lever upwards to it's instable resting point, then it can either fall fully to the left or right, not to the in-between positions - thats how i understood SternGerlach in school.
@@kasel1979krettnach In a weaker magnetic field splitting will become smaller and smaller. Finally one will not be able to distinguish two separate states.
Long before Bohr postulated his planetary atom model Wilhelm Weber mathematically derived a formula for a planetary model of the atom with a negative charge orbiting a positive charge, as well as unify Coulomb and Ampere in his Electrodynamic equations, which have gone pretty well unnoticed through the darkness of the 20th century. Though apparently many plasma physicists are now finding renewed interest in his work. This "spin" for the electron is not an observed phenom, but one interpreted or assumed after the fact to make the model work. "Only after the suggestion of electron spin, did the Stern-Gerlach result confirm the new theory." Spin also allows for the dynamo model of magnetism. What are electric "field lines"? Usually represented 2D as an outward pointing arrow for a proton and an inward pointing arrow for an electron. Trying to visualize this in 3D is one thing, but visualizing it with spin, wow, that is something else. But more importantly, what is flowing between the two? It also seems somewhat incredulous that one tiny electron can make such a difference when you consider the totality of the atom. Reading about Weber's Electrodynamics now translated by Assis.
I knew Weber was the first, and I also know Andre Torre de Assis who does excellent work on Weber's electrodynamics and other matters. You are asking the right questions. I agree insofar, as we have to restrict ourselves to precisely describing the phenomenon without any additional assumptions.
@@TheMachian Thank you. Being a 61 year old self-educated high school dropout constantly riddled with self-doubt, your assurance that I am asking the right questions is very appreciated. While I am neither a scientist or a mathematician, though I do think of myself as a Natural Philosopher. I have learned a great deal through your videos and always find them great fodder for thought. Keep up the good work.
We need to look at particles in a new way. We need to discover a new mechanism. Quantum mechanics works because it predicts but it does not give answers to profound questions by saying that the questions are wrong. The bits and pieces of the jigsaw puzzle are confusing because we are yet to understand the fundamental principles of nature.
@@TheMachian The spin of the electron wasn't known at that time, they investigated the orbital angular momentum. Both have similar quantum behavior though. The Einstein-de Haas experiment exhibited a strange 1/2 factor between the angular momentum and the magnetic moment. But the spin of the electron has been discovered by Goudsmit (the editor of physical Review) and Uhlenbeck only in 1925, with a strong opposition of Pauli.
You are correct. The Stern-Gerlach experiments are beautifully described in the book “Great Scientific Experiments” by Rom Harre. The chapter includes an original photograph of the separation of the beams by Walter Gerlach, that is not commonly shown.
Why not do a video on fractional charge, which is something I find hard to believe. No particle with fractional charge has ever been isolated, all particles which can be directly measured have the same charge as an electron or multiples thereof. Neutral particles like the neutron have two full electron charges of opposite sign which cancel each other out. Why do neutrinos have mass but no charge, and do they really have mass? I doubt it. Theory suggests they ought to, but no experiment has directly detected it. If it exists at all it is vanishingly small, in contrast to all other particles with mass.
Maybe you should have added that the picture of an electron as a homogeneous sphere rotating about its axis - the rotation is the spin - is inconsistent with the experimental data of the size of the electron. Such an electron would be much larger than the experimental upper boundary for the size of the electron. Indeed, the mainstream believes that the electron is a point like particle, which cannot have any spin in the literal sense whatsoever. Nevertheless, this electron is supposed to have a quantum mechanical Spin and a magnetic momentum. But, a magnetic field presupposes a moving electrical charge according to Maxwell's equations. Thus, the magnetic moment of the electron at rest appears to violate Maxwell's equations. Well, its QM is the answer to this problem. The quantum mechanical spin is a complete mystery because the quantum mechanical duck looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, but its not a duck. This is the mainstream view. Yes, you can somehow derive the QM Pauli matrices from the Dirac equation by fiddeling around with the math. The Pauli matrices are already present in a disguised form in the dirac equation. My hunch is that the spin and magnetic moment of the electron point to the fact that the electron is not a fundamental particle. The electron has an inner structure and the spin and magnetic moment of the electron are a result of this structure. But, I may be wrong of course.
You are assuming that all particles are connected. I am assuming that only the smallest particle has no spin. We might both be wrong:) Great video Thumbs up from me.
Look at a pendulum. It also goes through half Spin. We call it oscillation. Since physicists fail to explain it mathematically, subatomic spin is beyond their comprehension. I know what it's.
Could you please explain why according to your opinion 1) the unification of special relativity and quantum mechanics does not exist and 2) why (according to you) spin doesn‘t follow from the Dirac equation? Both things are plain wrong in my opinion.
1) Sorry, you are making the claim, you have to explain why it exists. 2) the DE leads to an algebra that describes spin. But it does not explain the necessity behind. In my view, it is rather the double cover of SO(3), namely SU(2) that is the deeper reason for the very existence of spin.
The only way to establish a wave equation where a) the plane wave solutions fulfil the relativistic dispersion relation b) leads to non-negative probabilities and c) is Lorentz covariant is to replace the wave function Psi by a spinor. This naturally leads to Spin! Spin is a consequence of these 3 very simple conditions and it is necessary because of that. Why do you say it doesn‘t explain the necessity of spin? What do you want more? I don‘t get this
@@TheMachian The Clifford group is the double cover of a rotation group, it is a quite general mathematical fact that has nothing to do with a wave equation. There are wave equations for scalars and for vectors, Dirac bumped by change on the one that describes the physical electron, besides through a wrong reasoning.
@@tensortrain1621 It's amazing how you start with a very restricted idea, narrow it down still further by conditions coming from nowhere, and then claim that it is the only possibility. If physics was the conclusion of a prescribed logical chain, it would be finished a long time ago.
Not sure what you are talking about. Don’t know if there is another way of doing it and if it actually matters. People have tried for a long time (actually Schrödinger was the first one who tried it) to take the square root of the Klein-Gordon equation and failed. Dirac found an elegant solution by introducing a multi-component wave function (a Spinor) which gives rise to spin. All I‘m saying is that the Spin naturally arises from the Dirac equation. Learn the Dirac equation and see it by yourself.
Well it doesn't seem so being everyone's at a dead end. Maybe rethink or somebody could start from scratch and solve the loss of masses reality. Maybe ask the guy that came up with levitating magnets by freezing without physically doing it. I doubt you'll find him out freezing someplace. But then cold is relative.
This short video claims the up/down is just a threshold consequence of the experiment's setup. ruclips.net/video/PH1FbkLVJU4/видео.html You can see the original 1922 image which shows that atoms at the edges lose the up/down effect, because they didn't go through the middle of the magnetic field.
It is the belt trick. I don't see the confusion. Maybe these videos are not for people with a broad math background like yours. Since you have commented several times, I'd appreciate if you contact me via ChannelInfo-> Email. I don't mind if we have some different viewpoints.
@@TheMachian No, this (plate) trick is only a rotation of 2π one way, and 2π the opposite way. This doesn't show because the axis have been surreptitiously rotated too. Even the mathematicians are confused. The real belt trick is much more spectacular. Check belt trick on wikipedia.
If you consider there is nothing that pulls in this infinite universe, this step back makes a clear solution. Electron neutrinos being hydraulically superior cause progressive kinetics of all particle masses most from the smallest of 3 poles, matter being the 3rd which is why it only explodes and implodes to a fano plane. E=Mc2 can also be applied to kinetic space since it's fixed positions are only based on interlocking flow vortex centers, ie; intersections of En flow between the largest to format space, bosons. This is done very easily by lining up 3 spheres within a 4th sphere. The relative geometry gives you the same 8 fold system system that you would get in a cube when comparing a 90ﾟ section of arc to the rest of the cube. This means the energy is that which does not interlock but flows in opposition to to something frozen only due to rotation interlocking. Now you should understand why elementary particles and even planets are releven planets are relative to one another in mass based on simple foundations of 2 × 3 times et cetera. That is because it is all a continued fractal. A kinetic holograph.
A "Theory of Limit" QM-TIME hyperfluid Completeness cause-effect Actuality, makes e-Pi-i sync-duration omnidirectional-dimensional connectivity function of 1-0-infinity probability, an absolute fractal Reciproction-recirculation superposition unity-singularity, a spin-spiral logarithmic temporal substantiation of superimposed phase-locked coherence-cohesion objectives, ..at Absolute Zero containment. Ie Fluxion Integration @.dt instantaneously. This defines Superspin-spiral closure as much as it's possible to make No-thing Singularity positioning fit some sort of perceived paradox 3D-T pure-mathmotion-potential system of categorization, ilusions of relative-timing symbolic functions, and that is self-defining timing of sync-duration bubble-modes of Temporal Spinfoam Totality. The ultimate Conception of real-time Entanglement.
Spin up/down is not unsolved just unevolved. The solution I presented on the web in 96 with general unification copyrighted 2003, 2016. The 270m Ice Cube evidence vindicated my theory "progressive kinetics'. I've been moving my videos to Rumble under the same name.
Such dedication! Your twisted arm demo is so concrete and 'immediate' that it works considerably better than the (well-known?) doubly twisted belt demo, I think.
The problem as I see it lies in our implicit assumption that the most elemental substance can itself be made of a more elemental substance. When you make this assumption, you tend to carry other contingent assumptions along with it; e.g. concepts such as volume or orientation. This error is propagated in the language that we insist on using. An electron is *not* a particle in any common sense of the word, and redefining the word "particle" to include things that are actually half cycles of waves representing energy fluctuations means that any time we try to talk or think about an electron, we're imagining little marbles in our heads; which is physically wrong.
100% agree. Materialism/Atomism is in fashion these days.
The 720 degree rotation that you demonstrated is also known as the Dirac belt trick. I first came across it in the book “Exploring the Physics of the Unknown Universe (1994)” by physicist Milo Wolff, and again more recently in a RUclips video by PBS Spacetime hosted by Astrophysicist Matt O’Dowd. I believe it is an extremely important phenomena that is not well understood. The 720 degree rotation preserves the continuity of space for fundamental particles of a class known as fermions or spin ½ particles. Many aether theories require the connections between fundamental particles and the aether to be maintained despite the spin of the fermions, which I expect is a real rotational spin and not just some abstract quantum number. It is this aether/matter 3-D spatial connection (commonly known as the electromagnetic field), which allows for proper wave/particle duality (not particle or wave, but particle and wave). Preserving the continuity of space at the most fundamental level is required by the Principle of Least Action, and the “belt trick” is how nature does it. (See Wikipedia’s article on the anti-twister mechanism)
It's nice to hear "Stern and Gerlach" in a proper accent. I think it's important to still remain critical about the conclusions of experiments like this. Rather than just stating the conclusion I would rather describe the experiment and then the conclusion that was made. Their experiment sent silver atoms - a structure of 47 protons, 60/62 neutrons and 47 electrons, through a magnetic field that is more intense towards one pole and weaker or more spread out at the other pole. They found that these silver atoms are 50% attracted towards the stronger magnetic filed and 50% attracted towards the weaker field. They concluded that this was caused by the spin property of the single unpaired electron in the atoms, causing them to align parallel or antiparallel with the field.
In terms of 3d rotations, quaternions obviously have the ability to represent the orientation of particles through a 720 degree rotation, but better yet, they can be used in a continuous field to describe twists and knots in space which could represent particles for aether theories.
Thank you, you saved me having to look the experiment up. I am also dubious about this conclusion.
Thanks for adding this... well I am with you. Always describe the phenomenon precisely, without any assumptions. Maybe I should have done this. To my understanding, the special setting does not change the result, but I may be mistaken. Btw, I'd be interested to discuss further twists, knots, and topological defects in quaternions. Please contact me via ChannelInfo->Email.
You are absolutely correct. I have tried to post a similar note with link to another interpretation, but this post was blocked, I don't know by whom. Anyway, the spin problem is an example of general problem in many fields of science, when quite speculative interpretation of data with time becoming accepted as indisputable fact, without any evaluation of the exact experimental setup. Spin was needed as quantum number for quantum theory and this is the reason why "Stern and Gerlach" experiment was interpreted as detection of electron spin. It is very, very speculative and week experimental evidence of electron spin. From my point of view there is no spin, not for electron not for any particle.
@@TheMachian The Otto Stern experiment (known as the Stern-Gerlach experiment) was pivotal in showing the wave aspect of matter. Stern devised his molecular beam experiments using a variety of substances, but the one that was made famous used a beam of silver atoms. The experiments are beautifully described in the book “Great Scientific Experiments” by Rom Harre, and even includes an original photograph of the separation of the beams by Walter Gerlach.
What I don't understand (among other things) about the Stern Gerlach experiment is that the electrons split into two bands, those "up" and those "down", but they are always relative to the alignment of the magnet. So even if they were randomly aligned before entering the field, if we assumed they immediately become aligned on entering the field, then we'd get the same result.
if they are randomly aligned before entering the field then it is so. BUT after the measurement they are not randomly aligned any more, even if they were before.
@@sokoeuler236 I am having the same problem. Is there experimental evidence that the measurement itself is not the one aligning those spins into the most extreme positions of up and down?
Spin arises from the fact that the wave propagation that comprises matter is not spherical, but rather is looped into a torus, which is both rotating and everting at a ratio of 1:2. It has two axes (major and minor), so it takes two rotations for the wave to return to where it started.
Your winding and unwinding of the book is an explanation of a wave function.
Interesting demonstration postulation.
Spin the book -2pi in our hand non slip under our shoulder caused our arm rotated CCW by -2pi. Repeat same book again in -2pi except this time passing above our shoulder caused our arm rotated CW by +2pi. In combined the book has accumulated 2 times -2pi rotation and our arm has accumulated +/-2pi. Is that a mechanical relationship? Resting on what path the suspension went through, passing either above or below our shoulder?
If you measure spin about one axis it is either spin up or spin down. If you remeasure it about that axis it will be either up or down in agreement with the previous measurement, so you now have knowledge of the spin. If you measure about a perpendicular axis it is random either way again. If you then remeasure about the first axis it is random yet again. You can know the spin about one axis at a time, but not about any perpendicular axis. This is an epistemological interpretation of quantum mechanics. We don't have any matching ontological interpretation, but we may not need one since spin is an ensemble-level property.
If you fire a beam of spin up particles into a piece of lead hanging on a thread, then the lead starts to rotate. Spin is real angular momentum and not just a mathematical game.
Not sure that this video explains anything new. Hope your arm is OK.
spectacular scenery...
I find it interesting that the idea of spin at the atomic (electron) level is completely disconnected from the right hand rule of planetary and star rotation. The Coriolis Effect comes to mind. When draining towards our local counterspace (the condensed matter, superconducting, solid state core of the Earth), fluids obey a clockwise rotation in reference to the north pole of the magnetic field. On the side of the south pole of the field, the direction of flow reverses. The elegant simplicity of a fractal universe explains the same behavior of electrons in reference to a magnetic field at all scales.
Spin can be seen as differing from rotation simple in that spin can be seen as tethered rotation. It can be seen as living in S3, but it doesn't fill S3. The use of S3 is just to admit an account of tethering. I guess that the tethers are electric field lines, tethering the electron to something in its surroundings, presumably a nearby proton?
I have a slight problem. Is it true that we have no experimental observation of spin for free electrons? I cannot find it in the literature though there are mentions that it has not been done yet, but then again I did not search a lot. And if spin cannot be experimentally measured in fast charged particles how do we even know the spin of the Particle soup from particle colliders other than basic math of an assumption?
Suggested experiment:
Manufacture two types of spherical electrets. Spin the negative spheres like tops near a stationary positive one. See what happens. This could be done in the ISS to eliminate most of the gravity.
explanations are appreciated along with the questions considering that most of us aren't even aware of the questions in the first place :)
Good physical explanation and the S3 sphere geometry certainly is intriguing... I still don't see how science can measure the magnetic field direction of a tiny magnet (particle) in a large magnetic field and NOT expect the tiny particle to align to it. It's what magnetism does. Also, the particles are always travelling at speed compared to their surroundings in these experiments.
Tiny magnets would align into one and only one position according to the measurement magnet. In this case we get two positions that show a differing deflection by that magnetic field.
@@dragoscoco2173 .. The way I see it is if you fired a magnet dead centre between two magnets with fields in the same direction or repelling each other the tiny differences in launch trajectory and tiny mass of the electron being perturbed by quantum vacuum energy it is going to be pulled slightly more by one magnet or the other, following a curved path to the detector. Many runs would create two blurred dots in equal numbers, or some bias if there is some erroneous setup bias.
Nice view!
Perhaps a quantum effect regarding the electron? Spin up/down? Electromagnetic waves can have all kinds of orientations, though the electric and the magnetic field of a radio wave transmitted in the air or in a vacuum differ in a kind of fixed way, while coming out of the same source. Anyway, thanks for the video.
A pedagogical explanation of the spinor (that describe spin 1/2) is given in my very short article on ResearchGate _What is a Spinor_ [Claude Pierre Massé].
Probably has something to do with why things spin counterclockwise or clockwise as waves through space.
Yes this is the same idea as diracs belt trick. What you dont know( yet) is that every electron is toroidally connected to another (elsewhere ) electron. ( electrons lower their magnetic field potential energy by this process ' which is why they.prefer to pair or entangle their spins.
The toroidal connection is the physical analogue of the belt - this gives you the physicality / meaning you are chasing.
A whirl in a liquid or gas (or even in a pulled iron rod) automatically gets a spin in one of two possible directions (for known reasons), as long as there is a driving force keeping the whirl moving. I guess Huygen's ether theory will be back, one day.
Where is that place behind you ?
I have been studying spin (indirectly) of photons and (directly) of phonons induced by photons and observe the strict application of the exclusion principal based on spin; cannot have same spin in both time and space simultaneously, but only in different time frame or space. After I get more data, I will send to you.
is there a possibility that by measuring an electron you are inherintly polarising it to up/down?
Measuring does something with the electron, yes.
Does putting the book in a bucket of water and rotating the bucket result in the same description as your arm?
I never put books into a bucket filled water... even less a Heisenberg biography :-)
@@TheMachian Passengers has the pool scene.
@@TheMachian haha ;)
still..
Invention is not the product of logical thought
-Albert Einstein
(..even though the final product is tied to a logical structure.)
Someone try a waterbucket with a closed lid and throw a picture of a cat that
is/isnt uncertain if s/he likes watered biographies in there?
Can you measure a spin in the direction of the movement? :-D
Surprised no mention of Dirac’s belt trick
This is the belt trick... but maybe i should have mentioned it.
This demonstration has reminded me of Bill Gaede's "Rope Theory". Are you familiar? Thoughts?
I know Bill Geade, yet not his rope theory. I guess it is a similar observation.
@@TheMachian If you would be interested enough to look into it, I would very much like to hear your take on his theory. Regardless, it is nice to see people going against the mainstream dogmatic thinking so pervasive in this day and age. I enjoy your channel very much. Keep up the great work and I look forward to your new "Unsolved Mysteries" video series. Herzlichen Glückwunsch!
I had a look to Bill Gaede. Thanks for mentioning. Incidentally, the word "rope" took my attention. Why? If our arm was constructed in such a way that we had not two but three points around which it can bend how many states of possible rotation could exist, instead of two? I find it an interesting problem for thinking about. Perhaps we that would be in analogy with spin > 1/2 ?
@@AroundPhysics You are quite welcome. I am glad to turn more people onto Gaede. His type of outside-the-box thinking is what physics needs. Regarding his "ropes", Gaede theorizes all atoms are interconnected via invisible structures which can clearly be seen when looking at how iron filings react to magnets, forming one continuous "rope" connecting all matter in the universe, from the micro to the macro. He goes into much detail regarding "torque" and how this creates heat/light/energy. I find the most interesting concept he's put forth is how these "ropes" condense into "cables" in the areas between galaxies, as evident when looking at cosmic dust and the superstructures they form, allowing for >light-speed intergalactic travel. Brilliant stuff, regardless of whether or not he is correct.
For fun, see: Twistor Demonstration in Realspace
I don't have a higher education, however I do have a curious nature. I have been looking into the #electricuniverse model, and it seems to me that spin is an intrinsic property of matter, as all matter is electromagnetic. It comes from the spin of field aligned currents, as shown in plasma physics experiments and observations. As we know, the electromagnetic effect can scale from the macroscopic down to the subatomic level. I know this may sound far too simple, but the universe does what it does without supercomputers.
Many people with so-called higher education in physics are just parroting nonsense... however, regarding the electric universe, I think many things remain to be explained.
“The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon for answers.
@@TheMachian like what? If you are going to dismantle the consensus model, why not dismantle a promising alternative as well?
Wieder ein gutes Video, danke. Nach 100 Jahren muss man der Wahrheit ins Auge sehen und feststellen, dass sich die Physik als Wissenschaft in einer Sackgasse befindet. Das entschiedene an dem was Sie sagen sind nicht so sehr Ihre Lösungsansätze, die zwar interessant sind bei denen man aber unterschiedlicher Meinung sein kann, sondern Ihre berechtigte Kritik und das Zeigen der Schwachstellen im verkrusteten Elfenbeinturm der heutigen Physik. Ich glaube wir haben hier zunehmend mit einem soziologischen Problem zu tun, in dem das Geld eine nicht zu unterschätzende Rolle spielt.
What I don't understand about some of the explanations of spin is that most of the time it is referred to 'up' and 'down' spins when talking about electrons. But Einstein proved that there is no universal reference frame and no universal direction, everything is relevant to the observer. If you were in a room and a group of people observed electrons to be spinning up or down, somewhere else on the globe or on a different planet if someone was standing perpendicular relative to them- that person would be viewing the electrons to be 'right' or 'left' in their spin. The take away though, is that the electrons spin in opposite directions of each other imo
You are right in principle, but you may define spin relative to each other as well. That does not change much.
But what it could also mean is that there is an up/down, left/right, and in/out depending upon your orientation to the electron. However, these directions are only located in one place or plane per pair of directions, SO could this possible mean there is a universal axis?
@@TheMachian Thank you for the reply!
It is indeed a mystery when obsolete physical assumptions are kept. Spin is not the same thing as intrinsic rotation, which is described properly in quantum mechanics only for composite systems, and is integral. Angular momentum and spin are both Noether conserved quantities associated to rotation of space (passive rotation,) and not rotation of the object (active rotation). Then according to the representation of rotation group, it is either integral or half integral. The spin representation has been discovered by Élie Cartan, and is well understood now. But is it not a representation of SO(3), but of its double cover SU(2).
If you say that spin is well understood and there is nothing left to explain, I heavily disagree. You are right that angular momentum conservation is related to rotations via the Noether theorem, but I cannot see a corresponding symmetry related to spin.
@@TheMachian The Dirac Lagrangian is invariant by space rotation, and the corresponding Noether current is the spin 1/2. The spin operators are elements of the Dirac algebra. The Dirac spinor has a similar 4π periodicity because it possesses several components.
I don't think this provides any additional insight. Eyeryone can see the rotation symmetry. But introducing a "current" just means that one wants to apply forcefully a formalism which is useful elsewhere. As mentioned and more elaborated in my book "The mathematical reality" (I can send you a copy), the Dirac algebra does not explain the very nature of spin. Thus let's close here, we might agree to disagree.
Why are free electrons not spin up down aligned due to earths magnetic field from their source already?
The 720 degree of rotation is also known as spinsors in mathematics
Yes, I did enjoy the video and thank you, sir, for enriching my knowledge.
Glad you enjoyed it
Why do we need screwdrivers and knitting needles ? In order to connect . Why 2 x spin ? Because as you showed us yourself : the first spin mooves the space around your hand, the second the space around your arm. In order to keep nature in balance, there need to be a connection between the inner space and the outer space. Difficult to explain how I see the world, but hopefully you kind of get my picture. I guess I understand the world in an old way, like yinyang ,Yggdrasil (the tree of life) or other old pictures of understanding.
enjoyed and liked. this arm movement need to go "viral" - btw when i point a lever upwards to it's instable resting point, then it can either fall fully to the left or right, not to the in-between positions - thats how i understood SternGerlach in school.
I would rather say the lever is "conventional" symmetry breaking - spin is still another thing.
@@TheMachian they should redo it with a weaker and weaker magnetic field
@@kasel1979krettnach In a weaker magnetic field splitting will become smaller and smaller. Finally one will not be able to distinguish two separate states.
@@AroundPhysics Even if not distinguishable, would earth's magnetic field not influence any free electrons into two states already from the source?
Long before Bohr postulated his planetary atom model Wilhelm Weber mathematically derived a formula for a planetary model of the atom with a negative charge orbiting a positive charge, as well as unify Coulomb and Ampere in his Electrodynamic equations, which have gone pretty well unnoticed through the darkness of the 20th century. Though apparently many plasma physicists are now finding renewed interest in his work.
This "spin" for the electron is not an observed phenom, but one interpreted or assumed after the fact to make the model work. "Only after the suggestion of electron spin, did the Stern-Gerlach result confirm the new theory." Spin also allows for the dynamo model of magnetism.
What are electric "field lines"? Usually represented 2D as an outward pointing arrow for a proton and an inward pointing arrow for an electron. Trying to visualize this in 3D is one thing, but visualizing it with spin, wow, that is something else. But more importantly, what is flowing between the two?
It also seems somewhat incredulous that one tiny electron can make such a difference when you consider the totality of the atom. Reading about Weber's Electrodynamics now translated by Assis.
I knew Weber was the first, and I also know Andre Torre de Assis who does excellent work on Weber's electrodynamics and other matters. You are asking the right questions. I agree insofar, as we have to restrict ourselves to precisely describing the phenomenon without any additional assumptions.
@@TheMachian Thank you. Being a 61 year old self-educated high school dropout constantly riddled with self-doubt, your assurance that I am asking the right questions is very appreciated. While I am neither a scientist or a mathematician, though I do think of myself as a Natural Philosopher.
I have learned a great deal through your videos and always find them great fodder for thought. Keep up the good work.
Orientation, orientation, orientation!
We need to look at particles in a new way. We need to discover a new mechanism. Quantum mechanics works because it predicts but it does not give answers to profound questions by saying that the questions are wrong. The bits and pieces of the jigsaw puzzle are confusing because we are yet to understand the fundamental principles of nature.
The original Stern-Gerlach experiment was performed with an atomic beam, not electrons.
Right. I believe the essence is contained in what I talked about, but I may be mistaken.
@@TheMachian The spin of the electron wasn't known at that time, they investigated the orbital angular momentum. Both have similar quantum behavior though. The Einstein-de Haas experiment exhibited a strange 1/2 factor between the angular momentum and the magnetic moment. But the spin of the electron has been discovered by Goudsmit (the editor of physical Review) and Uhlenbeck only in 1925, with a strong opposition of Pauli.
You are correct. The Stern-Gerlach experiments are beautifully described in the book “Great Scientific Experiments” by Rom Harre. The chapter includes an original photograph of the separation of the beams by Walter Gerlach, that is not commonly shown.
Why not do a video on fractional charge, which is something I find hard to believe. No particle with fractional charge has ever been isolated, all particles which can be directly measured have the same charge as an electron or multiples thereof. Neutral particles like the neutron have two full electron charges of opposite sign which cancel each other out. Why do neutrinos have mass but no charge, and do they really have mass? I doubt it. Theory suggests they ought to, but no experiment has directly detected it. If it exists at all it is vanishingly small, in contrast to all other particles with mass.
Perhaps we percieve 720 deg universe not 360. Chirality is crazzeee!
Maybe you should have added that the picture of an electron as a homogeneous sphere rotating about its axis - the rotation is the spin - is inconsistent with the experimental data of the size of the electron. Such an electron would be much larger than the experimental upper boundary for the size of the electron.
Indeed, the mainstream believes that the electron is a point like particle, which cannot have any spin in the literal sense whatsoever. Nevertheless, this electron is supposed to have a quantum mechanical Spin and a magnetic momentum. But, a magnetic field presupposes a moving electrical charge according to Maxwell's equations. Thus, the magnetic moment of the electron at rest appears to violate Maxwell's equations. Well, its QM is the answer to this problem.
The quantum mechanical spin is a complete mystery because the quantum mechanical duck looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, but its not a duck. This is the mainstream view. Yes, you can somehow derive the QM Pauli matrices from the Dirac equation by fiddeling around with the math. The Pauli matrices are already present in a disguised form in the dirac equation.
My hunch is that the spin and magnetic moment of the electron point to the fact that the electron is not a fundamental particle. The electron has an inner structure and the spin and magnetic moment of the electron are a result of this structure. But, I may be wrong of course.
you dropped that book :D
You are assuming that all particles are connected. I am assuming that only the smallest particle has no spin. We might both be wrong:) Great video Thumbs up from me.
There is a book, that basically tells that.
Though, I am really wondering how the free electron fits in.
Look at a pendulum. It also goes through half Spin. We call it oscillation.
Since physicists fail to explain it mathematically, subatomic spin is beyond their comprehension.
I know what it's.
I do not think their is a macroscopic analogue that works.
Could you please explain why according to your opinion 1) the unification of special relativity and quantum mechanics does not exist and 2) why (according to you) spin doesn‘t follow from the Dirac equation? Both things are plain wrong in my opinion.
1) Sorry, you are making the claim, you have to explain why it exists. 2) the DE leads to an algebra that describes spin. But it does not explain the necessity behind. In my view, it is rather the double cover of SO(3), namely SU(2) that is the deeper reason for the very existence of spin.
The only way to establish a wave equation where a) the plane wave solutions fulfil the relativistic dispersion relation b) leads to non-negative probabilities and c) is Lorentz covariant is to replace the wave function Psi by a spinor. This naturally leads to Spin! Spin is a consequence of these 3 very simple conditions and it is necessary because of that. Why do you say it doesn‘t explain the necessity of spin? What do you want more? I don‘t get this
@@TheMachian The Clifford group is the double cover of a rotation group, it is a quite general mathematical fact that has nothing to do with a wave equation. There are wave equations for scalars and for vectors, Dirac bumped by change on the one that describes the physical electron, besides through a wrong reasoning.
@@tensortrain1621 It's amazing how you start with a very restricted idea, narrow it down still further by conditions coming from nowhere, and then claim that it is the only possibility. If physics was the conclusion of a prescribed logical chain, it would be finished a long time ago.
Not sure what you are talking about. Don’t know if there is another way of doing it and if it actually matters. People have tried for a long time (actually Schrödinger was the first one who tried it) to take the square root of the Klein-Gordon equation and failed. Dirac found an elegant solution by introducing a multi-component wave function (a Spinor) which gives rise to spin. All I‘m saying is that the Spin naturally arises from the Dirac equation. Learn the Dirac equation and see it by yourself.
Well it doesn't seem so being everyone's at a dead end. Maybe rethink or somebody could start from scratch and solve the loss of masses reality. Maybe ask the guy that came up with levitating magnets by freezing without physically doing it. I doubt you'll find him out freezing someplace. But then cold is relative.
This short video claims the up/down is just a threshold consequence of the experiment's setup. ruclips.net/video/PH1FbkLVJU4/видео.html
You can see the original 1922 image which shows that atoms at the edges lose the up/down effect, because they didn't go through the middle of the magnetic field.
It is a fake bell trick, one that rather confuses people.
It is the belt trick. I don't see the confusion. Maybe these videos are not for people with a broad math background like yours. Since you have commented several times, I'd appreciate if you contact me via ChannelInfo-> Email. I don't mind if we have some different viewpoints.
@@TheMachian No, this (plate) trick is only a rotation of 2π one way, and 2π the opposite way. This doesn't show because the axis have been surreptitiously rotated too. Even the mathematicians are confused. The real belt trick is much more spectacular. Check belt trick on wikipedia.
I do not see any difference. In fact, wikipedia "belt trick" redirects to "plate trick" ... ruclips.net/video/DHFdBWU36eY/видео.html
The presentation has reduced effectiveness when their is shade on Unz s face. I need an improvement on future work please, Thx
Thanks for the hint, I'll try to get up earlier next time :-)
@@TheMachian Thx Your work deserves it!
You need to ban me.
Zitterbewegung!
If you consider there is nothing that pulls in this infinite universe, this step back makes a clear solution. Electron neutrinos being hydraulically superior cause progressive kinetics of all particle masses most from the smallest of 3 poles, matter being the 3rd which is why it only explodes and implodes to a fano plane. E=Mc2 can also be applied to kinetic space since it's fixed positions are only based on interlocking flow vortex centers, ie; intersections of En flow between the largest to format space, bosons. This is done very easily by lining up 3 spheres within a 4th sphere. The relative geometry gives you the same 8 fold system system that you would get in a cube when comparing a 90ﾟ section of arc to the rest of the cube. This means the energy is that which does not interlock but flows in opposition to to something frozen only due to rotation interlocking. Now you should understand why elementary particles and even planets are releven planets are relative to one another in mass based on simple foundations of 2 × 3 times et cetera. That is because it is all a continued fractal. A kinetic holograph.
Spin: to give (a news story or other information) a particular interpretation... Schumacher did it better, try a coffee mug next time.
A "Theory of Limit" QM-TIME hyperfluid Completeness cause-effect Actuality, makes e-Pi-i sync-duration omnidirectional-dimensional connectivity function of 1-0-infinity probability, an absolute fractal Reciproction-recirculation superposition unity-singularity, a spin-spiral logarithmic temporal substantiation of superimposed phase-locked coherence-cohesion objectives, ..at Absolute Zero containment.
Ie Fluxion Integration @.dt instantaneously. This defines Superspin-spiral closure as much as it's possible to make No-thing Singularity positioning fit some sort of perceived paradox 3D-T pure-mathmotion-potential system of categorization, ilusions of relative-timing symbolic functions, and that is self-defining timing of sync-duration bubble-modes of Temporal Spinfoam Totality. The ultimate Conception of real-time Entanglement.
Spin up/down is not unsolved just unevolved. The solution I presented on the web in 96 with general unification copyrighted 2003, 2016.
The 270m Ice Cube evidence vindicated my theory "progressive kinetics'.
I've been moving my videos to Rumble under the same name.