Electrons DO NOT Spin

Electron spin explained: Imagine a tweaker that is ambidextrous. So he can be spun left handed or right handed. And this causes him to bounce off things with the correlated angular momentum.

"You are hevier and shorter then me, because I'm hevier and shorter, then You" SRT.

Is it even an electron or is it just a wave function

​@rodkeh "spinning"

It's beautiful man. Intrinsic angular momentum as a property not an action. Just the inherent cause of the observed effect! 1/2 spin needing two rotations to get to the starting point again. Two-directional bivector outcomes from magnetic fields as a manifested quantized spin discreteness. Fascinating. Love it!

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.

how long until people dont get this joke

I have to admit, I LOL'd after reading your comment. Thank-you for that moment of joy.

@Mike Roberts I hate how ever since TBBT people use "Schrodinger's Cat" to explain everything BUT quantum superposition

we are happy the future is C (usb C)

Physicist 1: What shall we call this property of the electron that isn’t spin?
Physicist 2: Uhm… how ‘bout we call it “electron spin”?
Physicist 1: Perfect!

Probably the only thing more obtuse than quantum mechanics itself is that an intelligent, well-spoken and knowledgeable individual would want his comment (which received more thumbs-up than others), to be publicly identified as posted by "wannabecriminalman". Go figure... 😐

​@Igel Kissen I think that the maths are the easy part. Learning the math is way more easier than actually understanding these deep esoteric concepts of the fabric of reality.

Mmm la física cuántica parece no existir o no pueden explicarla claramente saludos 🇲🇽

I would definitely have enjoyed my physics degree a lot more had these vids been around back in the day

@Khalaq of course. Knowing and understanding aren't the same thing but I think most people could understand something if they put in effort.

@Cristian Juarez This makes absolutely no sense to me. The OP was simply saying that they found this video useful to increase their understanding. You said that being smarter is "not just knowing things". It seems to me you're responding to a claim nobody is making.

@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

@Cristian JuarezWell, you’re being “that guy”. I don’t think the OP was implying that just knowing facts is all there is to “smartness”.

@Cristian Juarez 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).

@Cristian Juarez you are right

[oh: you mean for a sleep-aid, or somethin'-that-way?] have you tried ted-talks? i cannot recommend 'em, because i find 'em mostly too annoying,,,
however, there might be quite a few exceptions to my rule, potentially, haha

One of the most well-liked and popular teachers in my high school was our AP chemistry teacher, because even though the subject could be considered hard / boring. She knew how to make learning fun. The ability to engage the student is very fundamental to the process of learning. These videos are great example of that.

It is weird how pbs space time has become P.S: bed sleep time

And going past my attempt at cynicism at our decision makers there, i am really thankful that i know about this channel, to be able to feed my need for layman understanding of extraordinary concepts.

@Divinegon All sciences are incomplete

heck, how many quantum mechanics are there, vs. jobs for 'them' to compete for, whoever 'they' might be, right?

@Mk None Feynman created the path integrals, which is the most amount of sense anyone has ever been able to make of quantum physics.
If even he said that no one understands quantum mechanics, then that's how it is, until someone comes up with something better than Path integrals.

Ld

@Mwafrika Halisi 254 The universe doesn't care if it makes sense to us

But only when you are not observing yourself thinking of quantum mechanics... When your are observing QM it then finds its vector and collapses to one pole or the other at any point in time.

So you love and hate quantum mechanics? Lmao, what a superposition.

So you live in a state of both hate and love at the same time until such time as you take a measurement? 😂

Until they print your obituary stating that you loved it, collapsing the wave function.

@Harald Jorch Why, myself of course

@MJA 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.

Teachers taught you this in school?

It's the only thing I don't like about his videos I like the simple explanation then going into the complex!

Dq

@Russ Hamilton That doesn't follow logically. There's nothing strange about an object with a direction and no size, at least, I don't see what's strange about it.

@ANNA CLARA Fenyo think about what you said. If something without size can orient itself in one direction or another direction, it does have size.

@Tyler O'Toole "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.

@ANNA CLARA Fenyo "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'.

@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.

@John Boze: If that theory had some merit, would have heard about it during the nine years that I studied physics, right? Do you have a paper which describes the theory? Sounds Nobel prize worthy as it can explain so much 🤷🏻‍♂️

I mean what do you want them to say: Electrons are described by something that lives in the fundamental representation of the SU(2) group?

@Renato Cara Quantum Mechanics is counter intuitive is the first fact to state follow up with I can't give you examples that actually can be envisioned. Now I'm going to teach the math and give you how it was proven for you to look up at your leisure.

Kelvin maybe Gurr tried to say that there are fans of PBS who don't speak that much math (I'm glad the be familiar with matrices, basic calculus....).
We are here for some intuition for the sake of human curiosity.
Greetings from a molecular biologist.
PS: don't take YT comment section that seriously (or as you wish)

It’s to distuinguish the tipe of polarization on the magntic field

@Matt McIrvin Makes more sense now, thank you for your insights

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.

Curious for your insight on a barely related question, @Matt McIrvin, in case you're interested in weighing in:
Since we're in some sense made of fermions and in any case the spin frame specifies the vector frame, it seems on the face of it that we should experience a world of SU(2)-symmetric space, but instead we experience SO(3) in our day-to-day, human-scale world. Why is that? In other words, where do we lose our spinor character on the way from quantum to classical? Is it as simple as the fact that we only observe through photons/bosons?

Cool, I'll try that out. Thanks, @Matt McIrvin

@bumpty 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.

Is it the Pauli spinor version of the Schroedinger equation you're referring to, @Matt McIrvin ?

(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.)

Its spelled perfectlea

Its not that hard. Basically taking a simplified common way it is taught and shoqing how it actually happens.

It should be someone’s job to post this comment on every PBS space video 😂 still watch them all even though I don’t really get it

@John Boze Clear as mud.

amen

@Addy Guida I might or I might not. You won't know till you hand it to me.

@Hyperduality for all getting a bit lost in the sauce. You cant have something unless you could also have nothing. No good without bad. No rich without poor. No evil without just. All or nothing. Zero and 1. Light and dark. Positive/negative. Yin Yang type stuff.

@Hyperduality Nice, thats a great list of concepts that have a contradictory nature.

Haa :D

All elementary particles do ACTUALLY spin! Electrons ACTUALLY SPIN! Photons Spin. If they did not, they would not propagate across a vacuum! If they did not spin the negative vacuum pressure around the particle would stop and the electron or photon would literally blow apart and evaporate into the 10^(63) Electromagnetic Quantum Kinetic Dipole Particles OR just EM Dipoles that make up an Electron in a complex flow of liquified EM Dipoles. The QSF inside all elementary particles is made of trillions of EM Dipoles in a Quantum level Bose Einstein Condensate.
Elementary Particles are harmonically trapped EM Quantum Kinetic Dipoles condensed into a Bose Einstein Condensate flowing according the their wave function.
Wave Functions describe the ideal gas and liquid dynamics with elementary particle.
There are about 10^(56) EM Dipoles in a green photon with quantum mass of 10^(-36) kg. Yes Photons have mass but the EM Dipoles within are oriented so they propagate in the forward direction as a group(polarized forward).
EM Dipole Particle are very real and have a quantum mass of roughly 1-^(-93) kg each. There are about ~~10^(72) EM dipole Particles in a cubic meter of vacuum in our solar system with a total mass of about 10^(-18) kg / m^3
Dark matter and energy are the mass and energy of the EM Dipoles in the EM "field" which is Quantum level gas just as described by Tesla.
If Bose meet Tesla instead of Einstein TTOE would have been written 100 years ago, but 2021 will do for the release of TTOE !
The "EM Field" is Bose Gas of Planck Sized EM Dipole Particles that look like a shorted Prince Rupert's Drop and the more massive end is Positive / North. During collisions the EM Dipoles self propagate through space. Photons EM Dipoles has Mass but it is oriented in the direction of travel. EM Dipoles have an RMS Speed of "c" some go faster!
The Speed of Light is the Terminal Velocity of a Photon in the Quantum level EM Dipole Gas that fills space. On Earths surface the average inter dipole distance in Vacuum is about 10(-24) meters!
EM QKD Theory derived from NASA Scientist that new EXACTLY WHAT GRAVITY IS back the 1970s and now u will too in 2021.
TTOE 2021

Like Meat popsickle? My birth name is Jack and my surname is old English word for "wheat" Me'Ohff so my full name is Jack Me'Ohff got it?

I prefer it needing to learn Latin (for biology) or so many damn names (for chemistry). It definitely causes a lot of confusion though, I agree.

@Matt McIrvin ALL 'scientific' words came about as a refinement of the meaning of an existing word. That's not the point.
Problems arise when someone uses a word in a scientific sense in conjunction with one of it's 'outside' meanings. You cannot reference the conservation of energy when you are talking about (say) an energetic child.
If you are going to apply scientific principles, it's as well to be very clear what exactly is the precise meaning of the word from the scientific viewpoint and not to apply it outside it's domain. To speak a language, you must know first what the words mean, otherwise you risk ordering a prostitute rather than the chicken you actually wanted.

@Verruca The common use of "energy" came before the physics use, though (I was surprised to learn this when I looked it up), so physicists don't really have a good reason to complain about this one.

Scientist: “We use precise and correct names and terms. “
Also scientists: “Strangeness”

i feel like the QM dunning kruger graph is just an exponential decay approaching 0 on the confidence scale

Dunning and Kruger, when I was young I learned about them and from them I learned to always assume myself incompetent

I thought it was just me.

Remember to rotate twice like a fermion and not one like a boson

When I listen to scientific dissertations, I have to remember how dumb I am. Then how slow I am. For example, I'm so slow I have to be tied down to the ground so I can keep up with the earth's rotation.

@Ryno Throwton Ever been to a club where people wee on each other?

Aroo,
I think part of your disorientation may come from Matt's continual misdirection of our attention.
Time after time he puts heavy verbal emphasis on a noun where it's one of an array of potential adjectives he wants to bring to our attention. Every time he does this, our minds have to make a re-set to what context tells us he might have wanted to say in place of what he actually said.

....swissaroo... you're a witty guy... ---I felt the same way ! ... I guess it's time for that Baileys !

No, neither strings nor strands. *Filaments.*

@John Boze I don't really understand much of that, but thanks for sharing it. Is there any video or even website that talks about these things? I tried to look up a few of those terms in Wikipedia and had no success.

But that is so far from the truth of nature. All elementary particles do ACTUALLY spin! Electrons ACTUALLY SPIN! Photons Spin. If they did not, they would not propagate across a vacuum! If they did not spin the negative vacuum pressure around the particle would stop and the electron or photon would literally blow apart and evaporate into the 10^(63) Electromagnetic Quantum Kinetic Dipole Particles OR just EM Dipoles that make up an Electron in a complex flow of liquified EM Dipoles. The QSF inside all elementary particles is made of trillions of EM Dipoles in a Quantum level Bose Einstein Condensate.
Elementary Particles are harmonically trapped EM Quantum Kinetic Dipoles condensed into a Bose Einstein Condensate flowing according the their wave function.
Wave Functions describe the ideal gas and liquid dynamics with elementary particle.
A "spinor" is a vortex of trillions of condensing Quantum level EM "Field" Dipole Particles.
There are about 10^(56) EM Dipoles in a green photon with quantum mass of 10^(-36) kg. Yes Photons have mass but the EM Dipoles within are oriented so they propagate in the forward direction as a group(polarized forward).
EM Dipole Particle are very real and have a quantum mass of roughly 1-^(-93) kg each. There are about ~~10^(72) EM dipole Particles in a cubic meter of vacuum in our solar system with a total mass of about 10^(-18) kg / m^3
Dark matter and energy are the mass and energy of the EM Dipoles in the EM "field" which is Quantum level gas just as described by Tesla.
If Bose meet Tesla instead of Einstein TTOE would have been written 100 years ago, but 2021 will do for the release of TTOE !
The "EM Field" is Bose Gas of Planck Sized EM Dipole Particles that look like a shorted Prince Rupert's Drop and the more massive end is Positive / North. During collisions the EM Dipoles self propagate through space. Photons EM Dipoles has Mass but it is oriented in the direction of travel. EM Dipoles have an RMS Speed of "c" some go faster!
The Speed of Light is the Terminal Velocity of a Photon in the Quantum level EM Dipole Gas that fills space. On Earths surface the average inter dipole distance in Vacuum is about 10(-24) meters!
EM QKD Theory derived from NASA Scientist that new EXACTLY WHAT GRAVITY IS back the 1970s and now u will too in 2021.
TTOE 2021

@phxcppdvlazi any belief system requires faith to put your trust and hope in.

String theory is religious pseudo-science. No predictions no working models. One free parameter for every fact it's meant to explain :)

Yes that is amazing. It is efficient, but also has a mind boggling huge amount of possibilities. Plus like you say the superposition itself is just whoa

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.

Magnetism?

@Wyatt Richards Mass moment of inertia for clarity.

@Wyatt Richards ω=2*pi*f

the equations shown here include h bar which is h divided by 2pi

Even angular momentum in classical mechanics doesn't involve pi though. The standard classical equation for angular momentum is L=Iω where I is the inertia tensor and ω is the angular velocity of the system

you did the work. kudos

@Jivan Pal "Nuclei with spin, or an angular moment, have an associated magnetic moment. "

@Hyperduality lol, so is that your thing? post your pet theory all over the page to confuse people who cant separate physics students from physics conspiracists?

@Hyperduality bruh

He only blinks when you are not observing him. Until then he is both blinking and not blinking simultaneously.

And also the weirdest.

Were we watching the same video?

Get the idea of spinning out of your head nothings spinning.

@Flame Alchemy Came here for the armchair physicists with barely an understanding of current theory proposing their own nonsensical metaphysical notions. You did not disappoint.

@Edd Fantastic idea. Look at all these people thinking lol that's great.

Trayvon James Electrons are excitations of their quantum field, which exists everywhere, even in a vacuum. At least, that's our current best thinking on how reality works.

​@imnewtothistuff Einstein explained Brownian motion and proved the existence of atoms, created the theory of relativity, including mass energy equivalence, along with creating the basic theoretical understanding of lasers, all in ONE YEAR, 1905. That's better than most scientists can hope to do in a lifetime.

@rocktakesover It was I believe Hefner who experimented with double slits while avoiding the concept of entanglement.

@porky11 I've been learning about Geometric Algebra which has been what taught me how quaternions really work. It also has the 720° property. If you don't, you're left with a quantitative twist in the form of a trivector/pseudoscalar.

@[INVALID ACCOUNT] 4th turning is afoot as we speak

If you had to work with quaternions (often used in 3D programming (physics, graphics)), you are not surprised by the 720 degree rotation. At least if you understand how quaternions work.

​@IWillTakeAGuranteeOfBetterOverAPromiseOfPerfect SO(3,1) in this case is not a gauge group, rather the local symmetry of spacetime. It has to do with the signature of the metric. The 3 comes from the dimensions of space, and the 1 represents time.

Neutrinos and dark matter sound like good candidates to me. Maybe their near-total lack of interactions could be explained by non-entanglement. Unfortunately, if that’s true, it’s also why we know so little about them.

One spin is entangled with something spinning in the opposite direction somewhere.

No. The quantum states remain the same, they just have slightly different energy levels when in a magnetic field.
What it does mean is that each energy level can be occupied by 2 electrons when not in a magnetic field. One for the spin up quantum state, and one for the spin down quantum state. Introducing a magnetic field shifts the energy of these quantum states in slightly different ways, producing the zeeman effect, but no new quantum states are introduced.

@Chuck in Texas it's a simplified description of quantum toroidal vortex ripples in the fluidic unity of the cosmic hologram, but it'll do. It's quite lovely but if you live in a simulation this would be about as real as it gets anyway lol. From a naturalists perspective, this is an inquiry into nature's secrets and the stories of them. We are a primative and simplistic species, yet typically our consciousness raises us above the other creatures of nature in our own estimation. It's easy to imagine there is no meaning or structure to our existence, is difficult to understand truth of reality. Do not reject the few truths that are not hidden from the world, or you will never stop looking for rest.

@Jason Hise wow! great to know that and great videos on your channel!
I've also heard that Dirac had a trick with the concentric spheres and ropes to demonstrate how by firing the inner sphere you can untwist the know between the two border ones.

@Jason Hise That's the one!

Andrew Kornhaber (and Eric Brown)
And Katherine Kornei apparently. (GFX viz)

Didn't understand your last line. All I can think is that arrow rotating about an axis passing through it's centre and perpendicular to it's plane (x-y here)

😂

Naw Gabe sucks he's just jealous space time became a thing

I really miss Gabe. His speed was only tied by his sheer pleasure to explain. o7 Gabe, long live your youtube presents.

The biggest of Gabes ~ Heromarine.

​@Cdog Thehedgehog Hahahah, of course "Nah" you buzz killington., hhehe. Just phrasing a moments thought.

Nah

Space and time are non physical. How do non physical concepts warp?
Question your sources.

And most quantum mechanics, SpaceTime doesn't really matter. You have to get to quantum gravity for that to make any sense.

Guess we found out who won the "bigger man" competition here. Woof.

@Anders L You've been getting emotional two comments ago and it's gotten to the point where you are beginning to misinterpret my words, and spill anger onto yours. I personally have no investment in the standard model, nor any of modern physics for that matter. If the standard model is completely overhauled tomorrow that would actually be quite awesome in my opinion. Interestingly enough, you are the only one who seems overly protective of your point of view as you can't fathom anything different than what you consider worthwhile and true. I could care less which way science goes, I'm just here for the ride. I'm just a telecom engineer and my field will likely not be impacted by it, but I like to keep up with the sciences. You however have some personal stakes at risk because of all these *bad scientists* cooking up their crazy theories funded by *big science*.
For me, our conversation was stimulating up until that point. But I guess this isn't going anywhere productive, and will no longer continue to contribute, so let's just end it here. Or not, as I suspect you'll need to have the last word.

@Anders L - "it understands nothing and worse, it makes us understand nothing."
Not all topics can be distilled to grade school level, which is higher than the understanding of much of society today-- getting worse every day with the decline of our educational system and a growing anti-scientific fanaticism. The the books and the knowledge are out there, everyone is free to learn.
-"It tells us "QM is weird" and expects us to leave the experts alone to figure it out with whatever fantastical and unobservable nonsense they come up with."
again, there is a field of theoretical physics that gets very theoretical. It's in the name. No one is saying any of these are correct, but they work them out using existing and proven models and devise experiments to confirm / deny them when possible. I don't see what's your hang up with this.
-"Science is all about understanding the world and what makes it work. Science should not be cryptic."
Possibly a mishandling of the term by me. Science does not seek to be cryptic. But unfortunately for us, gone are the days where an apple falling on a head leads to a breakthrough. Further understanding requires deeper inspection, which rely on an a growing body of existing knowledge that not everyone will be familiar with.
-"And it is in fact what science is singularly focused on - the Standard Model is canon and takes complete precedence because that's what every physicist must espouse or be shunned as a crank"
The Standard Model is just that- a model. It describes ever increasingly precise observations accurately. If another physicist comes up with another model, that's fine, but they need to show how it aligns with everything else the standard model aligns with. This isn't politics, you can't just say you've got some alternative facts and call it a day.
-"We have demonstrated all the particles? We have chosen to demonstrate, is more correct. LHC looked for the Higgs boson, so it found it. You find what you want to find."
Science devises models. Models make predictions. Predictions require observations. Observations require experiments. Some experiments are easy. Others are hard and expensive. I don't know what to say if you consider that a bad thing? And yes, when you are out looking for something you find it or you don't. Turns out if you have a good idea of what you're looking for, and where it should be, and how to look for it, you're probably going to find it.
But science wins if they find it or not. If they find it they confirm the model. If they don't it means it's imprecise and still needs tinkering.
But a model that predicts 95% and fails on 5% is not a bad model, it's just incomplete.
-"It's also big business, look at the untold billions spent on accelerators."
Yes. I'd rather untold billions be spent on accelerators than on missiles which are also big business. Anything for scientific progress. But that's just me.
-"I stand by my view that people like Einstein, Dirac, Bohr strove to make sense of the universe and its laws, while the more modern era has given us Hawking, Weinberg, Carroll"
The latter are doing the same things, even launching off work that the former had started. Your heroes won't last forever. Einstein himself pushed Quantum Mechanics until the theory seemed to be at odds with the religious belief of a god and their influence on the world - which is interestingly the most unscientific thing any scientist can do.
-"and superficial entertainers like Kaku and Degrasse Tyson."
I did mention the rise of pop-sci reporting and entertainers like them are but a facet of this phenomenon. They're a necessary evil, but sometimes I wonder if they do more harm than good. Exposing complicated subjects in soundbites to a severely uneducated public can cause problems and I feel they already have. Hence this conversation we're having. Plus their celebrity status can get to their head and bring on hubris, which I feel is at least happening to DeGrasse Tyson.
-"The only one I can respect is Feynman."
ok.
-"When you have to leave gravity out of your model, you have failed."
I'm sorry but this reads a little pretentious. Who are you, and what is your field of study / profession? Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but to categorically make a statement on a subject you've already hinted at not understanding / respecting... It's a little out there.
-"Same thing with the infinities and singularities our physics is riddled with. Theorists hope to keep adding degrees of freedom, extra dimensions, and exotic particles until it all works, and I say it won't. It's up to them to prove me wrong."
It may work, and it may not. That's how theoretical physics works. You may not like it, which you CLEARLY don't, and that's ok. The point of science is not for it to work. It's to get to the truth. They'll chase a lead until they get something out of it or hit a dead end. Until then they'll do their thing until they find a model that works. But whether they do, or they don't, science has been done. I believe that's how it is. I'm sorry you don't.

@Anders L I'm not sure why we're disagreeing, I think we're saying pretty much the same thing in principal. However I sense you have a more cynical, almost discrediting, take on the situation. Your apparent disdain for modern science illustrates exactly what I was saying - Its complexity is making it more and more inaccessible to the general population, sometimes even to enthusiasts. But please don't see this as a bad thing. It wasn't like the world flocked in droves immediately to believe GR's spatial geometry could describe gravity better than Newton's laws defining it as a force. Science must start out very theoretical first, then experiments follow to confirm the theory's validity. That's just the way it's always been. And science continues to progress in many different fields, what's happened is that pop-sci reporting has become a thing. And popular science focuses a lot on the fancy and the cool and unknown. So yes, what's dominating the headlines are the highly theoretical fields of multi-verses and what-not, but that doesn't mean science is only focused on that. But it also doesn't mean those topics lack any merit.
Interestingly enough, there are investigations going on about why the constants are what they are, but I feel it may be a little arrogant of any of us to say it should be the sole focus of science. And that topic in itself is otherworldly theoretical.
The standard model is no longer the neat 3 particle with orbits of yesteryear. We've actually demonstrated that there's much more to that, so we can only conclude that reality is complicated and does not strive to conform to our need for simpler times.
So as I feel you do agree with my point, science has gotten more complex and cryptic. However, I don't believe that's a bad thing. It's just the nature of the beast.

@LOCOBOB I appreciate that Robert, and I respectfully disagree. GR gave us one way to explain gravity, using geometry, but the math is built on a tensor equation which is not easy to understand or connect to reality. Matter tells space how to curve, yes, but how? We don't know what gravity really is. Physicists have not been able to make it compatible with QM, and it's simply left out of the vaunted Standard Model. Which is also a miserable zoo of myriad particles and free parameters to make it work. Instead of continuing the revolutionary scientific discovery and progress we had 100 years ago we have degenerated into multiverses, holographic worlds, supersymmetry, string theory and all sorts of unscientific and mystical nonsense in a search for pretty mathematical theories. Why do we have constants like c and h? Why is the fine structure constant what it is? No one has any idea. That's what we should be looking for.

If you could travel at the speed of light...you couldn't...because your mass would be infinite...😁

Also energy that you will require to do that will only turn you into photons or disintegrate you into energy

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"

Absolutely 😁

top 10 anime returns