Tap to unmute

Electrons DO NOT Spin

  • Published on Jul 6, 2021 veröffentlicht
  • Sign Up on Patreon to get access to the Space Time Discord!
    Quantum mechanics has a lot of weird stuff - but there’s thing that everyone agrees that no one understands. I’m talking about quantum spin. Let’s find out how chasing this elusive little behavior of the electron led us to some of the deepest insights into the nature of the quantum world.
    Spin Renderings by the Incredible Jason Hise
    Check out the Space Time Merch Store
    Sign up for the mailing list to get episode notifications and hear special announcements!
    Hosted by Matt O'Dowd
    Written by Graeme Gossel & Matt O'Dowd
    Graphics by Leonardo Scholzer, Yago Ballarini, Pedro Osinski, Adriano Leal & Stephanie Faria
    GFX Visualizations: Katherine Kornei
    Directed by Andrew Kornhaber
    Assistant Producer: Setare Gholipour
    Executive Producers: Eric Brown & Andrew Kornhaber
    End Credits Music by J.R.S. Schattenberg: / multidroideka
    Special Thanks to Our Patreon Supporters
    Big Bang Supporters
    Kyle Bulloch
    Ananth Rao S
    Mrs. Tiffany Poindexter
    Leo Koguan
    Sandy Wu
    Matthew Miller
    Scott Gray
    Ahmad Jodeh
    Radu Negulescu
    Alexander Tamas
    Morgan Hough
    Juan Benet
    Vinnie Falco
    Fabrice Eap
    Mark Rosenthal
    David Nicklas
    Quasar Supporters
    Ethan Cohen
    Stephen Wilcox
    Christina Oegren
    Mark Heising
    Hank S
    Hypernova Supporters
    william bryan
    Marc Armstrong
    Scott Gorlick
    Nick Berard
    Paul Stehr-Green
    Muon Marketing
    Russell Pope
    Ben Delo
    L. Wayne Ausbrooks
    Nicholas Newlin
    Антон Кочков
    John R. Slavik
    Danton Spivey
    Donal Botkin
    John Pollock
    Edmund Fokschaner
    Joseph Salomone
    Matthew O'Connor
    chuck zegar
    Jordan Young
    Julien Dubois
    John Hofmann
    Daniel Muzquiz
    Timothy McCulloch
    Gamma Ray Burst
    Kent Durham
    jim bartosh
    Chris Navrides
    Scott R Calkins
    Carl Scaggs
    G Mack
    The Mad Mechanic
    Ellis Hall
    John H. Austin, Jr.
    Diana S
    Ben Campbell
    Lawrence Tholl, DVM
    Faraz Khan
    Almog Cohen
    Alex Edwards
    Ádám Kettinger
    Endre Pech
    Daniel Jennings
    Cameron Sampson
    Pratik Mukherjee
    Geoffrey Clarion
    Adrian Posor
    Darren Duncan
    Russ Creech
    Jeremy Reed
    Derek Davis
    Eric Webster
    Steven Sartore
    David Johnston
    J. King
    Michael Barton
    Christopher Barron
    James Ramsey
    Drew Hart
    Justin Jermyn
    Mr T
    Andrew Mann
    Jeremiah Johnson
    Peter Mertz
    Isaac Suttell
    Devon Rosenthal
    Oliver Flanagan
    Bleys Goodson
    Darryl J Lyle
    Robert Walter
    Bruce B
    Ismael Montecel
    Simon Oliphant
    Mirik Gogri
    Mark Daniel Cohen
    Brandon Lattin
    Nickolas Andrew Freeman
    Shane Calimlim
    Tybie Fitzhugh
    Robert Ilardi
    Eric Kiebler
    Craig Stonaha
    Martin Skans
    Michael Conroy
    Graydon Goss
    Frederic Simon
    John Robinson
    A G
    Kevin Lee
    Adrian Hatch
    Yurii Konovaliuk
    John Funai
    Cass Costello
    Tristan Deloche
    Bradley Jenkins
    Kyle Hofer
    Daniel Stříbrný
    Vlad Shipulin
    Malte Ubl
    King Zeckendorff
    Nick Virtue
    Scott Gossett
    Dan Warren
    Patrick Sutton
    John Griffith
    Daniel Lyons
    Kevin Warne
    Andreas Nautsch
    Brandon labonte

Comments • 6 498

  • Dust Galaktika
    Dust Galaktika Year ago +12067

    Electron spin explained: Imagine a ball that is rotating, except it's not a ball and it's not rotating.

    • TintWeezl
      TintWeezl 2 days ago

      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.

    • Kondraht IZ / Кондрат ИЦ
      Kondraht IZ / Кондрат ИЦ 2 days ago

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

    • Doomstarks
      Doomstarks 12 days ago

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

    • Nicholas Landry
      Nicholas Landry 14 days ago

      ​@rodkeh "spinning"

    • TintWeezl
      TintWeezl 19 days ago

      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!

  • Andrey Leonel
    Andrey Leonel 4 months ago +179

    Basically, the Electron doesn't have Angular Momentum because it's spinning. It has Angular Momentum because yes.
    It just checked "yes" in the Angular Momentum option.

    • TintWeezl
      TintWeezl 19 days ago +5

      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.

  • fragglet
    fragglet 3 months ago +606

    Finally an explanation of why you have to rotate USB plugs twice before they'll go in!

    • Jek
      Jek Month ago

      how long until people dont get this joke

    • Pe Vo
      Pe Vo Month ago +1

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

    • James Cheddar
      James Cheddar Month ago +2

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

    • Daniel Varga
      Daniel Varga 2 months ago +3

      we are happy the future is C (usb C)

    • Skippy
      Skippy 2 months ago +1

      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!

  • wannabecriminalman
    wannabecriminalman Year ago +934

    I really appreciate the determination to not dumb down the subject matter, even though most people (including myself) won’t really get it. There are dozens of channels that will explain quantum mechanics with flawed analogies and misleading visual aids for the sake of accessibility, but the real meat of quantum mechanics isn’t so easily digestible.
    Quantum mechanics is a confusing and difficult subject, and to present it otherwise is more misleading than helpful.

    • Gilbert Franklin
      Gilbert Franklin 9 days ago

      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... 😐

    • Ernest Olveira
      Ernest Olveira 12 days ago

      ​@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.

    • Douglas Alonso
      Douglas Alonso 17 days ago

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

    • Matthew Connor
      Matthew Connor Month ago

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

    • Ally kat
      Ally kat Month ago

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

  • Ruslan Lomaka
    Ruslan Lomaka 3 months ago +103

    I didn't understand everything, but I feel like I'm becoming smarter watching this kind of content. The visualisation of untangable cube was mind-blowing. And the ball exceptionally insane.... Thank you for your great efforts

    • Kuribojim
      Kuribojim 12 days ago

      @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.

    • Cristian Juarez
      Cristian Juarez 14 days ago

      @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

    • Kuribojim
      Kuribojim 14 days ago

      @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”.

    • coscinaippogrifo
      coscinaippogrifo Month ago

      @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).

    • Ruslan Lomaka
      Ruslan Lomaka 2 months ago

      @Cristian Juarez you are right

  • 27GX76R
    27GX76R Year ago +336

    I watch these videos when I can't sleep. The journeys that these subjects takes me to is so comforting. We are so lucky to live in a time where we can begin to understand our reality. It feels like being a billionaire

    • tinfoilhatter
      tinfoilhatter 3 months ago

      [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

    • Kareza Alonso
      Kareza Alonso 4 months ago

      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.

    • Grand Unification
      Grand Unification 6 months ago +1

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

    • Aakash M
      Aakash M 7 months ago

      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.

  • Vishwa Jay
    Vishwa Jay Year ago +766

    "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics."
    . -Richard Feynman, Nobel-prize-winning 20th Century quantum physicist

    • James Cheddar
      James Cheddar Month ago

      @Divinegon All sciences are incomplete

    • tinfoilhatter
      tinfoilhatter 3 months ago

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

    • Telleva
      Telleva 5 months ago

      @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.

    • RC Crypto
      RC Crypto 10 months ago


    • SirJamesFancy
      SirJamesFancy 10 months ago

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

  • Philip
    Philip Year ago +131

    I am living proof of my own quantum theory which states that it's possible to both love quantum mechanics, and hate quantum mechanics at the same time.

    • Wyndham-Lyons Realty Services
      Wyndham-Lyons Realty Services Month ago +1

      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.

    • Alexya
      Alexya 2 months ago +2

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

    • Zyo117
      Zyo117 4 months ago +3

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

    • colorado love
      colorado love 4 months ago +3

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

    • Who Profits
      Who Profits 5 months ago +4

      @Harald Jorch Why, myself of course

  • Sam Elis
    Sam Elis 10 months ago +36

    The short answer starts at 09:15. I love the video, thank you so much! The arm+mug and the ribbon diagram is the best explanation I've seen. Too bad I was stuck with teachers making us memorise numbers of spins years ago. Still thankful to my school education but this is the jam. I hope this is the way they'll teach students later. It's so much easier to understand than some random number and static diagram.

    • Sam Elis
      Sam Elis Month ago

      @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.

    • MJA
      MJA Month ago

      Teachers taught you this in school?

    • Patrick Day
      Patrick Day 4 months ago

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

    • civota mu az
      civota mu az 4 months ago


  • Cody Heiner
    Cody Heiner 5 months ago +10

    9:30 for those wondering how this is possible, the trick is that any specific ribbon goes up on one turn, and down on the next. Thus, its orientation with respect to the cube alternates, and so it undoes its previous twist.
    Same idea with the arm holding a cup.

  • Neil Barnett
    Neil Barnett Year ago +14

    This is why I always told my pupils "Electrons have a property that we call spin, but it's just a convenient label, so we can say that one is opposite to another."
    Of course, then we had to go on and treat spin as though it meant something!

    • ANNA CLARA Fenyo
      ANNA CLARA Fenyo 3 months ago

      @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.

    • Russ Hamilton
      Russ Hamilton 3 months ago +1

      @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.

    • ANNA CLARA Fenyo
      ANNA CLARA Fenyo 5 months ago

      @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.

    • Tyler O'Toole
      Tyler O'Toole 5 months ago +3

      @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'.

    • ANNA CLARA Fenyo
      ANNA CLARA Fenyo 10 months ago

      @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.

  • Richinnameonly
    Richinnameonly Month ago +4

    I feel like a good analogy of spin 1/2 is a mobius strip. The first time around you end up on the other side but go around again and you get to the beginning.

  • Renato Cara
    Renato Cara Year ago +717

    Spin is always explained the same way in Physics classes:
    "Imagine a charged ball spining
    But it is not a ball, has no charge and doesn't spin"

    • Martin Ueding
      Martin Ueding Year ago +1

      @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 🤷🏻‍♂️

    • Martin Ueding
      Martin Ueding Year ago +1

      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?

    • RedRocket4000
      RedRocket4000 Year ago

      @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.

    • Littleprinceleon
      Littleprinceleon Year ago

      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)

  • Dr. Mike Granato
    Dr. Mike Granato 3 months ago +30

    My next question would be - if electrons don’t “spin” in the conventional sense like we’ve been taught, then how does this quantum spin/spinner with multiple directionality reconcile with the concepts of “up spin” and “down spin” directionality?

      PEDRO PINA 2 months ago

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

    • Dr. Mike Granato
      Dr. Mike Granato 3 months ago +3

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

    • Matt McIrvin
      Matt McIrvin 3 months ago +12

      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.

  • SteveLT
    SteveLT 11 months ago +2

    Intellectually challenging but wonderfully well presented and fascinating video which has given me my first real glimpse into what spinors are about. Please let's have lots more of these.

  • beansnrice321
    beansnrice321 5 months ago +2

    One thing about this model stands out to me. To me, the ribbon-like structure of the connections implies that the electron itself is not point like but more like a small bar magnet. Basically a infinitesimally small dash or hyphen, spinning in the fabric of the electro-magnetic field.

  • EJ EJ EJ
    EJ EJ EJ Year ago +3

    I appreciate this channel so much. Thank you for all of the hard work and wonderful explanations!

  • bumpty
    bumpty 6 months ago +6

    The Ohanian idea connecting spin to the "Dirac field" sounds enticingly intuitive for such an unintuitive realm. Would love to see an episode exploring that further!

    • bumpty
      bumpty 3 months ago

      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?

    • bumpty
      bumpty 3 months ago

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

    • Matt McIrvin
      Matt McIrvin 3 months ago +1

      @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.

    • bumpty
      bumpty 3 months ago

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

    • Matt McIrvin
      Matt McIrvin 3 months ago +1

      (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.)

  • TheKqkk
    TheKqkk Year ago +1392

    i perfectly understood everything until the first sentence

    • polok890
      polok890 3 months ago

      Its spelled perfectlea

    • philip dias
      philip dias 3 months ago

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

    • G B
      G B 3 months ago

      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

    • Tom Pullen
      Tom Pullen 3 months ago

      @John Boze Clear as mud.

    • How old are we anyway. yipes
      How old are we anyway. yipes 4 months ago


  • The deck to the 16th power

    It's pretty deep if you think about it. The ins and outs of the electron field. I'm sure quark flavors could signal a general direction in which some electron interactions may predictively occur, within a given observed environment.

  • Sara Rose
    Sara Rose Year ago +2

    something about the ribbons attached to the cube made me think of a Mobius Strip and both feel related to a Hyper Cube... is it possible that they are related and that a mobius strip is a way to visualize another physical dimension that we otherwise don't see?

  • Jg235
    Jg235 Year ago +5

    Interesting how the properties of things seem to be able to exist on their own even though to make sense to us they have to be inextricably linked to other properties of such things, it’s like nature actually allows for the smile of the cheshire cat to detache from the cat itself and exist on its own, this makes for the possibilities of manipulation of things quite literally mind-blowing, it’s like very bizarre fantasia-like worlds can actually become true one day. 7:10

  • Cnd Brn79
    Cnd Brn79 Year ago +2

    Imagine an electron as energy flowing in one direction ( O ) simultaneity spinning perpendicular in a direction ( O⬆) The action it takes when introduced to a magnetic field is dependent on it's original orientation, which would be; clockwise + forward, counter clockwise + reverse. You can change their spin orientation, which is equal to polarization.

  • Dr D
    Dr D Year ago +6

    It's not so much that they figure this out....but the guys who come up with the experiments to prove how to figure it out.....that I think are Genius

  • Activated Complex
    Activated Complex Year ago +2412

    Physics: “For that to make sense…”
    Quantum Mechanics: “I’m gonna stop you right there.”

    • j v
      j v Year ago +1

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

    • Forrest RedFox
      Forrest RedFox Year ago +1

      @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.

    • Forrest RedFox
      Forrest RedFox Year ago

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

    • Michael Bourne
      Michael Bourne Year ago

      Haa :D

    • John Boze
      John Boze Year ago +1

      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

  • Hermes
    Hermes 5 months ago +4

    The most stupendous description of anything I've ever listened to. I was lost in the first few seconds, fell asleep twice, and was able to listen to the end with my brain wonderfully confused

  • northascrowsfly
    northascrowsfly Month ago +1

    This was properly painful, and I want to suffer even more from this in future episodes. 🧠

  • InterStellaFella -
    InterStellaFella - Year ago +4

    The spin should be thought as a skin. The skin is stretched quite thin and can ripple like a squids, so when one skin bump detects other skin bump , it repels.
    Imagine a flock of really small birds (Starlings). If you launch a Kestrel at the flock , the negative vibe that the Kestrel emits is quite speedy and the Starlings bump ripples create a state vortex which avoids xflock status but aligns the flock to create the positive vibe flux

  • Taime Melody
    Taime Melody Year ago

    Realistically entropy remains constant. At all times total energy dosent go up or down, and there is still dispersion of it in some form. You can see the knots almost like a pillow case in which you've stuffed your candy, twisted, and stuffed back upon itself.

  • Galahad-7
    Galahad-7 4 months ago +1

    The cube rotating made me nauseous, but the sphere rotating made me so dizzy that I nearly fell off my seat! It wasn't because of watching the movement, it was because I had an internal construct in my mind's eye that replaced my gyroscope for a second 🤢

  • Meat Popsicle
    Meat Popsicle Year ago +257

    The biggest issue I have with understanding physics is that certain words mean very specific things in physics that may or may not correlate with the common definition of a word

    • Ely Powell
      Ely Powell 29 days ago

      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?

    • Your wallet
      Your wallet Month ago

      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.

    • Verruca
      Verruca 3 months ago +1

      @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.

    • Matt McIrvin
      Matt McIrvin 3 months ago

      @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.

    • Lady Elphy
      Lady Elphy 4 months ago +1

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

  • Another Robin
    Another Robin 6 months ago

    that's amazing, and it highlights one of the most fundamental parts of all of science, that we are never observing the concepts in question, but their interactions with our sensors and each other

  • Miroslaw Horbal
    Miroslaw Horbal 2 months ago +1

    Interestingly, there's an idea in geometric algebra / Clifford algebra called a Rotor to describe a rotating vector in 3D.
    One property of the rotor is that to describe a rotation of R degrees, the Rotor will spin R/2. In other terms, the vector needs to do 2 full rotations for the rotor to return to it's original state.
    The thing is, there's nothing mysterious going on in the mathematical sense, it's more a fundamental property of the underlying geometry of 3D space.
    Based on how you described fermions and bosons, it's almost like one describes a vector while the other describes the rotor.

  • Quetzal the Gamer
    Quetzal the Gamer Month ago

    DomainofScience touched on this somewhat in his "Map of Particle Physics Video". All elementary particles, including electrons, have a spin value, which is called "intrinsic angular momentum", but this type of spin isn't the same thing as classical spin, like a planet or a basketball.

  • morphman86
    morphman86 Year ago +91

    I keep thinking "Yeah, I understand the fundamentals, you know, the basic stuff" and then PBS tosses me a new video to watch and I realize I know practically nothing.

    • 20Lush
      20Lush 7 months ago +1

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

    • BrokenLegs
      BrokenLegs 11 months ago +1

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

    • Standard Ranch Stash
      Standard Ranch Stash Year ago +1

      I thought it was just me.

  • Pyotr Beria
    Pyotr Beria Year ago

    I knew that electron spin was not the same thing as billiard ball spin but I did not know that it was this strange.

  • swissaroo
    swissaroo Year ago +545

    Halfway through this excellent presentation, my head felt like it was spinning, except it was not otherwise I would have entangled myself in knots unless I remembered to rotate completely around twice. Time for a Baileys on ice!

    • Itsiwhatitsi
      Itsiwhatitsi 7 months ago

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

    • Ken Davis
      Ken Davis 9 months ago

      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.

    • Virgilio Reneau
      Virgilio Reneau 11 months ago

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

    • David Lloyd-Jones
      David Lloyd-Jones Year ago +1

      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.

    • Augusto Joa
      Augusto Joa Year ago

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

  • Saul Goode
    Saul Goode Year ago +1

    I love your explanation, just what I needed, thank you.

  • trebor2775
    trebor2775 5 months ago

    I feel like I can follow you perfectly. Until you say something new and then I realize my entire understand of what you just said previously was completely flawed. And I clearly didn’t understand at all! Yet, somehow, I find this channel is nothing short of fascinating! Amazing channel! Thank you for this astounding channel!

  • zubble7144
    zubble7144 4 months ago

    RE: electron two-valuedness. As the electrons enter the magnetic field, the random orientations flip to a preferred orientation (half one way and the other half the other way) as they pass through the length of the magnetic channel. As they exit the channel, they have become (preponderantly) orientated into one of two directions.

  • YT
    YT 11 months ago

    Boson particles sound awesome. As a kid I always imagined electrons to be our "glue" to one of the layers of dark matter. And the universe as we know it to be, to be a literal pore of a larger universe. Our known universe would only exist until it reaches equillibrium with the universe. Slowly particles from the universe filter into our universe. Our pore universe of matter, expanding and contracting until it has enough mass to close. All particles would have to have been filtered in some way to be in our pore, so particles come into our space with an electron. It also stood to reason that a particle from our pore would be able to connect to the same kind of particle in the universe to open a door. Being able to connect the two would be great because if we needed to use 10 condensed pore particles for every 1 universe particle connection we'd be able to start to ratio out the size of the universe and how thick the dark matter is over there. Anyways, it's always fun to theorycraft but hearing the real science is twice as fun. Gotta hop off the can. Happy Monday peeps

  • Dave Nelson
    Dave Nelson Year ago +1

    If my mind wasn't totally blown up by this video, I could say "wooooooooooow". Glad to see videos like this out there for us to see.

  • Rationalific
    Rationalific Year ago +441

    9:59 - Matt: "So, think of electrons as being connected to all other points in the universe by invisible..."
    Me: "I got it! I got it! Strings! Like the theory!"
    Matt: "...strands."

    • Psycho the Unsane
      Psycho the Unsane Year ago

      No, neither strings nor strands. *Filaments.*

    • Rationalific
      Rationalific Year ago

      @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.

    • John Boze
      John Boze Year ago +1

      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

    • Red.
      Red. Year ago

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

    • phxcppdvlazi
      phxcppdvlazi Year ago

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

  • Divine MisAdVentures
    Divine MisAdVentures 10 months ago

    Awesome. Now I've got a connection back to the pioneers for a theory of Enthalpy in Quantum Intelligence. But really, you're talking about the difference between condensate matter (formless, flat) and structured, that occurs because of a loss or gain of energy. I interpret this as a change of quantum bases between 1 and 2 - essentially equivalent to the number of dimensions in a system. If one ignores entanglement as a separate thing - it pops in by itself as a primitive aspect of the 1 to 2 transformation. Can't get simpler than that theory, friend.

  • MrTheBigNoze
    MrTheBigNoze 5 months ago +1

    It’s just mind-boggling that something exists in multiple states at once, and only breaks down and “chooses” a state once it’s measured. It’s literally unknowable if things have intrinsic states that exist outside of measurement. Our universe is a very strange place

    • N Marbletoe
      N Marbletoe 5 months ago

      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

  • Bill Hawver
    Bill Hawver Year ago +10

    Fascinating presentation!! What are these ‘ribbons’ that connect to Spinners? Are they a field like gravity or a manifestation of space-time?

    • Hannah Bolton
      Hannah Bolton 10 months ago +1

      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.

    • Isaac Sharp
      Isaac Sharp 11 months ago


  • Ab Renos
    Ab Renos 4 months ago

    wow, this was very interesting, for sure this applies to magnetism, every magnetic field intersects but does not tangle apparently, a similar effect as spin

  • Luna Protege
    Luna Protege Year ago +4

    I'm surprised that Pi isn't showing up in any of these equations, you'd think that a weird quantum behavior that's related to spinning would also have something to do with circles.

    • Coloradoing
      Coloradoing 11 months ago

      @Wyatt Richards Mass moment of inertia for clarity.

    • Anon54387
      Anon54387 Year ago +1

      @Wyatt Richards ω=2*pi*f

    • eleni papadimitriou
      eleni papadimitriou Year ago +3

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

    • Wyatt Richards
      Wyatt Richards Year ago +2

      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

  • Thee Cat
    Thee Cat Year ago +251

    im 12mins in and this explained a lot more about spinors and angular position to me than 2 takes of introduction to nuclear magnetic resonance. much thanks!

    • pikiwiki
      pikiwiki Year ago

      you did the work. kudos

    • riverstun
      riverstun Year ago

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

    • Michael Werkov
      Michael Werkov Year ago +2

      @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?

    • Richard Feynman
      Richard Feynman Year ago

      @Hyperduality bruh

  • Ryan
    Ryan 7 months ago

    I'm glad this was broken down by showing the *_first principles_* of how it was discovered through the experiments. Tons of other videos don't even bother doing that which makes it way more confusing than it needs to be.

  • Ottavio Colombo
    Ottavio Colombo 4 months ago

    What are the differences, conceptually, between the spin of a particle and the frequency of a photon?

  • Deanna W
    Deanna W Year ago +1

    Y’know, 90% of the time I have this channel on as background noise, but the few times I pay attention and grasp SOME of it are very satisfying.

  • awotnot
    awotnot 2 months ago

    Yeah, like many of the other comments, I have to say that electron non-spin spin was amazing. Exactly how the universe reconciles this exceptional anomaly I know not. But if said "spin" is viewed from inside the actual electron - does anything spin at all? Or do the spun quadrant vectors representing the spin merely always look like unchanging straight lines?

  • Flood
    Flood 2 months ago +3

    Props to this guy for teaching _without blinking_

    • Wyndham-Lyons Realty Services
      Wyndham-Lyons Realty Services Month ago

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

  • bamikroket
    bamikroket Year ago +254

    That double spin example was probably the best I've seen.

  • Frajolão
    Frajolão Year ago

    I think this guy did a nice job trying to present the theory in lay terms, but this is one of those things that, no matter how creative your analogy is, it just won't make sense without the maths.

  • Daniel Kunert
    Daniel Kunert Year ago

    You explain this so easy to understand, thank you for the presentation

    • Tom Pullen
      Tom Pullen 3 months ago

      Were we watching the same video?

  • Siris Mc
    Siris Mc Year ago

    I think there is only one electron. Since it can be or not be in any or every place at once, you only need one. It just expresses itself in multiple places at once.

  • Read Truth
    Read Truth Year ago +2

    Could particle spin be happening on a higher dimensional plane? Like spinning a wheel suspended above ( but not quite perpendicular to) a street. Drop the wheel and it it will lean one way or the other and the point of contact will trail a spiral as the axis of the wheel approaches the perpendicular angle of the street. That’s stupidly simplified, but maybe there could be a hyperdimensional property that conserves the speed limit.

    • Paul Atreides
      Paul Atreides Year ago

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

  • Mike Seiler
    Mike Seiler Year ago +1

    "In string theory, spin is understood by the rotation of the string; For example, a photon with well-defined spin components (i.e. in circular polarization) looks like a tiny straight line revolving around its center."

  • DocKobryn
    DocKobryn Year ago +233

    Thank you so much for this video. I've been a physics professor for years but had never seen spinors explained as you do in the video with the bands connecting the electrons to the space-time fabric. I just kind of accepted it as a weird QM feature that was mathematically accounted for by the imaginary nature of the phase. I had figured there was no physical analog for it at all. So your tea cup analogy animated graphics were an eye opener for me.
    The graphics were still hard for me to see until I slowed down the video and created screen shots at 0, 360, and 720 degrees of rotation. wow. just wow. Just a great way to visually see how this works.

    • Kevin VanOrd
      Kevin VanOrd Year ago

      @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.

    • Flame Alchemy
      Flame Alchemy Year ago

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

    • Edd
      Edd Year ago

      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.

    • Edd
      Edd Year ago +1

      ​@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.

  • Vugen18
    Vugen18 Year ago

    Thanks for sharing and explaining! I dont get everything but thats part of the fun!

  • Gabriel Ferrão
    Gabriel Ferrão 9 months ago

    Spin is a way to describe the continuous rotation of a point in space without needing to rip the space structure and then rotate, just geometrically move it in a clever way so that everything keeps connected, and in this case something rotated 360 degrees and and does not need to come back... it can keep on going, but two full turns are needed to undo the twist that a full rotation does

  • Robert Schlesinger
    Robert Schlesinger 11 months ago +2

    Excellent video. Very interesting, informative and worthwhile video .

  • Carlos Hernandez
    Carlos Hernandez Year ago

    Interesting... I wonder if because of the conservation of angular momentum, as the radius of an object reaches 0 (like an electron), its angular velocity essentially reaches infinity. But a point cannot spin. This must create whats referred to as a spinor.

  • Åke Nordin
    Åke Nordin Year ago +1

    I suppose the "Noter theorem" referenced in the subtitles at about 10:33 actually is Emmy Noether's first theorem about conservation of quantities arising from symmetry properties.

    [INVALID ACCOUNT] Year ago +267

    The most interesting part was that 720° rotation. Totally surprised!! 🙀

    • John A
      John A Year ago

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

    • angeldude101
      angeldude101 Year ago

      @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.

    • Slightly Slanted Sleuth 4 the truth
      Slightly Slanted Sleuth 4 the truth Year ago

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

    • porky11
      porky11 Year ago

      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.

    • Edd
      Edd Year ago +1

      ​@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.

  • Steve
    Steve Year ago +1

    Are there any "particles" that have no entanglement properties? Seems like a good place to investigate.

    • Math Dervish
      Math Dervish Year ago

      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.

  • Jose Miguel
    Jose Miguel 3 months ago

    Electron moves at 2,200 m/s, but it travels in a very small space. It certainly appears to be a force field.

  • Rico G
    Rico G Year ago

    This is the first video I've watched that explains spin properly. I think I get it now. Thank you

    • Eric Parrish
      Eric Parrish 11 months ago

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

  • FiveNineO
    FiveNineO 4 months ago

    My gut feeling is that electrons are nothing but photons in a weird abstract quantum spin. My other gut feeling is that protons are basically the same, but their spin creates a drag in the expansion of space (dark energy) which leads to the phenomenon of gravity

  • Rene Dekker
    Rene Dekker Year ago

    Extremely interesting video.
    If the energy levels are split when an atom is placed into an external magnetic field, does that also mean that these energy levels can be occupied by more electrons? That is, will electrons on higher energy levels drop to lower energy levels (emitting photons) when an atom is placed in an external magnetic field?

    • Matthew Parker
      Matthew Parker 7 months ago

      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.

  • xvpower
    xvpower Year ago +101

    Man whoever does the 3D graphics and animations for this channel is amazing.

    • captainTubes
      captainTubes Year ago +1

      @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.

    • Iaroslav Karkunov
      Iaroslav Karkunov Year ago +1

      @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.

    • Simon Multiverse
      Simon Multiverse Year ago +1

      @Jason Hise That's the one!

    • V Blaas
      V Blaas Year ago +1

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

  • vishnu k
    vishnu k 3 months ago +5

    Excellent stuff please keep posting content like this👌

  • Paxmax
    Paxmax Year ago

    Reminds me of an electron with wheels running along the entire course of a moebius strip. You need to do the course lenght twice to get back to starting point.

  • Nacho
    Nacho Year ago

    I know electrons (energy) is always interacting and can change rotation depending on the matter, like diamagnetism and the corkscrew pattern. This helps puts it into perspective as to how they move like ribbons and never tangle. But does that mean there is always an external force or just on planets where they have an axis? Because space-time isn’t flat it’s wavy and if matter is present it warps space-time. If an higher energy electron moves through space it won’t shake at a frequency so it won’t move because it has wave-like properties. So how would silver atoms and electrons react to the experiment in space-time? Would they not react?

  • testdasi
    testdasi Year ago +1

    Could this be interpreted as the possibility of compactified extra dimension? The reason fermions 360 spin is out of phase could be explained if they also "spin" at half the momentum in another dimension. This other dimension is reflected in the ribbons illustration as the ribbons. Or one could illustrate it as an arrow on the x-y plane that also rotates on the z axis.

    • Hokage Raj
      Hokage Raj Month ago

      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)

  • LifeWriter74
    LifeWriter74 11 months ago +2

    I'm so entangled, spinning around my own sphere of imaginative relativity, I'm almost without any surface, just this point of gravitational forces in an universe of never ending fantasy. 🖤

  • GetterRay
    GetterRay Year ago +94

    I love it when Matt breaks the rules of causality and goes so fast that he becomes Gabe.

    • Alex jones
      Alex jones Year ago

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

    • kwisin1337
      kwisin1337 Year ago +9

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

    • Joyexer
      Joyexer Year ago +1

      The biggest of Gabes ~ Heromarine.

  • oraculox
    oraculox 11 months ago +3

    Makes me think that "reality" or classical phisics manifest through the amount of information or number of interaction between fields. The fewer interactions there are, the fewer information, so the more reality depends on the wave function and probability, and deeper than, that spinors have a phase of overlapping wave functions, and become evident through momentum.

    • oraculox
      oraculox 11 months ago +1

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

    • Cdog Thehedgehog
      Cdog Thehedgehog 11 months ago +2


  • Schenn
    Schenn Year ago +11

    Spinners question: Is it the "strings" around the electron that are 'unwinding' which gives the impression of rotation? Like a heavy washer on a twisted rubber band. Its the rubber band that affects the rotation of the washer, not the washer changing the state of the band.
    In this case, its the warping of space-time instead of a rubber band, the electron is the washer.

    • Duderama 67
      Duderama 67 Year ago

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

    • Dan Kuchar
      Dan Kuchar Year ago

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

  • nah-tah-ni grillett
    nah-tah-ni grillett Year ago +1

    That makes a lot of sense actually. Imagine there is no electron, no spinor. Imagine instead wave lines of nearly nonexistent pure energy that all group and twist near an event such as a piece of matter. That would explain why some materials have higher energy states, and the torrent of wave lines would change position when near other objects of higher mass.
    The electron does not exist.

  • Smash Media & Apps
    Smash Media & Apps 10 months ago

    Really enjoyed this and the great animations, too!

  • Xenosophia
    Xenosophia Year ago +1

    Unapologetically obscure content presented as lay-accessible stories. Love it.

    LOCOBOB Year ago +41

    I like how your videos have become steadily more and more complex over time. It illustrates how scientific research has become more and more abstract and cryptic as we have basically discovered the majority of simple and fairly complicated aspects of reality, and are now deciphering the inner workings. Sort of how everyone can use an iPhone but very few can actually take one apart and know what to do with it, and even less know how it was actually designed to work how it does.

    • Scabbage
      Scabbage Year ago

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

      LOCOBOB Year ago

      @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.

      LOCOBOB Year ago

      @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."
      -"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.

      LOCOBOB Year ago

      @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.

    • Anders L
      Anders L Year ago +1

      @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.

  • Samuel W Reed
    Samuel W Reed Year ago

    Both interesting and compelling. Great video!

  • joe gonzalez
    joe gonzalez Year ago

    Rotation keep the particals from entangling. If it is about to tangle then it double spins. The initial spin gave it mass and by spreading the fundamental particals around itself.

  • Fernando Hood
    Fernando Hood Year ago

    Respect to Pauli, Lorentz , Bohr as these guys had no advance computing yet made all of these discoveries.

    TCPUDPATM PORTS 4 months ago

    Despite being a math major with a minor in physics, and despite having interest in the subject, I’m so lost lol. I need to go back and watch this one step at a time.
    Thank you though! Great video.

  • Benito Sanchez
    Benito Sanchez Year ago

    So, is it possible that a dna strand has to rotate 1440 degrees to imitate it's original position?

  • Gene Whitman
    Gene Whitman Year ago +56

    Whenever i think I'm smart I watch Spacetime...brings me right down to earth....faster than the speed of light

  • Xejerym
    Xejerym Year ago +2

    I was happily surprised to see Gabe make a cameo in this episode! I've been here since he did episode 1!

  • Daniel Schöni
    Daniel Schöni 5 months ago

    That's very interresting!
    My knowledge must be entangled with yours, because I understand, what you're talking about. 😉
    It's a really clear explanation!!!

  • dexter
    dexter 5 months ago

    Another brilliant video as expected.

  • MrSleepkill
    MrSleepkill Month ago

    Basically there is a "inside spin" or an "outside spin" based on the reference point inside (rotation of 360°) or outside(rotation of 720° in 3D.. 1440° in 4D) to get back to its origin. The outside ref. could be a way of defining mass since the twisting of "planck's lines" would reduce "space" between objects (just a thought :o). So photons(2D) following the twisted path would all ways have a 3D spin since it has a length. But the photon would not know about it, since its ref. would be "planck's lines". Have a nice fun fact day, and dwell in crazy thoughts!

  • joe gonzalez
    joe gonzalez Year ago

    Best explanation and visuals about partical physics I have seen.

  • Glenn Pollock
    Glenn Pollock Year ago +28

    I love the humorous comments, BUT I also respect the serious investigators, theorists and mathematicians who have worked for well over a century to provide an understanding of our universe.

  • Jagon Dal
    Jagon Dal Month ago

    Do the protons in the nucleus respond to the apparent position of the electrons? In the iron cylinder demonstration, could it be that, by forcing the electrons to move in regards to a defined axis, they in turn cause the atomic nuclei to move with them, thus causing the entire object to rotate?

  • Steven Roig
    Steven Roig Year ago

    Imagine that space rotates around a center point at a curvature of phi*plank constant / pc (proportional momentum). Something like that could build up to quantum gravity being the curvature of said timespace.

  • Don Adams
    Don Adams 11 months ago +7

    "Electrons DO NOT Spin" Yes, but it is a good way help explain some of their behavior in an understandable way. Maybe it should be called electron splefle.