Most commom spin 1/2 object is the USB connector. You have to place it twice on the same position in order to achieve the perfect match
@sicapanjesis3987
2 жыл бұрын
This is vastly relatable
@Gingnose
2 жыл бұрын
Thank you!
@jeffb3357
2 жыл бұрын
This is actually the best comment on KZitem
@AlexanderBukh
2 жыл бұрын
of macro objects
@mrWobbleWobble
2 жыл бұрын
On behalf of every human being I want to thank you for this comment
@watchletter
2 жыл бұрын
I love how casually he says "A positron can be seen as an electron moving backwarsa in time" like its the most basic thing ever
@Soken50
2 жыл бұрын
Well, it is (in the standard model of physics)
@eideticex
2 жыл бұрын
One may even say it's: elementary.
@theedwardian
2 жыл бұрын
It's actually going to get this video taken down
@Bubu567
2 жыл бұрын
Or you can view it as electron debt.
@RadicalCaveman
2 жыл бұрын
Oh come on, man. Any time you watch an electron moving backwards in time, WHAT DOES IT LOOK LIKE TO YOU? Positron, dumbfuck. Jeesh.
@Oded-Raz
2 жыл бұрын
That's a brilliant, brilliant explanation of an utterly unintuitive physical property. Kudos for achieving such clarity, simplicity, and conciseness.
@infinummjb
2 жыл бұрын
What can be gleaned from this model is that there's some sort of double rotation involved when viewed in 3 spacial dimensions. I am not fully certain but as I recall, when described using quaternions/octonions this double rotation seems to disappear or at least becomes much more natural - it might just be an artifact of the default mathematical model we use in dealing with quantum physics.
@luciazazel2683
2 жыл бұрын
@@infinummjb there is, in fact, a sort of double-rotation in the case of a true spin-1/2 object embedded in a field. The Dirac belt trick displays this well; instead of the double-rotating element being a gear, it is the ribbon/belt. The Dirac belt trick is a closer analogy to the "real" process--in the belt trick, the distortion/displacement is a close analog to the distortion/displacement of the field under rotation. In effect, what the belt trick shows is that the *space itself* (well, the field, technically--basically a set of vectors paired to a coordinate space) can twist about through one rotation (coming to a state that is not the original state) and then all the way through a second, coming to the original state. Still, though, there is indeed a double-rotation :) it's really neat.
@S.G.Wallner
2 жыл бұрын
The reason it is an unintuitive physical property, is because it is not a physical property. There are no electrons to be spinning up out down. This is a physical representation of something that is abstractly mathematical.
@Stalutes64
2 жыл бұрын
@@luciazazel2683 It seems to me like spin 1/2 is very similar on a conceptual level to how imaginary numbers represent rotation. Is it almost like “rotating” through an imaginary spatial dimension? I’ve always understood spin as the quantization of angular momentum is that still a good way of describing spin when you are working with non integer spin?
@luciazazel2683
2 жыл бұрын
@@Stalutes64 Indeed so! There is, in fact, a component there that involves the complex plane. If you look up "what causes the Pauli exclusion principle", you can find an excellent explanatory video that touches on this in a more rigorous way. Yes, spin is a type of quantized, abstract angular momentum--it's not just a heuristic, it is actually a type of angular momentum, and its effects are only tangible in non-integer-spin particles/systems (the latter referring to, principally, quasiparticles). Good observations!
@gordonsirek9001
2 жыл бұрын
I'm a retired engineer from the semiconductor industry. This is the best demonstration of "spin 1/2" I've ever seen.
@RuePerrue
2 жыл бұрын
It's semiconductor crisis out there. Come on back to work my man!
@gordonsirek9001
2 жыл бұрын
@@RuePerrue I don't speak Chinese.
@demp11
2 жыл бұрын
@@gordonsirek9001 isn't tsmc in Taiwan?
@rabarber9610
2 жыл бұрын
@@demp11 Guess what they speak in Taiwan buddy
@Soken50
2 жыл бұрын
@@rabarber9610 Taiwanese ! (/s)
@morkovija
2 жыл бұрын
this is like a secret youtube section of quality, no fluff, no sponsorships,no bs. Thank you
@matthewmcclain1316
2 жыл бұрын
Your name is perfect for that comment. Lol
@tafazzi-on-discord
10 ай бұрын
you might like sponsorblock
@DanielSilva-gc4xz
3 ай бұрын
Today's video is sponsored by Raid Shadow Legends, one of the biggest mobile role-playing games of 2019 and it's totally free! Currently almost 10 million users have joined Raid over the last six months, and it's one of the most impressive games in its class with detailed models, environments and smooth 60 frames per second animations! All the champions in the game can be customized with unique gear that changes your strategic buffs and abilities! The dungeon bosses have some ridiculous skills of their own and figuring out the perfect party and strategy to overtake them's a lot of fun! Currently with over 300,000 reviews, Raid has almost a perfect score on the Play Store! The community is growing fast and the highly anticipated new faction wars feature is now live, you might even find my squad out there in the arena! It's easier to start now than ever with rates program for new players you get a new daily login reward for the first 90 days that you play in the game! So what are you waiting for? Go to the video description, click on the special links and you'll get 50,000 silver and a free epic champion as part of the new player program to start your journey! Good luck and I'll see you there!
@StraveTube
2 жыл бұрын
Beyond the cleverness of the visualization, I'm also really impressed by how smoothly those wooden models spin. Very well done!
@404errorpagenotfound.6
2 жыл бұрын
So an electron does have internal structure, little wooden gears.
@SpaceCadet4Jesus
2 жыл бұрын
...and a pencil to push it all around.
@no-better-name
2 жыл бұрын
@@SpaceCadet4Jesus and a man with a smooth voice to do the pushing, and the ground he stands on, and..., and... xd
@no-better-name
2 жыл бұрын
@Rahul in its infinite boredom, it half-spins the electrons around xd
@DarkMoonDroid
2 жыл бұрын
His tinker-toy set is so much better than mine.
@fauzie13
2 жыл бұрын
@@no-better-name only when someone is watching lol
@billmcdonald4335
2 жыл бұрын
This is the most elegant visualisation I've seen to date. Excellent work.
@wizard7314
2 жыл бұрын
Except it doesn't explain anything
@hisoka73
2 жыл бұрын
after first rotation up becomes down and vice versa
@TheoreticalIdeation
2 жыл бұрын
@@wizard7314 A demonstration isn't an explanation. It looks like the intention was to just share a visualization. After all, the video's title *is not* "Explanation of Spin 1/2."
@ralphclark
2 жыл бұрын
This one is more useful and more realistic. It’s based on Dirac’s belt trick but I think it’s clearer. kzitem.info/news/bejne/r5eqk3mpi5eJp4Y
@james6401
2 жыл бұрын
@@ralphclark is that the PBS one? I like their model with the tangled ribbons only getting untangled after a second spin. Speaking of not explaining anything- is it even possible to explain spin or charge at all?
@toomanyhobbies2011
2 жыл бұрын
There is no physical representation of spin, it's a purely mathematical "concept" that describes behavior. Nice work here, and I hope it helps folks gave a bit of intuition regarding spin.
@astroceleste292
2 жыл бұрын
electrons are a good representation! good luck seeing them LOL
@plantae420
2 жыл бұрын
Why not just say that a spin is this behavior?
@reedspun
2 жыл бұрын
@@plantae420 that sounds rather oversimplified to me, though i dont know partical physics
@schlierenguy
2 жыл бұрын
In nature, form and function are usually intertwinned. I don't see why something that arises from mathematics must necesarily be an abstract "concept" that we use by convention and not a consequence of physical reality.
@lucasng4712
2 жыл бұрын
@@schlierenguy cause it's not
@JaveyJenkins
2 жыл бұрын
The best approach I've ever seen to explain it, love it!
@NorthernChev
2 жыл бұрын
Except 'spin' is just the term we use to describe election motion, despite the fact that they don't actually 'spin...
@ambientscience2951
2 жыл бұрын
@@NorthernChev knew that
@TheZenytram
2 жыл бұрын
well this video explained really well a bad analogy,
@meltingzero3853
2 жыл бұрын
Another way to think about it is to hold a cup in your hand, with its bottom in the palm, and try to rotate it without the coffee spilling out (so your cup has to stay upright during rotation). If you try to do that, you will have to turn the cup under your armpit, stretch the arm out, do a weird turning motion with your hand, and then retrieve the arm. It's a fun thing to try. If you pay attention, you'll notice that the cup will have turned 720° while performing this action.
@albertoolmos21
2 жыл бұрын
Dirac proposed a similar puzzle with a belt, aka "the Dirac's belt trick", to untwist a twisted belt with a fixed end without rotating the other end.
@mahxylim7983
2 жыл бұрын
I just tried it. Its even better than the video in a way that there is more fun in playing with the demonstration yourself!
@SpaceCadet4Jesus
2 жыл бұрын
Don't play around with this too much, you might unravel the universe.
@mahxylim7983
2 жыл бұрын
@@SpaceCadet4Jesus sounds like fun :P
@meltingzero3853
2 жыл бұрын
@@mahxylim7983 The belt trick or with the cup?
@omaririchards930
2 жыл бұрын
By far the best spin 1/2 video I've come across in like 3 years. These models are fantastic
@enotdetcelfer
2 жыл бұрын
Bonus points for making the positron spin clip the electron spin clip played backwards instead of just spinning the model in the other direction. They need to have these in classrooms!
@sebykos
2 жыл бұрын
yup, we can see the stick being followed by the gear, and not the gear being pushed by the stick :))
@yamahantx7005
2 жыл бұрын
Very cool. I've always use the idea of a waiter holding a tray. You can rotate the palm of your hand 360 degrees without dropping the tray, but your elbow will end up pointing up. Do it again, and you're back to where you started.
@miiortbiiort4610
2 жыл бұрын
I like how he actually played the video backwards for the positron to highlight it moving backwards in time.
@davidcahan
2 ай бұрын
This is one of the best visual representations I've seen
@stevenschilizzi4104
2 жыл бұрын
Brilliant demonstration and illustration. Many a high school physics teacher will be using these precious 3:14 min of top pedagogy!
@tanmayakumarrout8767
9 ай бұрын
3.14
@NoosaHeads
2 жыл бұрын
An elegant, graphical representation of an extremely complex physical phenomenon. I wish there had been lecturers like you when I was at university. Your efforts are greatly appreciated.
@wafikiri_
2 жыл бұрын
Astounding! A beautiful model. Even the perpendicularity of the up and down states is shown! We know that neither electrons nor their enantichronal counterparts, positrons, rotate --which is represented by the base and its basal cog, remaining static. And yet their spin state is so clearly modeled by the remainder of the model! Many thanks. First video of yours that I've watched. Yet I subscribed immediately.
@grandlotus1
25 күн бұрын
I had my doubts, but you nailed it. Thanks. This makes the concept something I might, someday, be able to reason with.
@IZn0g0uDatAll
2 жыл бұрын
It’s infuriating that we have such deep understanding of the mathematics of quantum objects, yet are so completely and utterly unable to have an intuition of what it really looks like (probably nothing, actually). Our brain is just ill equiped to truly understand quantum mechanics, because it doesn’t relate to much of our experience of the world.
@rbr1170
2 жыл бұрын
@@hundredfireify But we cannot also deny that there is a possibility that the human brain will evolve a new way of looking at things. We often take it for granted that we look at a 3d representation of the world on a 2d surface of our computers and phones. The first time people saw moving pictures on a screen was probably quite shocking. Now, we expect moving pictures on glass screens. Granted, it may not be as close to the quantum world, our intuition will improve even more. I'd like to think Einstein's general relativity has improve our intuition on spac as more than a "gap in something" but as the actual something where things "actually happen". Whether there is a biological marker for remains to be seen. Probably future generations. Our eyes will of course always fail us because we will never be able to see the quantum world firsthand but how our brain processes information about that world can be approximated. My guess is that the main driver will be the change in how our brain handles expectation about the world around us. People who will be born with the height of virtual reality technology will probably become more susceptible to concepts not grounded on purely tactile experience. Just like we don't question the fact that when you are talking to someone on the phone, you don't mistake them being inside the device or in your ears, they'll be able to process the concept of quantum mechanics without much resistance from expecting things needing to be "actually touching".
@grandunifier3169
2 жыл бұрын
The electron is a sphere of light and the muon is a sphere of darkness that acts as gravity. It is this pair from which all elements are made. This is rather controversial, as it proves God, "In the beginning, God created light & he divided it from darkness" The fact we broke down the atom into quanta and all we're left with is a {sphere of light} attached to a {sphere of darkness} is quite concerning for particle physicist. So instead of acknowledging God and his creation they would rather confuse themselves in lost equations that lead to nowhere.
@IZn0g0uDatAll
2 жыл бұрын
@@grandunifier3169 lol what the hell are you talking about hahaha
@grandunifier3169
2 жыл бұрын
@@IZn0g0uDatAll We have not quantized the electron any further and all evidence suggest its energy or spin is infinite. We are in agreement the electron is a building block of life & I'm explaining to you this {electron} is quite literally a {sphere of light} that proves the existence of God when it was said "In the Beginning, God created light" as we now understand light to be the building block of all matter, or in this case, the electron, a literal {sphere of light} that has {infinite energy} [never stops spinning] You don't seem genuinely interested so I'd rather not waste my time explaining why the 'muon' is actually just gravity/dark matter/energy.
@IZn0g0uDatAll
2 жыл бұрын
@@grandunifier3169 i think if you believe in god, you shoukd just keep it at that instead of trying to justify your belief with some very badly digested pseudo scientific mumbo jumbo. None of what you writes makes any sense.
@sparshsharma5270
10 ай бұрын
If all teachers demonstrated and explained like this, no one would miss their classes!
@kunjupulla
2 жыл бұрын
U just taught me something that I never caught in an entire year of chemistry in just 3 mins 14 sec. 👏👏👏👏
@knopfir
2 жыл бұрын
i mean, you were being taught chemistry. not quantum physics. so it makes sense
@beeble2003
2 жыл бұрын
Why would this be mentioned in chemistry at all? It has nothing to do with chemistry.
@sumdumbmick
10 ай бұрын
maybe it's time we start recognizing that most 'teachers' are incompetent. they also teach us nonsense like: 'English uses an alphabet' - despite the fact that every literate English speaker knows full well that English writing is not remotely alphabetic. 'English has plurals' - despite the fact that 'plural' means more than one, but you can have 'no dogs', 'one dog', 'two dogs' and 'some dogs', which makes suffix-s look more like a non-singular marker... until we consider 'every dog'. 'English has verb tenses' - despite the fact that all of the alleged tense markers also appear on nouns and adjectives, like '-ed' being an alleged past tense marker appearing on adjectives: 'a walked dog is a happy dog', '-ing' appearing anywhere: 'the shouting man is disturbing my sleeping', and '-s' being the same one that allegedly marks plural nouns: 'the dogs run fast' vs 'the dog runs fast'. and this last one, which is called 'simple present tense' when it appears on a verb indicates something that's timelessly true, like 'seven plus three is 10', with that 'is' being the standalone form of suffix-s. '1+1=2' - despite the fact that most of mathematics exists specifically because this is virtually never true. for instance concepts like, fraction addition, unit conversion, and like terms, all exist to handle cases when 1+1 is most decidedly not 2, as in the following list of examples: 1 dog +1 dog = 2 dogs; this is the only kind of example that Whitehead and Russell considered in their so-called proof which appeared in the 1910 publication Principia Mathematica 1 dog +1 quail = 2 wings; expected values, but for the wrong reason... oops 1 dog +1 quail = 6 legs 1 half +1 third = 5 sixths 1 foot +1 yard = 48 inches 1 frog +1 pond = 1 pond 1 C water +1 C dirt = some mud '2^3 is 2 multiplied by itself 3 times' - despite the fact that this describes 2^4, since 2 multiplied by itself once would be 2*2, which isn't 2^1, but 2^2, so 2*2*2 isn't 2^2, but 2^3, and 2*2*2*2, or 2 multiplied by itself 3 times, is most decidedly 2^4, and not 2^3. and even if we say this slightly more correctly as: '2^3 is 3 copies of 2 multiplied together' this doesn't remotely explain zero exponents or negative exponents, which also can't be explained by what Euler said in Introductio inAnalysin Infinitorum Vol. 1 Ch. 6 #97-99, where he simply asserted that zero exponents yield 1, negative exponents yield unit fractions, and this can be shown by way of taking a random positive exponent and decrementing it. this is nonsense because even Euler partially realizes his mistake in #99 when he notes that a base of 0 doesn't behave as he's claimed, but he still doesn't really fix his mistake, he just treats this as a special case, which ends up giving us some of the indeterminate forms. but, if you pay attention just a tiny little bit you'll notice that the 1 which appears when the exponent is non-positive is always there as the initial condition to exponentiation, and that this should be extremely obvious. since exponentiation is iterated multiplication by definition its initial condition must be the multiplicative identity, which is 1. so 2^3 isn't really 2*2*2 as everyone conventionally claims. instead 2^3 = 1 *2 *2 *2, which now yields 3 multiplications by 2. and this now explains why 2^0 = 1, since this has zero multiplications by 2. and why 2^-3 = (((1 /2) /2) /2), since this has -3 multiplications, or 3 divisions, by 2. and now there's also no mystery as to why 0^0 = 1, since the value of the base is completely irrelevant when the exponent is 0, by definition.
@tomasbeltran04050
10 ай бұрын
@@beeble2003electron states and whatnot fuck chemistry anyways
@hamsterdam1942
10 ай бұрын
@@beeble2003 In chemistry, you usually learn how orbitals are filled with electrons, using the Pauli exclusion principle and knowing that electrons prefer to fill orbitals with lowest energies. This has a very intimate relationship with quantum numbers. Specifically, principal, azimuthal, magnetic, and, most importantly, spin projection. If you remember about two arrows in a box, that corresponds to two different spin projections
@lekoman
10 ай бұрын
This was not ever a thing I thought I'd have a mental model for. I recognize that the reality is more complex, but holy hell is this a helpful way for a layperson to feel a little closer to the subject matter. Very, very well done.
@jawaring4367
2 жыл бұрын
I love how the example at the end loops like four times. Demonstrations like this really should always include a long looping sequence at the end of the video
@isarmanipradhan8389
4 ай бұрын
Thanks for giving me a intuitive explanation for this concept of spin 1/2 particles.
@NoamWhy
2 жыл бұрын
Thanks for that beautiful presentation. It's brilliantly simple, and very well put together.
@bryanstyble748
4 ай бұрын
Given we're often told that "spin" is something of a misnomer for what's going on way, way, WAY down there at the subatomic level. Still, your geared wooden discs demonstration is a BRILLIANT way to visualize what is probably an impossible-to-see phenomena. And as your quote at the end suggests, even Feynman didn't come up with this. So THANK YOU, Sir Watts, for helping me better grasp what I've always found elusive!
@MarushiaDark316
9 ай бұрын
This is probably the best explanation of electron spin I've ever encountered. It makes such intuitive sense when presented this way.
@faarsight
2 жыл бұрын
That's a very interesting property for a fundamental particle to have when you put it like this.
@skateamv8319
2 жыл бұрын
Excellent!!! My professor told be don't try to visualise it. Just think like it's there. Now my head feels more relax than before for such visualisation. Thanks a lot.
@df4250
2 жыл бұрын
Excellent visualisation! It would be fantastic if there was a visualisation of how the Pauli Exclusion principle applies in atomic/molecular orbitals.
@doxielain2231
2 жыл бұрын
What elegant woodworking and explanation. The world makes slightly more sense to me now.
@chanelinifokusmengatasipik697
2 жыл бұрын
This is the most elegant visualisation I've seen to date. Good work
@TwoWholeWorms
2 жыл бұрын
You've managed to explain something I could never quite get my head around in the space of a few minutes. Genuinely impressed!
@TataePeerawatLaoarun
9 ай бұрын
That is why the maximum electrons per orbital is 2. It pushes each other in circular motion and turns into 1/2 orbit.
@syntaxerorr
10 ай бұрын
I've kinda heard about these concepts before but never really understood them. This is a great way to show what is going on. Thanks for sharing!
@12kenbutsuri
2 жыл бұрын
Amazing analogy! I just blindly calculate without thinking about these stuffs, but maybe that's not very optimal.
@DallinBackstrom
2 жыл бұрын
Thanks for the concise and intuitive demonstration of spin 1/2. It makes the concept easy to visualise.
@peabody3000
2 жыл бұрын
that description of the positron as an "electron going backwards in time" was striking. i've wondered if all the "missing" anti-matter of the big bang didn't head off with an opposite arrow of time to ours into an anti-universe
@TheZenytram
2 жыл бұрын
they go forwards in time, his simplification about them going backward is just to make the math easier.
@peabody3000
2 жыл бұрын
@@TheZenytram thanks i do get that but that question of mine remains. i've seen it pop up elsewhere. i've also wondered on a related note if certain particle/anti-particle asymmetries would disappear if they could (somehow) be observed in opposing arrows of time
@SpaceCadet4Jesus
2 жыл бұрын
This is a stray anti-comment.
@peabody3000
2 жыл бұрын
@@SpaceCadet4Jesus bravo
@graphite2786
2 жыл бұрын
! ° ∆ °∆ Aa A a Aa a A a a A aa a A aaa a A aa a a A a a a aa A a a a a a And Im a stray Gamma Ray!
@kj4242
2 жыл бұрын
One of the best demo on the complex subject matter.
@MrBauchnabbel
2 жыл бұрын
Beautiful woodcraft! A little critique: It certainly looks like an elegant implementation of the most simple double cover possible (a circle double covering a circle). However, the double cover seems only superficially related to the sphere double covering SO(3), which I think is the origin of sphin and which I believe is the effect you tried to emulate in lower dimensions. To go further, I am not quite sure how your representations of up and down actually relate to spin up and spin down. However, I am just a lowly geometer whose attempts to pierce the deep mysteries of quantum mechanical geometry have yet to succeed, so maybe by doubt is wrongly placed...
@antoine8278
10 ай бұрын
This exactly the random content I am looking for at 1:00 a.m.
@n-da-bunka2650
10 ай бұрын
Interesting statement from Feynman from 1965. I have seen other representations using differing models (PBS Space Time's version) which I personally think shows the physical properties a bit better but this simple one does do an excellent representation of how these properties align to the mathematical matrices so thanks!
@ShredEngineerPhD
2 жыл бұрын
This is AWESOME!
@brianwright8739
Жыл бұрын
dude I want to make this model so badly. Thank you for the physical representation.
@daltanionwaves
Жыл бұрын
Sweet two-dimensional model in the 3 spatial dimensions of real life representing a 2D representation of a 3D, and sometimes 4D... Reality... Great work.
@xealit
2 жыл бұрын
the problem with this demonstration is that you can make any gear ratio you want - it could also be "spin 1/3". But there is fundamentally no spin 1/3 in reality.
@pedrocarvalho9273
3 ай бұрын
Brilliant and ingenious explanation. Thank you.
@En_theo
2 жыл бұрын
- Richard Feynmann : "if you think you understood QM, then you have not understood it" - KZitem : "Not so fast..."
@robertw1871
2 жыл бұрын
Feynman … still even more correct after all these years…. The fact that nothing is actually spinning probably escapes most that now think they understood something.
@En_theo
2 жыл бұрын
@@robertw1871 I was just kidding, we know it's more complex than that. Actually, except for the entanglement experiments, the analogy shown in the video works pretty well.
@robertw1871
2 жыл бұрын
@@En_theo It really doesn’t, as what is called spin is a quantum of magnetic moment and nothing is actually spinning, it’s just telling you what state the magnetic feild is in. It’s a good analog of the mathematics, but not an actual electron. It’s a case of exactly how Richard explained it, if you think you understand it then you don’t, man was a genius. You’re trying to imagine an object doing something, it’s not an object, it has no dimensions or form so that’s the difficulty. It’s just a set of properties at a point in a feild.
@En_theo
2 жыл бұрын
@@robertw1871 It's ironical that you talk about not understanding QM, because the theory does not actually know what's happening in there. It's not that "it does not spin", it's more like "we don't know what's going on". So yes, the analogy works very well except for entanglement. How could you tell the difference if particles had a specific internal structure (or something like chords) and that inside it, spinning is possible because FTL movement would be possible on small scales (that's just an example). You cannot say "it does not spin", you can just say that the idea of spinning can't be explained with the rules we established so far for large scales objects. What happens inside a particle is a mystery so far.
@igors5637
2 жыл бұрын
We dont know whats happening, but its not spinning.
@harshrajchoudhary8079
9 ай бұрын
The duration is 3:14 🥺😭 my heart melted their. So much thankful for the video, it helped a lot❤❤❤ when he says he says a positron is an electron moving back in time, chef's kiss🤌🤌🤌
@luckyluckydog123
7 жыл бұрын
pretty cool models!
@dioptre
2 жыл бұрын
4 years ago??? HOW?
@flix7280
2 жыл бұрын
@@dioptre lol
@ghassanehajji7591
2 жыл бұрын
@@dioptre Lorenzo is a positron who is moving backwards in time :)
@Rockets0896
2 жыл бұрын
4 years ago!? I wish! Would have been a really cool visual for me while deriving the Dirac equation for my research paper
@HamidKhan-uv7qm
2 жыл бұрын
I have no words use for u....and for this demonstration....love...
@reppich1
2 жыл бұрын
I just love how people persist in not coping with the knowledge about the wave/field aspect of sub-atomic things. to understand that, review the clip in another channel about turning a sphere inside out. From there you will start to see the energy state , only 8 or less in the outer shell make more sense. the shell is the field and the electron doesn't actually exist in the atom, just the field. Oh, and the 1/2 comes from how many times it has to turn inside out to get back to origin state. and that will help you understand the other spins like 1/3 & -2/3.
@souljastation5463
2 жыл бұрын
So 1/3 means that it has to turn 3 times? It's unintuitive because in my mind 1/2 get translated into "half" and 1/3 into "a third" of something, not 3 times. 2/3 is even more confusing, I guess it means it reverses every two third of a rotation. Though it doesn't tell me how many rotations it needs to return to the original state, 6 maybe?
@TristanCleveland
2 жыл бұрын
Which video?
@reppich1
2 жыл бұрын
@@souljastation5463 - that is what the planar illustration has a limited use. 1/2 would be turn inside out twice to be a full oscillation. For negative, more like turn outside in. For 2/3 or 1/3 you are dealing with 2-d objects in 3-d space, so 1/3rd = invert 3 dimensions to get a full oscillation; or 2/3 means invert 3 dimensions to get 2 oscillations. The trick is not assuming those dimensions are automatically x,y,z Better to think of it like changing color which means changing wavelength or harmonic.
@neilgrundy
2 жыл бұрын
Great analogy, probably nothing like reality but still a really good analogy.
@_Charon_IV
2 жыл бұрын
The best explanation, never understood like this before,...... don't know why.....but loved it a lot❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️♥️♥️♥️♥️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❣️❣️❣️❣️
@morgan1719
9 ай бұрын
Great info packed into just 3 minutes! The only criticism I have is that the energy and excitement in your voice woke me up several times.
@almaska82
2 жыл бұрын
Spin is an integral characteristic of a substance, like its mass, density, etc. American science again confuses people this time not with Schrödinger's cats, but replacing the terms rotational mechanical moment and quantum number.
@yshraybman
2 жыл бұрын
нельзя сконфузить тех кто в этом все равно ничего не понимает. так что не переживай, все ок с американской наукой.
@xxportalxx.
2 жыл бұрын
Naaaaah we call it spin bc in the equation, in which it was first derived, it looks like angular momentum. I mean it's no more confusing than talking about color charges or positive and negative charges, they're merely ways of expressing a new concept that words did not exist for.
@michaelflynn6952
2 жыл бұрын
yeah those damn Americans inventing quantum physics alone without the help of any other nations
@yoursoulisforever
10 ай бұрын
Hats off to whomever came up with this physical model!
@waterbottle6644
2 жыл бұрын
Absolutely beautiful little bit of intuition! Fantastic demonstration
@cslloyd1
2 жыл бұрын
I’m curious about how these spins manifest themselves in the lab and how we ever knew they existed.
@Anankin12
2 жыл бұрын
Stern Gerlach
@Anankin12
2 жыл бұрын
Also the math needed to understand this is a little bit complicated, but if you're familiar with vectors you should be able to kinda follow it
@skougi
2 жыл бұрын
@@Anankin12thank you for the info! It left me with more questions! The SG experiment explanations online seem to cover two flavors, electrons and magnets which deflect in "patterns"... the former being discreet and the latter continuous. Consider that the magnets only appear continuous because some parts have spin up and some spin down. Each individual particle always deflects by a specific force/direction. If you get three up and two down the forces would sum somewhere in between but closer to up. So, I was wondering if you knew if we could build matter where all of the particles (that have 1/2 spins) have the same spin orientation? How would that stuff deflect in the SG experiment? Would this stuff act like a monopole magnet? How fucked would chemistry be? I could be in left field as well! If you have time/are willing to answer of course. :)
@mbrusyda9437
2 жыл бұрын
@@skougi SG experiment already splits particles into those with the same orientations...
@robertw1871
2 жыл бұрын
Nothing about an electron actually spins, it’s a statistical method of defining a property. What an electron actually is can’t be visualized, but it’s more charge moving in a feilds, or a disturbance in the feild itself that couples to other feilds….
@gehteuchnixan8256
2 жыл бұрын
Thank you, this model makes it much easier to imagine and understand what happens in the subatomic level.
@tvrkm6897
2 жыл бұрын
Query: With the notations given, could there be a theoretical particle that has two electrons and two positrons orbiting the nucleus? Is that how those matrices are to be read? With the models in mind, I know that it would be impossible, and I know about matter-antimatter annihilation, but then why are there two separate vectors for going around the other direction?
@hermannbarbato
2 жыл бұрын
Following because I was about to ask the same question
@sbrsbr4893
10 ай бұрын
A simple physical view no longer lacking!
@mingchiisuen2576
2 жыл бұрын
Someone told me that 1/2 spin means 2 rounds to its original state few years ago, I can't imagine until I watch your video, thank you.
@steveshadforth
2 жыл бұрын
They don’t ACTUALLY spin. Electrons are points. A point can’t spin.
@mingchiisuen2576
2 жыл бұрын
@@steveshadforth I know they do not spin in a classical physics way. But they are not 'points' either.
@steveshadforth
2 жыл бұрын
@@mingchiisuen2576 yes they are
@trucid2
10 ай бұрын
I like how the positron rotation is the electron video played backwards to really drive the point home.
@tomrobingray
2 жыл бұрын
But the cog angles are arbitrary, they could be any 360 degrees so you don't have two spin states, but infinitely many. Also the cog ratios are arbitrary so you have an arbitrary number of rotations required for return to previous state. You might say that these up/down 1/2 spins represent two classes of behaviour of this model, but many more classes of behaviour might be imagined. So the model although interesting does not throw any light on the spin phenomenon.
@Wolkenphoenix
2 жыл бұрын
which it didn't claim. The title of the video is "Demonstration of Spin 1/2", which is exactly what it does.
@Ryry013
2 жыл бұрын
This is what I was thinking, the idea that you have to spin a spin 1/2 system by 720° to get it to return some state has some links but I don’t think anything else in the video is relevant to an actual quantum mechanical spin 1/2 system
@tallweirdguy
2 жыл бұрын
Well done. That was incredibly simple to understand once you have shown it like this.
@dioptre
2 жыл бұрын
this is amazing!
@sumdumbmick
10 ай бұрын
I'd wager that the most common mass produced spin 1/2 object that people work with regularly is a 4 stroke engine. the valve timing is exactly like this, since each cylinder goes through a full crank rotation with its valves closed for compression and combustion, and then with the valves moving during the crank rotation associated with intake and exhaust.
@ProgressiveMastermind
2 жыл бұрын
Despite really nice models: how real is this for wave equations? Some say the electron spin is lile such a rotation, others say it is not, so that there isnt anything rotating classically. Still electrons create a magnetic momentum
@brunojambeiro6776
2 жыл бұрын
I am pretty sure electrons don’t actually spin. It is true that they have a magnet momentum, but if you measure its magnetism and use the upper limit of size of an electron then calculate the speed which they rotate you get a result faster than light, so we can conclude that its magnetism doesn’t come from a classical rotation.
@alpers.2123
2 жыл бұрын
I am suspicious that electron has a size in classical sense as well.
@dylanmiley5642
2 жыл бұрын
@@brunojambeiro6776 hmmmm but magnetic moment is believed to be a direct result from the spin of the electron and its angular momentum, and so are you taking the the magnetic moment that results from angular momentum into your calculations as well?
@brunojambeiro6776
2 жыл бұрын
@@dylanmiley5642 Not exactly sure what you mean by that. The magnetic moment the electron have is a result of its angular momentum, which is connected to it’s spin, but despite it being called spin, electrons don’t rotate around its own axis. It’s angular momentum is intrinsic to the particle. What i had showed is that such angular momentum could not be a result a classical rotation of the electron. Btw I an no expert, try searching science asylum spin, I belive he gives a better explanation in the video.
@dylanmiley5642
2 жыл бұрын
@@brunojambeiro6776 im not an expert either, im simply a masters student in electrical engineering with an interest in this realm. From my understanding (and with reference to the textbook "Magnetism and Magnetic Materials" ) within a magnetic material, electrons both have an orbital angular momentum as well as spin, and as magnetism is a relativistic correction to the coulomb force, both of these components lead to magnetic moment.
@rafaelortega1376
2 жыл бұрын
Great work. Beautiful representation of the spin.
@maheshkanojiya4858
2 жыл бұрын
This is more than brilliant, one of the best things I have ever seen. Thanks a ton Sir
@pia31415
2 жыл бұрын
There is no classical equivalent of quantum spin. Neat demo though.
@kcmichaelm
2 жыл бұрын
Recording the Positron videos backwards was a really nice touch.
@АлександрНиколаев-к6ш7э
9 ай бұрын
Какая простая и понятная механическая аналогия
@ANDROLOMA
10 ай бұрын
Good video to visualize what I'd been reading about.
@CapitanTavish
2 жыл бұрын
I love how the positron model actually are reversed clip instead of just mere counter rotational
@GonzaloCarmonasoyFanDgonz
2 жыл бұрын
Your explanation was pretty clear. I think that never forget.😯
@maxlambda7859
2 жыл бұрын
A superb illustration! Thank you.
@Rbcksqheclfy
2 жыл бұрын
thanks man, as a non scientist, this is the explanation I was looking for a long time!
@stigrynning
2 жыл бұрын
But doesn't this require knowledge about the internal parts of the electrons, which we don't have?
@gazzabro55
2 жыл бұрын
Of course it does, that's why I have no clue.
@Boogaboioringale
2 жыл бұрын
Yes. However, spin is a measurement of energy (angular momentum). In the g-2 muon experiment, the spin was determined from the amount of energy in the electrons which decayed from the muons. It has been proposed that electrons are made of two massless particles with opposite “chirality “(yet another insufficient analogy) , which is like “right-handed” “ left-handed “ rotation. The flipping back and forth of chirality is said to be the cause of mass. We don’t know what an electron is it’s just the math that makes us come up with more ideas.
@ethelredhardrede1838
2 жыл бұрын
"quire knowledge about the internal parts of the electrons, " There is no present evidence for an electron having internal parts. Characteristics yes, parts no. Which is the problem for physical representations of spin. I really like this demo BUT its an analogy and not related to how electrons really do anything. The are the best tested fit to the idea of a fundamental particle.
@joonasmakinen4807
2 жыл бұрын
This spin 1/2 representation is equivalent to Möbius torus knot, in which case the aether has to flow twice around the electron to get to the same spot in the original orientation.
@HarryAGeorgiou
2 жыл бұрын
God bless his gift of a Simple and genius representation of these particles and their spins
@RobRoss
10 ай бұрын
I think the whole “traveling back in time” metaphor does a disservice to science communication. It confuses more than it helps. Nothing is actually going back in time.
@didek666
2 жыл бұрын
I don't think there is a simpler explanation of 1/2 spin on the Internet. Well done!
@codycoyote6912
2 жыл бұрын
Brilliantly simple illustration
@CharlesB147
2 жыл бұрын
Wow. That was so succinct and satisfying. Thank you very much for the explanation.
@CreepyChappy
2 жыл бұрын
Great video
@Deciheximal
2 жыл бұрын
Seems like "spin 2" would have been the better title for this one.
@adrianhenle
2 жыл бұрын
That would be a particle that returns to its original state after only half of a rotation. Two choices for definition here: either the spin number is how many rotations to return to the starting point, or how many times you return to the starting point per rotation. Physicists chose the latter, although as you say, the former is more intuitive. I don't know why, probably convenience in writing out the equations.
@joanna.uam230
2 жыл бұрын
Thank you! I finally understood that.
@justanotherguy469
2 жыл бұрын
You're a girl and you like physics? Awwsumm!!
@RobertoTifi
2 жыл бұрын
The best "as if" I've seen about electrons' spin!
@thefifthaceassociation
2 жыл бұрын
iv been doing a spin 1/2 with my lighter when i get bored as i twirl it around my finger. One twirl gets to gas release facing away from my thumb and then with two i get the gas back at my thumb. I learned somthing new! =D
@thomasrebotier1741
2 жыл бұрын
I love how the mirror image "reversed in time" shows the rod leading the wheel instead of pushing it...
@jawer5050
2 жыл бұрын
thanks, this helped me bypass a dimensional holy wall that redirects misfortune
@arispett5046
10 ай бұрын
I wish that I would have known about this in junior high school. I could have made electron and positron spin models for the science fair.
@SiwakSerg
2 жыл бұрын
The spin 1/2 demonstration is awesome, thank you. However, I must admit if one turns over the table, the clockwise direction and counterclockwise will turn one into the other. This doesn't happen with a positron, one cannot change its charge by simply choosing a different coordinate system (or rather an inertial system).
@homphysiology
2 жыл бұрын
Yes this seems crucial: Spin +1/2 and -1/2 can't be interchanged by turning the particle upside down I guess?
@CatsBirds2010
2 жыл бұрын
What a brilliant way of explaining, hence you earned my sub.
@manpreet9766
10 ай бұрын
PBS space time also has an intuitive explanation of spin 1/2 of electron, which makes more sense.
@leahl5007
2 жыл бұрын
Holy crap dude. This is the best video I’ve watched this year!
@lucystarlight8887
2 жыл бұрын
This might be a dumb question, but how do you measure the spin of an electron? What sort of instruments could you use to measure something so small? Also, how exactly does a particle travel backwards in time?
@Rudxain
2 жыл бұрын
1st electrons are one of the easiest particles to detect their spin, just detect their magnetic field (I guess that's how it's done, but it's more complicated than that). And positrons don't move backwards in time, only their electric charge (and magnetic field) *behave* like if they were moving in reverse. All antiparticles have this pseudo-reversed-time (except self-antis, like Photons). The only particles that REALLY move back in time are nega-particles (particles with negative energy). This is why I think "antiparticle" is a misnomer, because an opposite electric charge is just that. A *REAL* and valid antiparticle should be opposite in *every* property (negative mass and energy achieves exactly that)
@lucystarlight8887
2 жыл бұрын
@@Rudxain Thanks for explaining. I don't totally get it but I understand a little better now.
Пікірлер: 1,5 М.