this is the best

:)

🤣🤣🤣🤣

I fully understand now.

Yes, but the ball has to spin twice

sounds like a joke, but it is actually true!

@@SantiagoItzcoatl Because we're not conscious of it's position. Double slit experiment or Schrödinger's cat. Once you look and become conscious of it's position only then is it 100% until then it stays 50/50...Perhaps?

brilliant

This is freakishly true!

@@bad-bunnyblogger8171 I've always hated the Schrodingers cat thing but it might be true in this case. Got me racking my brain on this one. Now plugging a USB in will never be the same.

The electron has the inherent property of angular momentum but it's not spinning. Spin describes an effect produced but not a physical cause, an innate cause. It's beautiful man.

Absolutely incorrect

@@tintweezl It's just like something being wet without ever having contact with any sort of liquid?

@@JohnSmendrovac Well, that does not surprises me...

For something to spin in the classical sense it has to consist of more than one particle. You need two points to measure an angle. You can tell if a ball is spinning because you feel the friction when you touch it. You can even stop it from spinning by cancelling out its angular momentum. But friction is a macroscopic effect that requires millions of atoms bound together. Because a particle is the smallest division possible there is no actual surface or friction. I think the only analogy would be to have another anti-particle with exact opposite “spin” collide. In the quantum world that just annihilates both particles though. Without spin they can’t even exist.

Or that puzzle of fliping a sphere inside out without creasing.

thank you

69

Bingo!

but youre not travelling in a circle and youre not rotating in and out.. besides that,, youre almost correct

lol

*hold my beer*

I’m gonna stop you but as soon as I’ll do it I won’t know where

@@hyperduality2838 lol

@@hyperduality2838 lmao

Continuous excitement can be hazardous to your health

Underrated Comment

No doubt. I've definitely observed excitement jump from one quantum level to another spontaneously

they are excited and grounded at the same time. Super!

In specific quanta perhaps?

I've collapsed into "I hate QM but admit its results" state.

@@whoprofits2661 by the action of which observer?

@@haraldjorch708 Why, myself of course

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

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

Precession to be precise.

Good ONE

At a pub quiz night, one question was "What is the last word in the Bible?" and my mate, who went to Bible class, immediately said "Coincidental." XD

@@PrinceWesterburg Of course he was completely wrong. Never take another person's word for anything, especially in a pub.

The physical law requires that I answer "no."

Totally agree. Which is probably why this is the first time I really started to feel like I was able to grasp it.

Quite. "Dumbing down" an explanation most often necessitates leaving out important details. Doing that leaves unanswered questions, thus making the explanation less intelligible. It is natural for human beings to be curious, but not everything is within our ability to comprehend.

@@iamtheiconoclast3 ppupp III I I lllllljjjjjli

Give it to me straight, doc. No sugar coating!

@David Bytheway electrical engineering was fantasy class? I just finished quantum II and honestly by the end of perturbation theory I was like wtf am I even learning. The professor uses quantum to do molecular modeling and even said that a lot of quantum simply is too cumbersome or incomplete to really apply with any effectiveness. If anything, quantum is the fantasy physics, at least we can use the whole electrical engineering class to do something lol

I dont want to be that guy but being smarter is not just knowing things

@@cristianjuarez1086 you are right

@@cristianjuarez1086 Well, in a sense it is a component of it: you can build stuff using the bricks of your acquired knowledge. I think of knowledge as having more tools at the disposal of my brain to build more complex things than my brain would be able to, without. Knowledge is also probably the only thing at your disposal to change a genetically fixed feature (intelligence).

@@cristianjuarez1086Well, you’re being “that guy”. I don’t think the OP was implying that just knowing facts is all there is to “smartness”.

@kuribojim3916 nah, data is not the same as information, and having information but being dumb to use it is just an example of how you're wrong

it just blew my mind... finally an actual visual that can help explain why its NOT actually spinning lmao

@@dan7291able time stamp?

Exactly what I was thinking. That took some time and knowledge regardless of how strong their ability. Also, really cool visual explanation!

@@DanielW607 9:49

@@MrFedX quaternions are neat

And also the weirdest.

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

Students to high school physics teacher: "How does charge work?" Teacher: *head explodes*

The isn't really and intuitive way to describe this weird thing, to describe it you'd need a weird explanation like this!

I think it *does* have charge, at least...

I thought electrons were negatively charged.

@Kelvin Yes, that comes right after the professor gives up on trying to make sense of what spin intuetively is and go for the shut up and calculate approach that he'll adopt for the rest of the course..

Probably why they chose a different word.

Same. lol

Nothing in nature is that easy...There's always a 'huh' moment after every 'aha' one... :)

Funny :)

see: the strand conjecture (strands with rational tangles, not strings)

Hahaha Omg that’s SOOO ironic!!

Its self learned machine learning - My guess.

Yes, who died 33 years ago. You example is stupid. This way you can also say that electric motor or generator or radio cannot exist because Christian Oersted could not see all this available.

@@mknone40 Feynman was right then and the statement still stands. We understand a lot about quantum mechanics but no one understands how the things we "know" to be true of quantum mechanics align with what we know to be true about general relativity. If anyone truly understood the physics underlying the quantum work then we would already have a theory of everything. The fact that physicists cannot reconcile quantum mechanics with general relativity is itself proof that we do not understand how either work very well.

@@tmoore121 its more that quantan mechanics is so alien to our thinking that no one truly understands it on an intuitive level. Its sort of like higher dimensions, we can solve problems and do math but we will never have a geometric intuition about it like in 2 or 3 dimensions.

Always impressive. The animation at 9:30 is fantastic. This is a really nice description of spin.

@@rheticus5198 i guess that is a common known animation from wikipedia.

I donated the Wikipedia animations to the public domain a few years back. Was super cool to find them featured here!

@@rheticus5198 I originally saw that spin video with lots of tendrils, which kept moving and didn't get tied in knots, in www.quantamagazine.org/ at least a couple of years ago. I haven't been able to find it again, but maybe I should look again.

@@JasonHise64 Loved the article you shared on twitter about this topic. Is there more recent work you know of?

Pain is a catalyst, necessary for perpetuating the outcome that is growth :)

I got 'entanglement' in my brain cells listtening to this 🤣

Oh wow, at that point I got it, thank you for the timestamp! I don't get anything else, but that little bit with the ribbons is amazing!

Dq

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

Teachers taught you this in school?

@@mja2239 It was a higher cert, so something similar to an extra grade after high school (hs) or pre-university. It was done at a hs and considered hs, that's why I said school.

No, the joke is that they're spin 1 particles. You try it, flip it, try it, and then flip it again.

No. Rather, they are in quantum superposition of two states (up or down) and they collapse to one when you measure it (try to plug in).

@@selforganisation Unfortunately the always seem to collapse to the undesired state.

@@Ethan_Simon Am I the only one who looks at the plug and socket before trying to connect them?

@@harmsc12 I don't know. I just have the habit of plugging it in ASAP. I could rationalize and say that it takes less time to fail and try again than to look and see which was is correct before plugging it in.

I understood the whole thing, he's just reading from the Star Trek technobabble bible that Scotty and LaForge use. For example, if you were paying attention, his condition is the result of a horrible transporter accident. His quantum spin function was thrown out of phase by 360 degrees during transport by the phase inducers and now he's Australian.

You and I are in perfect agreement with each other. 👍🏽😶🤦🏽‍♂️🤣

@Walter Morris why such a specific number?

The more information you learn about a subject, the less certain you can be that it’s true. That’s the Donald exclusion principle.

Great... I'll join you to understand everything... Atleast till the 1st sentence...

Absolutely 😁

Someone in the comments: "technically if you returned to Earth at the speed of light your energy would destroy the entire planet on impact even as a tiny human"

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

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

technically if you returned to Earth at the speed of light your energy would destroy the entire planet on impact even as a tiny human

Good for you😌👍🏼

It must be really fun listening to this dude while also understanding every word he says!

@@visheshreddy4293 xD ikr

He is also wrong:?)

@@RichardAlsenz just for my own understanding, what parts wrong?

Technically your head also has electrons..

…and yet your head had no classical rotation. Hmmm…

Better spin it again. Always watch Spacetime in pairs.

@@helloworld610 -- true but as he pointed out, they are not spinning :)

That's called conservation of momentum, MrWildbill47. 😂🤣😂

What I love about this show is that it takes university level subjects and makes them digestible to anyone with a low level physics background. It’s wonderful

@@fattyMcGee97 ill take your word for it (or ill find out as I watch more of their videos)! im not really a follower of this channel and my background is in plants and biochemistry... quantum physics just flies over my head 😭 even tho it was discussed in my university classes and its in the text books, its so difficult to digest :') very thankful for channels like this that help by providing different narratives or better visualizations (sorry for semi unloading there was a deleted comment about how i must be lying about not understanding something like this because it just takes 2 pages in a physics book and how could i not understand it after taking "complex" classes 🤣😭)

Yeah I’ve listened to Roger Penrose talks on spinors & they were pretty much incomprehensible for a layperson. This was much more helpful.

I knew a spinner once, and she was pretty cool. Ended up learning nothing about spin though, so figured it was a matter of time before this video was made.

@Thee Cat, nuclear magnetic resonance does not really have anything to do with spin angular momentum, so I'm not sure if/why you expect a course on NMR to delve into the details of spin.

I sort of understanding it from going lighting and shaders in games but yeah even though I use the calculations I have trouble wrapping my head around it. Oh, that's the algorithm for refraction ok if you say so seems to work lol.

Sheldon: I don't know why it works this way, but this way is the only way it works... Leonard: I can confirm this, it does work for some reason. Howard: Well, ok, whatever you say guys. Ill just do it that way then. Raj: ... Penny: Still? Omg, I need a drink...

you know enough to know what you don't know. That's something you know about :D

dang, one day maybe we can learn epistemology, and we finally can stop knowing anything except then we'd be thinking and the masons would have to tell everyone you're a meth addict

The biggest of Gabes ~ Heromarine.

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

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

That's exactly wrong. The spin of the electron is just like the spin of a bicycle wheel, if you switch the spin of the electron it can transfer its angular momentum to the bicycle wheel. The electron is actually spinning, except it doesn't have a size.

@@annaclarafenyo8185 no, you are exactly wrong. Electrons are *not* actually spinning in a similar fashion to the bicycle wheel.

@@jmckendry84 They are exactly spinning in the manner of a bicycle wheel, except without internal moving parts. You can transfer their spin to the wheel simply by flipping a magnetic field around the (iron) bicycle wheel, which flips all the magnetic-electron spins, and sets the wheel spinning a small but measurable amount, this is the extremely famous Einstein de-Haas experiment. The ONLY reason people don't say the electron is literally spinning is because it has no moving parts. If the spin was due to moving parts, it would have to be integer spin, not spin 1/2, and it would require superluminal speed for the parts. But aside from having no moving parts, the electron spin is exactly the same as a bicycle wheel.

@@annaclarafenyo8185 "But aside from having no moving parts, the electron spin is exactly the same as a bicycle wheel." Understand what you're saying but surely you can see the irony with this statement as a bicycle wheel is in fact a 'moving part'.

@@TheDarkblue57 "Spin without moving parts" is very easy to understand. "Spin is magic and quantum and has no classical analog" is not only false, but highly misleading, because quantum electron spin and quantum bicycle wheel spin are the same sort of thing, the only difference appears when you look inside to see what parts are moving.

Indeed yes, Sir! We are lucky to be us, at this time in Earth-history.

Same here. It's became a routine of some sort..

It feels like learning the lore of a mysterious game in alpha that the community hasn't quite figured out yet.

Except with less personal space travel, and a lot, lot less money.

I am sure it is re-assuring to assume that at least someone somewhere is beginning to understand our reality. I'm still in the dark.

I thought it was just me.

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

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

"Hey, vsauce, Michael here!"

To paraphrase Drew Carey: "Quantum Physics, where the names are made up and the forces aren't real."

I hear that.

The electron "spins" suggests that it might stop spinning, or that it didn't have to spin. But spin is _intrinsic_ to the electron, can't be removed from it. So 'has spin' is actually a rather strong statement: it's a property of the electron as much as mass or electric charge.

I think you got it!

Fermions: "La la la la la - I can't hear you."

@Armenias Thunk then why do they smell so bad?

Cooper Pairs: "Am I cool enough to come?"

@@nikoglucina4173 No way, nuclear bomb is a lie (in this context).

@@hartunstart damn. I'm typing on a lie right now 🤥

brain: i told you so

You: misses 15 seconds of the video Rest of the video: X Æ A-12那是

Formulated like that: watch it ur gonna understand it? 😄

I'll bet he had you reach out to a star and hold it....as he was speaking.

Every damn time.

Well no, it should be your English prof or your logic prof who might appropriately 'almost get a heart attack'. In the case of the English prof the statement would be a redundancy and therefore very poor use of the language. In the case of the logic prof the statement would be a tautology. All arrows have to point in a direction; can't be otherwise (unless the arrowhead is removed, I suppose). However, keep in mind that one discipline is not 'authorized' to take a previously defined concept and redefine it for its own purposes and claim that is the sole use of the term. This has been done. I have heard astronomers argue that Greeks 'misused' the term planets. Strange to make that claim. The English word planets is based on the Greek word (Latinized) _planetes_ which means wanderer. The Greeks were using this word quite appropriately to designate objects in the sky that moved (i.e. they were not stationary stars) but modern scientists in one of the biggest brain-farts in history and one of the greatest anachronisms ever used in logic were wrong (don't ever let an astrophysicist tell you history). All of this brings us to what Matt said and I would say he is right and your poor Math prof would be wrong. Have a look at the following explanation of Vector (the article does point out that there is a difference in the term Vector when used in physics as opposed to mathematics. As I said, one discipline can't appropriate a definition for its own purposes and require that to be the only definition acceptable.) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclidean_vector I also recall what I was taught (more than 50 years ago) that velocity was vectored speed. I.e., velocity has an arrow (of direction) speed doesn't.

The word vector is used for a bunch of different things depending on context. Here it was used as a short hand for "the vector representation of the rotation group".

Almost is still quantified as zero heart attacks, right? Also, I don't understand how having a heart attack would he regarded as a viable math-proof. Tell your professor to try harder next time, lol! Yeah, science be brutal like that. Zero fraks given for feelings (aka biases), just based AF.

Why? He doesn't say anything about the dimensionality of the space. I suppose you might include that they have a magnitude as well as a direction. But assuming n-dimensions space, I think that's a fine description.

Because in the context of Euclidean geometry, they are. Though IIRC angular momentum is a pseudovector.

I've been evangelizing for that for a while--Belinfante figured it out in the 1930s. Treat the Dirac (or Maxwell) field *as a field*, and you can derive an energy-momentum density corresponding to the spin that is actually swirling around in space. It just doesn't correspond to the moving matter in a spinning ball.

That's interetsing, @@MattMcIrvin. Since it works for the Maxwell Field, too, that would probably make a better SpaceTime video (to separate it from the subject of spinors).

(I think there is even a way to "derive" it nonrelativistically from the Schrödinger equation, using a slightly shady trick invented by Richard Feynman. But that is another story I want to write up in more detail someday.)

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

@@bumpty9830 Yes! Consider it as a field, then canonically derive the space-time symmetrized stress-energy tensor, but interpreting the squared gradient as (grad dot sigma) squared. I *think* you get out Belinfante's spin momentum density in the nonrelativistic limit. Feynman used essentially the same trick to derive g=2 from the gauge substitution. At least according to J. J. Sakurai, but Sakurai never gave a reference. I assume Feynman wrote it on a napkin or something.

It's still the direction of the angular momentum vector. This may not correspond to a classical rotating object but it IS angular momentum, just like that of a spinning ball--angular momentum is only conserved if you include it--and it exhibits phenomena like precession. It's even possible to express it in terms of a circulating energy/momentum density that is a function of the electron field--this is something Belinfante figured out in the 1930s. It's just that the momentum circulates around the borders of the particle's wave packet, rather than in some sense within the particle.

@@MattMcIrvin Makes more sense now, thank you for your insights

They do spin. Its just a trick of the intellectual elites to maintain power, status and control over the masses to insist that electrons don't spin. By creating a difficulty where none exists they preserve their air of superiority over the simpleton masses who are too stupid to understand such lofty concepts. lol.

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

Actually up spin and down spin have no classical analogue in real world..

Lmao

Yup, don't understand why it's reasonable. Why would having a dipole moment allow split into three levels only?? :S

I recommend you the exoplanets channel

I need to vapourize some herbs too, because I have stomach problems.

You do realize the spinning continued and will for a long time:?) We are all entwined in Gauss's Gordian Space Knot. As long as we believe space is measurable we are on a roll. Gauss warned us.

@@RichardAlsenz that's not really helping the nausea

@@julianshepherd2038 Just - stop and take a deep breath, then realize indefinite means to not definitely know. To role around once does not give one the ability to define infinitely know.

In reality, the start of its spin can not be known precisely until one of its revolutions has occurred and then only within approximations. Heisenberg can be certain of that:?) So, blame him for add-nausea.

The key is, if you understand it, don't tell anybody, and life is a breeze.

I haven't got 18mins so ..what do electron do if they DO NOT Spin?

It's pretty incredible. All the while it's happening your mind is thinking - won't end well, won't end well, oh - it does. What did I miss - and when? This would make a calming, hypnotic visual for babies - in the hope they can grow up to explain electron spin but non-spin to their parents.

@@debbiehenri345 I literally took 2 belts, linked them together with a clip and wedged each end in opposite doors. It took a few tries, but it is possible to turn the clip a full 720 degrees and unwind the belts; the trick to to move the first belt over, the other under. Then when going for round 2, move the first belt Under, the other Over.

So.... are you related to those crystal skulls then?

@@AmryL would you CUT IT OUT dude..youre gonna implode the universe or something, put the belt AWAY

It's an OK theory. How anything can be derived from having no real images of electrons or photons is more interesting than the theory itself... My profile picture you see is a real photon, photons assemble into a disc like structure which I also have acquired images and videos of and without recognition I am having a lot of fun with what comes of this type of research and experimentation.

@@flamealchemy7964 But isn't that picture only possible through theories upon theories used in practice?

A "spinor" is really just a few trillion EM Dipole Particles from the EM "field" caught in a condensing Vortex just short of liquification into a Bose Einstein Condensate of EM Dipole Particles that have a mass of about ~~10^(-90) to 10^(-93) kg each. There are about 10^(72) EM dipole Particles per cubic meter of vacuum with a total mass of 10^(-18) kg of EM dipoles in each cubic meter the vacuum in our solar system all moving at an RMS velocity of "c". THIS IS DARK MASS AND ENERGY. It is just the EM Field Dipoles. The EM field is a Bose Gas of Planck sized EM Dipole Particles. Already proven to be real and the fill the vacuum to form what u call the EM Field.

Wrong. QM is a relic of 100 years of backwards metaphysical thinking. Electrons are infinitesimally thin shells with complex supercurrent surface motion which gives rise to spin. All quantum characteristics can be fully modeled classically with ZERO need of any of the nonsensical self-contradictory quantum mechanics hocus pocus bullpoo.

@@byoshizaki1025 Is there any name or model to that theory, maybe like a drawing or something?

kinda true, probably because the "common definition" of words changes according to common use lol. Science needs its definitions to be more precise so the same experiments/simulations can be repeated anywhere & get the same results, thinking like that I think the reduced ambiguity in the definitions makes it easier to build onto your understanding over time

@@tubester358 oh indeed. It's just more difficult to understand if you don't have the glossary at hand :)

Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules: When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. (More spatial curvature). What if gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks. (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are actually a part of the quarks. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Force" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" make sense based on this concept. Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else.

That actually is true to all and every science field

That's really the fault of 'common usage', not physics. I don't think there's a word used in physics that doesn't have the same use in ordinary conversation though. It's just that common use may have other meanings that are sloppy and most definitely NOT physically correct. Think of the word 'energy' that gets used in the most bizarre ways outside of physics. In physics, it's a very rigid, mathematical term with only one meaning. 'Gravity' is another one, especially when applied to people. Then there's 'weight', which gets abused all the time. In fact, many 'discoveries' in physics were actually a realization that people had failed to recognise that ordinary language being applied was in fact sloppy and vague. Einstein's discovery of special relativity was exactly that. He was led to question the word 'simultaneous' and try to work out what it actually meant. The truth was a real surprise, that it doesn't exist.

You forgot anton petrov

Commenting this early... You definitely didn't finish it. Did you start it?

I like astrum too

Try Event Horizon, and John Michael-Godier. Although you're probably well aware if you frequent Isaac Arthur's channel.

Cool worlds also

Good one.

Charge is 4.99, cash or credit?

Yes, I'd like to know.

the thing Cardi B catches

Yes yes yes yes yes

Cause it is spinning

Try it for yourself; first the cup goes under your arm, then over your head.

Cyborg enhancement.

He just turned his wrist which oddly looked like a contortion.

It's pretty easy to do. Just practice with an empty cup and work towards keeping it pointing up.

Loved the animations.

Yeah, I never thought it that way. Quantum physics is amazing and weird.

Yep. Last time I was that blown away I learned about the double slit experiment 15(ish?) Years ago

Everyone's cool until geometry does a triple pirouette off the handle.

When cars still had mechanical distributors you had to rotate them through 720 degrees (two rotations) to return to the original position because the engine was 4 stroke

I know right? It's good to see him, he was great in his own right (Matt obviously is great as well)

Right! I saw him and actually pointed at the screen. It's been to long.

Exactly what I thought!!!

Gabe taught me do much on this channel! Thank you Gabe

quantum tunneled from the past to the present to make a guest appearance in this video

Were we watching the same video?

Me want t-shirt with cheesy quote on

Welcome to every term given to every object or phenom in physics.

It's not completely nonsense though. Quantum spin still has an effect on classical angular momentum, that's why we call it spin to begin with.

Quantum Angle might have been a better name tbh

@@cageybee7221 wouldn't "angle" imply that there is no "inertia-like state" to affect "momentum-like" circular activities?

@@letsomethingshine _quantum angular momentum_ sounds like a spell but i guess it would be even more accurate. edit: spelling

Or just nothing lol,pure "bar" of information

This is what separates humans from ape-descendants. One has a future, one does not. That's evolution, baby!

@Thomas A. Anderson Never did call him a monke, I actually think his comment is genius, but who cares what is actually said and the deeper meaning behind it, almost as if you were born to be my "Case-in-point." Congratulations! Darwin says to look both ways before crossing a roundabout; you might be driving.

Well, without science I wouldn't be able to make this comment on the internet. So I trust science!

@@martiddy I’m not saying not to trust science. I’m saying don’t turn scientists into prophets. They are regularly wrong.

@Thomas A. Anderson Physicists are fundamentally wrong about at least one aspect of the standard model right now as we speak. Scientists are just as human as you or I and there is no such thing as a purely rational human being. They have the same biases, they are just as susceptible to pride and spite and even greed. So yes, I will mock some of the more bizarre things about the science we have right now.

Now this is pod racing

I simply can't get away from Star Wars references and I love it.

joke swift like a knife, I love it

@@hyperduality2838 Duality is perhaps the _most_ fundamental of all universal properties

This is where the fun begins...

Write to your school and tell them that. You may be able to get your tuition refunded.

And yet simultaneously not explained at all.

no one knows what spin really is, hence it is not taught, the word 'spin' is simply a placeholder adjective anyways and a misnomer

An engineering degree in what exactly..there is a lot of different degrees/paths and I doubt it would be of any use in almost all of them

@@hisheighnessthesupremebeing B.S.E.E. from an ABET accredited University here. Spin was never explained.

Worked for Prince.

You classically non-describably two-value me 'right round baby, right 'round Like an electron baby right 'round, right 'round

guess it sounds better in german

@@matroqueta6825 I love that the "right rounds" come in pairs of two since it's describing a fermion lol.

What about fouredvalveness. Automotive got that down pat...

that is quantum mechanics in a nut shell

​@@Mr.Opinion Quantum mechanics is an incomplete theory and at the rate it's going, it seems like scientists are attempting to convert it into a non-theistic religion. Think about it, with religion you have the trust the word of scripture to be truth without being able to confirm it for yourself and with quantum mechanics you have to trust the words of scientists you don't even know as truth without having the means to test it for yourself.

@@TheZombiesAreComing I agree that Quantum mechanics is not fully complete, just like any other theory. They are just progressively better and better stepping stones of explanation and understanding. I also agree that at times science can become quite dogmatic and therefore religious like. As for your second point, I don't think that can hold up because there are millions of experiments that couldn't be tested for reasons of time, money, equipment, qualification, etc. Its not about faith, its about explanatory power. If your theory helps explain things that other theories can't explain, such as the behavior of subatomic particles (like electrons; which are crucial for understanding chemistry), then there is explanatory power. There are predictions made based on the theory and they seem to hold up against the tests we throw at it. Many people have tried to, but these core theories in physics are hard to falsify in any way.

@@TheZombiesAreComing I'd agree that the struggle to make testable predictions is a valid critique of cutting edge theoretical physics, *BUT* I think there is still an important gap distinguishing it from religion. Consider how in 1930, when Wolfgang Pauli was proposing the existence of the neutrino, he said something like, "I have committed the cardinal sin of a theorist... I made a prediction which can never be tested, because this particle is so weakly interacting that it may never be seen." We have since detected them in salt mines shielded from other kinds of cosmic radiation, create them on demand, and send them to other research stations right through the earth's crust. We can now in high confidence that roughly ~400 billion neutrinos pass through your body without interacting with it, every second. But remember that in his day, the idea was thought unproveable. You might argue that until someone invents a test, it is not scientific, and I'd agree. However, the idea was never baseless or unjustified the way faith based religious doctrine is. The neutrino was invented as a necessity born of mathematics. Without it, the decay of specific atomic nuclei would actually violate conservation of energy. Similar to how energy carrying photons are emitted by atoms when electrons fall into smaller orbital shells, the release of weak force energy from decaying atoms suggested either that an unknown virtual particle carrying away miniscule amounts of energy, OR that or energy was spontaneously ceasing to exist. The latter seemed extremely unlikely for an avalanche of reasons. Conservation of energy isn't just an arbitrary rule we've observed, it's implied by the form of the quantum Hamiltonian. Rejecting it destroys unitarity and which would result in FTL signaling. It would suddenly be inconsistent with a ton of different aspects of physics. (Scientific understanding is like a low resolution photograph that starts blurry and keeps getting clearer. Adding resolution may change the picture in subtle ways, but adding detail to a picture of a orange cat won't suddenly change it into a purple unicorn.) Another distinction between blind religious belief, is that the idea was not held as sacred. Scientists hold beliefs in the form of probabilities, not true/false statements. They update their beliefs, shifting them towards "more probable" or "less probable", every time they find new evidence. Pauli did not say "this is true". If anything, was hesitant to publish his idea proposing neutrino before writing his peers to corroborate his findings asking them to scrutinize them. Issues like modern string theory have the same problem. As we dig deeper and deeper, testing is becoming harder and harder. But unlike a religion: 1. No idea is held as beyond scrutiny, 2. Nothing is claimed as absolutely known, and 3. The ideas that have risen to the top really do have strong reasons supporting them. ...Even if the reasoning and concepts are extremely esoteric and opaque to laymen who do not dedicate their lives to studying them for themselves. Granted, that barrier to comprehension begets to deferring to the experts, which is a different problem. Nonetheless, there ARE always answers to the questions "why do physicists credit that idea?" By contrast, when priests tell you what their god(s) want ("Zeus wants you to sacrifice a lamb"), there isn't a rigorous logical process for investigating what they claim to know.

@@TheZombiesAreComing you could have just said : "reading _books about recycled Zeus for jewish , written by fishermen 2000 years ago... is way easier to understand , than professional physics done through centuries of_ research" You would sound far more honest 😂

This was really hard to follow. I learned nothing because nothing was explained. Just a bunch of jibberish. It’s was like hearing “the reason for life is because of 42” ooookayyyy and the point?! Just threw around a bunch of words. If I had defined every word he used to explain this crap, I wouldn’t need it explained in the first place. Talking slow doesn’t help, it’s infuriating. I still never got the point. If not a spin, what is it. I’m sure someone can explain it in two sentences in plain English. I’m no by no means average learning or below but wowzers it just drones. Seek new work. Idk is it me? Should I pay real attention to this vid?

@@Wtfinc Teehehe, welcome to quantum mechanics. You must be new to the scene, soon you should understand there are no answers... just a bunch of hypotheticals and claims.

Probably because everything flowed so nicely.

@@Wtfinc Here's my take in case it helps: Classical spin refers to the intuitive way any ordinary object spins, like a basketball. For everyday objects, spinning just means that particles in that object are moving in an orbit. The rubber molecules in the basketball are moving around the axis of rotation in the middle of the basketball. That movement of those rubber particles over distance means they have inertia that other objects can steal. When they comes into contact, everyday objects can transfer that inertia, or transfer that angular momentum the way gears do. In quantum mechanics, the particles are thought to be 0-diminsional points in space (aka point particles). They have zero width or height, and take up no space. Consequently, there is nothing orbiting anything. There is no movement over any distance we associate with spin. Even the idea of an object having "orientation" loses meaning when that object has no features that can be closer or further away. For example, we can talk about the close side of the moon pointing away towards us, because it is the close side. If something doesn't even have a close side (or a far side), can it point in any direction? Nonetheless, physicists say those point-particles have "spin", because those 0-dimensional particles can still impart angular momentum on stuff around them like gears. ...Skipping to the computer renders, I think of the ribbons as being the spacetime fabric being dragged around the center. This interpretation lets the fabric of space stay completely connected and continuous in all directions without tearing. I don't know if you've watched any videos on the ergosphere of a black hole, but the idea is that moving spacetime fabric will drag things along with it. Like how moving an art canvas will move whatever is painted on it. Since those ribbons connections don't endlessly accumulate more twist as the particles continue to spin, the spacetime fabric doesn't need to stretch infinitely either. Heck, maybe the particle is just a description of the twisted knot in spacetime itself. As for the "1/2 spin" idea, the ribbon connections are a good analogy for fermions, since both fermion particles and those ribbons only reach their initial configuration after rotating 720 degrees. (If you watch the renders closely, a 360° spin will flip the ribbons from going under or over the center.)

@@boblabla4756 far from new. I purley dislike how convoluted it was. they care only about watch time. there is no reason to talk so damn slow and add so much garbage. sorry but its the impression I get. even at 1.5x I found my self yelling for him to get to the point. at one time it sounded like he was going to make one and it never came.

Who did the artwork simulation? Does it really work? Why do we use commutators and slip-rings in electrical motors?

Magnetism?

Well, the ribbons don’t actually exist. It’s a way to conceptualize or visualize how spinning it 720° (or twice) will return the electron to its original state.