As Isaac Asimov said “The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny…'” And this is another great example of that.
Some other fun historical facts about this experiment that _really_ should have failed. They were out of funds when conducting the experiment, so they wrote to an American banker and got money from him (they were not expecting that!). And when they tried to see the experimental results, they initially saw nothing. But Stern was smoking very cheap cigarettes, and sulfur in the smoke from these cigarettes made the faint traces of silver visible.
I totally get that. Quantum Mechanics is deeply, deeply weird and leads to a lot of "How can the universe possibly work like that?" moments. If it weren't for the fact that it explains a lot of phenomena that we have no other explanation for and calculations using the theory agree with observation to several decimal places, nobody would take it seriously.
This is one of the better vids on Stern-Gerlach. But there is more to the story. The Dirac equation (or Pauli) is what you really need for the single electron case, not Schrödinger. Those models have a small force arising from the field gradient, it is inherently quantum, not classical, and so will produce a polarizer effect (it is not a "discrete quantized spin" effect). Spin is not in fact discrete. All measurements of fermion spin are polarizers, it's not possible to detect spin any other way. The "quantization" detected is thus nothing but your lab Dextor's choice of orientation for their field. You should know this from the basic theory, the fermion spin is a rotational symmetry operator. Because one cannot set up a single shot experiment to measure spin in two directions is why it always looks "quantized" or "discrete" but it is not really discrete, since the rotational symmetry is continuous and not discrete. What looks discrete is just imposed by the experiment apparatus, since, as I stated, it is always a polarizer. Your video hinted at this momentarily.
05:40 _They do have angular momentum because of course they do._ As far as I know, s orbitals are associated with l=0, and the absolute value of the angular momentum L› is L = hbar•√{l•(l+1)} which is 0 if l=0. For p orbitals having l=1, L = hbar•√2, for d orbitals having l=2, L = hbar•√6 and for f orbitals having l=3, L = hbar•√{12}.
"The Stern-Gerlach Experiment (ESI College Physics Film Program 1967)" is a video on youtube that also shows the behavior in a homogenous/non-homogenous field... the magnet doesn't 'align with the poles' but will sit stabilly with either n-s or s-n alignment.... part of that though, is if you spin the magnet around it's magnetic axis, then it will oscillate back and forth.... But then, the curl of an electron beam through a magnetic field is around the magnetic lines of flux - so the atoms will interact with the field, and if they are slightly up or down, interact in such a way as to fully force an alignment through the length of the magnet, and then come out.... That's part of the 'measurement problem' that the quantum thing interacts with the measurement device - and that's not even part of the equations. polarized light is the same - as it interacts with a polarization filter, the resulting photon is probably no longer in the same polarization/alignment as it was; that's why quantum cryptography works - if you put a filter in the way - even if it's aligned the same as the resulting detectors - the signal from the origin vs the signal through it's own filtering is detectable, so a man-in-the-middle attack is identifiable.
It reminds me of the story about drunk guys trying to get back home. We always hear about the ones that make it after an epic adventure. We never hear about the ones that fell asleep on the street and got home in the morning after a night at the police station.
@@grayaj23 Here in Canada, during the winter, there are tons of them that fell asleep in the snow and wake up at the hospital. But you won't hear about it in the news.
I heard one about one getting drunk, losing his shoes and most of his money, finding out about that when he woke up in the morning, next to a bunch of cows. In a field. Ardèche, France. Big guy I was supposed to meet in the morning. Still had his bicycle though.
Very interesting video, thanks! I think the model at 2:45 would have been more intuitive if the electrons were orbiting in opposite directions, but that probably would have been a nightmare to animate in a visually pleasing way, I guess.
Jkzero also has a beautiful video on Stern-Gerlach. Yours provides even more context. I love that I can dig into a 1922 rabbit hole on spatial quantization and come up with quantum spin as the result. The very fact that they had these hypotheses and ways to try and test them underscores their brilliance!
You get the thumbs up as usual, but a video explaining how these detections are made/registered (real physics, not theory) would be interesting... At least for me.
I think experimental mistakes that randomly prove some other theory are the best arguments for why we know science works. This and the Penzias & Wilson thing with the CMB make it difficult to downplay empiricism.
2:39 I think by the time they did the experiment (1922) they did not know yet of the one free electron of the outer shell (came 1923). So it was somehow a coincidence that they choose an atom with the free electron.
When you say they've not tiny magnets, you mean the silver atom right? are individual electrons little magnets? The word dipole comes to mind I kind of wonder if instead of magnetic fields, electrons are just holding hands, playing follow the leader in a loop but with a wave particle duality making it more hazy in existence as opposed to like a bead necklace
@brendanhoxie2831 they'd need to be small rotating magnets (remember, it's spin a.m. and not orbital angular momentum) and we do have an experimental range for the size of an electron... and it would need to be spinning faster than the speed of light, which is kind of a problem.
5:36. With l=0 and m=0 doesn't it mean that the state has no angular momentum (spherically symmetric charge distribution)? "90 degrees" orientation would be with l>0 (not an s-orbital but p, d, f...) and m=0, I think?
Could you please suggest any readings on retroactive entanglement in the retellings of this mess? Terminology-wise, were there any terms proposed that failed to stick around, leaving us stuck with that old spin given some new, erm, spin?
How often do physicists recreate these experiments? Not to get a new result but for historical or "that's cool" purposes. I would love to see a 2020s video of this experiment, some of the half silvered mirror photon experiments, and the "mass of the electron" experiment with drops of oil between two plates. Seems like people or university physics departments should do these (and make videos) just for sciences sake and to recreate these critical moments in history.
we recreated Millikan's oil drop experiment to measure the charge on an electron in our School physics class as it's relatively easy to do: all you need is a box with metal plates on the top and bottom between which you can apply a variable voltage, an atomiser to spray oil droplets in, a light so you can see the oil drops and a lens to magnify the drops to make them visible. We were a bunch of teenagers so our results weren't particularly accurate, but some of them were good enough to show that charge quantisation is real.
He stated that that configuration makes one of the magnetic poles much stronger than the other, which helps deflect the atoms in the beam either toward or away from it. But it's not clear to me which of the magnets has the stronger pole in the center of the configuration. Is it the peak or the trough that makes a stronger magnetic pole? I'd love to have that clarified.
@@KyleJMitchell Agree about the clarification. But I think the strength would only affect the size of the shape, not the "shape, of the shape", it should still either not have OR have a peak both above AND below?
4:18 Have this experiment been repeated with other materials, instead of Silver? What patterns does those materials make? What would be the ideal* material to use? (*ignoring the efforts to vaporize it, only focusing on clearest result).
Awesome, always missed such a perspective on SG experiment. All those "copy-pasted" popular explanations don't really explain anything. But this video is more enlightening ! Thanks and keep up great work!
Another point that helped noticing the error in the experiment is that if the electron was in any orbital other than s it would have deflected and even integer times more from the center (that's were spin 1/2 of the electron comes from)
Thanks for the cool and good explanation! Your videos are always very intriguing and informative, it show your passion for science and the joy of sharing this knowledge to other fellow humans, and this is a very, very wholesome thing
roughly 7:00. Question, have anyone ever tried the experiment with electrets or whatever the "anti-metal" magnet thing was called? Maybe those electrons were simply opposed to the magnet types altogether. Related point, you ever done an episode on electrets at all? If not I suggest that as your next episode :)
usually your videos leave me feeling I understand better the concept you are trying to explain, however this video has left me confused. Has the experiment ever been done with a non-uniform electric field instead of magnetic field? If angular momentum is responsible I would expect the patern to be rotated 90 degrees using an electric field instead of a magnetic field. Much of my confusion comes when thinking about quantum entanglement though. I have never understood any of the arguments around the proof of Bell's theorem, and why I shouldn't expect trig functions to pop up when dealing with angles.
I don't like that word "misunderstood" since it inferred that we now know the truth (but that might still be "misunderstood" like you say). SG experiment and their interpretation is perfectly good scientific work since (1) they proposed a theory that explained experimental result and (2) it did not violated any other known theories that were well tested at that time. But like any scientific work, once knowledge increases, correction will be made thus understanding take a step. It will keep going on.
shout out to the early 1900s physicists for figuring out how the universe functions at the deepest level simply through math and simple experiments . true OGs.
Somehow uplifting message at the end, for particular stuff happening in my life rn... what ? no, I'm not crying, the tears must be deflecting away from my eyes for some reason...
Stern-Gerlach performed it in 1922 Uhlenbach Goudsmit put foraard quantim spin Schrodinger 'breaks' physics then fixes it with friends So Schrodinger pretty much decided QS was real and just had to put the cat in the box with poison and a trap..... like bro what??????? 😭😭😭 😂😂😂 physicists are on a whole different level
I assume all the angular momentum discussion was developed based on the idea that electrons were tiny spheres, right? How does that translate to electrons being a cloud or wave?
Angular momentum is about the movement around the core. Being spheres or not is irrelevant. And for the quantum waves: The wave moves around an axis with a definite speed (to be more precise: the speed depends on the distance to the axis, such that it has definite angular momentum. which is a conserved quantity). The difference to a point- or spherelike electron is just that it is everywhere at once.
Has anyone tried neutral particles in the SG device? What about neutrinos? I want to know if those actually have spin. I tried looking it up but all I got was that spin was conserved. I don't know why that must be true though or is only assumed.
really nice video, i knew some of the story but your research on details made it great! Back to your history being messy, it reminds me of feynman often explaining he feels like a monkey with a stick trying to do something with a banana …
Hi. I've always heard of magnetic gradient in this experiment, but for paticules in the center, there is no magnetic gradient in their travel trought the field. So where is the gradient ?
Thanks! That. Cleared up a lot of that that didn't make sense to me! Like the reorientation problem. Now why is it that the Schrodinger equation make it always 90° though? I mean I could probably figure it out if I understood the math but....
Great topic always interested me, and never completely clear ❤🤗. Still wish additional explanations in a little bit longer video! Take care my favorite crazies🤗!
I do have a question about something that's baffling me... how is it possible for orientation to be restricted to discrete values, given a non-discrete spacetime? Orientation *relative to WHAT?*
well, it does allow for reorientation. But it has to lose energy somehow to do that. A bar magnet gains rotational energy when reorientating. Something an electron cannot do...
So all you need is a very hot oven with a little hole in it and some silver, a plate with a hole then a slot and I'm guessing a detector and maybe some magnets and you can determine the spin of electrons? How hot is this "oven"? Like a ceramic tube oven? Anyone made one of these?
Watch this video ad-free on Nebula: nebula.tv/videos/scienceasylum-physics-misunderstood-this-experiment-for-years
@@ScienceAsylum ah good you're a member of them now!
I would... if only my CuriosityStrean+Nebula was not revoked (and I hope you received my 600 CZK, 1% of my month salary, totaly worth it)
Could you make videos in Finnish? I can speak English, but I don't understand it.
As Isaac Asimov said “The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny…'”
And this is another great example of that.
@@douglasboyle6544 I love that...
Dark matter has been stuck at funny for a while
and also up there in human history: "wow this tastes better than it looks" 🙂
Not just a really nice explanation of the Stern Gerlach experiment but also a really nice illustration of the how science is actually done/happens.
Some other fun historical facts about this experiment that _really_ should have failed. They were out of funds when conducting the experiment, so they wrote to an American banker and got money from him (they were not expecting that!).
And when they tried to see the experimental results, they initially saw nothing. But Stern was smoking very cheap cigarettes, and sulfur in the smoke from these cigarettes made the faint traces of silver visible.
Who was that banker?
@@naamadossantossilva4736 Henry Goldman (the one in "Goldman-Sachs").
5:55 "This is very real. I just hate it."
That is such a mood.
I totally get that. Quantum Mechanics is deeply, deeply weird and leads to a lot of "How can the universe possibly work like that?" moments. If it weren't for the fact that it explains a lot of phenomena that we have no other explanation for and calculations using the theory agree with observation to several decimal places, nobody would take it seriously.
The Asylum is back! Woo hoo! 🎉😊
This is one of the better vids on Stern-Gerlach. But there is more to the story. The Dirac equation (or Pauli) is what you really need for the single electron case, not Schrödinger. Those models have a small force arising from the field gradient, it is inherently quantum, not classical, and so will produce a polarizer effect (it is not a "discrete quantized spin" effect). Spin is not in fact discrete. All measurements of fermion spin are polarizers, it's not possible to detect spin any other way. The "quantization" detected is thus nothing but your lab Dextor's choice of orientation for their field. You should know this from the basic theory, the fermion spin is a rotational symmetry operator. Because one cannot set up a single shot experiment to measure spin in two directions is why it always looks "quantized" or "discrete" but it is not really discrete, since the rotational symmetry is continuous and not discrete. What looks discrete is just imposed by the experiment apparatus, since, as I stated, it is always a polarizer. Your video hinted at this momentarily.
thank you for this
4:50 "Or was it?"... And here I was expecting for the music to start 😅
* Vsauce music intensifies *
05:40
_They do have angular momentum because of course they do._
As far as I know, s orbitals are associated with l=0, and the absolute value of the angular momentum L› is
L = hbar•√{l•(l+1)}
which is 0 if l=0.
For p orbitals having l=1,
L = hbar•√2,
for d orbitals having l=2,
L = hbar•√6
and for f orbitals having l=3,
L = hbar•√{12}.
"The Stern-Gerlach Experiment (ESI College Physics Film Program 1967)" is a video on youtube that also shows the behavior in a homogenous/non-homogenous field... the magnet doesn't 'align with the poles' but will sit stabilly with either n-s or s-n alignment.... part of that though, is if you spin the magnet around it's magnetic axis, then it will oscillate back and forth....
But then, the curl of an electron beam through a magnetic field is around the magnetic lines of flux - so the atoms will interact with the field, and if they are slightly up or down, interact in such a way as to fully force an alignment through the length of the magnet, and then come out....
That's part of the 'measurement problem' that the quantum thing interacts with the measurement device - and that's not even part of the equations. polarized light is the same - as it interacts with a polarization filter, the resulting photon is probably no longer in the same polarization/alignment as it was; that's why quantum cryptography works - if you put a filter in the way - even if it's aligned the same as the resulting detectors - the signal from the origin vs the signal through it's own filtering is detectable, so a man-in-the-middle attack is identifiable.
It reminds me of the story about drunk guys trying to get back home. We always hear about the ones that make it after an epic adventure. We never hear about the ones that fell asleep on the street and got home in the morning after a night at the police station.
FOrtunately for me, I've never been the subject of the second kind of story. If only just barely.
@@grayaj23 Here in Canada, during the winter, there are tons of them that fell asleep in the snow and wake up at the hospital. But you won't hear about it in the news.
I heard one about one getting drunk, losing his shoes and most of his money, finding out about that when he woke up in the morning, next to a bunch of cows. In a field. Ardèche, France. Big guy I was supposed to meet in the morning. Still had his bicycle though.
@@iamTheSnark We hear about those things in personal conversations, not in the media.
@@FrancoisEustache-ed6gd you will hear about the ones who don't wake up in the morning, though.
"... at this point there's too much momentum to change" I see what you did there 😁
😆 I'm glad people are noticing. I was worried it was too subtle.
@@ScienceAsylum Nope, not to subtle, it was good.
@@ScienceAsylum But we have changed the names of things, just look at capacitors!
@@deadly_dave "Nope, not too subtle, it was good." Or was it?!
@@JohnDoe-ti2np Ha ha ha, nice.
Very interesting video, thanks! I think the model at 2:45 would have been more intuitive if the electrons were orbiting in opposite directions, but that probably would have been a nightmare to animate in a visually pleasing way, I guess.
No one gives the shoutout to those venerable free cigars in Stern-Gerlock's lab that made the bands visible, lol!
Jkzero also has a beautiful video on Stern-Gerlach. Yours provides even more context. I love that I can dig into a 1922 rabbit hole on spatial quantization and come up with quantum spin as the result.
The very fact that they had these hypotheses and ways to try and test them underscores their brilliance!
You get the thumbs up as usual, but a video explaining how these detections are made/registered (real physics, not theory) would be interesting... At least for me.
I think experimental mistakes that randomly prove some other theory are the best arguments for why we know science works. This and the Penzias & Wilson thing with the CMB make it difficult to downplay empiricism.
This is like a double blind test for physics.
Add the Michelson-Morley experiment to this list..
@@Michael75579 Good shout.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
Physicists are just like me! (I misunderstood most physics experiments for years)
I really am glad somebody has explained how experiments actually are conducted! More please!
I LOVE this channel!! Never stop!
Wonderful story! Thanks for telling it!
5:40 what? l=0. Isn't the squared total angular momentum L^2 supposed to be l(l+1)ℏ^2? With l=0, L^2 = 0.
Need a baseline reference or ‘zero point’ to measure the other orbitals against🤔
@@MarsStarcruiser Angular momentum is not relative. There is a defined 0.
That's what I wanted to say. A simple "Electrons in the s shell don't have angular momentum" would have been better.
8:10 That final speech is incredible!!
And I feel like I'm back a the beginning... I'm spun around.
2:39 I think by the time they did the experiment (1922) they did not know yet of the one free electron of the outer shell (came 1923). So it was somehow a coincidence that they choose an atom with the free electron.
He told that they knew about the Bohr model.
(4:30) So, the problem was with the slit filter and not the horizontal spread? ... Is this video age-restricted?
Worth the wait as always!
When you say they've not tiny magnets, you mean the silver atom right?
are individual electrons little magnets? The word dipole comes to mind
I kind of wonder if instead of magnetic fields, electrons are just holding hands, playing follow the leader in a loop but with a wave particle duality making it more hazy in existence as opposed to like a bead necklace
You're correct that they are magnetic dipoles, but that doesn't mean they behave like a bar magnet.
@brendanhoxie2831 they'd need to be small rotating magnets (remember, it's spin a.m. and not orbital angular momentum) and we do have an experimental range for the size of an electron... and it would need to be spinning faster than the speed of light, which is kind of a problem.
One of the best videos on spin, there are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of really unsatisfactory pieces on this topic.
What happened to your clones? I miss the old format! Good video btw!
Why is an S-orbital always at 90 degrees to the measuring device? Or is that something for a whole other video?
Thanks! The real history enriches our experience so much more than the condensed version.
Great video, nice work!
Amazing as always. 👍
5:36. With l=0 and m=0 doesn't it mean that the state has no angular momentum (spherically symmetric charge distribution)?
"90 degrees" orientation would be with l>0 (not an s-orbital but p, d, f...) and m=0, I think?
My favorite channel in TH-cam teaching physics to dummies like us
Could you please suggest any readings on retroactive entanglement in the retellings of this mess? Terminology-wise, were there any terms proposed that failed to stick around, leaving us stuck with that old spin given some new, erm, spin?
How often do physicists recreate these experiments? Not to get a new result but for historical or "that's cool" purposes. I would love to see a 2020s video of this experiment, some of the half silvered mirror photon experiments, and the "mass of the electron" experiment with drops of oil between two plates. Seems like people or university physics departments should do these (and make videos) just for sciences sake and to recreate these critical moments in history.
@@HyenaEmpyema I agree. Some of these experiments are done physics teaching labs around the world.
we recreated Millikan's oil drop experiment to measure the charge on an electron in our School physics class as it's relatively easy to do: all you need is a box with metal plates on the top and bottom between which you can apply a variable voltage, an atomiser to spray oil droplets in, a light so you can see the oil drops and a lens to magnify the drops to make them visible. We were a bunch of teenagers so our results weren't particularly accurate, but some of them were good enough to show that charge quantisation is real.
I love how the closing statement and graphic device shows all probable lines reduced to a single narrative 🤔😊
How fast is an electron spin?
Fast enough to make Heisenberg uncertain!
4:18 Why is there a peak in the upper part?
Why is there NOT a peak in the lower part?
He stated that that configuration makes one of the magnetic poles much stronger than the other, which helps deflect the atoms in the beam either toward or away from it. But it's not clear to me which of the magnets has the stronger pole in the center of the configuration. Is it the peak or the trough that makes a stronger magnetic pole? I'd love to have that clarified.
@@KyleJMitchell Agree about the clarification.
But I think the strength would only affect the size of the shape, not the "shape, of the shape", it should still either not have OR have a peak both above AND below?
4:18 Have this experiment been repeated with other materials, instead of Silver?
What patterns does those materials make?
What would be the ideal* material to use?
(*ignoring the efforts to vaporize it, only focusing on clearest result).
Awesome, always missed such a perspective on SG experiment. All those "copy-pasted" popular explanations don't really explain anything. But this video is more enlightening ! Thanks and keep up great work!
Another point that helped noticing the error in the experiment is that if the electron was in any orbital other than s it would have deflected and even integer times more from the center (that's were spin 1/2 of the electron comes from)
No terms in physics have lead to more misunderstanding than "spin" and "observe". Laziness has consequences.
On the last sentence about the naming of the spin, the right thing to say should have be: "There was too much ANGULAR momentum to change"
The maze animation metaphor was brilliant
This was a pretty eye opening view on a "simple" experiment I've heard about a dozen times.
I sigh in relief when I see you upload another video. You bring sanity, education and entertainment together in what is a crazy time for the world.
With the holidays coming up, this video reminded me to put your book (and Sabine Hossenfelder's) on my gifts wishlist!
Thanks for the cool and good explanation!
Your videos are always very intriguing and informative, it show your passion for science and the joy of sharing this knowledge to other fellow humans, and this is a very, very wholesome thing
Great video, Thanks
Hi Nick. You are always the best. ❤❤❤❤ another little very precious diamond... thank you so much@!!❤❤❤❤
roughly 7:00. Question, have anyone ever tried the experiment with electrets or whatever the "anti-metal" magnet thing was called? Maybe those electrons were simply opposed to the magnet types altogether. Related point, you ever done an episode on electrets at all? If not I suggest that as your next episode :)
I bet you’d like a sci-fi show called “Lexx”. It’s crazy sci-fi in another universe. It ran for 4 seasons. Though the first two are the good ones.
usually your videos leave me feeling I understand better the concept you are trying to explain, however this video has left me confused. Has the experiment ever been done with a non-uniform electric field instead of magnetic field? If angular momentum is responsible I would expect the patern to be rotated 90 degrees using an electric field instead of a magnetic field.
Much of my confusion comes when thinking about quantum entanglement though. I have never understood any of the arguments around the proof of Bell's theorem, and why I shouldn't expect trig functions to pop up when dealing with angles.
0:52 To the Timeline!!!
The S orbital is especially crazy, since it's depicted as a spherical cloud.
I watch the first two thirds of the video thinking "but what's that grouping at the top right of the plate?". Then I thought to clean my screen 😂
can we have a longer version of this video pls? I raised more questions lol
Sorry, I didn't get it in the end: so, Stern-Gelach did see quantum spin or not? 🤔
They did. They just did not know it.
I don't like that word "misunderstood" since it inferred that we now know the truth (but that might still be "misunderstood" like you say).
SG experiment and their interpretation is perfectly good scientific work since (1) they proposed a theory that explained experimental result and (2) it did not violated any other known theories that were well tested at that time. But like any scientific work, once knowledge increases, correction will be made thus understanding take a step. It will keep going on.
shout out to the early 1900s physicists for figuring out how the universe functions at the deepest level simply through math and simple experiments . true OGs.
Somehow uplifting message at the end, for particular stuff happening in my life rn... what ? no, I'm not crying, the tears must be deflecting away from my eyes for some reason...
5:56 This is what I feel about quantum physics in general
I tell my students there are no bad results. There are just results.
HELLO CRAZIES
@@artemonstrick IM INSANE AND I LOVE IT
@@artemonstrick hey lovely
Hi! 👋
Or was it?
Stern-Gerlach performed it in 1922
Uhlenbach Goudsmit put foraard quantim spin
Schrodinger 'breaks' physics then fixes it with friends
So Schrodinger pretty much decided QS was real and just had to put the cat in the box with poison and a trap..... like bro what??????? 😭😭😭
😂😂😂 physicists are on a whole different level
I assume all the angular momentum discussion was developed based on the idea that electrons were tiny spheres, right? How does that translate to electrons being a cloud or wave?
Spooky quantum voodoo
Angular momentum is about the movement around the core. Being spheres or not is irrelevant.
And for the quantum waves: The wave moves around an axis with a definite speed (to be more precise: the speed depends on the distance to the axis, such that it has definite angular momentum. which is a conserved quantity). The difference to a point- or spherelike electron is just that it is everywhere at once.
we missed you bro!!!
Sure: 5s-orbital n=5, l=0, L^2 = l(l+1) = 0*(0+1) = 0, Lz = 0... "it definitely has anGulAr mOmEntuM, it'S jusT poIntiNg in thE oTher diRectiOn"
Great video. How exciting it must have been to be a physicist in the 1920s.
"This is VERY real, I just hate it." Applies to so much these days.
i enjoy your videos
"At this point there's just too much momentum to change" 😂
All the crazy things happened in the 1910th and 1920th.
Schrödinger's dog barks.
Most major discoveries seem to be happy accidents...
You’re an absolute master at explaining things, I don’t think anyone on the internet makes physics so accessible. Great job!
Has anyone tried neutral particles in the SG device?
What about neutrinos?
I want to know if those actually have spin.
I tried looking it up but all I got was that spin was conserved. I don't know why that must be true though or is only assumed.
the silver atoms were neutral i guess
really nice video, i knew some of the story but your research on details made it great! Back to your history being messy, it reminds me of feynman often explaining he feels like a monkey with a stick trying to do something with a banana …
Informative. Live long and prosper.😇🖖
Nice history lesson 🖖
Hi.
I've always heard of magnetic gradient in this experiment, but for paticules in the center, there is no magnetic gradient in their travel trought the field. So where is the gradient ?
Thanks! That. Cleared up a lot of that that didn't make sense to me!
Like the reorientation problem.
Now why is it that the Schrodinger equation make it always 90° though? I mean I could probably figure it out if I understood the math but....
Great topic always interested me, and never completely clear ❤🤗. Still wish additional explanations in a little bit longer video! Take care my favorite crazies🤗!
Enjoyed this on Nebula. Came here to feed the algorithm. 😋
How fast is an electron spin?
Faster than you can measure-unless you want to collapse its vibe
I think I see a phantom Crazy watching me from behind the screen.
I still get "jingle bells" from the opening intro ditty
I do have a question about something that's baffling me... how is it possible for orientation to be restricted to discrete values, given a non-discrete spacetime? Orientation *relative to WHAT?*
to the magnetic field of the measuring device, i think
@@nmarbletoe8210 Ah OK, yes that makes sense (at least in a quantum context). Thanks :)
question how fast is an electron spin?
6
generates magnetism but doesn't allow for re orientation.... awesome!
well, it does allow for reorientation. But it has to lose energy somehow to do that. A bar magnet gains rotational energy when reorientating. Something an electron cannot do...
So all you need is a very hot oven with a little hole in it and some silver, a plate with a hole then a slot and I'm guessing a detector and maybe some magnets and you can determine the spin of electrons? How hot is this "oven"? Like a ceramic tube oven? Anyone made one of these?
wiki silver -> Boiling temperature is 2200 °C, so not the kitchen oven ^^
@@gnanay8555 clearly
You are awesome!
Medec Hurtz. Ladies and gentlemen, we got him.
GER-lach, not ger-LACK 😅
I gazed long into the Asylum (and the Asylum gazed BACK!)
"too much momentum to change" boo wendy, boo
That was great!
It's OK to be a little crazy.
When pertaining to myself, I'd like to quantise that.