*RE-UPLOAD:* In a previous version of this video, I said that an electron in an s-orbital had angular momentum and was just oriented at 90 degrees to the detector. This was incorrect. The total angular momentum of an s-orbital is _exactly zero,_ which is so much crazier than I had originally imagined. This changes the explanation from 05:39 to 06:24. I honestly think my brain subconsciously looked at the equation for the momentum operator and was like "Zero? Nah! That's definitely equal to one. Zero would be _too_ crazy!" But, of course, this is quantum mechanics. Nothing is ever too crazy. Anyway, I hope you enjoy the corrected video. Also, if you have Nebula, you can watch this video ad-free here: nebula.tv/videos/scienceasylum-physics-misunderstood-this-experiment-for-years
At least for me, the wrong description in the previous version was much wilder than what I had previously thought -- which is that the S orbital had 0 angular momentum
There's this one sciency guy on the internet that I really like that keeps telling me it's okay to be a little crazy. You should probably listen to him :P (Sorry, couldn't help myself)
@@devluz I noticed the previous version of the video being recommended but didn't watch it until the re-upload. The more recent time stamp made me question my memory.
Hey, man, A+ for integrity on the reupload, and of course A+ on the content as always. I already saw it on Nebula, but hopefully the Asylum can comment and like this video enough to help get it through the algorithm! Keep up the great work!
FWIW: TH-cam suggested your video just like id did the first time. I think you will reclaim all of your lost views - maybe even more than before. ... Respect for sacrificing your views for validity! Most creators on YT wouldn't do that.
Shoutout to the time I had to take a video down because I listed Newton's Law of Gravity as one of the equations that everyone agrees on in Special Relativity. Kinda forgot that not being true was the whole reason we need General Relativity. Oops.
Whoops!! Yeah, I think my brain subconsciously looked at the equation for the momentum operator and was like "Zero? Nah! That's definitely equal to one. Zero would be too crazy!" But, of course, this is quantum mechanics. Nothing is ever too crazy.
Watched it again! And loved the video even more. I am just confused about the last part. If Stern/Gerlach already knew about spin and wanted to get evidence for it, why wouldn't they pick silver? It would still be the perfect candidate for the reasons you just mentioned - it's valence electron has zero orbital angular momentum, so any deflection would have to be attributed to spin itself, right?
question about 3:30 - wouldn't a 50/50 split imply that the atoms all agreed where "up" is and then decided to come out either "pointing up" or "pointing down"? shouldn't the expectation have been a ring since atoms can rotate randomly in 3d space?
Honestly I just passed over your s-orbital mistake as something I didn't get, like maybe you meant something else. It wasn't that huge of a deal, but I'm very impressed that you reuploaded because of it. Thinking about Bohr orbits is the reason so many people make that mistake. S-orbital actually corresponds to a completely different kind of "movement", if you want to imagine electron as a particle for some reason: it would fall down to the nucleus, miss it and rise up in another random direction. Then fall down again and rise up again. That kind of movement has zero angular momentum for obvious reasons.
Thanks for doing this. The new explanation honestly makes more sense to me. I think of S orbitals as spherical because there are no "ripples" (standing waves) and so there's nothing "moving" to give it net angular momentum. Not sure whether that's a valid picture, but regardless, it sure is compatible with the new explanation!
This is one of my favorite experiments. It is one that shaped the early 20th century. Thank you for spending so much time on it!!!!!!! I don't remember if you covered bell's theorem, but if not, do you have any plans to cover the bell test experiment?
Rewatching cause your channel deserves this. Only you dig this deep and makes it accessible. Mistake happen. Fixing them is a big deal. Hats off to you kind sir!
Was that a test, to see who spotted it? Because I absolutely did, spot it, honest 😛 Thanks for the re-upload, I know it makes TH-cam unhappy, but I appreciate that integrity comes first 🙂
I love learning about these older experiments. It's so interesting to see how scientists figured out how to test these complex ideas with just a couple of magnets and a box with a hole
TH-cam's been doing some crazy things to me recently so I thought this was a glitch! Nope, a genuine re-upload :) Thanks for using the hyphen, by the way: "reupload" would have looked dreadful. My local supermarket has signs saying that I should "reuse" my bags, and I always like to pronounce that one like a German verb ("RRROY-zuh") in protest because I like hyphens and I don't see why they keep getting dropped from things. Nice long comment for the algorithm... anyway, well done for correcting the mistake!
5:52 From the spaceflight perspective, classical orbits with zero angular momentum exist and aren't that weird: they're just trajectories that are perfectly vertical with respect to the gravitating body. Since electromagnetism is also an inverse square force, the only real difference here is that, in the atomic case, the uncertainty principle applies, so the electron's position is smeared out at any given moment and a straight-vertical trajectory is no longer guaranteed to hit the central object. Plus there's nothing in the nucleus to really stop the electron from shooting out the other side other than the weak nuclear force, so the equivalent to the guaranteed collision in the classical case is for inverse beta-decay to occur, which has a very low probability to occur, and is thus no longer guaranteed. An anvil dropped from a skyscraper is (ignoring the rotation of the Earth) basically in the classical version of an s orbital.
He is still the G.O.A.T! Love ur videos man. U should make a 3 hour long compilation videos for ppl like me who fall asleep to science videos. I load urs and drift off and wake up to random space videos. Ur vids are awesome! Please ❤. Not falling asleep cause ur boring. It’s Because space is my life. Ur voice is soothing and relaxing
The problem I've always had with Quantum Spin is: "up and down" relative to what? The bottom line is that some electrons are paramagnetic and some diamagnetic. The question is: "why?"
Up and down relative to the axis of measurement. It essentially means which way it would be deflected by a stern-gerlach apparatus in some particular orientation. Electrons aren't diamagnetic or paramagnetic. Electrons are magnetic dipoles. Dia or paramagnetism are properties of bulk materials that arise from the olignments of the electrons in the atoms they are made of.
At 7:44, the problem is that the free electrons in the beam are moving relative to the magnet. Why not move the magnet too, so the relative velocity would be zero?
Deja vue ... Oh, I see. So, the "spinning" electrons make the silver atoms magnetic like a ball with all north or south poles on the outside? That means the opposite poles are all pointing inwards. Must be a hell of a struggle keeping that together. Does the particles of the nucleus have no spin, or what have you, that could have influence? Btw. that slit experiment - I guess it takes place in a vacuum chamber, but how do you accelerate the atoms towards the proverbial glass sheet?
Indeed. The messiness of science hides itself in publications; people get the impression that, say Einstein, just sat down and wrote down his solutions, when in reality he made mistakes and missteps all along, such that the paper is the distilled result of a messy (human) process.
I was like "A dejà vu, there is a glitch in the matrix" but then there was an explanation, reupload. At least now I've understood the part with the S orbital, when I've watched it the first time something was sounding not good, but I was unable to put a nail on why, so I've just told myself "it's quantum weirdness again and I can't understand it right". Now I've probably still not understood it, but at least I have the impression to have understood it. 🤯
Ok Confused 2.0. As I understand it (Ind I really don't) we have several models of atoms. The planetary analogue may be throwing me off on this one but Angular momentum of the outer electron? Is that the electron itself having a property that is referred to as angular momentum or for the process of this model an Actual angular momentum as it moves round an orbit? Am I trying to hammer round pegs into square holes to force a model into my understanding of it?
The model with electrons moving in circles(the bohr model) is _wrong_ . Electrons do not orbit. The schrödinger equation is the better description, and it gives "orbitsals" some of which have angular momentum and some don't. The s-orbitals don't and describe (in the simplest case) the electron as a spherical distribution around the nucleus. These orbitals don't have angular momentum, but the electrons still do. Their intrinsic spin angular momentum.
There is a more complex issue - NMR. It is based on excitation of nucleus and proton spins. Important for NMR are atoms with odd number of protons so that one of proton's spin is not cancelled, like in H or C. In NMR nucleus is excited by specific radio-frequencies (that causes these strange strong noises during NMR imaging) BUT -- what exactly is - nucleus excitation, for example? It is NOT like with electrons thrown in higher orbitals. WHAT is it? Many thanks
Carbon has 6 protons which is not odd ;) C13 has an odd number of neutrons tho. So it seems both nucleon types have separate "orbitals" with occupancy of 2, just like electrons (both are fermions after all). Even though deuterium indeed has a spin of 1, this is not just trivial addition, as Boron-10 has a spin of 3, in contrast, and is best determined experimentally. The signal occurs due to a difference in potential energy of different states of spin alignment with the external magnetic field. In the simplest case of 1/2 spin, there are 2 states, aligned and antialigned. Deuterium with spin 1 has 3 states (2x1+1). Nearby nuclei interact and complicate this further. E.g. CDCl3 appears to have a triplet in C13 NMR (interaction with deuterium but not chlorine, supposedly due to kinetic affects = exists but immeasurable). The interaction of indirectly bonded like-nuclei is useful in analytic chemistry.
Thank You for another Super Interesting Physics Video!!! You Really Explained the Stern-Gerlach Experiment in an Amazing New Creative Way!!! So Now I can think of it from New Helpful Perspectives!!!👍😎
(@ 6:48) Imagine the election can produce a concentrated *north* magnetic field with a diffused *south* magnetic field, *[^]* but with equal probability it can exist with a concentrated *south* and a diffused *North* magnetic field *[v]* If spin causes angular momentum, I can’t see why it still couldn’t reorientate in space so that it was always attracted to pointed magnet. I’m saying it’s still electron spin, but we possibly missed a clue as to its nature.
Thanks for having standards; acknowledging and correcting a mistake. We appreciate you and I’m glad (and not surprised) to see I’m not the only one actively interacting to help with the YT algo. Cheers!
I see you kept this in 0:42. Again, none of these particles are "spinning" in the classical sense. They have spin, but that does not in any way translate to rotational velocity.
Why using free electrons wouldn't have led to the discovery: Because they have electric charge, therefore they experience the Lorentz force from a magnet, masking the effect. While the lone electron in Hg has electric charge, too, the atoms themselves are net electrically neutral, thereby preventing the effects of the Lorentz force.
They say an electron can't be physically spinning because then it would have to be going faster than the speed of light. But since an electron's size has not been determined, how can you calculate the speed (not rotation per unit time) of the surface of an electron? If it is not the surface they are saying is going FTL, what is?
Because an orbital is not an orbit. It's a distribution. The electron isn't moving in circles. It _is_ the "cloud" around the nucleus. And without angular momentum, that cloud is spherically symmetric. With angular momentum, it is not.
I have a wacky idea that probably doesn’t hold up to math but what if quantum spin is this magnetic monopole we have been looking for? Can we tell on that atom that is passing through the magnet that this electron isn’t only producing one magnetic pole? Granted this is literally my latenight ramblings but wouldn’t it be funny.
Geometry is 5 root infinite universe laws 1 . Volume 2. Divisions of particles 3. Motion 4. Magnetics 5.Empty space.... electron beams can be easily made in CRT televisions that prove they are magnetic in specific states in a vacuum...otherwise something that isn't magnetic is just the "knocking of the balls," so to speak....lyj2024dec16 8:32 pm
For me, not only did I know that the s orbital has 0 angular mometum, the explanation you gave in that video also didn't sit right with me. Because in quantum mechanics you can't just have something have angular momentum that is always perpendicular to the direction you measure it if the system you're measuring is in a pure state. Unless the measurement apparatus is itself entangled with the system in such a way, it just cannot be true
They balance out with each other. The magnetic moment of protons is so much smaller than that of electrons that their contribution can be ignored, from what I understand. So, while the silver atom is actually spin 0 overall, the outer electron couples more strongly to the magnetic field than the nucleus.
Heck I've watched this three times and still missed the timestamp where what really happens happens. Is there a written version of science asylum, like the scripts?
*RE-UPLOAD:* In a previous version of this video, I said that an electron in an s-orbital had angular momentum and was just oriented at 90 degrees to the detector. This was incorrect. The total angular momentum of an s-orbital is _exactly zero,_ which is so much crazier than I had originally imagined. This changes the explanation from 05:39 to 06:24. I honestly think my brain subconsciously looked at the equation for the momentum operator and was like "Zero? Nah! That's definitely equal to one. Zero would be _too_ crazy!" But, of course, this is quantum mechanics. Nothing is ever too crazy. Anyway, I hope you enjoy the corrected video.
Also, if you have Nebula, you can watch this video ad-free here: nebula.tv/videos/scienceasylum-physics-misunderstood-this-experiment-for-years
At least for me, the wrong description in the previous version was much wilder than what I had previously thought -- which is that the S orbital had 0 angular momentum
@@ScienceAsylum i thought I'm was experiencing a deja vu for a while!
There's this one sciency guy on the internet that I really like that keeps telling me it's okay to be a little crazy. You should probably listen to him :P (Sorry, couldn't help myself)
I had wondered about that part, you said something and my brain instantly told me, "No, it's not..." Thank you for your integrity and explanation! 😊 🎉
@@Robert_McGarry_Poems Excellent critical thinking 👍
I'm down here for the algorithm. Creators shouldn't be punished for having integrity.
My Algorithm is too much for The Algorithm
Ditto
Doing our part! Science history lessons like these are a big help for showing the public how science is done in real life, not just in movies.
Yes!
Conservation of Integrity shall not be violated!
Guess I watch it again to make sure it gets a proper view count. Thanks for putting so much effort into this!
Thanks for the rewatch.
@@devluz I noticed the previous version of the video being recommended but didn't watch it until the re-upload. The more recent time stamp made me question my memory.
Every Science Asylum upload is a good upload, even a reupload!
Hey, man, A+ for integrity on the reupload, and of course A+ on the content as always. I already saw it on Nebula, but hopefully the Asylum can comment and like this video enough to help get it through the algorithm!
Keep up the great work!
"This is very real. I just hate it."
I felt that one.
Nick, thank you for your videos! I genuinely learn so much and enjoy it beyond what you imagine!! Thank you for being so cool
FWIW: TH-cam suggested your video just like id did the first time. I think you will reclaim all of your lost views - maybe even more than before. ... Respect for sacrificing your views for validity! Most creators on YT wouldn't do that.
a follow up video on multiple SG experiments as simple examples of QM would be fantastic
This will not be the last video I make about quantum spin.
Bro that says its ok to be a little crazy is one of the most reasonable on TH-cam.
Shoutout to the time I had to take a video down because I listed Newton's Law of Gravity as one of the equations that everyone agrees on in Special Relativity. Kinda forgot that not being true was the whole reason we need General Relativity. Oops.
Whoops!! Yeah, I think my brain subconsciously looked at the equation for the momentum operator and was like "Zero? Nah! That's definitely equal to one. Zero would be too crazy!" But, of course, this is quantum mechanics. Nothing is ever too crazy.
Watched it again! And loved the video even more. I am just confused about the last part. If Stern/Gerlach already knew about spin and wanted to get evidence for it, why wouldn't they pick silver? It would still be the perfect candidate for the reasons you just mentioned - it's valence electron has zero orbital angular momentum, so any deflection would have to be attributed to spin itself, right?
question about 3:30 - wouldn't a 50/50 split imply that the atoms all agreed where "up" is and then decided to come out either "pointing up" or "pointing down"?
shouldn't the expectation have been a ring since atoms can rotate randomly in 3d space?
Honestly I just passed over your s-orbital mistake as something I didn't get, like maybe you meant something else. It wasn't that huge of a deal, but I'm very impressed that you reuploaded because of it.
Thinking about Bohr orbits is the reason so many people make that mistake.
S-orbital actually corresponds to a completely different kind of "movement", if you want to imagine electron as a particle for some reason: it would fall down to the nucleus, miss it and rise up in another random direction. Then fall down again and rise up again. That kind of movement has zero angular momentum for obvious reasons.
I think this needs a part two.
“Too much momentum to change it now.”🤣🤣🤣 Great explanation again. Love your channel!
Thanks for doing this. The new explanation honestly makes more sense to me. I think of S orbitals as spherical because there are no "ripples" (standing waves) and so there's nothing "moving" to give it net angular momentum. Not sure whether that's a valid picture, but regardless, it sure is compatible with the new explanation!
This is one of my favorite experiments. It is one that shaped the early 20th century. Thank you for spending so much time on it!!!!!!!
I don't remember if you covered bell's theorem, but if not, do you have any plans to cover the bell test experiment?
experiments, with an 's'
This is amazing! Thanks :)
5:58 "This is very real. I just hate it."
This is such a mood.
Incredible video!!!
Impossible? Video only been out a minute.
@@ThemanlyTor6 mins in and I already learned so much!! That's incredible
Schroedingers Upload
😂
Well, I was multitasking when I watched the video the other day, so this was a good excuse for me to re-watch it and catch anything I missed
4:30 Why did the slit filter cause the silver atoms to have a horizontal spread?
It was a rectangular slit
appreciate the reupload w/ the correction!
Rewatching cause your channel deserves this. Only you dig this deep and makes it accessible. Mistake happen. Fixing them is a big deal. Hats off to you kind sir!
Was that a test, to see who spotted it? Because I absolutely did, spot it, honest 😛
Thanks for the re-upload, I know it makes TH-cam unhappy, but I appreciate that integrity comes first 🙂
I love learning about these older experiments. It's so interesting to see how scientists figured out how to test these complex ideas with just a couple of magnets and a box with a hole
Wonderful explanation ❤
I still misunderstand this experiment...
Great video!
Thanks!
TH-cam's been doing some crazy things to me recently so I thought this was a glitch! Nope, a genuine re-upload :) Thanks for using the hyphen, by the way: "reupload" would have looked dreadful. My local supermarket has signs saying that I should "reuse" my bags, and I always like to pronounce that one like a German verb ("RRROY-zuh") in protest because I like hyphens and I don't see why they keep getting dropped from things. Nice long comment for the algorithm... anyway, well done for correcting the mistake!
5:52 From the spaceflight perspective, classical orbits with zero angular momentum exist and aren't that weird: they're just trajectories that are perfectly vertical with respect to the gravitating body. Since electromagnetism is also an inverse square force, the only real difference here is that, in the atomic case, the uncertainty principle applies, so the electron's position is smeared out at any given moment and a straight-vertical trajectory is no longer guaranteed to hit the central object. Plus there's nothing in the nucleus to really stop the electron from shooting out the other side other than the weak nuclear force, so the equivalent to the guaranteed collision in the classical case is for inverse beta-decay to occur, which has a very low probability to occur, and is thus no longer guaranteed.
An anvil dropped from a skyscraper is (ignoring the rotation of the Earth) basically in the classical version of an s orbital.
He is still the G.O.A.T! Love ur videos man. U should make a 3 hour long compilation videos for ppl like me who fall asleep to science videos. I load urs and drift off and wake up to random space videos. Ur vids are awesome! Please ❤. Not falling asleep cause ur boring. It’s Because space is my life. Ur voice is soothing and relaxing
I still love the maze animation metaphor! Re-upload a third time and I'll type it again
The problem I've always had with Quantum Spin is: "up and down" relative to what? The bottom line is that some electrons are paramagnetic and some diamagnetic. The question is: "why?"
Up and down relative to the axis of measurement. It essentially means which way it would be deflected by a stern-gerlach apparatus in some particular orientation.
Electrons aren't diamagnetic or paramagnetic. Electrons are magnetic dipoles.
Dia or paramagnetism are properties of bulk materials that arise from the olignments of the electrons in the atoms they are made of.
At 7:44, the problem is that the free electrons in the beam are moving relative to the magnet. Why not move the magnet too, so the relative velocity would be zero?
Deja vue ... Oh, I see.
So, the "spinning" electrons make the silver atoms magnetic like a ball with all north or south poles on the outside? That means the opposite poles are all pointing inwards. Must be a hell of a struggle keeping that together.
Does the particles of the nucleus have no spin, or what have you, that could have influence?
Btw. that slit experiment - I guess it takes place in a vacuum chamber, but how do you accelerate the atoms towards the proverbial glass sheet?
Conclusion (History isn't a nice simple narrative...) was foreshadowing of the re-upload.
Am I tripping or am I reliving this episode lol
See the pinned comment 👍
I really appreciate the correction!
Very good, as always... 😊
Indeed. The messiness of science hides itself in publications; people get the impression that, say Einstein, just sat down and wrote down his solutions, when in reality he made mistakes and missteps all along, such that the paper is the distilled result of a messy (human) process.
Well done, I mean I watched the previous version as well but... Awesome video again!
Could pls put the paper into the video description as a link you mad a good scientic work explained pretty nice. Thank you for the video
What is difference of angular momentum and spin?
Spin is a kind of angular momentum.
I was like "A dejà vu, there is a glitch in the matrix" but then there was an explanation, reupload.
At least now I've understood the part with the S orbital, when I've watched it the first time something was sounding not good, but I was unable to put a nail on why, so I've just told myself "it's quantum weirdness again and I can't understand it right".
Now I've probably still not understood it, but at least I have the impression to have understood it.
🤯
Thanks for giving me a reason to watch this again.
Nice job. Thanks.
Ok Confused 2.0.
As I understand it (Ind I really don't) we have several models of atoms. The planetary analogue may be throwing me off on this one but Angular momentum of the outer electron? Is that the electron itself having a property that is referred to as angular momentum or for the process of this model an Actual angular momentum as it moves round an orbit?
Am I trying to hammer round pegs into square holes to force a model into my understanding of it?
The model with electrons moving in circles(the bohr model) is _wrong_ . Electrons do not orbit. The schrödinger equation is the better description, and it gives "orbitsals" some of which have angular momentum and some don't.
The s-orbitals don't and describe (in the simplest case) the electron as a spherical distribution around the nucleus.
These orbitals don't have angular momentum, but the electrons still do. Their intrinsic spin angular momentum.
Recomment: It's nice to hear a deeper dive into a relatively simple experiment I've learned about a dozen times.
I have the same t-shirt.
It's a great t-shirt! (Also, this comment feels like deja vu. Did you comment this on the previous version of this video?)
@@ScienceAsylumSomeone did, I remember it too
@@ScienceAsylum I did. But you had to replace the video, so I was unsure if you had seen the comment.
awesome video!
There is a more complex issue - NMR. It is based on excitation of nucleus and proton spins.
Important for NMR are atoms with odd number of protons so that one of proton's spin is not cancelled, like in H or C.
In NMR nucleus is excited by specific radio-frequencies (that causes these strange strong noises during NMR imaging)
BUT -- what exactly is - nucleus excitation, for example? It is NOT like with electrons thrown in higher orbitals. WHAT is it?
Many thanks
Carbon has 6 protons which is not odd ;) C13 has an odd number of neutrons tho. So it seems both nucleon types have separate "orbitals" with occupancy of 2, just like electrons (both are fermions after all). Even though deuterium indeed has a spin of 1, this is not just trivial addition, as Boron-10 has a spin of 3, in contrast, and is best determined experimentally.
The signal occurs due to a difference in potential energy of different states of spin alignment with the external magnetic field. In the simplest case of 1/2 spin, there are 2 states, aligned and antialigned. Deuterium with spin 1 has 3 states (2x1+1). Nearby nuclei interact and complicate this further. E.g. CDCl3 appears to have a triplet in C13 NMR (interaction with deuterium but not chlorine, supposedly due to kinetic affects = exists but immeasurable). The interaction of indirectly bonded like-nuclei is useful in analytic chemistry.
Upvote for the re-upload! Keep being crazy!!
3) Protected them from werewolves...oh.
Nice video, I love the happy accidents of science.
Best science youtuber!
Thank you for the re-upload. ❤
Thank You for another Super Interesting Physics Video!!!
You Really Explained the Stern-Gerlach Experiment in an Amazing New Creative Way!!!
So Now I can think of it from New Helpful Perspectives!!!👍😎
Fantastic!
(@ 6:48) Imagine the election can produce a concentrated *north* magnetic field with a diffused *south* magnetic field, *[^]* but with equal probability it can exist with a concentrated *south* and a diffused *North* magnetic field *[v]*
If spin causes angular momentum, I can’t see why it still couldn’t reorientate in space so that it was always attracted to pointed magnet.
I’m saying it’s still electron spin, but we possibly missed a clue as to its nature.
Thanks for having standards; acknowledging and correcting a mistake. We appreciate you and I’m glad (and not surprised) to see I’m not the only one actively interacting to help with the YT algo. Cheers!
May the algorithm bless you for having integrity, giving you another full watch and sharing.
Huh! Deja-vu. Thought I had already seen and liked this episode… Stop messing with the Timeline?! 😂😂
@@Brotherdot it is a re-upload. He made a mistake in some information in the first one and didn't want it to stand.
@ right! Saw it after I had posted. Thank you!
@@spindoctor6385 o dang, is that bad for the algorythm?
I just watched it again so I dun mind 😆
Glad you saw the pinned comment. There's also a community tab post 👍
This proves we are in a simulation, and they are messing up.
Thanks TSA.
I see you kept this in 0:42. Again, none of these particles are "spinning" in the classical sense. They have spin, but that does not in any way translate to rotational velocity.
Thumbed up the last one, thumbed up this one!
I just watched this video a second time. I need more Science Asylum! What should I watch now?
Happy accidents make such fun science stories. Really enjoyed this one!
Why using free electrons wouldn't have led to the discovery: Because they have electric charge, therefore they experience the Lorentz force from a magnet, masking the effect. While the lone electron in Hg has electric charge, too, the atoms themselves are net electrically neutral, thereby preventing the effects of the Lorentz force.
Science terms momentum shall be conserved. Spin, colors, electrical charge, so many examples.
If the electron leaves the atom, why should it still have the same angular momentum once it passes through the magnet?
The electron never leaves the atom.
I don't think they had magnets quite that strong at the time :P
@@ScienceAsylum For some reason, I was thinking they were ejecting the electrons but you always say it's the atoms. Makes sense now.
Awesome as always! Thank you very much! Like many I was never told this story which makes the whole thing even more interesting.
Kudos!
Good stuff ;)
They say an electron can't be physically spinning because then it would have to be going faster than the speed of light. But since an electron's size has not been determined, how can you calculate the speed (not rotation per unit time) of the surface of an electron? If it is not the surface they are saying is going FTL, what is?
Much better!! 😃
Watching again, just for engagement :) (also to check that the error you fixed was the one I noticed)
I appreciate correcting the mistake! Please like and comment to help him!
Didn’t Pauli put the person who originally thought of spin, off from writing up his idea.
I am watching again to have my knowledge corrected and to boost the video's performance.
Wait wait wait. So an electron in the s-orbital has zero angular momentum? How is that even possible? 🤔
RIGHT?!?!!!!
Because an orbital is not an orbit. It's a distribution. The electron isn't moving in circles. It _is_ the "cloud" around the nucleus. And without angular momentum, that cloud is spherically symmetric. With angular momentum, it is not.
I re-watched it, but also frequently re-watch some of your videos in order to fully grasp them.
"too much momentum to change"
You missed a good pun opportunity
The tile is a clever pun (four and for years)
I need these things explaining more than once anyway 😁
Comment for boosting the reupload!
Here to support the re-upload with a like, view and comment. Thank you for all the great videos!
I have a wacky idea that probably doesn’t hold up to math but what if quantum spin is this magnetic monopole we have been looking for? Can we tell on that atom that is passing through the magnet that this electron isn’t only producing one magnetic pole? Granted this is literally my latenight ramblings but wouldn’t it be funny.
If electrons all had a magnetic charge, we would have noticed, yes.
Great!
Yay for scientific integrity!
Geometry is 5 root infinite universe laws 1 . Volume 2. Divisions of particles 3. Motion 4. Magnetics 5.Empty space.... electron beams can be easily made in CRT televisions that prove they are magnetic in specific states in a vacuum...otherwise something that isn't magnetic is just the "knocking of the balls," so to speak....lyj2024dec16 8:32 pm
This isn’t particularly clear
For me, not only did I know that the s orbital has 0 angular mometum, the explanation you gave in that video also didn't sit right with me.
Because in quantum mechanics you can't just have something have angular momentum that is always perpendicular to the direction you measure it if the system you're measuring is in a pure state. Unless the measurement apparatus is itself entangled with the system in such a way, it just cannot be true
The forty six of the forty seven electrons in the silver atom balance out with what? The net magnetic effect from the nucleus and each other?
They balance out with each other.
The magnetic moment of protons is so much smaller than that of electrons that their contribution can be ignored, from what I understand.
So, while the silver atom is actually spin 0 overall, the outer electron couples more strongly to the magnetic field than the nucleus.
Heck I've watched this three times and still missed the timestamp where what really happens happens. Is there a written version of science asylum, like the scripts?
@@uneventfullogs Will the video's transcript suffice? You can find the transcript at the end of the Description.
@brothermine2292 nope, doesn't make sense
@@uneventfullogs What doesn't make sense, and why doesn't it?
Thx Nick; on 2nd watch I was able to improve my understanding a few percentage points...
That was a cool experiment.
it's been a good while since I've seen a video from the grand master....
Why would they all deflect in the same direction if they were small magnets .
Wow 47 views in 1 minute