Відео

What if we are looking at this wrong? The diagram at 18:40 shows the dot moving along the line, but what if it is the dot that moves the line instead? Could the dot be a gravitational center with other dots in orbit, creating a mapping of a sphere when you consider every which way something could orbit something else, that create funky patterns when you connect a line between them?

nope .. the spinor is more simple

i'm positive that this has and will have absolutely no relevance in my life

Looking forward to SEE moving particles!

Amazing

I freqently wonder where particles need 720 degrees of rotation to return to their starting state, can it be possible to model it with a mobius strip. And might this geometry sugest something about real particles, or additional compactified dimentions.

Is it that spinors rotate on the real axis and the imaginary at once? thats why you have to rotate it twice to get back

Someone who watches TV: "Oh you 'do your own research?' 😏" My research:

59:40 or K=(Z/2Z) where 1=-1 !

7:25 I like your approach for a first pass, but but really brought it all home for me is that what you are showing at this time same is Z hat. When we are taught vectors, they tell us “it’s an arrow, it’s a magnitude and direction”, and that is a start, but it is fundamentally wrong. A vector is an L=1 spherical harmonic. The next figure you show is L=0, M=0…that is a scalar. They tell us a scalar is a number. BS. A number lives on the number line, while a scalar lives in the 3D space. Then when we get to tensors, everyone is all wtf? What is it? Well, it’s an L=2 spherical harmonic, something that is an eigenstate of rotations….that has 5 degrees of freedom …and so on.

A question: in class 2 or higher homotopies, can each separate winding share the same point, yet be distinct loops? Is the collapsed end, around the hole, one or many rings fused into one, all sharing the same points?

Last chance to buy Silver before it explodes.Cuba banks just crashed,coming to a bank near you!!!!!!🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀Do it Now!

The fact that complex numbers seem to dictate physics, seems to go along with the idea that the universe is a large 4 dimensional fractal.

Beautiful. Thanks for putting the spark in it!

Wow. I really love this channel alot, and all the videos 🙂❤️ Physics and maths and chemistry is very amazing! I love this soo muchh ✨️ Especially quantum physics 😌

Only two shells? And i thought figuring out how to use three shells was hard enough

Beautiful !

How would these compare to densley interwoven tesseract torus knots?

Here at 3am

Wow incredible video! The only thing I think you left out is the trick when you hold a Coke can and show that you have to spin it twice to get your arm to reset. If you only spin it once your arm is all negative but if you spin it twice it goes back to positive/normal!

Привет с Казахстана. БОЛЬШАЯ ОШИБКА в измерении Вселенной, чёрных дыр, темной энергии, .. Позвольте господа физики судить о всём этом по результату прямого на 84% опыту: В автобусе, в самолёте выполним опыт Майкельсона-Морли и определяя им прямолинейную скорость. - О таком опыте мечтал ещё Эйнштейн. Но мы возможно будем наблюдать постулаты "Свет это упорядоченная вибрация гравитационных квантов. Доминантные гравитационные поля управляют скоростью света в вакууме". Есть предложение на совместное изобретения ГИБРИД гироскопа из некруглых, ДВУХ катушек с новым типом оптического волокна с «полой сердцевиной с фотоно-замещенной вакуумной зоной», где - свет в каждом плече проходит по 16000 метров при этом, не превышает параметры 0,4/0,4/0,4 метра и вес - 4кг.

What a wonderful video. It's such a shame that we don't know more about them.

VACUIN SUCK ALL AIIR OUT VALVE OPEN PULL 2T AIR TANK STORAGE OPEN AIR PUSHED

If the white board was space-time and the spinors represent the path of electrons, it makes more sense to me...

Do not hurt the loop

So, God exists?

"allegedly"

What physics/maths books are you reading rn?

beautiful. thank you so much

sorry i missed that part could you say it again

Drake Had to do a Double take

With all the respect to Grant, this is actually way better that 3b1b in terms of explanatory power. I suspect this kind of all-encompassing approach to give away not only the textbook notion, but all the multi-year experience around the topic is what is badly lacking to push science forward.

That an electron in a Stern Gerlach Experiment is either Spin-up or -down isn't mysterious at all if you interpret the spin as an angular momentum. That's how we expect angular momenta to behave in such magnetic fields. The mysterious part then is why the electron has just two spin states and why they have the specific value they have. One way to see that the direction of angular momenta must become directionally quantized is to understand to use the bar magnet model of a spinning electron and realise that it takes energy to change the direction of even a classical bar magnet in a magnetic field. It's as if the bar magnetic is in a potential that depends on the angle to the magnetic field lines. We've seen what quantum objects do in such situations. They get quantized. But since we don't know what exactly is spinning in an electron this seems to be useless to calculate anything. It just makes the directional quantisation in the Stern-Gerlach experiment less mysterious. PS: Of course If you imagine a more more realistic realistic spinning electron, you still get the directional quantisation, but you also get precession. Which adds yet another piece of understanding. Since we know that electrons are precessing from measurements, i find it usefull to think through these cases even though a lot of people keep saying that the electron isn't actually spinning.

woah

I qas looking up fidget spinners!!!!

is that spaghetti monster

Spinors are how life creates. Gravity is an illusion, and, materia is an illusion. Mass is an illusion. There is no gravity, no materia, and no mass - other than illusive, reciprocal, interdependent and triune. Mathematics has not proven even the point. Point is merely an assumption, an axiom. There cannot be mass for partly the same reasons as there cannot be point; and as there cannot be lavatanssit without triune duality. One might want to try lavatanssit, to understand. The universe is not expanding, but we are going down the drains. Just look at the galaxies. Going through the drain, through the black sun, to and through the point. Logos (loukkaus, lohkous) was from the beginning, and with the beginning. Of course our brains mirror the universe, even in mathematical sense, as our existence is surfing and emerging on and in the waves of eternity. INRIX

Maybe it makes sense if we think of the mirrored effect. I work detangling human tissue and I can feel spun fibres that I have to unhook one way then the other to neutralise. This may explain that everything is a mirrorcoil? Maybe past and future neutralising to present.

Great introduction. Thank you. In playing with manifold I came across the form below. If you'll notice it is toroid like but it has only ONE surface. A single rotation covers the forever and then, after passage through zero/maxima it is reoriented, inverted. The one rotation on one side of temporal manifold, the other rotation on the other. Surface(cos(u/2)còs(v/2),cos(u/2)sin(v/2),sin(u)/2),u,0,2pi,v,0,4pi I have some videos exploring is topology. But it seems like the inversion version of spinor

Did you quote wu tang?

Really good video. Animations are top notch. But I wanted to say that I feel like when you get to the question "why?" as deeply as you get there towards the end, _everything_ starts to look weird. Just plain rotations in so(3) are kinda weird if you try to think about them abstractly. They just don't really feel weird because we are used to seeing things rotate in 3d. But really it *is* weird that you can apply this transform to a thing that continually and smoothly transforms it and never changes it's shape or size and yet not only does this not make it go through itself or anything "unphysical" but you can stop the transform halfway through to turn it into the opposite version of itself? That's weird, even if it just means turning something around. What I wanna say is that at that point of asking "why?" In a pure maths context, nothing is above the question. If it seems like something isn't weird, it's just our inherent biases telling us otherwise. I also found it very interesting to frame Pauli's principle (and the spin-statistics theorem) as being merely congruent with physics but not a true consequence from our models. It's definitely uncomfortable to think about but undeniable nonetheless. My feeling is that there is some way to "derive" the schrodinger equation and its version in qft from some sort of not-arbitrary first principles that would yield the existence of spinors or spin-like thing as an unavoidable consequence, making the theorem a true consequence of the theory but without having to assume pauli's principle. Having to assume the principle is to me 1000 times more uncomfortable than accepting that spinors exist and give rise to the principle.

seem quasi almost

Another fun related observation : in two dimensions, we have another class of quasiparticle besides fermion and bosons : anyon. This can be linked to the fact that physically exchanging two particles by moving them in two dimension can be done clockwise or counterclockwise. There is a link to be made with Feynman path integrals, by introducing weight factors to classes of paths.

صبح تا شب دروغ میگن این معادلات اصلا درست نیست دروغه

چرا زیر نویس فارسی نداری ویتنامی داری فارسی نداری گاو از تو بهتره

I lked the pictures

Excellent video! Please do twistors!

Your intro is way too late for me, I fell headfirst into existential philosophy as a teenager and never made it back. Because there is no going back. Much like the singularity at the core of a black hole, all paths merely lead deeper in. God time and space and possibility and consciousness and experience and the fact that anything exists at all are such wonderfully stimulating topics of inquiry.

There is nothing mysterious about spinors. He is right about it being the square root of geometry, they are called rotations in geometric algebra by half angles. And yes, they have physical significance

as an art student, i'm clicking off. I don't want to have to change carrees cause of one youtube video.