Home
Creators
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register Favorites Keys Review DMs Logout
Community
Telegram ThePornDude
Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

WIP video about Dirac, kindly requesting feedback! (Patreon)

Published:
2025-11-28 07:21:32
Imported:
2026-09

Videos

  • 571881334.mp4

Downloads

Content

DEADLINE FOR FEEDBACK - 1st December 12PM UK TIMEWe've got an exciting video coming out very soon!

We'd love to hear your feedback and suggestions as we wrap up this video all about overconfidence!

It's a little rough around the edges as we still need to finish some animations (as stated in the video) and some are mistimed so please look at the content rather than the timing, but as always we appreciate you watching and reviewing this cut!

Is there anything wrong? Any other questions? Anything more you'd like to see? Explanations you don't think do a good enough job or lack depth? Let us know!Thank you so much!

-Team Ve

Comments

Kate Proctor

One of, if not the most technical of all the Veritasium videos. And, although I could not have produced the math, I felt like I could almost follow the steps of the math. And because the explanations were clear, I could easily follow the results and implications. I do not think I have heard of Dirac before, and I really enjoyed this video.

Aditya alt

Dirac is infact the name of my internet name, usernames on any game or exchange. So I am glad to see a veritasium video on the life and work of dirac

Bob Terrell

You know, I think we could categorize Veritasium videos into several different levels. There are those that can be understood by anyone (level 1), those that use perhaps high-school level math (level 2), those that use collegiate or post-graduate math (level 3), and those that use background from what would likely be a level 3 video (level 4). I agree with Kate saying this is probably one of Veritasium's most technical videos, probably at like a level 4. I'm not saying to dumb it down, but I'm 20 years out of school and haven't used matrix operations or calculus in quite some time (L2?), and I never studied a wave function (L3?), so I would love to watch dedicated videos on each of those. I'm sure they exist in the Veritasium world; I just wish that they were linked from this one. Obviously, I'm not expecting the content of multiple math courses in a single 30-minute video, but an overview might be cool.

Terry Bollinger

Your presentation gives a nice coverage of what Dirac did. I like that you addressed Dirac's fascination with linear equations, since that work preceded his matrix version and required some novel, imaginary-number-ish reinterpretations of how to factor equations. It was quite revolutionary and nicely quirky, since Dirac wasn't even aware of that particular domain of mathematics. He just figured it out on his own and later converted it to matrices, where the matrices became special constants that algebraically squared in useful ways. (I actually prefer his earlier algebraic forms, which have close relationships to quaternions and introduce fewer arbitrary orderings than matrices.) While I recognize how unfair it is to poke you with an issue that none of these greats ever fully resolved, your presentation style points it out in a way that likely will cause some listeners to bring up this question: You started out saying that the problem was "negative energy solutions." Yet by the time you got to Feynman, positrons combining with electrons resulted in positive energy, not zero. That means both the electron and the positron had positive energy, and the positron cannot be the "negative energy" solution after all, but something else. What happened to the "negative energy" solutions?

Charles S. Cook

You presented this very technical process well and in an understandable manner. I do not think you could describe how someone could conceive of Antimatter any other way than to describe the steps taken to get there. But wow, those steps are amazing, technical, and heavy on the math (several semesters beyond my level of math!), and all necessarily so. I have wondered through the lens of science-fiction and a little education how anyone could conceive of such things, and now I see how. Until this, I would have thought a large panel of nameless scientists produce this sort of concept. But, with every one of the Veritassium presentations I lean about those named scientists who find concepts and work to gain acceptance in the community of scientists. Maybe start with an overview of how technical the presentation will be and why it is necessary to communicate what Dirac's process of discovery. The word Antimatter is introduced at about 27:11 with little fanfare, maybe I missed it earlier on, but as the main character finally being revealed I would give a bit more emphasis on its first use. And, where would all those wonderful science fiction stories be without the concept of Antimatter?

Timothy-Douglas Alvey

A difficult topic for most folks but I was able to understand (but certainly not DO) the math. Now, is the Cat in the box or Negative Space?

Robert

Great video. As a theoretical physicist, I cannot stop myself from mentioning a few nit-picks: It is said that it is not so surprising that the Dirac spinor has 4 components as we live in 4 space-time dimensions. That however is a coincidence: You can write the Dirac equation in any dimension and then it has 2^int((d+1)/2) components, i.e. 1 in d=1, 2 in d=2 and 3, 4 in d=4 and 5, 8 in d=6 and 7 up to 32 in the d=10 and 11 of superstring and M-Theory. Furthermore, you talk about the splitting of the emission lines due to spin. There you should mention that this happens in response to a magnetic field (external or from the other electrons/nucleus). In fact, the splitting is proportional to the magnetic field and this is predicted once you (straight forwardly) couple the Dirac equation to an external electromagnetic field. Lastly, photons cannot spontaneously decay into an e+ e- pair, momentum would not be conserved in that process (and in a convenient Lorenz frame, there would always be enough energy for 2x 511keV, so light would decay and not travel across the universe). The pair production only works if something else (for example another atom) is in the vicinity that can take up the extra momentum.

Kat Seibert

I am not a math wizard but in answer to the question of why a 2 dimensional matrix as opposed to a 4, I suspect it is to keep things as simple as possible. The 4 dimensional matrix did after all produce some results that took a fairly long time to explain.