@xenoepist Possibly. The Planck time is thought to be the smallest physically meaningful unit of time, but it is unknown if the Universe's time is actually quantized at that level.
Quantum Entanglement = LoVE, for love transcend time, space and matter. Love will always find a way to reach its partner ..... and then they get on the bed and take their clothes off and urghhhhhh, disgusting.
to all the geniuses who thinks this is easy, this isn't an actual stanford physics class. it is for people who want a very light introduction into the topic without math or other complicated aspects natural to the topic. sorry, you are still stupid.
I like to have lectures running in the background as I do other things. I don't really listen to what is said, and don't aim to learn what is being said, but it's like poetry.
@20vturbopower First lectures are almost always a review and from what I remember from my physics courses, my professors would often give us a watered down lecture from our other math courses before starting on the physics. You'd probably know that had you have gotten any further than linear algebra.
I'm surprised and happy that I was sort of capable of following this because I was a high school dropout. I think that my years of playing around and making games on my ZX Spectrum in my bedroom greatly helped me in this pursuit. By the way, 300 in binary would be 0000000100101100, using 16 bits, or 2 bytes of 8 bits each. The binary number Susskind wrote on the board was 297. Please don't bash me for showing off, I was a thicko in school and all the teachers thought I'd never learn anything :-)
@1simonmatthews Many people have a genius inside, but the single track narrow mindset of the modern education system is often insufficient to bring it forward, and coupled with the brain numbing, apathy breeding entertainment/media these days, most are tricked into living an "average" life.
Complicated complications. Hehe. This lecturer is magnificent. I would do anything to do this course at Stanford University. We don't have many courses like this in Australia, and the ones we do have, are extremely difficult to get into. Remember you have to separate the points of the time intervals. It comes from just thinking. Everything all kinds of human beings casually thinking about. We can re-wire out intelligence.
hi doc, i'm a bit drunk, but maybe what i say'd make sense (most probably it does not) anyways. i think tunelling is what causes electricity and electromagnetism (and maybe gravity?) tunelling is possible only with zero mass (electrons (i dunno if they have a mass), or not, waves of some sort). so, we could too with thoughts attract or repel things too, if we concentrated, and the object were close enuf (microns scale, indeed). beat this!
an object alone cannot give US information Is when a conscience is looking at it that can derive information from that object placed in this physicall world.
@MrRalphSwan No I was not kidding. I guess this is all intro stuff. I know all that
stuff. read Blackholes Geons & quantum foam by J. A. Wheeler or Undivided universe by Bohm or the road to reality by Penrose, interactions by Glashow, the first three minuets by Wienburg, after the first three minuets by after the first three minuets T. Padmanabhan: the dancing WU LI masters, the Tao of physics, Relitivity the specail & the general theory by Einstein
@CaptainImpedance Well here's a suggestion then: Watch the ones on String theory or particle physics which are more advanced instead of nagging that he makes his lectures in a way that you don't need a degree in physics in order to follow them. Besides, he did the math stuff way better than the professor I had in linear algebra.
Why is that surprising? You will find that a lot of scientists at the top of their fields are open minded. A closed mind is not a good attribute for a scientist.
The stunning thing to me is that the lecturer actually mentions the "Intelligent Designer", and says it's OK with him if you want to think about it that way!
@dlbattle100 There is nothing in science to determine either. In the words of Bertrand Russell one should "suspend judgement in the event that something cannot yet be answered".
Just cause this guy mentions evolution during the introduction, the comment section is now infected by pesky creationists arguing against evolution and science and whatnot. It's not relevant to the subject AT ALL! Can't you just leave people, that are genuinely interested in the science, alone and mentally masturbate on how evolution, big bang and carbon dating is all wrong while accepting every other field of science? You are disgusting!
I'm confused on one point. When we multiply a matrix by a column, we get a matrix, but a matrix by a row only produces a row. Wouldn't that mean that each value in the final product row would be huge?
I get his point but it's wrong. most of the thinking bias is learned and the perpetually agile mind has no problems entertaining unusual concepts such a entanglement and quantum diffuseness or time dilation.
he is also wrong about evolution. evolution didn't make us and you can know this from the simple fact that pain cannot be done by any known physics. nor would a physical system need it to be motivated. ergo we are metaphysical/extramechanistic and therefore beyond evolution
@laputahayom it was an invitation to think. what pain is is indeed something to think about. even I don't know what it is. I have just proven that it isn't physical.
If you don't even know what pain is, how can you be sure about what it isn't? I can say "pain is x, x is non-physical, therefore pain is non-physical." and in doing so I have both defined pain and proven that it is non-physical, you have done neither meaning that you have only asserted that pain is non-physical.
I do not see how your argument invalidates evolution either. But please, first define pain and then we may argue further.
@Quintinohthree I don't have to know what it is to know that it can't be done in the physical. same as I don't have to really know what matter is to know that it can't be created in a computer game world irrespective of complexity. the computer simulation simply doesn't have the expressive power to manifest matter. exactly analogous the physical doesn't have the expressive power to manifest qualia.
the robot cannot have pain. all you have to do is realize it. think. courageously
Let me then take the liberty of defining pain: pain is a sensation, that originates in nerves when certain extremes, associated with harm, be they of pressure, heat or cold or any other possibility, are exceeded.
Would that be a good definition, or is pain something completely different?
If this is an accurate definition then it's certainly physical. It's something we can replicate in robots and that can have evolved.
@Quintinohthree it does not originate in the nerves. I use the robot example because your weak minds get lost in the complexity of the human body. think about the robot.
where in the chain does pain occur. obviously it does not nor is it needed. and it never could. nothing physical can even begin to touch it. including quantum mechanics. try to understand the blatantly obvious that nowhere in sensor, signal, processing, action does pain enter the equation. yet we have it. ergo not physical.
Pain does not occur, pain is a result. It is the result of certain extremes being exceeded in sensory nerves.
And how exactly does one go from "pain is non-physical" to "therefore we did not evolve from more primitive life-forms"? I'll grant you that pain is non-physical just to get to the core of this issue.
@Quintinohthree even though I deeply insulted you to shock you into some minor clarity you still closed your eyes to the robot analogy. just because a threshold is passed, doesn't mean a metaphysical phenomenon has been achieved. stick with the fucking robot. your weak mind can't handle the complexity of a human. think about pain in a robot. realize the blatantly obvious that it doesn't need it nor could it ever in any way do it.
I do not want to argue about pain anymore. Tell me as complete as possible what pain is according to you and how the existence of pain proves that we did not evolve. I can argue forever about pain and what it is but as long as I can't get from your premise to your conclusion I am not satisfied by your conclusion.
And don't insult my intellect. I know a lot about the physical aspects of pain, not all, and I have seen no reason yet to think that there is anything metaphysical, supernatural, about it. I have granted you that there is so we can actually argue something because I am not knowledgable enough to do so on the subject and I do not think you really are too, though I'd love to be surprised.
@Quintinohthree I have told you more than enough to understand the argument. there are no flaws in it nor need for clarification. you simply fail to take it in and hurry on to ask new mindless questions. in case you want to understand this most profound of proofs then go back over what I have said and understand it. whenever you have an urge to ask a question, beat yourself hard and repeatedly. no not in that way :)
@Quintinohthree you could extend the concept of evolution to allow for the spiritual domain but such is obviously quite a concession.
if you are honest with yourself, few definitions of evolution include spiritual elements like souls and miracles and indeed God. so of course my argument was sound and it was indeed not a non sequitur. you just didn't take the time to think about it.
the spiritual being real is quite rich in implication. my friend
@DanFrederiksen that is indeed my argument and it is flawless although can be elaborated.
evolution is a purely mechanistic concept. genetic makeup and function grows into a being and attempts to procreate. if the genetic design is successful it remains to mutate another day. random mutation and natural selection. nowhere in that concept is there room for a metaphysical element with power to circumvent the physical laws. it is a functional element not contained in dna, ergo all bets are off.
Then your argument is actually: "Evolution predicts that there is no metaphysical aspect to anything. Pain is a metaphysical phenomenon, therefore evolution is false." and that is a sound argument, however its first premise is false.
You see evolution deals only with the physical aspects of life, it doesn't say that there are any metaphysical aspects, nor does it say that there aren't. Evolution doesn't include nor excluded these things.
One thing that might surprise you is that many Christians accept evolution, in fact in the US a vast majority of Christian biologists even accept evolution, yet they do believe in the spiritual, the supernatural, in God. One of the most prominent evolutionary biologists is Dr. Ken Miller. He, among others, testified in the Kitzmiller V Dover case. He is a devout Roman Catholic. Apparently the experts on the matter disagree with you.
I do not know what that means, nor do I think that we must complicate things this much. Instead "the change over generations of the gene-pool through random mutation, natural and sexual selection to individuals and genetic drift" should do. You have the three essential mechanisms in there, it outlines that it's about genes, not so much about organisms and you have the change in there which is also absolutely essential.
Susskind doesn't do God. He seems to be a man of the old school, who believes that pointing out the foolishness of other people's views would reflect poorly on him and do the holder of those views no good ether. But certainly he has a low opinion of those views, nevertheless ...
@TheGreatRunaway I don't find it weird. Though I do find you pretentious for stating the fact that your 13 and think this is interesting. Are we suuposed to be amazed. Go eat a pbj and take a nap.
Despite being a boastful and self declared apathetic when it comes to religion, it has taught me something. Learn to love everyone. Don't start stupid debates about religion because an omnipresent and sentient being sounds irrational. Nobody would be here if we didn't love eachother, so do your part and give hugs, not hate filled arguments.
Am I alone in thinking this was mostly a very boring lecture covering basic digital info theory and a somewhat muddled lecture on linear algebra which has practically nothing to do with quantum effects? Hoping for better luck in the next episode.
I 5:45 - 6:10 'intelligent designer' Its sad teachers and scientist must clarify not to offend anybody, there in that class to learn about science not faith or any of there imaginary friends.
Just a guess, maybe being able to think about the Uncertainty principle comes from the fact that we used to be aquatic monkeys. And we still are aquatic monkeys. We get the uncertainty sense from knot knowing wether or not we are going to make it to the top of the water when we are done diving when looking for food. LOL
Interesting lecture, but the pace of the lecture is frustrating. I wish he weren't so slow. He spent over 30 minutes to get like two concepts across- neither of which were very difficult. (And I come from a liberal arts background)
sorry, can someone pls clarify? erm, does a "bit" represent the number of states a system represent (since a coin has heads and tails and hence 0,1)? if so, doesnt it mean a die has 6 "bits", since it has 6 sides and hence 6 possible answers? at 00.18.42
@archanglelin hmm... i'm not always very clear in how i explain things so hopefully this will make sense...
the way he is describing it, a single bit holds enough information to specify the state of a single system. that is to say, in the case of a die, one bit specifies the state of exactly one die. it can hold values 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6. two bits would specify two die (eg. 1-2, 5-3, 4-3, 6-6, ...). thus, in talking about dice, it would be best to work in base 6 rather than binary like w coins
@archanglelin The "bit" represents the answer to a question which only has 2 possible answers, usually yes or no. You have to reframe your question. The question is NOT what is the value of the die? But rather is the value of the die 1? Is the value of the die 2?...etc So if you set up his box diagram with 6 boxes corresponding to each question in the series, you end up with a string of 0's and 1's to represent the state of the die. ie if it's 3 you end up with 0,0,1,0,0,0.
@archanglelin: no not exactly. Since a die has 6 possible states which we could represent 0-5, this would rewuire 2 raised to the third power (eight) to cover all possibilities.
Could quantum mechanics represent the passage or Arrow of Time?
This theory is based on just two postulates,
1.The first is that the quantum wave particle function explained by Schrödinger’s wave equation represents the forward passage of time or Arrow of Time itself photon by photon, quanta by quanta or moment by moment.
2. The second is that Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle that is formed by the wave function is the same uncertainty we have with any future event.
I was wondering if Modern Physics: The Theoretical Minimum was meant to be watched in the order the lectures were done? Also, how do the quantum entanglement lectures fit into the series?
There is no "before" as soon as you exit our universe and involve the multiverse. Time/space is a construct of *this* universe; who knows how physical continuity breaks down "outside" of it. As a matter of fact, cause and effect break down *inside* of our universe at the quantum level. So, sitting inside our fish-bowl and claiming "before, after, during, ra ra, god" is pointless and *only* academic. We just don't know. And anyone who claims to is lying to themselves. ;) Cheers.
I find it a bit maddening when we see his answers to questions but we don't get to hear the question. "That's the question that took 20 years to answer and I think the answer is no."
Not sure which part do you have in mind, but I think he was talking about "information paradox". It's an idea that Stephen Hawking proposed long time ago, suggesting that infomation is lost in the black holes. (this proposal had a lot to do with Hawking's famous equation: S=c³kA/4ħG). Google it up for more :P. Or just google "information paradox" =D.
@MuggsMcGinnis I believe that question would be something like: Does information get lost inside a Black Hole? I know this is something he and Steven Hawking argued about for that long.
I find it a bit maddening when we see his answers to questions but we don't get to hear the question. "That's the question that took 20 years to answer and I think the answer is no."
To represent "an irrational number you need an infinite string of bits". But, the Bailey Borwein Plouffe algorithm to find any digit of pi requires only a fixed and finite number of bits in a fixed-length sequence of operations.
@AndroidNeox Sure, perhaps; but that doesn't mean you can represent pi with a finite number of bits. You'd need to perform the algorithm to find an infinite number of bits anyhow
This is a college course!? The information is presented so slowly, I almost fell asleep an hour in. Get on with it!
Also, in the case of the 4 point system which 'lost' information, it seems reasonable that if you watch several state changes over time, you can extrapolate that if one is in this state, somewhere along the line it originated from the lost point at some distant moment in time. What is lost is the time of the state change, and not necessarily the change itself.
The idea is that you can't "rewind" it. You can't recover the past state because when you're going backwards and you arrive at the dot that branches to both the "lost point" and the point in the triangle, you don't know which way to go.
@blackacidlizzard I'm a moron! lol. At least I can see religion for what it truly is. Religion is a drug! And based on your comment, I'm assuming you're a creationist. Am I right? lol.
Wow. You figured out mommy and daddy were wrong about unseen magic-man? That's impressive, if you're 8 years old.
"based on your comment, I'm assuming you're a creationist."
Like I said, you're a moron. Everyone on the right side of the bell curve would pick up that my comment was warning against idiotic Bushite "with us or with them" dichotomies, yet you come back by showing that you really do see things in such simplistic ways.
@blackacidlizzard Actually you're the true moron! I'm an atheist as a result of taking physics courses not because of stupid fucking petty shit! In fact most of the time i don't even bother with those kinds of remarks. I guess I felt like a child when i wrote it. So fuck off!
@blackacidlizzard The paradigm shift of Newtonian physics to quantum mechanics indicates the absence of an intelligent designer such as a god. If you don't see how, then obviously you're not that logical.
LOL, do you even realize the unstated assumptions you are making about either the nature of what constitutes intelligence or what can possibly operate in an "intelligent" manner?
Do you even understand the distinction between the two?
@blackacidlizzard Okay let me clarify this for you! An intelligent designer follows a set of logical steps in a sequential order like a computer architect would when they are building the microprocessor or what not, whereas quantum mechanical properties are literally chaos and particles can exist in two places simultaneously. Thus QM eliminates the existence of an intelligent designer!
1 - defining "intelligence" as that which conforms with logic, (this makes your assertion absolutely true, but does not answer the question about whether an intentional entity is responsible for our surroundings),
or you are:
2 - Assuming that only through processes adhering to logic can will be carried out. If your interpretation of QM is correct, this is already disproven - our base mechanics do not adhere to logic, yet we willfully create
Actually, when I said "right," I was wrong. If a logical designer knew that he could create what he wanted through utilizing illogic, it would be "logical" (in the colloquial sense) to do so.
Also, logic only takes itself into the ring. All of our understandings of QM are necessarily filtered through logic, and what we see in no way defies actual logic (random is random, law of identity holds). Here we do run into the Kantian problem of whether this is just a limit of our perception/cognition.
@blackacidlizzard Another reason why I am an atheist (by the way I was originally catholic) is because as an adult I put things into perspective. In other words, creationists are always using their Earthly perspective and are always jumping to irrational conclusions such as an intelligent designer due to the complexity of the world. However I realize the Earth is a speck within the vast universe. Due to the laws of probability, there's bound to be one complex world abundant of life!
@blackacidlizzard The laws of the universe exist everywhere in the universe hence "the laws of the universe" so no i would not be using my earthly perspective. The energy that is produced to cause inflation is caused by energy swelling up in the vacuum of space which is a quantum mechanical property. QM pwns design. Enough said! I'm full blown atheist now and I don't want to look back on my ridiculous fairy tale beliefs.
"The laws of the universe exist everywhere in the universe"
Non sequitor. I was pointing out your human-centric view of will and consciousness, your projection of what you experience as "intelligence" onto all possible entities with intent. That would be the projection
"QM pwns design."
If you hold the assumptions I pointed out problems with above
"I don't want to look back on my fairy tale beliefs."
I certainly don't suggest that - I suggest you have more fairy tales to root out
@ins0mniakids Though I don't care about - as you said - even you are entitled to your opinion. One can only surmise that you may have some hidden agenda for attacking me. I, however, refuse to stoop to your level. My only comment to you, is, that, not only am I a certified educator, who has motivated and gotten previously-unmotivated young people to achieve - I have spent most of my life listening to lectures. To each his/her/its own.
This is a fairly good video. As a college-degreed educator, however, I would have to say, that this intstructor spends an excessive amount of time giving his own arbitrary, irrelevant opinions on life, in general. In other words - he likes to hear himself talk. Therefore, his effectiveness as an instructor is less than it could be.
@MrSlimDavid I guess everyone is entitled to their own opinion, including you. But when you consider that he is giving a lecture concepts that are essentially abstract and a challenge in logic, I appreciate his doing just that. It helped to conceptualize and visualize the lecture logic as well as entertained for an hour and a half. I think that is the very definition of an effective instructor. In fact, I'd hate to sit through any college-degreed educator's lecture that doesn't understand that.
@MrSlimDavid I guess everyone is entitled to their own opinion, including you. But when you consider that he is giving lecture concepts that are essentially abstract and a challenge in logic, I appreciate his doing just that. It helped to conceptualize and visualize the lecture logic as well as entertained for an hour and a half. I think that is the very definition of an effective instructor. In fact, I'd hate to sit through any college-degreed educator's lecture that doesn't understand that.
If any system can be represented, always to greater and greater approximation, with bits (bytes?), would it not be fair to say that no system can be represented with 100% accuracy? If the "lattice" used to study a field can be constantly refined, or divided, there would be no end to the sub divisions...and if that is a correct statement, wouldn't there be a great deal of difference between the answers you would get the further you divide, calling the entire system into question?
@Argonova To answer your question... No. Using the example in the video, if I measure temperature in a room at 1-meter intervals, I can make a plot. If I measure at 0.1-meter intervals, I can make a more detailed plot.
Why in the world would there be "a great deal of difference" between these two plots? There would have to be some very sketchy Physics at work for what you're proposing to be true.
@Argonova You are correct, however, that no (real) physical system can be represented with 100% accuracy. That does not mean all scientific models should be "called into question."
We do not have a perfect understanding of Gravity. You are asking whether, given our lack of perfect knowledge, you'd be justified in concluding that it would be reasonably safe to dive headfirst off a cliff.
Atheism, a religion people join to sound smarter...
so atheists, do you believe that out of nothing came nothing and that nothing caused a something to be born and from that something humans were created?
Jews are indeed smart
Graham6762 2 days ago
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.......
shaunsteelgrave 3 days ago
Yes, Lenny practices Feynman's rule that what he cannot create on the spot he does not understand.
JSarfatti 3 days ago
I was watching a quantum entanglement class, but the quantum mechanics never came... they never came :/
xenoepist 1 week ago
is time quantized too?
xenoepist 1 week ago
@xenoepist Possibly. The Planck time is thought to be the smallest physically meaningful unit of time, but it is unknown if the Universe's time is actually quantized at that level.
EntropicPrinciple 4 days ago
starbucks should pay this guy for promoting their coffee
xenoepist 1 week ago
I LOVE YouTube's new feature. Now I can rewind Leonard just a little bit, on the rare occasion that he moves too quickly.
simplelife1021 1 week ago
@simplelife1021 Havent found one of those cases yet, but I have only watched the first 36 minutes so far
Baronstone 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Quantum Entanglement = LoVE, for love transcend time, space and matter. Love will always find a way to reach its partner ..... and then they get on the bed and take their clothes off and urghhhhhh, disgusting.
TheLamelyNamed 1 week ago
to all the geniuses who thinks this is easy, this isn't an actual stanford physics class. it is for people who want a very light introduction into the topic without math or other complicated aspects natural to the topic. sorry, you are still stupid.
joeglimmix 2 weeks ago
This is good for 240p
paddy110287 2 weeks ago
Lonard is the Best Lecturer I have ever met in net.
TheBassamassad 3 weeks ago
If one is familiar to vector and matrix operation, one can skip this lecture. But this is a good revision.
fishcircle 3 weeks ago
i really like the guy... but you can tell he hasn't made a computer program in his life.
RealGoonieKid 4 weeks ago
Stanford is known for having lower than most standards...
smkipus 1 month ago
Thank you Leonard, for making these available for free!
MikeRoePhonicsMusic 1 month ago
I like to have lectures running in the background as I do other things. I don't really listen to what is said, and don't aim to learn what is being said, but it's like poetry.
90hamg15 1 month ago 2
@90hamg15
I do that all the time, it is very enjoyable.
i try not to though =p
affablegiraffable 1 month ago
funny how the next parts have way less views
Jipzorowns 1 month ago 2
Everything he taught is 2000 level course material that I learned in Linear Algebra. I'm disappointed that this is a graduate course at STANFORD!
20vturbopower 1 month ago
@20vturbopower retard
debranov 1 month ago
@20vturbopower it's not; it's a free lecture for anyone who wants to learn about these topics
masterineverything 1 month ago
@20vturbopower First lectures are almost always a review and from what I remember from my physics courses, my professors would often give us a watered down lecture from our other math courses before starting on the physics. You'd probably know that had you have gotten any further than linear algebra.
nitter93 1 month ago
this is fucking awesome.
charliewhisky111 1 month ago
Vint Cerf teaches quantum physics
PhoenixOpenProject 1 month ago
I'm surprised and happy that I was sort of capable of following this because I was a high school dropout. I think that my years of playing around and making games on my ZX Spectrum in my bedroom greatly helped me in this pursuit. By the way, 300 in binary would be 0000000100101100, using 16 bits, or 2 bytes of 8 bits each. The binary number Susskind wrote on the board was 297. Please don't bash me for showing off, I was a thicko in school and all the teachers thought I'd never learn anything :-)
1simonmatthews 1 month ago
@1simonmatthews Many people have a genius inside, but the single track narrow mindset of the modern education system is often insufficient to bring it forward, and coupled with the brain numbing, apathy breeding entertainment/media these days, most are tricked into living an "average" life.
MrChimochay 1 month ago
@MrChimochay Right on man. Wish I didn't leave that comment though, or at least stopped typing after the first or second sentence haha :-)
1simonmatthews 1 month ago
@1simonmatthews You do better than I do, I crap my pants when mathematics is involved. Funny that eh, considering I love physics...
drunkenoodle 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Could Quantum Physics represent a process of continuous change that we see and feel as the flow of time itself?
The future is always uncertain!
This theory is based on two postulates
1. Is that the quantum wave particle function Ψ represents the forward passage of time ∆E ∆t ≥ h/2π itself
2. Is that Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle ∆×∆p×≥h/4π that is formed by the w- function is the same uncertainty we have with any future event
nickharvey7 1 month ago
Man, Quantum is very hard to understand
grunder20 2 months ago
he talks like christopher walken !
ABUDHABICOMBATCLUBOA 2 months ago
You must unlearn what you've learned.
ICarnag3I 2 months ago
"if this were my undergraduate class I would of never brought that up."
InfnityInfinity 2 months ago
Professor: good presentation. However, please lose the table. It makes you pace back and forth!
prwexler 2 months ago
Complicated complications. Hehe. This lecturer is magnificent. I would do anything to do this course at Stanford University. We don't have many courses like this in Australia, and the ones we do have, are extremely difficult to get into. Remember you have to separate the points of the time intervals. It comes from just thinking. Everything all kinds of human beings casually thinking about. We can re-wire out intelligence.
TaliWithinTheDaisies 2 months ago
Thank you!
RuusSomnic 2 months ago in playlist Course | Quantum Entanglements: Part 1 (Fall 2006)
great lecture..hope to watch other lectures of him!thanks!
thebigfootme 2 months ago
probably some of those particle physicists that don't like string theorists like susskind, hehe
fechermichael08 2 months ago
who the... were the 28 ppl that disliked this video
CyberFenix000 2 months ago
It is great that lectures such as these are available to the public for free.
regulusofantimony 2 months ago 66
@regulusofantimony oh yeah, since I found them I am a very happy person :D thanks you so much
Lenocas2011 6 days ago
hi doc, i'm a bit drunk, but maybe what i say'd make sense (most probably it does not) anyways. i think tunelling is what causes electricity and electromagnetism (and maybe gravity?) tunelling is possible only with zero mass (electrons (i dunno if they have a mass), or not, waves of some sort). so, we could too with thoughts attract or repel things too, if we concentrated, and the object were close enuf (microns scale, indeed). beat this!
stereotomyalan 2 months ago
I saw him sipping from that coffee cup and I made myself some coffee :)
hyperstone6 3 months ago
@hyperstone6 I wasn't sure what it was, but I made myself some hot chocolate because of it!
casualkid66 3 months ago
an object alone cannot give US information Is when a conscience is looking at it that can derive information from that object placed in this physicall world.
nro1290 3 months ago
Comment removed
XAttaHabibX 3 months ago
28 thought that quantum entaglement is the sequel of quantum of solace....
Lucmegamind 3 months ago 47
@Lucmegamind NO mr. Lucmegamind i expect you to... DIEEEE.
failblorg 2 months ago
It's Einstein!
Matthew2400 3 months ago
28 neanderthals didn't know about sines and cosines
PaladinswordSaurfang 3 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@PaladinswordSaurfang 28 neanderthals didn't know about sines and cosine
I bet they are missing the Jesus stuff and witchcraft
48acar19 3 months ago
Almost felt asleep after one hour, it's interesting, but yeah.
SilverGunZoO 4 months ago
Good
GOD is he trying to bore me to death?
CaptainImpedance 4 months ago
@CaptainImpedance Are you kidding?
MrRalphSwan 3 months ago in playlist Course | Quantum Entanglements: Part 1 (Fall 2006)
@MrRalphSwan No I was not kidding. I guess this is all intro stuff. I know all that
stuff. read Blackholes Geons & quantum foam by J. A. Wheeler or Undivided universe by Bohm or the road to reality by Penrose, interactions by Glashow, the first three minuets by Wienburg, after the first three minuets by after the first three minuets T. Padmanabhan: the dancing WU LI masters, the Tao of physics, Relitivity the specail & the general theory by Einstein
CaptainImpedance 3 months ago
@CaptainImpedance Well here's a suggestion then: Watch the ones on String theory or particle physics which are more advanced instead of nagging that he makes his lectures in a way that you don't need a degree in physics in order to follow them. Besides, he did the math stuff way better than the professor I had in linear algebra.
semperFi4ever100 3 months ago
@CaptainImpedance Do you realize who the lecturer is?
rcmeyerson 3 months ago
his beard is epic
Anim8edDeath 4 months ago
Why is that surprising? You will find that a lot of scientists at the top of their fields are open minded. A closed mind is not a good attribute for a scientist.
ghstar101 4 months ago
The stunning thing to me is that the lecturer actually mentions the "Intelligent Designer", and says it's OK with him if you want to think about it that way!
dlbattle100 4 months ago
@dlbattle100 There is nothing in science to determine either. In the words of Bertrand Russell one should "suspend judgement in the event that something cannot yet be answered".
msingletary1984 3 months ago
@dlbattle100 That surprised me as well.
MrTreantHugger 2 months ago
@dlbattle100 What is he going to say? "IF YOU'RE A CREATIONIST YOU'RE NOT WELCOME HERE!!!!"
david52875 1 month ago
Just cause this guy mentions evolution during the introduction, the comment section is now infected by pesky creationists arguing against evolution and science and whatnot. It's not relevant to the subject AT ALL! Can't you just leave people, that are genuinely interested in the science, alone and mentally masturbate on how evolution, big bang and carbon dating is all wrong while accepting every other field of science? You are disgusting!
TreuloseTomate 4 months ago 2
I'm confused on one point. When we multiply a matrix by a column, we get a matrix, but a matrix by a row only produces a row. Wouldn't that mean that each value in the final product row would be huge?
ishingo69 4 months ago
@ishingo69 Not necessarily. Sure, if they are all positive integers it would be large, but there could be zeros and negative numbers.
Drolytthegreat 4 months ago in playlist Course | Quantum Entanglements: Part 1 (Fall 2006)
This has been flagged as spam show
black ops!!! lol
gerry10leon 5 months ago
I get his point but it's wrong. most of the thinking bias is learned and the perpetually agile mind has no problems entertaining unusual concepts such a entanglement and quantum diffuseness or time dilation.
he is also wrong about evolution. evolution didn't make us and you can know this from the simple fact that pain cannot be done by any known physics. nor would a physical system need it to be motivated. ergo we are metaphysical/extramechanistic and therefore beyond evolution
DanFrederiksen 5 months ago
@DanFrederiksen
what do you mean by pain?
laputahayom 5 months ago
@laputahayom indeed
DanFrederiksen 5 months ago
@DanFrederiksen
don't think i am agreeing with you for at the moment i don't understand you.
laputahayom 5 months ago
@laputahayom it was an invitation to think. what pain is is indeed something to think about. even I don't know what it is. I have just proven that it isn't physical.
DanFrederiksen 5 months ago
@DanFrederiksen
If you don't even know what pain is, how can you be sure about what it isn't? I can say "pain is x, x is non-physical, therefore pain is non-physical." and in doing so I have both defined pain and proven that it is non-physical, you have done neither meaning that you have only asserted that pain is non-physical.
I do not see how your argument invalidates evolution either. But please, first define pain and then we may argue further.
Quintinohthree 5 months ago
@Quintinohthree I don't have to know what it is to know that it can't be done in the physical. same as I don't have to really know what matter is to know that it can't be created in a computer game world irrespective of complexity. the computer simulation simply doesn't have the expressive power to manifest matter. exactly analogous the physical doesn't have the expressive power to manifest qualia.
the robot cannot have pain. all you have to do is realize it. think. courageously
DanFrederiksen 5 months ago
@DanFrederiksen
Let me then take the liberty of defining pain: pain is a sensation, that originates in nerves when certain extremes, associated with harm, be they of pressure, heat or cold or any other possibility, are exceeded.
Would that be a good definition, or is pain something completely different?
If this is an accurate definition then it's certainly physical. It's something we can replicate in robots and that can have evolved.
Quintinohthree 5 months ago
@Quintinohthree it does not originate in the nerves. I use the robot example because your weak minds get lost in the complexity of the human body. think about the robot.
where in the chain does pain occur. obviously it does not nor is it needed. and it never could. nothing physical can even begin to touch it. including quantum mechanics. try to understand the blatantly obvious that nowhere in sensor, signal, processing, action does pain enter the equation. yet we have it. ergo not physical.
DanFrederiksen 5 months ago
@DanFrederiksen
"where in the chain does pain occur."
Pain does not occur, pain is a result. It is the result of certain extremes being exceeded in sensory nerves.
And how exactly does one go from "pain is non-physical" to "therefore we did not evolve from more primitive life-forms"? I'll grant you that pain is non-physical just to get to the core of this issue.
Quintinohthree 5 months ago
@Quintinohthree even though I deeply insulted you to shock you into some minor clarity you still closed your eyes to the robot analogy. just because a threshold is passed, doesn't mean a metaphysical phenomenon has been achieved. stick with the fucking robot. your weak mind can't handle the complexity of a human. think about pain in a robot. realize the blatantly obvious that it doesn't need it nor could it ever in any way do it.
the signal and the qualia are two separate things
DanFrederiksen 5 months ago
@Quintinohthree then if you can handle that I can tell you how that proves evolution did not make us
DanFrederiksen 5 months ago
@DanFrederiksen
I do not want to argue about pain anymore. Tell me as complete as possible what pain is according to you and how the existence of pain proves that we did not evolve. I can argue forever about pain and what it is but as long as I can't get from your premise to your conclusion I am not satisfied by your conclusion.
cont...
Quintinohthree 5 months ago
@DanFrederiksen
And don't insult my intellect. I know a lot about the physical aspects of pain, not all, and I have seen no reason yet to think that there is anything metaphysical, supernatural, about it. I have granted you that there is so we can actually argue something because I am not knowledgable enough to do so on the subject and I do not think you really are too, though I'd love to be surprised.
Quintinohthree 5 months ago
@Quintinohthree I have told you more than enough to understand the argument. there are no flaws in it nor need for clarification. you simply fail to take it in and hurry on to ask new mindless questions. in case you want to understand this most profound of proofs then go back over what I have said and understand it. whenever you have an urge to ask a question, beat yourself hard and repeatedly. no not in that way :)
DanFrederiksen 5 months ago
@DanFrederiksen
So far your argument seems to me to have been:
"Pain is a non-physical, metaphysical phenomenon, therefore humans did not evolve from more primitive life-forms."
That my friend is a non sequitur, the conclusion does not follow from the premise at all. Either your argument is flawed or this is not your argument.
Quintinohthree 5 months ago
@Quintinohthree you could extend the concept of evolution to allow for the spiritual domain but such is obviously quite a concession.
if you are honest with yourself, few definitions of evolution include spiritual elements like souls and miracles and indeed God. so of course my argument was sound and it was indeed not a non sequitur. you just didn't take the time to think about it.
the spiritual being real is quite rich in implication. my friend
DanFrederiksen 5 months ago
@DanFrederiksen that is indeed my argument and it is flawless although can be elaborated.
evolution is a purely mechanistic concept. genetic makeup and function grows into a being and attempts to procreate. if the genetic design is successful it remains to mutate another day. random mutation and natural selection. nowhere in that concept is there room for a metaphysical element with power to circumvent the physical laws. it is a functional element not contained in dna, ergo all bets are off.
DanFrederiksen 5 months ago
@DanFrederiksen
Then your argument is actually: "Evolution predicts that there is no metaphysical aspect to anything. Pain is a metaphysical phenomenon, therefore evolution is false." and that is a sound argument, however its first premise is false.
You see evolution deals only with the physical aspects of life, it doesn't say that there are any metaphysical aspects, nor does it say that there aren't. Evolution doesn't include nor excluded these things.
cont...
Quintinohthree 5 months ago
@Quintinohthree
One thing that might surprise you is that many Christians accept evolution, in fact in the US a vast majority of Christian biologists even accept evolution, yet they do believe in the spiritual, the supernatural, in God. One of the most prominent evolutionary biologists is Dr. Ken Miller. He, among others, testified in the Kitzmiller V Dover case. He is a devout Roman Catholic. Apparently the experts on the matter disagree with you.
And a little vid: watch?v=KnJX68ELbAY
Quintinohthree 5 months ago
@Quintinohthree Evolution=impact of information made by interaction in nature?
roffpoff 4 months ago
@roffpoff
I do not know what that means, nor do I think that we must complicate things this much. Instead "the change over generations of the gene-pool through random mutation, natural and sexual selection to individuals and genetic drift" should do. You have the three essential mechanisms in there, it outlines that it's about genes, not so much about organisms and you have the change in there which is also absolutely essential.
Quintinohthree 4 months ago
Good stuff.
Yoursaffectionately 5 months ago
Susskind doesn't do God. He seems to be a man of the old school, who believes that pointing out the foolishness of other people's views would reflect poorly on him and do the holder of those views no good ether. But certainly he has a low opinion of those views, nevertheless ...
universalsailor 5 months ago
Comment removed
cwarrider 5 months ago
thumbs up if this is more interesting watch?v=VabkpxTF6jg
EnhanceYourDay 5 months ago
thumbs up if rezurrection brought you here, yay look at me trollin
spong9bob 5 months ago 2
@spong9bob You're doing very good at it.
HORRORTV1 3 months ago
Comment removed
55painterman 5 months ago
im a 13 year old watching this,i find it very interesting,is that weird?
TheGreatRunaway 5 months ago
@TheGreatRunaway I don't find it weird. Though I do find you pretentious for stating the fact that your 13 and think this is interesting. Are we suuposed to be amazed. Go eat a pbj and take a nap.
cwestsupporter 5 months ago
@TheGreatRunaway I'm 15 years old and I'm watching it but you son't see me bragging.
wiiLuvCalifornia 5 months ago
@wiiLuvCalifornia Please tell me that comment was a joke... or at least you grasp the irony of it...
Samgurney88 5 months ago
@Samgurney88 Lolwut?
wiiLuvCalifornia 5 months ago
Is it weird that I understood the binary systems as a minimal input system before I even saw TV? O.o
D3w10n 6 months ago
Despite being a boastful and self declared apathetic when it comes to religion, it has taught me something. Learn to love everyone. Don't start stupid debates about religion because an omnipresent and sentient being sounds irrational. Nobody would be here if we didn't love eachother, so do your part and give hugs, not hate filled arguments.
RainbowDashXSyndrome 6 months ago
They should make a Disney film called Quantum Tangled about a princess and crazy awesome physics
Lowlsnail 6 months ago
Am I alone in thinking this was mostly a very boring lecture covering basic digital info theory and a somewhat muddled lecture on linear algebra which has practically nothing to do with quantum effects? Hoping for better luck in the next episode.
DrJRS1 6 months ago
what we know and what we dont know haha well we just dont know enought thats all :D period
jonellomplomp 6 months ago
No Quantum Entanglement here.
TheSleepaholic 6 months ago 2
Prof. Susskind is a dynamite educator. Tremendous presence.
DrDeist 6 months ago
Why are there religious debates on every physics video on youtube? It's so old to me.
atomicwave 6 months ago
@Hustada
Here's what happens.
"We can't prove there is no higher power."
"I believe there may well be a higher power."
"Therefore, the Judeo-Christian God must be real. Jesus is lord. Amen."
This is like saying that because we do not know for certain who killed JFK, it was aliens from Zeta Reticuli.
taicleis 7 months ago
God is a female matrix
skepticalinquier 7 months ago
I 5:45 - 6:10 'intelligent designer' Its sad teachers and scientist must clarify not to offend anybody, there in that class to learn about science not faith or any of there imaginary friends.
MegaBEANER1000 7 months ago
any ideas on what the question was at 52:20? Seems interesting
ericpaterson 7 months ago
Just a guess, maybe being able to think about the Uncertainty principle comes from the fact that we used to be aquatic monkeys. And we still are aquatic monkeys. We get the uncertainty sense from knot knowing wether or not we are going to make it to the top of the water when we are done diving when looking for food. LOL
pandpinjapan 7 months ago
I cannot find part two. Could you kindly put it in the playlist on your channel?
Thunder0ne 7 months ago
Comment removed
Thunder0ne 7 months ago
Quantum Entanglements = Quantum Realities= "god" (note: euphemism) => INFINITELY MANY UNIVERSES!
FallofDarkness55 7 months ago
Interesting lecture, but the pace of the lecture is frustrating. I wish he weren't so slow. He spent over 30 minutes to get like two concepts across- neither of which were very difficult. (And I come from a liberal arts background)
JesseLSAAT 7 months ago
sorry, can someone pls clarify? erm, does a "bit" represent the number of states a system represent (since a coin has heads and tails and hence 0,1)? if so, doesnt it mean a die has 6 "bits", since it has 6 sides and hence 6 possible answers? at 00.18.42
ps: i have minimal physics background :D thanks!
archanglelin 7 months ago
@archanglelin hmm... i'm not always very clear in how i explain things so hopefully this will make sense...
the way he is describing it, a single bit holds enough information to specify the state of a single system. that is to say, in the case of a die, one bit specifies the state of exactly one die. it can hold values 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6. two bits would specify two die (eg. 1-2, 5-3, 4-3, 6-6, ...). thus, in talking about dice, it would be best to work in base 6 rather than binary like w coins
gopaw1 7 months ago
@archanglelin The "bit" represents the answer to a question which only has 2 possible answers, usually yes or no. You have to reframe your question. The question is NOT what is the value of the die? But rather is the value of the die 1? Is the value of the die 2?...etc So if you set up his box diagram with 6 boxes corresponding to each question in the series, you end up with a string of 0's and 1's to represent the state of the die. ie if it's 3 you end up with 0,0,1,0,0,0.
Tubby3120 7 months ago
@archanglelin: no not exactly. Since a die has 6 possible states which we could represent 0-5, this would rewuire 2 raised to the third power (eight) to cover all possibilities.
DrJRS1 6 months ago
His not taking a sip of that cafe latte is distracting me from the lecture lol
photonal 7 months ago
In turn if our dimension exists so we can argue about it then why not others.
brucebrady007 7 months ago
What all of us cannot dispute is the fact that against impossible odds we are here. So if we are here why not god?
brucebrady007 7 months ago
At 39:40 "Keep in mind what they Stanford of course"
nikotina2003 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Could quantum mechanics represent the passage or Arrow of Time?
This theory is based on just two postulates,
1.The first is that the quantum wave particle function explained by Schrödinger’s wave equation represents the forward passage of time or Arrow of Time itself photon by photon, quanta by quanta or moment by moment.
2. The second is that Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle that is formed by the wave function is the same uncertainty we have with any future event.
nickharvey7 8 months ago
Susskind never seems to have a coin when he needs one.
Ogudaktig 8 months ago
I was wondering if Modern Physics: The Theoretical Minimum was meant to be watched in the order the lectures were done? Also, how do the quantum entanglement lectures fit into the series?
setnorm 8 months ago in playlist Course | Quantum Entanglements: Part 1 (Fall 2006)
Math is false.
binrdow 8 months ago
Stanford needs a video production department. This lecture is good however the quality is very close to dogshit.
jiffyware 8 months ago
There is no "before" as soon as you exit our universe and involve the multiverse. Time/space is a construct of *this* universe; who knows how physical continuity breaks down "outside" of it. As a matter of fact, cause and effect break down *inside* of our universe at the quantum level. So, sitting inside our fish-bowl and claiming "before, after, during, ra ra, god" is pointless and *only* academic. We just don't know. And anyone who claims to is lying to themselves. ;) Cheers.
ascetic43 8 months ago
Its proof like this that makes me glad I did not go to college. :)
BlueCodeTuber 9 months ago
NATURE PLAY WITH RANDOM NUMBERS ?
kn9ioutom 9 months ago
I find it a bit maddening when we see his answers to questions but we don't get to hear the question. "That's the question that took 20 years to answer and I think the answer is no."
MuggsMcGinnis 9 months ago 9
@MuggsMcGinnis
Not sure which part do you have in mind, but I think he was talking about "information paradox". It's an idea that Stephen Hawking proposed long time ago, suggesting that infomation is lost in the black holes. (this proposal had a lot to do with Hawking's famous equation: S=c³kA/4ħG). Google it up for more :P. Or just google "information paradox" =D.
ProoMaaaas 8 months ago
@MuggsMcGinnis I believe that question would be something like: Does information get lost inside a Black Hole? I know this is something he and Steven Hawking argued about for that long.
snjsilvan 5 months ago
@MuggsMcGinnis I'm pretty sure he's talking about time travel, if I remember the context correctly. :)
undeadsymphony 2 months ago
I find it a bit maddening when we see his answers to questions but we don't get to hear the question. "That's the question that took 20 years to answer and I think the answer is no."
MuggsMcGinnis 9 months ago
To represent "an irrational number you need an infinite string of bits". But, the Bailey Borwein Plouffe algorithm to find any digit of pi requires only a fixed and finite number of bits in a fixed-length sequence of operations.
AndroidNeox 9 months ago
@AndroidNeox Sure, perhaps; but that doesn't mean you can represent pi with a finite number of bits. You'd need to perform the algorithm to find an infinite number of bits anyhow
TheElMarsh 8 months ago
This is a college course!? The information is presented so slowly, I almost fell asleep an hour in. Get on with it!
Also, in the case of the 4 point system which 'lost' information, it seems reasonable that if you watch several state changes over time, you can extrapolate that if one is in this state, somewhere along the line it originated from the lost point at some distant moment in time. What is lost is the time of the state change, and not necessarily the change itself.
nvantas 9 months ago
@nvantas
The idea is that you can't "rewind" it. You can't recover the past state because when you're going backwards and you arrive at the dot that branches to both the "lost point" and the point in the triangle, you don't know which way to go.
666point 8 months ago
What are the fucking questions?!!!!! I can't understand Lenny's decontextualised responses!
WastedTourist 9 months ago
evry fucking situation in life is the result of 2 to the square.... everything.. i love this THANK YOU
gutiux 9 months ago
now it's 26 ignorant creationists.
FallofDarkness55 9 months ago
@FallofDarkness55
Moron, there are worlds beyond your little "creationist barbarians vs. scientific nobles" kindergarten paradigm.
blackacidlizzard 9 months ago
@blackacidlizzard I'm a moron! lol. At least I can see religion for what it truly is. Religion is a drug! And based on your comment, I'm assuming you're a creationist. Am I right? lol.
FallofDarkness55 9 months ago
@FallofDarkness55
"I can see religion for what it truly is."
Wow. You figured out mommy and daddy were wrong about unseen magic-man? That's impressive, if you're 8 years old.
"based on your comment, I'm assuming you're a creationist."
Like I said, you're a moron. Everyone on the right side of the bell curve would pick up that my comment was warning against idiotic Bushite "with us or with them" dichotomies, yet you come back by showing that you really do see things in such simplistic ways.
blackacidlizzard 9 months ago
@blackacidlizzard Actually you're the true moron! I'm an atheist as a result of taking physics courses not because of stupid fucking petty shit! In fact most of the time i don't even bother with those kinds of remarks. I guess I felt like a child when i wrote it. So fuck off!
FallofDarkness55 9 months ago
@FallofDarkness55
And what in physics indicates the absence of a god?
blackacidlizzard 9 months ago
@blackacidlizzard The paradigm shift of Newtonian physics to quantum mechanics indicates the absence of an intelligent designer such as a god. If you don't see how, then obviously you're not that logical.
FallofDarkness55 9 months ago
@FallofDarkness55
LOL, do you even realize the unstated assumptions you are making about either the nature of what constitutes intelligence or what can possibly operate in an "intelligent" manner?
Do you even understand the distinction between the two?
blackacidlizzard 9 months ago
@blackacidlizzard Okay let me clarify this for you! An intelligent designer follows a set of logical steps in a sequential order like a computer architect would when they are building the microprocessor or what not, whereas quantum mechanical properties are literally chaos and particles can exist in two places simultaneously. Thus QM eliminates the existence of an intelligent designer!
FallofDarkness55 9 months ago
@FallofDarkness55
Right. And you are either:
1 - defining "intelligence" as that which conforms with logic, (this makes your assertion absolutely true, but does not answer the question about whether an intentional entity is responsible for our surroundings),
or you are:
2 - Assuming that only through processes adhering to logic can will be carried out. If your interpretation of QM is correct, this is already disproven - our base mechanics do not adhere to logic, yet we willfully create
blackacidlizzard 9 months ago
Actually, when I said "right," I was wrong. If a logical designer knew that he could create what he wanted through utilizing illogic, it would be "logical" (in the colloquial sense) to do so.
Also, logic only takes itself into the ring. All of our understandings of QM are necessarily filtered through logic, and what we see in no way defies actual logic (random is random, law of identity holds). Here we do run into the Kantian problem of whether this is just a limit of our perception/cognition.
blackacidlizzard 9 months ago
@blackacidlizzard Another reason why I am an atheist (by the way I was originally catholic) is because as an adult I put things into perspective. In other words, creationists are always using their Earthly perspective and are always jumping to irrational conclusions such as an intelligent designer due to the complexity of the world. However I realize the Earth is a speck within the vast universe. Due to the laws of probability, there's bound to be one complex world abundant of life!
FallofDarkness55 9 months ago
@FallofDarkness55
"creationists are always using their Earthly perspective"
And you are not when you make the claim that the physical laws of the universe preclude design?
Much as I despise the Bible, it's got alot of nice passages. The one about the mote in your brother's eye comes to mind.
blackacidlizzard 9 months ago
@blackacidlizzard The laws of the universe exist everywhere in the universe hence "the laws of the universe" so no i would not be using my earthly perspective. The energy that is produced to cause inflation is caused by energy swelling up in the vacuum of space which is a quantum mechanical property. QM pwns design. Enough said! I'm full blown atheist now and I don't want to look back on my ridiculous fairy tale beliefs.
FallofDarkness55 9 months ago
"The laws of the universe exist everywhere in the universe"
Non sequitor. I was pointing out your human-centric view of will and consciousness, your projection of what you experience as "intelligence" onto all possible entities with intent. That would be the projection
"QM pwns design."
If you hold the assumptions I pointed out problems with above
"I don't want to look back on my fairy tale beliefs."
I certainly don't suggest that - I suggest you have more fairy tales to root out
blackacidlizzard 9 months ago
what about heads heads tails ?
toakeley2 9 months ago
I love how he takes the time at around 5:45 - 6:10 to make sure he doesn't offend anybody who believes in an 'intelligent designer'.
Even though he himself does not believe in it, It shows a certain amount of taste and class on his behalf.
My respect to you Sir :)
risier1 9 months ago 31
@ins0mniakids Though I don't care about - as you said - even you are entitled to your opinion. One can only surmise that you may have some hidden agenda for attacking me. I, however, refuse to stoop to your level. My only comment to you, is, that, not only am I a certified educator, who has motivated and gotten previously-unmotivated young people to achieve - I have spent most of my life listening to lectures. To each his/her/its own.
MrSlimDavid 9 months ago
This is a fairly good video. As a college-degreed educator, however, I would have to say, that this intstructor spends an excessive amount of time giving his own arbitrary, irrelevant opinions on life, in general. In other words - he likes to hear himself talk. Therefore, his effectiveness as an instructor is less than it could be.
MrSlimDavid 9 months ago
@MrSlimDavid I guess everyone is entitled to their own opinion, including you. But when you consider that he is giving a lecture concepts that are essentially abstract and a challenge in logic, I appreciate his doing just that. It helped to conceptualize and visualize the lecture logic as well as entertained for an hour and a half. I think that is the very definition of an effective instructor. In fact, I'd hate to sit through any college-degreed educator's lecture that doesn't understand that.
ins0mniakds 9 months ago
@MrSlimDavid I guess everyone is entitled to their own opinion, including you. But when you consider that he is giving lecture concepts that are essentially abstract and a challenge in logic, I appreciate his doing just that. It helped to conceptualize and visualize the lecture logic as well as entertained for an hour and a half. I think that is the very definition of an effective instructor. In fact, I'd hate to sit through any college-degreed educator's lecture that doesn't understand that.
ins0mniakds 9 months ago
Is this undergraduate or postgraduate lesson series?
CodeStain 10 months ago
If any system can be represented, always to greater and greater approximation, with bits (bytes?), would it not be fair to say that no system can be represented with 100% accuracy? If the "lattice" used to study a field can be constantly refined, or divided, there would be no end to the sub divisions...and if that is a correct statement, wouldn't there be a great deal of difference between the answers you would get the further you divide, calling the entire system into question?
Argonova 10 months ago
@Argonova To answer your question... No. Using the example in the video, if I measure temperature in a room at 1-meter intervals, I can make a plot. If I measure at 0.1-meter intervals, I can make a more detailed plot.
Why in the world would there be "a great deal of difference" between these two plots? There would have to be some very sketchy Physics at work for what you're proposing to be true.
Jake0Miller 10 months ago
@Argonova You are correct, however, that no (real) physical system can be represented with 100% accuracy. That does not mean all scientific models should be "called into question."
We do not have a perfect understanding of Gravity. You are asking whether, given our lack of perfect knowledge, you'd be justified in concluding that it would be reasonably safe to dive headfirst off a cliff.
Jake0Miller 10 months ago 2
btw, my previous post was a reply to hunter555550's post regarding atheists.
666point 10 months ago
Atheism, a religion people join to sound smarter...
so atheists, do you believe that out of nothing came nothing and that nothing caused a something to be born and from that something humans were created?
hunter555550 10 months ago