Lecture 1 | Quantum Entanglements, Part 3 (Stanford)

[adelle0001]

amazing video! nice one

[grunder20]

Makes my head spin. Great video though.

[thebigfootme]

great series of lecture

[agapitoflores001]

This one is very nice! I'd like to watch more.

[bacaongl]

Want great increases of muscles size visit stacklabs.info

[AegeanKing]

How do we build a flux capacitor?

[PLecN]

This lecture series is called 'Quantum Entanglements' but is mainly about Special Relativity (plus a couple of lectures about basic cosmology). Correct order of lectures ... 1,4,5,6,7,2&3,8,9

[WastedTourist]

Good lecture but hard to follow because the board isn't clear and the camera just follows Susskind as he strides up and down, speaking discursively..

[Liaomiao]

Amazing series of lectures. Any word from Standford University about Part 2? I'm really curious.

[dan262222]

Great congratulations! It's incredible to me to see these lectures from one of the most important contemporary physicians!

[XForceBowhunter]

These videos would be much better without the questions from the peanut gallery.

[ltaho]

@XForceBowhunter Without the peanut gallery you would not have these videos to watch.

[XForceBowhunter]

@ltaho

I'm not saying that the peanut gallery shouldn't exist - just the dumb questions.

[ltaho]

@XForceBowhunter OK

[ashmpatel]

the lecture 2& 3 of Quantum entanglements part III , you can tell there were some lectures before this one was given - where are those ? Hes talking about force etc and a student in the class mentions they derived maxwells equations in the last session - where is that session ?

[matrags]

I find this very interesting. Have to admit the algebra loses me in places (should have payed more attention at school) but the lecture is good.

[MrRobotoToo]

From the Wikipedia article on Leonard Susskind: "Note that 'Quantum Entanglements Part 3' is in fact a lecture series on Special Relativity, and the order in which the lectures were given is 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 2&3, 8 and 9 (in terms of the numbers given on the videos)."

[thyorison]

1:11:25 "The ratio of x to t is just v." That is incorrect. The ratio of x to t is 1/v. If c had not been defined as 1, then the ration of x to t would be c-squared over v.

x = (c-squared / v) * t, or in more conventional form, t = (v / c-squared) * x. This checks out because when v << c, t = 0.

1:11:30 On the label for the line, he erases "x =" and correctly replaces it with "t = vx"

[thyorison]

1:11:08 "...the slope of this line which is the ratio of t to x."

Incorrect. The slope of that line is the ratio of x to t.

1:11:16 "this curve has the form of x = something times t"

Only if you're going against convention and defining the horizontal axis as the dependent variable. Normally, when x is the horizontal axis, the point-slope form of the line is t = mx + b

[thyorison]

Correction to my previous comment. It's the intersection with the (invisible in the video) line x = vt + 2L, not "x = 2vt".

[thyorison]

The 1st time I watched this, I fell off the train of thought at 00:59:35, when Professor Susskind said: "Just trace a backward light ray, also at 45 degrees to that point." "That point" is the intersection with the line x = 2vt, which is mostly invisible in the video.

[san34451]

StanfordUniversity did clarify that Part 2 "is unavailable at this time", but that was an year ago.

[san34451]

Does anyone know where to find "Quantum Entanglements, Part 2"? Was it video-recorded? Only Part 1 and Part 3 are available on YouTube.

[watercup123456]

These lectures have helped me to understand quantum mechanics more than any other lecture or video to date.

[kamalsinh]

good prof.

[hankaaron1961]

The second portion of Lecture 1 Quantum Entanglement appears to actually be Lecture 2 part 1. Looks like SU got the labels mixed up.

[phxfreddy]

Great shirt!

[thejones397]

Is this really a Quantum Entanglement lecture or is it one of the Relativity ones?

[GuitarRHCPfan]

Although slightly hard to follow, he has a great way of "building up" to his conlusive point. I enjoy learning about entanglement to such a degree that I am writing notes, haha anyone else?

[xmksq]

Hi, anybody knows why didn´t they upload the SECOND PART of the course?

[pmanikan]

Hi Stanford, some of quantum entanglement part 1 and part 3 videos do not have download option. Can you please fix that? It is helpful to view them offline.

[jad0halimeh]

Hey guys, anyone know whether part 2 is a prereq. for this part? or is each part contained? and anyone know when part 2's gonna be available?

[bestvideobooks]

I dont know

[ForgetGod666]

This guy doesn't know shit ! . . . just fuckin with ya.

[BookCollector100]

Quantum Entanglement. Einstein use to call this "spooky action at a distance".

[adamabra8]

Its too bad its hard to see what he is doing on the whiteboards.  Good lecture though.

[junka22]

The professor's voice is really nice to listen to, it's an important aspect in a teacher to me personally because I usually remember spoken word the best

[quantumxd]

my delight in this prof is unparalleled; please direct to a download that encompasses the total series of this particular lecture series

[flashysimon]

I think this lecture, Quantum Entanglements, Part 3 is about relativity, not quantum mechanics. Am I correct?

[ogirv101]

Quantum entanglement is a phenomenom observed in the field of quantum physics. Einstein's relativity and Quantum Mechanics comprise our modern understanding of Physics, and are usually relevent to each other. So yes, in some way Einstein's relativity relates to this.

[cyanophycota]

it was a great lecture series. Thanks! Would part 2 of the lecture be avaliable soon?

[RobertoGiorgi]

goldman sachs wants lot of people study this things so that riches can spend time with top models and poors with math.

[rufsketch1]

Yeah, sure. Because everyone knows what shitty mathematicians those corrupt bankers are.

[stanforduniversity]

Part 2 of Quantum Entanglements is unavailable at this time, but the topics covered in parts 1, 2, and 3 are independent of each other. Therefore, you will not need part 2 to understand the content of part 3.

[Arlesterc]

Thanks for the update. Sorry it took so long to get back. Is there a way to find out what the contents of part 2 are? And when would it be available. If it's different material thatn covered by 1 and 2 and any of the other series it seems it would be necessary to view in order to really 'take the course'. I won't take as long to acknowledge this time.

[oarobin]

Any new Update as per the availability of part 2 or its contents?

[MyOverflow]

Thank you!

I really do enjoy Leonard Susskind's lectures, even if my knowledge of the subject is very limited. His teaching style keeps me up and attentive through the nearly two hours of rigorous equations. Maybe, some day, once I get to the level where I can fully understand these lectures, I will be able to absorb them more readily.

I'm very thankful that teachers like Susskind are around, and that universities like Stanford upload this content free-of-charge for the viewers.

[Arlesterc]

I see a series called Part 1 of Quantum Entanglements in addition to this Part 3. But I don't see a Part 2. Anybody know if Part 2 exists? Where it can be found?

[purplewizard55]

Yes it is a great course.

[iliyan17]

I like Susskind's lectures.

[wawens]

Magnificent! The best derivation of einsteins special theory on the Net. What has always been unclear to me is that Einstein simply stated that the velocity of light must be constant and found out what fairly simply maths involving time distance graphs popped out. WHy light speed? Because of Maxwells EM equations that einstein guessed must be invariant to any observer otherwise the laws of electro physics could not hold in any frame of reference. (Susskind says it better than me!)

[qubix2008]

yep, world is full of ass holes

love this course though ;)

[frvfilms]

its interesting how other non-learning videos get billions of hits and this only get a thousand.

[berlincitymec]

I don't think 50 million of britney spears fans (for ex) are very interested in physics :p

[aasarsak]

@frvfilms Consider it "job security." We can't have everybody learning about physics, otherwise there would be too many educated people flooding the market looking for work. Let educated people be a scarce resource. Let them consume their time watching britney spears while we collect their money to provide them with our goods and services. Cynical? Yes. Realistic? Unfortunately, yes. I honestly wish we were all more educated, but unfortunately, that isn't the reality we live in.

[frvfilms]

@aasarsak its really sad, imagine the world how advanced it would be,

i been learning about socialism, once it gets to the last stage more utopian, where money doesnt exist and everything is developed

[XForceBowhunter]

@frvfilms

Wait until you get to the part where socialism always fails because it cannot provide adequate incentive to market participants.

[frvfilms]

@XForceBowhunter

don't do it for money

do it for humanity !!

zeitgeist movement is socialism!

[aasarsak]

@frvfilms It can sound deceptively ideal, but there is a reason socialism has never succeeded.

[frvfilms]

@aasarsak

because there can't be an island in the middle of the ocean

[fleminem1]

@frvfilms suppose that just shows the how susceptible our species is to hum-drum mind numbing bullshit :((