Lectures 2 & 3 | Quantum Entanglements, Part 3 (Stanford)

[grunder20]

I was educated!! Give me more!!

[motleyfoolmania]

the definition of the vector product is wrong.

[Dilaton100]

@ Stanford: Thank You so very much for making these wonderful lecture series freely available :-).

But could someone please check the comments on these sites (where the videos can be watched and downloaded) and delete the trolling, comments? Trolls should not be allowed to come here and annoy people who want to enjoy the beautiful lectures and learn something ...

And many thanks to Lenny Susskind for giving this one and all of the previous courses. Watching them makes me so happy :-)))

[barry123www]

Are any of these videos actually about Quantum Entanglements?

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

[diegocas33]

This should be seen between Lectures 7 and 8.

[nevertheless123]

I am an atheist too. It has NOTHING to do with belief. He goes wrong on extremely basic stuff and doesnt correct easily them even when pointed by the students

Oh, sorry did I upset some "religious" string theorists here?

[adkinsjr]

My professors made mistakes all the time. It didn't mean they weren't familiar with 'extremely basic stuff.' You couldn't grasp quantum physics and general relativity in the first place, if you aren't familiar with 'extremely basic stuff.'

[nevertheless123]

I personally had a string heory professor teach us particle physics. Oh man on man. the guy was stumbling at each step even with notes. He had very poor grasp of graduate physics.

I am not talking about making mistakes on the board...happens all the time. But the mistakes you make are often typos and you correct it rapidly. But this man was stuck with a left handed axes and was wondering for 5 minutes if it is left or right. (in another lecture).

implies poor grasp of the basics!

[adkinsjr]

Yeah, I'm sure Susskind understands how coordinate systems work. Nevertheless is just chewing on a mistake somewhere in one of Susskind's lectures. And who cares if he doesn't use the vector notation?

[luzzie9]

All the Part 3 segments seem to be an excellent course in special relativity with an emphasis on the Lorentz tensor. Wonderful stuff but why are they called Quantum Entanglements?

[nevertheless123]

Who cares if this is part 1 or 4 or 3?

the guys knows little math. He writes cross product without the vector symbol, while looking into his notes. and in another lecture he couldnt figure out a right handed system from a left!!

String theorists are all phonies!!!

[adkinsjr]

If you don't like the lectures, and if your so much more sophisticated in math than Susskind, then you could easily avoid clicking his lectures.

[xgy2]

Agree with all the other comments, this one does not seem to fit. It looks like it might be part of the lectures on classical fields. Perhaps someone at Stanford can help us out???

[stanforduniversity]

There were problems with the videos for the second and third lectures in this series. Professor Susskind tried to fill in the gap with this single lecture after the quarter was completed.

[the365kg]

@stanforduniversity can you please shift this between lectures 7 and 8, thats the logical sequence. Thanks.

[BookCollector100]

I can imagine that those who study Quantum Mechanics would have to possess a interest in mathematics or perform well at it, being that everything in Quantum Mechanics is based upon a mathematical structure.

Its a wonderful field of study and I wish those the best pursuing it. Without it we wouldn't have florescent lights, Ipods, Microwaves, Televisions, the list goes on.

[nathanielvirgo]

Evidently this video is out of sequence. "Part 4" seems to follow on from part 1, so watch that one before this one. I'm not sure where in the series this video is supposed to be - I'll post here when I figure it out.

[Arlesterc]

There is something strange here. What is labeled as Lecture 1 Part 3 which supposedly preceded this was about relativity. When Professor Susskind starts this lecture he refers to the previous lecture being about charges. These two don't seem to be out properly ordered. Something is missing. Is this really lecture 3 and lecture 2 is missing? It doesn't seem to make sense that lectures 2 and 3 would only take up the same time as a single lecture - 2 and 3 should take over 3 hours.

[plbeale]

Why is part 3 about a different subject than quantum entanglement?

[davidwizard2006]

the people study quantum mechanic are all math genius