The professor said, around 1:30, that mathematician are in a closed environment, whereas physicists interact. I think, even physicists are also in a closed environment, only engineers interact with real nature. Consider f=ma, this law makes an assumption, which is - in the absence of an external force, or in an isolated environment. There is always a g(x) force which is dependent on position, there is always a corilolis force which depends on dx/dt. Thus physics is also in a box and cannot work!
@IdentifiablePerson I do not share your point of view. Physics works as well as mathematics. Nothing, not even in engineering( I am engineer) works with 100% of accuracy, but physical sciences are "half" of the heart of what we call engineering( the other half being the problem-solving creativity).
You seem to forget what made Galileo, Newton, Laplace, Einstein and many others so "famous", they predicted phenomenons of the "real" nature.
@Niflrog I have said f=ma cannot work. This is because Newton made assumptions, like – “in the absence of external forces” or “in an isolated environment”. Nature does not make any assumptions. Therefore these cannot be laws of nature. They cannot work in engineering. An engineering product is part of nature. No assumptions will work in engineering. If we use f=ma, we have to use lot of patches and kludges to make them work. This makes products unreliable, our engineering software crashes.
Susskind is teaching a whole set of courses. Unlike many other presentors of this material, he does not shy away from more advanced math. He makes it simple.
This classical physics class sets the stage for better understanding of his other classes.
It is hard to compare his teaching style because of this. In addition it is not a standard class but a class taught through the Stanford continuing education program. Anyone with a few hundred dollars can attend.
He is trying to explain that Liouville's theorem is related to the reversability of a physical law. The math is not very hard but he spends a lot of time trying to explain the implications.
I just looked at MIT physics 8.01. The lecture appears to be directed to a different audience. I think Susskind assumes that you know basic Newtonian physics. He wants to teach the Lagrangian and Hamiltonian formulation. I think he is a very good teacher because he really tries to convey the basic concepts. Yes, he sometimes get's lost in the algebra, but who doesn't.
@suzukidas2 Nope. Susskind is a brilliant theoretical physicist. But not such a fantastic teacher. (He's fails, consistently, to properly prepare for class.) I've posted this sentiment in threads under his GR and QM vids before, & have been modded into oblivion. I did not pursue the matter, because I had no concrete examples of good teaching to point to on those topics. But in this case, look up "MIT physics 8.01" on YT and you will discover a truly excellent classical mechanics professor.
How does the rest go? "Get a hatchet! And just detach it!" ... can't remember what comes after that. ;-) He is much better giving talks at M/String Theory conferences, or battling Hawking re: conservation of information.
No half measures, kids.
Tranchera 2 weeks ago
"You're on thin ice, you little shithead. You know that?"
"I woke up, I found her, that's all I know."
Zebonka 2 weeks ago
mike has another job. but seriously, good lecture
gsboss 1 month ago
The professor said, around 1:30, that mathematician are in a closed environment, whereas physicists interact. I think, even physicists are also in a closed environment, only engineers interact with real nature. Consider f=ma, this law makes an assumption, which is - in the absence of an external force, or in an isolated environment. There is always a g(x) force which is dependent on position, there is always a corilolis force which depends on dx/dt. Thus physics is also in a box and cannot work!
IdentifiablePerson 1 month ago
@IdentifiablePerson I do not share your point of view. Physics works as well as mathematics. Nothing, not even in engineering( I am engineer) works with 100% of accuracy, but physical sciences are "half" of the heart of what we call engineering( the other half being the problem-solving creativity).
You seem to forget what made Galileo, Newton, Laplace, Einstein and many others so "famous", they predicted phenomenons of the "real" nature.
Niflrog 9 hours ago
@Niflrog I have said f=ma cannot work. This is because Newton made assumptions, like – “in the absence of external forces” or “in an isolated environment”. Nature does not make any assumptions. Therefore these cannot be laws of nature. They cannot work in engineering. An engineering product is part of nature. No assumptions will work in engineering. If we use f=ma, we have to use lot of patches and kludges to make them work. This makes products unreliable, our engineering software crashes.
IdentifiablePerson 8 hours ago
1:38:00 talks about sex
RTRVII 2 months ago
Mike?
midevil656 2 months ago 3
Susskind is teaching a whole set of courses. Unlike many other presentors of this material, he does not shy away from more advanced math. He makes it simple.
This classical physics class sets the stage for better understanding of his other classes.
It is hard to compare his teaching style because of this. In addition it is not a standard class but a class taught through the Stanford continuing education program. Anyone with a few hundred dollars can attend.
DaveLG526 2 months ago
He is trying to explain that Liouville's theorem is related to the reversability of a physical law. The math is not very hard but he spends a lot of time trying to explain the implications.
bhigr 2 months ago
I just looked at MIT physics 8.01. The lecture appears to be directed to a different audience. I think Susskind assumes that you know basic Newtonian physics. He wants to teach the Lagrangian and Hamiltonian formulation. I think he is a very good teacher because he really tries to convey the basic concepts. Yes, he sometimes get's lost in the algebra, but who doesn't.
bhigr 2 months ago
This guy is Awesome.
PcTwEekers 2 months ago
He is one of the best and great teacher... I had to put this in one of my favorites... Thank you.. Peade and One Heart...
suzukidas2 2 months ago
@suzukidas2 Nope. Susskind is a brilliant theoretical physicist. But not such a fantastic teacher. (He's fails, consistently, to properly prepare for class.) I've posted this sentiment in threads under his GR and QM vids before, & have been modded into oblivion. I did not pursue the matter, because I had no concrete examples of good teaching to point to on those topics. But in this case, look up "MIT physics 8.01" on YT and you will discover a truly excellent classical mechanics professor.
sbergman27 2 months ago
@sbergman27 OFF WITH HIS HEAD!
Donsknotts 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Donsknotts "OFF WITH HIS HEAD!"
How does the rest go? "Get a hatchet! And just detach it!" ... can't remember what comes after that. ;-) He is much better giving talks at M/String Theory conferences, or battling Hawking re: conservation of information.
sbergman27 2 months ago
Awesome video.
ComputerScienceMathA 2 months ago