I love that he predicted the "historical" element of physics here, since now we have reasons to believe that the Laws weren't always the way they are now.
at 4:00 - I thought that the problem with the circles on circles was because the scientists at that time, until Galileo, took the earth as the centre, and not because they thought of circles rather than ellipses.
I don't understand all this lip service for this guy. He's not a bullshitter. He tries to be as simple as possible. Overall: I like him.
I wish we could've hung out. I'd buy him a beer and talk and laugh with him about the strange nature of stuff. Atoms and shit: its all crazy; let's have a laugh and talk about this.
@Streety101101 Maybe you need to lay off the weed, you can't even spell Feynman. He was brilliant and you would have him dumbed down on dope, not that I have a problem with doobie because I don't. I just really love Feynman and he talks "loudly" because he's excited about the nature of things. Don't you get excited about reality and what it really is or are you too busy zoning out on the lava lamp ?
@TheDouchesupreme weed dosent make you dumb, thats a conspiracy. there is not one single shred of evedance to surgest weed has any negitive health effects. u sir need to watch that anti-weed talk or ur gonna get us all killed. and whn da f*ck did evry 1 al of a sudden becum a grammer nazi???????? or is grammer part of the war on terroisum? of sh*t my bad spelling just blew up a place of worship.... f*ck.... hmmmm... yer
@Streety101101 joo spel gudz keed. I'm not anti-drug. I don't think it's the answer to everything especially in the intellectual endevour. I know physicists and mathematicians who get high and rock out equations. If you want to make a case for not being so dumb it would seem you would at least try and spell correctly.
@TheDouchesupreme y? the name of things or how well you spell them dosent actual show that you know anything about something. You gotta open your eyes man... have some DMT...
Can you imagine an American interviewer giving sidehand commentary with such depth as this guy did? Seriously listen to the commentator set up each discussion. Present day America is lost. Feynman was the last man out.
Thanks for sharing. It's true that the "mundane" ideas in life bring into focus the beautiful interactions occurring, literally, in front of all of us everyday.
The next time you look at the moon, see it for the sphere it is.
@8JSimo While a scientist would probably never use this terminology, the way it is being applied by the narrator here is not entirely incorrect - when talking about a distant object, you know the light has taken the same amount of time to arrive as the distance in light-years it is away from you - so it is redundant, but not necessarily wrong - If he had said something like "the galaxy is a million lightyears old" then clearly that would be incorrect usage.
@matthewjsharpe Fair enough, but the unit of 'light year' was defined by the distance light travels for a duration of one year. Not the other way around. I suppose it's because of the name. It just seems funny. "I am 7000 metres old" :)
@scottvska Note that they are both completely, gentlemanly drunk. Feynman is just more of an extrovert when intoxicated. Also, you would never ever see this anymore. Two genius figures, heroes of their age, getting sloshed in a pub and just talking. Even though that's how many of the great ideas of history have arisen.
@scottvska No one could keep up with Feynman. Feynman thinks so fast and so far outside the box, that it takes people quite awhile just to understand where he is going and how it is related to what they were just talking about. One has to sit back and listen/think just to understand him. This gives listeners zero time to add to what he has just said, because they are too busy digesting it. Meanwhile, Feynman will be off on the next walk down the hitchhikers guide. But who cares-JUST LISTEN!
... matter's properties (the laws that govern this new matter). so that in the end there is underlying pattern that describes the generation of new patterns. as a caveat, keep in mind that the brain is novel in its ability to not only recognize patterns but to also generate new patterns. i think that is cosmic time or even human time, it will not be long before there are entities that came from humans that can generate patterns so well as to capable of generating new universes.
i think that as matter changes so do the laws that govern it. consider that just earlier he was explaining the seemingly paradoxical situation in which quarks seem to obey completely different laws from atoms and similarly the problem with electrons behaving like particles and waves simultaneously in the 3 slit experiment. i think there is a pattern to the change though so that when you compose new matter by stacking older smaller bits of matter, you should be able to predict a change in that...
@chrisofnottingham It certainly sounds like it! It sounds like that other gentleman is describing the problem of an accelerating universe as observed by red shift problems, though they didn't directly mention this possibility...
Wow, great observation. I could not agree more. The string of fascination in the world is what life is. If you tell someone that the only thing life is is this one thing that a certain group says without any evidence. You dumb down life itself, you dumb down that person's fascinations, and wonder. Making them less present in their lives.
Good God! What a piece of film, what a piece of knowledge!!! The concept of the laws evolving had never ( and would never) have even occurred to me! The fundamental breadth of vision of Feynman continues to astound me.
as a non scientist I find this stuff really exciting. I failed in ALL my science classes at school, but have always wanted to engage with these big questions. The likes of Feynman and Sagan in their day, and Dr Brian Cox on UK tv today, give me hope!
I wish I could step into this video and tell these guys the Universe is expanding at an accelerated rate. I'd also tell them what Quasars are. These are things we've figured out since these men died. It's outstanding being able to follow scientific thinking and its progress. Thank You Youtube!
My sentiments exactly. had these men of our days past (I feel That they knew about it though) had known of our Tech Capabilities as of this day, They would have done even greater things.
@Cheegro well you could say that about anyone (scientist or theorist) at any given time; as with any exponental growth curve, especially in this case scientific understanding, any point on that line appears to be the greatest time in the history of our understanding.
Only a stupid will interfere a super genius. According to Feynman's own words, they are called pompous fools who pretend as if they have knowledge but they don't.
around 9:00 he speaks of the evolution of physical law(s). this idea has been permeating my thoughts recently & I find it reassuring to know that Dr. Feynman was (at least) proposing this notion some thirty (it looks) years ago. i believe that this notion will enable an explanation of the ability of the universe to have occupied what we now believe to be a singularity, & to now expand at an ever growing velocity & although i lack the knowledge to adequately explain the idea, it rings true.
They didn't know until the early 80s (I think) that quarks were held by gluons. The reason that sub atomic particles could in theory be taken apart and exist in different states with heat, is because they were in a similar state before and during cosmic inflation. Rather, that these sub atomic particles existed in a more symetric, low entropy state, when the early universe was more than 10 billion billion billion degrees C.
I am in love with this man. I want to marry him <3
I dunno why the world praise people like Brad Pitt or whoever...when this man has a brain, character and personality of a thousand men, enough to enchant the souls of a million women.
"I dunno why the world praise people like Brad Pitt or whoever...when this man has a brain, character and personality of a thousand men, enough to enchant the souls of a million women."
You're out of luck. Brains attract brains. Feynman is rarer than the Higgs Boson.
I much prefer Dr. Jonas Salk over Feynman though.
An MD is harder to acquire than a PhD in applied mathematics + quantum mechanics.
"I dont like that theyre not calculating anything. I dont like that they dont check their ideas. I dont like that for anything that disagrees with a n experiment, they cook up an explanation—a fix-up to say, Well, it might be true. For example, the theory requires ten dimensions. Well, maybe theres a way of wrapping up six of the dimensions. Yes, thats all possible mathematically, but why not seven?"
"When they write their equation, the equation should decide how many of these things get wrapped up, not the desire to agree with experiment. In other words, theres no reason whatsoever in superstring theory that it isnt eight out of the ten dimensions that get wrapped up and that the result is only two dimensions, which would be completely in disagreement with experience."
"So the fact that it might disagree with experience is very tenuous, it doesnt produce anything; it has to be excused most of the time. It doesnt look right." -- Richard Feynman in an interview just before his death.
Fred Hoyle is a very accomplished scientist himself, his contributions to the stellar nucleosynthesis model were revolutionary, as were alot of his contributions to cosmology.
Even the most adept scientists of their time were intimidated by Feynman, his breadth of knowledge was so deep and intricate, its hard to get on his level. Feynman wasnt just about explaining things to the lay man, he was a genuine genius. Probably the only one in his field since Einstein.
How about you all stop belittling the interviewer (who i may add, at least had the interest to conduct an interview with Feynman, that we are able able to watch today on youtube, we should all be grateful) and focus more on the great Feynman.
Well, I myself wouldn't even dare to interview a genius like Feynman. In my eyes the interviewer has done a good job: he didn't cut him off of his explanations, he didn't interfere, he just listened, like we are supposed to do. I really did relish Feynman speaking.
it's kind of annoying when an interviewer repeatedly says, "yeah, mhm, yes, hmm, yeah, ok, mhmmm, right, yes." while the interviewee is trying to speak. It's very distracting for the viewer.
the reporter (or narrator ro whatever) just said the galaxies were millions of light years old. ??? thats like me saying im 5 hours and 9 seconds tall.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
notice that at 8:39 on he is hinting the isea that physics can only study what already exists under conditions, but how it starter or how it got there is a question beyond them. (physics)
so? if its beyond physicists its certainly beyond any religious institution, unless you are ready to believe that Lord of the Rings was a documentary or that the only way to go to Valhalla is to die in combat.
look..i see your trying to start an intellectual debate here...and ill be happy to if you state your point of view... being an atheist is very easy...same for a creationist, but in the middle there is a lot to say.
Yes being an atheist is very easy, once you get there, because atheists operate on evidence, creationists have 'faith' just as Greeks did believing in Zeus, Egyptians did believing in Ra, list goes on, all those religions are now considered by everybody to be extinct and those gods imaginary. Atheists just go one god further and don't subscribe to any religion. I think it's a lot harder to be a creationist actually, evidence and logic screams the opposite, seems to be a intellectual prison.
so you think that now you landed on the moon and made some medicine for a fraction of the desieses, you think your on top of reality or what the reason of existence is? dont be a fool...
i never said religion has the answer and obviously not christianity, but what does you getting to the moon have anything to do with fundamental reality and existence.
what evidence do you have? other then theory? discovering something -doesnt mean you understand it! or give ability to create it.
Actually I don't have time to 'debate' anything, I used to a lot and now consider it a waste of time. After all I'm just font on your computer screen, it makes little difference, people are free to believe or not believe whatever they feel like, always look for evidence, same evidence that lead to the moon landing, made the computer you are on, agriculture, medicine, the list goes on, science is our future. Take care.
i dont think there is a lot to say in the middle, like bird said one demands evidence, which hypocrites take for granted, using accomplishments of science which operates on evidence and then complain about it vs 'faith' wtf is 'faith' it gets us nothing but child abuse, murder, confusion, clairvoyance and slowed our progress...I agree with bird that debating creationism is a huge waste of time...
AWE :( did somebody get mad? babyboy is crying everybody, stfu you delusional fuck, jump off a bridge and fight against the theory of gravity. Like you said previously 'what is the point of existence' well in your case there is no point, you shouldn't exist, you waste resources you disgusting, fat, ugly parasite.
SpacePulsarMan why are you wasting your time talking to a retarded kid, he clearly has emotional problems, is uneducated like many and clearly has no understanding of science vs religion.
Vodka, ya i know, notice that when intellect runs out they always resort to animalistic violence, now that is a perfect primate instinct, except humans should be able to control those, not this guy and 'jaalul' that isn't nonsense btw, read some Carl Sagan. I loved how you started all polite but then when you heard a different point of you, you resorted to name calling so I gave you a little taste of that back and you exploded like a fucking child, you don't know how to have a proper argument.
you said "your a FOOL...especially if you tell me i evolved come from a monkey!
you sir came from a monkey maybe, and thats why you have no logic! none! what does not believing in religion have to do with not believing in random chance?" We didn't come from monkeys that you see today we came from a common ancestor that probably resembled a primate based on the fossil evidence. Evolution doesn't happen by random chance, genes vary randomly but *survival* of those genes is NOT random.
Space you are 100% correct, I find it absolutely stunning that somebody like Jaalul who can't seem to form a proper sentence, spell or a coherent thought has the balls to call somebody a "monkey and a FOOL" I've know monkeys who acted more eloquently.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
i find it incredulous that somebody would argue the point that they evolved from animals, Although some might have a case by looking at their features. Myself i consider myself of a spirit that came from a higher source down to this reality.. but if theres any pet shops where i can buy one of these evolved animals, i will buy one, train it to mow my lawn and fetch my slippers
Others find reality and rational thought more productive. These people have been highly successful and are the ones who came up with every single invention ever made.
DNA links every living organism together, it really is like a tree with a lot of branches. Take anaerobic glycolysis, a very complicated cascade of chemical reactions, that is done the same way by every living organism, bacteria does the anaerobic glycolysis, that is why apples rot. They, we and all the creatures in between posses similar genetic instructions, which is just another reminder of deep interconnection of all living things on our planet.
the fact that he criticizes religion has nothing to do with a beleif or logic of a designer...on the contrary.
if you want me to give you a list of geniuses that believe in creation (not religion) ill be happy to comply. will it make you change your mind? no! right.
so what does a genius have to do with truth?
by the way darwin spoke of a creator more then most. (again, not religion)
learn to spell, you are a fucking moron, landing on the moon is a fine example of the power of science, Darwin said nothing of the creator you nitwit, he HAD no death bed conversion that is a lie propagated by the creationist front. You sir are a fucking idiot to call anybody a 'fool' THERE IS NO REASON FOR existence, that is a stupid ass question that is like asking what is the color of jealousy just because you can form a idiotic question doesnt mean it requires a answer, so go fuck yourself.
yes. @ 453-456. if curious, the beautiful thing about astronomy is that you're looking into the past the further you look out bcuz of the speed of light. not to infer idiocy, just saying. Poul Anderson's "the Avatar" is a great read. there's a chapter in the latter part where they talk about a species of subatomic creatures that live for fractions of a second but in reality time is going much slower at their level: think about how slow a giant moves as to the speed of the insect i love that idea
i love to think of time like that,take a glacier for example, if, say u freeze framed 1 picture of 1 every ten minutes for ten years then played the resulting film at 'normal' speed u wud see that it flows like a river....i dont really know where to go from there, but an interesting thought i think :S
feynman did some drugs like LSD too and he did become an alcoholic for a while. But he quit because he didn't want to damage his brain. Read his auto biography.
well in history of science, a lot of the scientists had sort of addictions to alcohol, soft or hard drugs. For instance, Carl Sagan was a pothead but who cares he was still smart :)
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
carl sagan was a fuckin phony scientist. what the fuck did he discover/invent/create etc.?He made Cosmos.Whoopdeefuckingdoo. Now the layman has some knowledge.Like everyone other scientist didn't already know everything in cosmos already. only uneducated idiots like him.Feynman actually did stuff. And please name some really good scientists who were drug addicts with some evidence plz.not the "einstein smoked a pipe, and he probably had weed in it!" bullshit.real empirical evidence please.
i really dont know why you took my comment seriously, seriously i have no idea why you got so temper even though i didn't mention any insult or smth, get yourself some anti-depressants
Dealing the truth.. well drug and alcohol abuse is just another perspective of life in means of human relationships, psychological and physical tendencies on certain substances. It is just related into science in medicinal matters.what i really wanted to say, it doesn't really matter if a great scientist or a state's person abuses some of those substance, what matters is if that person does the job good or bad.That's what i wanted to mention that's all and i am also chemist.And i still used weed
O.K. well I have read all his scientific papers. He discovered some things about Venus with like 10 other people and some things on Europa with like 15 other people. He only has like 5 scientific papers. That is it.
Sorry I like to deal with the truth, you obviously do not.
Feynman's a quarky guy.
Feynman's got a great personality with a lot of quarks.
hardy har har har
these jokes are just a shot in the QUARK
strokesfan1107 1 week ago
I want this video on my S330 unit.
rolandhensle24 1 week ago
I love that he predicted the "historical" element of physics here, since now we have reasons to believe that the Laws weren't always the way they are now.
bighugejake 1 week ago
This video went viral on Muscat
buddyrich410 4 weeks ago
We would all be thinking beyond what his thinking was, if we weren't so distracted.
scottswan 2 months ago in playlist Uploaded videos
4:54
allmanjoy 2 months ago
at 4:00 - I thought that the problem with the circles on circles was because the scientists at that time, until Galileo, took the earth as the centre, and not because they thought of circles rather than ellipses.
ultraverydeepfield 3 months ago
I don't understand all this lip service for this guy. He's not a bullshitter. He tries to be as simple as possible. Overall: I like him.
I wish we could've hung out. I'd buy him a beer and talk and laugh with him about the strange nature of stuff. Atoms and shit: its all crazy; let's have a laugh and talk about this.
8644371 4 months ago
Omg he said "lightyears old" noooooooo
MadaxeMunkeee 5 months ago 17
@MadaxeMunkeee : i was scared too :D
symbolicdynamics 4 months ago
@MadaxeMunkeee I m pretty sure he still knew a lot more about light than you ;-)
Matzes 1 month ago
The laws of physics might have evolved? Mind=blown
Phinious 5 months ago 2
Holy hell, it's Fred Hoyle
DuskOnVega 5 months ago
I love his childlike enthousiasm
Jerrez 6 months ago
this fyman guy needs to chill out, have some weed, and not talk so loudly.
Streety101101 6 months ago
@Streety101101 Maybe you need to lay off the weed, you can't even spell Feynman. He was brilliant and you would have him dumbed down on dope, not that I have a problem with doobie because I don't. I just really love Feynman and he talks "loudly" because he's excited about the nature of things. Don't you get excited about reality and what it really is or are you too busy zoning out on the lava lamp ?
TheDouchesupreme 6 months ago
@TheDouchesupreme weed dosent make you dumb, thats a conspiracy. there is not one single shred of evedance to surgest weed has any negitive health effects. u sir need to watch that anti-weed talk or ur gonna get us all killed. and whn da f*ck did evry 1 al of a sudden becum a grammer nazi???????? or is grammer part of the war on terroisum? of sh*t my bad spelling just blew up a place of worship.... f*ck.... hmmmm... yer
Streety101101 6 months ago
@Streety101101 joo spel gudz keed. I'm not anti-drug. I don't think it's the answer to everything especially in the intellectual endevour. I know physicists and mathematicians who get high and rock out equations. If you want to make a case for not being so dumb it would seem you would at least try and spell correctly.
TheDouchesupreme 6 months ago
@TheDouchesupreme y? the name of things or how well you spell them dosent actual show that you know anything about something. You gotta open your eyes man... have some DMT...
Streety101101 6 months ago
@TheDouchesupreme Don't try to reason with idiots.. they will lower you to their level and beat you by experience.
egodrive 6 months ago
@Streety101101 What's so great about being chilled out and quiet? What's so bad about being passionate and loud?
I rather live in a world filled with Feynmans and passionate, loud people than one filled with quiet weedheads who do nothing but "chill out."
sexyloser 5 months ago
@sexyloser because if everyone was loud then no one would be heard
Streety101101 5 months ago
@Streety101101 What does that mean? That people should all be talking at the same time?
Feynman listened as much as he talked. Being loud doesn't mean you never shut up.
sexyloser 5 months ago
@sexyloser hey man..... dont get snappy at me... im just trying to chill out, ur killing my buzz
Streety101101 5 months ago
At 8.21 I cannot make out the word they both use
" is considered another problem(feyman) ..................... condition.
can anyone tell?
judgenap 7 months ago
@judgenap boundary
ptapouco 7 months ago
@judgenap He said the "boundary condition".
lazurm 7 months ago
@judgenap Boundary condition
alsimand 6 months ago
Can you imagine an American interviewer giving sidehand commentary with such depth as this guy did? Seriously listen to the commentator set up each discussion. Present day America is lost. Feynman was the last man out.
ForeverTrombone 8 months ago
lmao, when he says the words aint gonna do you any good, feynman was truely a great character.
irishgeal1 8 months ago
Richard Feynman inspired me into science.
WeylandYutaniInc 11 months ago 4
Great video!
Thanks for sharing. It's true that the "mundane" ideas in life bring into focus the beautiful interactions occurring, literally, in front of all of us everyday.
The next time you look at the moon, see it for the sphere it is.
TheEntropianist 1 year ago
lol, "millions of light-years old" 4:53
8JSimo 1 year ago 9
@8JSimo
Like the Kessel run?
...
*ducks*
UbiquitousChe 1 year ago
@8JSimo While a scientist would probably never use this terminology, the way it is being applied by the narrator here is not entirely incorrect - when talking about a distant object, you know the light has taken the same amount of time to arrive as the distance in light-years it is away from you - so it is redundant, but not necessarily wrong - If he had said something like "the galaxy is a million lightyears old" then clearly that would be incorrect usage.
matthewjsharpe 3 weeks ago
@matthewjsharpe Fair enough, but the unit of 'light year' was defined by the distance light travels for a duration of one year. Not the other way around. I suppose it's because of the name. It just seems funny. "I am 7000 metres old" :)
8JSimo 3 weeks ago
Hoyle seems overwhelmed by Feynman.
scottvska 1 year ago
@scottvska Note that they are both completely, gentlemanly drunk. Feynman is just more of an extrovert when intoxicated. Also, you would never ever see this anymore. Two genius figures, heroes of their age, getting sloshed in a pub and just talking. Even though that's how many of the great ideas of history have arisen.
7j8i9m 1 year ago
@scottvska No one could keep up with Feynman. Feynman thinks so fast and so far outside the box, that it takes people quite awhile just to understand where he is going and how it is related to what they were just talking about. One has to sit back and listen/think just to understand him. This gives listeners zero time to add to what he has just said, because they are too busy digesting it. Meanwhile, Feynman will be off on the next walk down the hitchhikers guide. But who cares-JUST LISTEN!
myrtlebox 1 year ago
lol@ their pub convo. that's what most blokes talk about at the pub... quasars.
crowbs90 1 year ago 3
... matter's properties (the laws that govern this new matter). so that in the end there is underlying pattern that describes the generation of new patterns. as a caveat, keep in mind that the brain is novel in its ability to not only recognize patterns but to also generate new patterns. i think that is cosmic time or even human time, it will not be long before there are entities that came from humans that can generate patterns so well as to capable of generating new universes.
RRRRussia 1 year ago
i think that as matter changes so do the laws that govern it. consider that just earlier he was explaining the seemingly paradoxical situation in which quarks seem to obey completely different laws from atoms and similarly the problem with electrons behaving like particles and waves simultaneously in the 3 slit experiment. i think there is a pattern to the change though so that when you compose new matter by stacking older smaller bits of matter, you should be able to predict a change in that...
RRRRussia 1 year ago
5:00 in is the Bridge Inn, Ripponden. Many happy tipples there. :)
ThatLovelyEnglishBob 1 year ago
@hobatu
It's more like urging people to use buckets for transportation.
Geebsee 1 year ago 2
I think am the only 19 years old boy whos watching this.
ahmednoe 1 year ago
@ahmednoe Think, about your statement again please.
Lucuskane 1 year ago
@ahmednoe well...there's at least two
athltcchick04 1 year ago
@ahmednoe no. your not.
jimmyti9cer 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ahmednoe 18 year old here.
julianwithag 1 year ago
@ahmednoe
I'm 16 and I watch this kind of stuff all the time :P
mafiamitzy 1 year ago
5:40 talking about dark energy?!
chrisofnottingham 1 year ago
@chrisofnottingham It certainly sounds like it! It sounds like that other gentleman is describing the problem of an accelerating universe as observed by red shift problems, though they didn't directly mention this possibility...
MegaBlackDays 1 year ago
@hobatu
Wow, great observation. I could not agree more. The string of fascination in the world is what life is. If you tell someone that the only thing life is is this one thing that a certain group says without any evidence. You dumb down life itself, you dumb down that person's fascinations, and wonder. Making them less present in their lives.
peterphilip 1 year ago 2
Loved him in Symphony of Science.
Phelan666 1 year ago 2
What an incredible way to spend a rainy afternoon. That's like heaven--intelligent funny conversation and a few drinks. Nothing like my life.
PopArt 1 year ago
Good God! What a piece of film, what a piece of knowledge!!! The concept of the laws evolving had never ( and would never) have even occurred to me! The fundamental breadth of vision of Feynman continues to astound me.
Seafit69 1 year ago 2
The guy who interviews Feynman is the great English Physicist and Cosmologist Fred Hoyle.
neuindeutschland 1 year ago 3
"light years old" ???
onepcwhiz 1 year ago
@onepcwhiz well noticed, narrators a fraud!
jackp22 1 year ago
6:10 - 7:07 funny haha
stereoarchitect 1 year ago
as a non scientist I find this stuff really exciting. I failed in ALL my science classes at school, but have always wanted to engage with these big questions. The likes of Feynman and Sagan in their day, and Dr Brian Cox on UK tv today, give me hope!
fleminghell 1 year ago
What Feynman said about an evolving universe is quite profound, as some physicists today argue that same point...
LucienZakhaev 1 year ago
genius, so beautiful
moonwizardd 1 year ago 2
Genius
Exhalent 1 year ago
I wish I could step into this video and tell these guys the Universe is expanding at an accelerated rate. I'd also tell them what Quasars are. These are things we've figured out since these men died. It's outstanding being able to follow scientific thinking and its progress. Thank You Youtube!
ashleylovesdaddy 1 year ago
@ashleylovesdaddy
My sentiments exactly. had these men of our days past (I feel That they knew about it though) had known of our Tech Capabilities as of this day, They would have done even greater things.
Cheegro 1 year ago
@Cheegro well you could say that about anyone (scientist or theorist) at any given time; as with any exponental growth curve, especially in this case scientific understanding, any point on that line appears to be the greatest time in the history of our understanding.
skydome29 4 months ago
he turned down the lead role in the spagetti westerns eastwood was their second choice, shame
cbjgdicad1 1 year ago
If you cant explain it simply then you dont understand it well enough ;)
He diffinetley understands it ;)
I love his book.I could listen to him talk about anything all day because he makes everything interesting.....
Somehow this video reminds me of Monthy Pythons ;)
HenryJekyllHyde 1 year ago
5:00
a million millionth of a second?
isn't that one second?
friggerDrCube 1 year ago
@friggerDrCube no
srosefx 1 year ago
Its grat that he considers all possibilities. Open mindedness.
bouiglob 1 year ago
around 4:56 the narrator says "galaxies that are millions of light years old" ha ha, how ignorant
TheZanipolo 1 year ago
Only a stupid will interfere a super genius. According to Feynman's own words, they are called pompous fools who pretend as if they have knowledge but they don't.
vaidehiraghavan 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The most fundamental question of all: What is The underlying law of nature.
TedDGPoulos 1 year ago
"millions of light-years old" .... slight fail there Mr. BBC
LFZ15 1 year ago 4
around 9:00 he speaks of the evolution of physical law(s). this idea has been permeating my thoughts recently & I find it reassuring to know that Dr. Feynman was (at least) proposing this notion some thirty (it looks) years ago. i believe that this notion will enable an explanation of the ability of the universe to have occupied what we now believe to be a singularity, & to now expand at an ever growing velocity & although i lack the knowledge to adequately explain the idea, it rings true.
recyclingismylife 1 year ago 2
They didn't know until the early 80s (I think) that quarks were held by gluons. The reason that sub atomic particles could in theory be taken apart and exist in different states with heat, is because they were in a similar state before and during cosmic inflation. Rather, that these sub atomic particles existed in a more symetric, low entropy state, when the early universe was more than 10 billion billion billion degrees C.
normskis69 1 year ago
I am in love with this man. I want to marry him <3
I dunno why the world praise people like Brad Pitt or whoever...when this man has a brain, character and personality of a thousand men, enough to enchant the souls of a million women.
spankthamunkey 1 year ago 17
@spankthamunkey
"I dunno why the world praise people like Brad Pitt or whoever...when this man has a brain, character and personality of a thousand men, enough to enchant the souls of a million women."
You're out of luck. Brains attract brains. Feynman is rarer than the Higgs Boson.
I much prefer Dr. Jonas Salk over Feynman though.
An MD is harder to acquire than a PhD in applied mathematics + quantum mechanics.
Romansteel13 3 weeks ago
2:36 to 2:39
WAAHAAAA ROFLCOPTER LMAO!
mallamoozoo 1 year ago 5
are they drinking beer ? how cool !!!
zygi22 2 years ago 3
Comment removed
Wei01chen 2 years ago
I wonder what he would have thought of string theory
aristotledixit 2 years ago
"I dont like that theyre not calculating anything. I dont like that they dont check their ideas. I dont like that for anything that disagrees with a n experiment, they cook up an explanation—a fix-up to say, Well, it might be true. For example, the theory requires ten dimensions. Well, maybe theres a way of wrapping up six of the dimensions. Yes, thats all possible mathematically, but why not seven?"
cragwolf 2 years ago 5
"When they write their equation, the equation should decide how many of these things get wrapped up, not the desire to agree with experiment. In other words, theres no reason whatsoever in superstring theory that it isnt eight out of the ten dimensions that get wrapped up and that the result is only two dimensions, which would be completely in disagreement with experience."
cragwolf 2 years ago 5
"So the fact that it might disagree with experience is very tenuous, it doesnt produce anything; it has to be excused most of the time. It doesnt look right." -- Richard Feynman in an interview just before his death.
cragwolf 2 years ago 5
"String theorists don't make predictions, they make excuses." Feynman, Noble Laureate
jacksawild 1 year ago 9
i agree with that completely...
JackTheJokerNapier 1 year ago
Fred Hoyle is a very accomplished scientist himself, his contributions to the stellar nucleosynthesis model were revolutionary, as were alot of his contributions to cosmology.
Even the most adept scientists of their time were intimidated by Feynman, his breadth of knowledge was so deep and intricate, its hard to get on his level. Feynman wasnt just about explaining things to the lay man, he was a genuine genius. Probably the only one in his field since Einstein.
THEREALghostlaced 2 years ago
How about you all stop belittling the interviewer (who i may add, at least had the interest to conduct an interview with Feynman, that we are able able to watch today on youtube, we should all be grateful) and focus more on the great Feynman.
THEREALghostlaced 2 years ago 3
Fred Hoyle wrote the best fiction ever, The Black Cloud
i do so recommend it!
HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke 2 years ago
@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke, whats The Black Cloud about?
kristopopins 2 years ago
it was about the discovery of an interstellar cloud which was heading directly at the solar system
there were great discussions on predicting how it might impact the earth, temperature, duration, atmospheric poison,
then the sci-fi twist
they discover it to be alive, and super intelligent!
HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke 2 years ago
haha the interviewer is kind of an idiot, but oh well.
FSMhasRisen 2 years ago
Well, I myself wouldn't even dare to interview a genius like Feynman. In my eyes the interviewer has done a good job: he didn't cut him off of his explanations, he didn't interfere, he just listened, like we are supposed to do. I really did relish Feynman speaking.
brian1729 2 years ago 82
Well, he did think light years were a measure of time...
FSMhasRisen 2 years ago 2
@brian1729 Ah, the good ol' days when journalists weren't useless, self righteous, sensationalist cunts.
Phelan666 1 year ago
Simple to Feynman!
patricknelson 2 years ago
it's kind of annoying when an interviewer repeatedly says, "yeah, mhm, yes, hmm, yeah, ok, mhmmm, right, yes." while the interviewee is trying to speak. It's very distracting for the viewer.
ScientiaVeritasEtLux 2 years ago 3
the reporter (or narrator ro whatever) just said the galaxies were millions of light years old. ??? thats like me saying im 5 hours and 9 seconds tall.
dvangennep 2 years ago 7
@dvangennep perhaps he was assuming the universe was expanding and could quantify that growth using distance (speed of light * however many years)?
BrendanIsCool 2 years ago
That horese reference was, spot on...I like the was it describes, your ideas..
jgoudeau207 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
he smoked 'em good...
goatboooy 2 years ago
True. Point well taken.
Skindoggiedog 2 years ago 5
Incredible footage of Feynman and Hoyle! Imagine sharing a beer with Feynman, what an experience!
andrewkbradshaw 2 years ago 9
Or imagine sharing a joint with Feynman, not that I smoke pot. I have before tho.
But seriously imagine being high and hanging out with that guy while he talks shop, and that for him being physics. Far Out Man...
S2Cents 2 years ago
hah, even better.
andrewkbradshaw 2 years ago
a beer????? I would want to share a six-pack with that brain..amazing gift for explaining science.
Chromatype 2 years ago
That would be a picture of heaven I could subscribe to.
omegavalerius 2 years ago
When they walking on bridge the voice narrator is like from Monthy Python lol xD ;) ! ! !
Vaksel 2 years ago 4
Hahaha, it must be impossible to get a word in edgewise with Dick Feynman. I like that.
t0kt0k 2 years ago 4
what it mean edgewise
notToast 2 years ago
perpendicular, to enter. Intercept.
ge1org1e 2 years ago
thanks george
notToast 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
i want to know if hes a creationist or evolutionist?
jaalul 2 years ago
evolutionist
marcus3379 2 years ago
he 'was' a evolutionist, he died long ago, was that a trick question?
BirdFantastic 2 years ago
to be honest you may be both!
science or evolution dont claim that creation didnt exist soly on the notion of evolution.
religion does! religion is not the point here!
jaalul 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
notice that at 8:39 on he is hinting the isea that physics can only study what already exists under conditions, but how it starter or how it got there is a question beyond them. (physics)
jaalul 2 years ago
so? if its beyond physicists its certainly beyond any religious institution, unless you are ready to believe that Lord of the Rings was a documentary or that the only way to go to Valhalla is to die in combat.
BirdFantastic 2 years ago 3
look..i see your trying to start an intellectual debate here...and ill be happy to if you state your point of view... being an atheist is very easy...same for a creationist, but in the middle there is a lot to say.
so ill wait for your opinion on this.
jaalul 2 years ago
Yes being an atheist is very easy, once you get there, because atheists operate on evidence, creationists have 'faith' just as Greeks did believing in Zeus, Egyptians did believing in Ra, list goes on, all those religions are now considered by everybody to be extinct and those gods imaginary. Atheists just go one god further and don't subscribe to any religion. I think it's a lot harder to be a creationist actually, evidence and logic screams the opposite, seems to be a intellectual prison.
BirdFantastic 2 years ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
so you think that now you landed on the moon and made some medicine for a fraction of the desieses, you think your on top of reality or what the reason of existence is? dont be a fool...
i never said religion has the answer and obviously not christianity, but what does you getting to the moon have anything to do with fundamental reality and existence.
what evidence do you have? other then theory? discovering something -doesnt mean you understand it! or give ability to create it.
NEXT!
jaalul 2 years ago
Actually I don't have time to 'debate' anything, I used to a lot and now consider it a waste of time. After all I'm just font on your computer screen, it makes little difference, people are free to believe or not believe whatever they feel like, always look for evidence, same evidence that lead to the moon landing, made the computer you are on, agriculture, medicine, the list goes on, science is our future. Take care.
BirdFantastic 2 years ago 5
i dont think there is a lot to say in the middle, like bird said one demands evidence, which hypocrites take for granted, using accomplishments of science which operates on evidence and then complain about it vs 'faith' wtf is 'faith' it gets us nothing but child abuse, murder, confusion, clairvoyance and slowed our progress...I agree with bird that debating creationism is a huge waste of time...
SpacePulsarMan 2 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
"wtf is 'faith' it gets us nothing but child abuse, murder, confusion, clairvoyance"
listen im sorry you were raped and abused as a child, but faith has nothing to do with the many men that raped you.
where did you get this none sence from?
you are 100% fucked up!!!
go kill yourself!!!!!!
jaalul 2 years ago
AWE :( did somebody get mad? babyboy is crying everybody, stfu you delusional fuck, jump off a bridge and fight against the theory of gravity. Like you said previously 'what is the point of existence' well in your case there is no point, you shouldn't exist, you waste resources you disgusting, fat, ugly parasite.
SpacePulsarMan 2 years ago
SpacePulsarMan why are you wasting your time talking to a retarded kid, he clearly has emotional problems, is uneducated like many and clearly has no understanding of science vs religion.
vodkamuzzleflash 2 years ago
Vodka, ya i know, notice that when intellect runs out they always resort to animalistic violence, now that is a perfect primate instinct, except humans should be able to control those, not this guy and 'jaalul' that isn't nonsense btw, read some Carl Sagan. I loved how you started all polite but then when you heard a different point of you, you resorted to name calling so I gave you a little taste of that back and you exploded like a fucking child, you don't know how to have a proper argument.
SpacePulsarMan 2 years ago
childhood voice is what discovered e=mc2
johntkucz 2 years ago
would you like to state your opinion?
jaalul 2 years ago
you said "your a FOOL...especially if you tell me i evolved come from a monkey!
you sir came from a monkey maybe, and thats why you have no logic! none! what does not believing in religion have to do with not believing in random chance?" We didn't come from monkeys that you see today we came from a common ancestor that probably resembled a primate based on the fossil evidence. Evolution doesn't happen by random chance, genes vary randomly but *survival* of those genes is NOT random.
SpacePulsarMan 2 years ago 3
Space you are 100% correct, I find it absolutely stunning that somebody like Jaalul who can't seem to form a proper sentence, spell or a coherent thought has the balls to call somebody a "monkey and a FOOL" I've know monkeys who acted more eloquently.
vodkamuzzleflash 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
i find it incredulous that somebody would argue the point that they evolved from animals, Although some might have a case by looking at their features. Myself i consider myself of a spirit that came from a higher source down to this reality.. but if theres any pet shops where i can buy one of these evolved animals, i will buy one, train it to mow my lawn and fetch my slippers
avatarisme 2 years ago
Living in a fantasy world can be comforting.
Others find reality and rational thought more productive. These people have been highly successful and are the ones who came up with every single invention ever made.
Skindoggiedog 2 years ago 4
Technically we still ARE monkeys, check out AronRa's content on the matter.
SparkyXX 2 years ago
DNA links every living organism together, it really is like a tree with a lot of branches. Take anaerobic glycolysis, a very complicated cascade of chemical reactions, that is done the same way by every living organism, bacteria does the anaerobic glycolysis, that is why apples rot. They, we and all the creatures in between posses similar genetic instructions, which is just another reminder of deep interconnection of all living things on our planet.
SpacePulsarMan 2 years ago
DNA isn't part of a tool kit used to design all life by an intelligent designer? I guess he forgot to register his patent :)
historyscoper 2 years ago
jaalul why would you even assume that a genius like Feynman would even come NEAR creationism, hes been criticizing religion all his life.
SpacePulsarMan 2 years ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
the fact that he criticizes religion has nothing to do with a beleif or logic of a designer...on the contrary.
if you want me to give you a list of geniuses that believe in creation (not religion) ill be happy to comply. will it make you change your mind? no! right.
so what does a genius have to do with truth?
by the way darwin spoke of a creator more then most. (again, not religion)
go look for your self!
jaalul 2 years ago
learn to spell, you are a fucking moron, landing on the moon is a fine example of the power of science, Darwin said nothing of the creator you nitwit, he HAD no death bed conversion that is a lie propagated by the creationist front. You sir are a fucking idiot to call anybody a 'fool' THERE IS NO REASON FOR existence, that is a stupid ass question that is like asking what is the color of jealousy just because you can form a idiotic question doesnt mean it requires a answer, so go fuck yourself.
SpacePulsarMan 2 years ago
Comment removed
jaalul 2 years ago
Comment removed
jaalul 2 years ago
The Pub! the most intellectually stimulating environment ever conceived by man
votshtoyalyoobloo 2 years ago 2
be as conservative as possible
03Kabbotta11 2 years ago
Wheels within wheels...
Talking Heads...
Slippery People
03Kabbotta11 2 years ago
look here
dekekyo 2 years ago
look where? be more specific ; )
03Kabbotta11 2 years ago
Great video thanks for posting it - Feynman rules. Sounds exactly like me and my mates when we go down the pub - not.
TheBillHicksStory 2 years ago 3
This is making me so stoked for what the LHC is gonna cook up. makes me want to bury my head in a physics book if I wasn't a tard.
JuxTaPose117 2 years ago 3
8:25 is a very striking analogy
jjphysstud 2 years ago
"millions of lightyears old" ??!!
MarkLucasTube 3 years ago 4
Lol, the interviewer clearly doesn't know what he's talking about. Well spotted, I didn't notice it until I played it back.
wowsa0 2 years ago
oh god, now im afraid of listening to it, its gonna kill the mood
Ogaitnas900 2 years ago
shit is so cash, yet again
moving onto the last part^^
HumanStrategy 3 years ago
"Yeah, we work where the light's better"... love his quips.
Hapathy 3 years ago
Holy shit, great upload, thank you.
Fword22madre 3 years ago 3
I don't catch it, but i play it again and yes. Narrator used this phrase.
pizictenar 3 years ago
anyone else catch "millions of light years old" @ 4:50?
stratman250 3 years ago 3
yes. @ 453-456. if curious, the beautiful thing about astronomy is that you're looking into the past the further you look out bcuz of the speed of light. not to infer idiocy, just saying. Poul Anderson's "the Avatar" is a great read. there's a chapter in the latter part where they talk about a species of subatomic creatures that live for fractions of a second but in reality time is going much slower at their level: think about how slow a giant moves as to the speed of the insect i love that idea
theimperfektman 3 years ago
i love to think of time like that,take a glacier for example, if, say u freeze framed 1 picture of 1 every ten minutes for ten years then played the resulting film at 'normal' speed u wud see that it flows like a river....i dont really know where to go from there, but an interesting thought i think :S
industrialdolphin 2 years ago
Help! I'm in love with a dead man!
francescaemc2 3 years ago 2
Me too! And I'm a straight male!
jack19790 3 years ago
LOL! It's widely known, by teenage boys--(I'm the mother of one)-- that having a guy crush on Jimmy Page is not in the least bit "gay."
I love that. Now, when they are dead, the sex and our orientation seems to be even mooter, if that's a word. Feynman was the bomb! (Sorry).
I'm a straight woman and am in love with Audrey Hepburn.Fine. Now, if I insist on my kid putting on a tie. I get,"That's so gay." Love it.
francescaemc2 3 years ago
what the hell..... I thought he didnt drink to keep his mind good. He seems to be nursing a beer. I dont like it.
outrider52 3 years ago
feynman did some drugs like LSD too and he did become an alcoholic for a while. But he quit because he didn't want to damage his brain. Read his auto biography.
scientistwriter 3 years ago
well in history of science, a lot of the scientists had sort of addictions to alcohol, soft or hard drugs. For instance, Carl Sagan was a pothead but who cares he was still smart :)
lombakazi 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
carl sagan was a fuckin phony scientist. what the fuck did he discover/invent/create etc.?He made Cosmos.Whoopdeefuckingdoo. Now the layman has some knowledge.Like everyone other scientist didn't already know everything in cosmos already. only uneducated idiots like him.Feynman actually did stuff. And please name some really good scientists who were drug addicts with some evidence plz.not the "einstein smoked a pipe, and he probably had weed in it!" bullshit.real empirical evidence please.
scientistwriter 3 years ago
i really dont know why you took my comment seriously, seriously i have no idea why you got so temper even though i didn't mention any insult or smth, get yourself some anti-depressants
lombakazi 3 years ago
Sorry, I like to deal with the truth about my profession, you obviously don't.
scientistwriter 3 years ago
Dealing the truth.. well drug and alcohol abuse is just another perspective of life in means of human relationships, psychological and physical tendencies on certain substances. It is just related into science in medicinal matters.what i really wanted to say, it doesn't really matter if a great scientist or a state's person abuses some of those substance, what matters is if that person does the job good or bad.That's what i wanted to mention that's all and i am also chemist.And i still used weed
lombakazi 3 years ago
LOL phony scientist..carl sagan made numerous contributions well before he popularized science. Look it up, that's a really ignorant thing to say.
lGnossos 3 years ago 4
O.K. well I have read all his scientific papers. He discovered some things about Venus with like 10 other people and some things on Europa with like 15 other people. He only has like 5 scientific papers. That is it.
Sorry I like to deal with the truth, you obviously do not.
scientistwriter 3 years ago