Cosmology | Lecture 5

Lecture 5 of Leonard Susskind's Modern Physics concentrating on Cosmology. Recorded February 16, 2009 at Stanford University.

This Stanford Continuing Studies course is the fifth of a six-quarter sequence of classes exploring the essential theoretical foundations of modern physics. The topics covered in this course focus on classical mechanics. Leonard Susskind is the Felix Bloch Professor of Physics at Stanford University.

Stanford University:
http://www.stanford.edu

Stanford Continuing Studies:
http://continuingstudies.stanford.edu/

About Leonard Susskind:
http://www.stanford.edu/dept/physics/people/faculty/susskind_leonard.html

Stanford University Channel on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/stanford

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Science
• physics
• cosmology
• mathematics
• geometry
• spheres
• angles
• space
• dimension
• curved
• surfaces
• uniform
• negative
• curvature
• positive
• curve
• hyperbolic
• plane
• ordinary
• unit
• circle
• 1-sphere
• 2-sphere
• 3-

[786GuardianAngel]

He made a big jump at one point (around 44:00). What does the fact (pertinent to the stereographic projection) that objects further away from the south pole have a larger projection, have to do with how big objects appear to us from earth.

[786GuardianAngel]

@786GuardianAngel : OK he answers my question later: one can use a metric. That's a cool idea.

[786GuardianAngel]

Question from the very first part: Can one describe a circle without resorting to a (Euclidean) two-dimensional embedding space?

[whotaughtyou]

RECORDING ECARD SADDAM HUSSEIN

[csmcmillion]

@sbergman27 Agreed. That's what I meant when I said it is overrated. Intelligence is a complex beast, and IQ as a metric doesn't mean a lot. I doubt Susskind would actually score all that high - he seems to stumble on some "practical" concepts, and practical problem solving is a large part of IQ testing. I've heard Feynman was around 120(?) yet brilliant in his field. Again, much difference b/t abstract reasoning and other types.

[sbergman27]

@csmcmillion I would disagree with your implied assertion that one can describe intelligence with a single number, let alone measure it. We have some pretty good examples to suggest that we cannot. So-called "idiot-savants", and what are we to make of dolphin intelligence? Bigger brains. More convolutions. Far greater surface area. But we have hands, and that helps. Are hands intelligence? Intelligence is multi-faceted. Your claim of being "up around 125 level" is just meaningless.

[sbergman27]

@csmcmillion A very reasonable response. And cheers to you. ;-)

-Steve

[csmcmillion]

@sbergman27 Certainly. If he prepared better and worked harder at establishing a concrete foundation first and relating back to it. Just as you and I would have to do if teaching, say, Algebra 1. As you alluded to, I , however, would prefer he focus his time and energy on working on some cutting-edge physics (such as string theory) so we can all figure out how this universe really works. I'm here more for the concepts than the details anyway.

Cheers

[sbergman27]

@csmcmillion Hmm. Let me ask you this. If Susskind wanted to give a lecture which was more clear... could he do it? How hard would it be for him? He gets along OK in a very concrete world. It's not like he's trapped in the abstract. I do not intend this question in a provocative manner. But it *is* worth asking. And, of course, any time that he spends on that is subtracted from his work on the abstract. Susskind does what he does. It's "his business", as they say, and his life.

[csmcmillion]

@sbergman27 Yes, we agree. Let me add, when I decided to work through this series I pretty much expected what you described (he starts a sentence... changes his mind... goes back... forgets what he said... remembers... changes the subject... goes off on a tangent... etc.). My experience has been that it's how many abstract thinkers function. I would have expected same from Einstein. Lewin, on the other hand, is an EE type - more fundamentally grounded, requiring less interpretation/translation.