It strange that we pronounce KNOW and NOW almost the same ,present and presentation which equivalent demonstration and the last split into Demon stratas tion
Pity Feynman has passed away. In exploring his original ideas, he seems to have forgotten what Karl Popper has taught us. In science, finding the latest and best hypothesis which meets the latest observations is the optimum goal. And this is an iterative process. Check out the evolution of @QuantizedIntertia by @McCulloch Dr Mike.
While watching this, the music introducing Feynman (starting at 1:18) sounded familiar. The track is taken from *Living in the Past* (1969) by Jethro Tull. Appropriate given what and how we learn derives from precedent. I note @julieann4762's comment about Feynman's accent, which was familiar to me. What intrigued me was Hoyle's accent. I knew he was British (born and raised in West Riding Yorkshire), however, I could make no association with an area based on what I heard.
Spoiler alert - zebras are a mythical creature first written about in the sacred scrolls of the eastern European rainforest tribe known as the Yanamami. Along with unicorns, yeti, and dragons they are among the most widely known of the imaginary animals. The lore surrounding zebras led directly to the black and white striped shirts commonly worn by mimes. The word “mime” is actually the Arabic word for zebra.
The prevailing view in physics suggests that information is encoded within the properties and interactions of fundamental particles. As can be seen from the discussion between these prominent physicists. This framework has been tremendously successful in describing the universe at various scales. However, I propose a novel perspective, that defines information as inherently spatial. My framework suggests that information stems from inferring "work" (displacement) resulting from energy transfer relative to spacetime. This approach offers the potential to transcend limitations across all scales, from the tiniest Planck length to vast cosmic distances.
Imagine the puzzled looks of Yorkshire folk in 1973 sitting at home eating their puddings and pontefract cakes when Emmerdale farm is interrupted by this guy talking about physics.
I'm completely ignorant, be gentle with me. If there is quantum entanglement, could we imagine that on a different scale where it occurs on opposite (or adjacent) sides of a bridge. I'm not sure I'll be able to understand a reply, but I'd apprecite it if you could structure it simply
Looking at my question, I obviously haven't got a clue about physics or geometry, but I'd appreciate it if you could talk me through this like it's on kids TV 🙏
1:09:40 after the question, RF says the prediction is only useful for one step in the future, pressing the same button once more but remains puzzled, my intuition is telling me this answer is analogous to the three body problem.
46:58 What if that marvelous force he mentions that could interact with all things simultaneously at any distance is the passage of time itself? Meaning the uncertainty is a consequence of a universal framerate; this rate of change leaving perturbations that only manifest as the uncertainty from within that system. The wavefront would be perpendicular from this plane of existence originating in a higher dimension. The change would be subtle, not disturb any larger scale physical organization but only the relationships between qualia. Like if 1000 cards placed in the shape of a man all flipping at once, the man is still there despite every card having been flipped, and from the perspective of the cards, nothing changed.
My brother passed away and he enjoyed listening to Feynman and Sagan, so hearing either of them speak is like going back a few years and sitting with my brother. Wherever the dead go, hes with great people.
I met Paul at FSU in 1975. We became 'elevator friends'. I just knew him as 'Paul" until, , , , the day he said I could sit and wait in his office. Hmmmm, , , , Nobel Prize? "Got that in 33". OMG!! We were on a first name basis in the science building and I guess that a lot of his doctoral students were very interested who I was, , , , , I was just calling Doctor Dirac, , , Paul!! Then, 11 years later when the Challenger launch failed, my late wife worked for United Space Boosters Inc. (USBI) as a planner-scheduler and she pretty much knew every 'nut & bolt' on the solid boosters. She was on the 'lock down' team and did not come home for 3 days. So, when it came to the Official Investigation, she came home one day and told me that she met the scientist who was doing the booster failure investigation, his name was Doctor Feynman. She was his Official Cape Canaveral and KSC "Guide". Her Clearance and 'Badge" gave her Complete Access. I asked "Richard Feynman!!??". She said "yes, that's his name. How did you know?" OMG!! LOL!!
40:50. A vinyl record and the player must have the same rotation speed for the recording to be heard correctly. 41:00. The combined variations in the groove in the record results in the complexity of the sound. 41:20. Dimension two: the degrees at which the needle travels up and down traversing the grove on the record by how fast the record is moving. 41:45. The music created is a result of the cumulative motion of the Needle in the groove times the speed of the record in relation to where the center of the record is. 42:05. Depends on T minus means The needle relies on the arm to maintain position relative to the motion of the record. 42:20. Depends on T plus means in order for the needle to be moved up or down for a change in the grove of the record, the record has to be moving. 42:30 0 dimension is the pressure of the arm and Needle against the surface of the record enough to help the Needle to stay in the grove and detect the variations. 42:55. These "things" are the equivalent to the friction or drag created as the needle slides through the grove of the record, and forces that keep the Needle in contact with the record when it wants to skip. 43:35 the volume level of the sound coming out of the speaker is proportional to the intensity of what the Needle detects. 43:45. This is where the variations in the groove of the record are translated to the speaker via the needle.
Their is no such thing as the holographic principle , It does not fit with relativity and is just a bald assed assertion with no evidence to support it, WTF is this even doing in university unless its is Discovery Institute. Black holes do not exist, HOLES CAN NEVER HAVE MASS, Leonard Susskind is not a truth seeker but a bullshit seeker he should take his self and go back to preaching from the pew. One the most disgusting not a scientist alive to day, Now hawking is dead. A principle must grounded in reality Susskind you creationist dog.
I am desperate to find a copy of the audio version (90minutes ) of these 1983 workshops .SoundPhotoSynthesis apparently has gone out of business and I don't know who else would have a copy .
I understand the state of mind he said he would love to reproduce or conditions of when he had ideas that couldn't be questioned as if it was perfect thought or pure thought. You are thinking but first your listening as if both were the same thing totally engrossed in what ever your thinking about.
I wish I could have a conversation with Feynman about the double slit experiment and ask him to explain why he can't accept the Pilot Wave interpretation of de Broglie and Bohm (or something like it) as an explanation for what happens. It seems so much like the obvious way to go: Waveguide always goes through both slits, particle-like aspect goes through one slit or the other whether measured or not, and the presence of a detector inside to pick up the particle aspect disrupts the waveguide causing loss of the interference pattern. Done. Why not?! What's wrong with this picture? Similarly, why regard EPR as a paradox? Why not regard it as it was intended, as a sound argument for measurement-independent position and momentum and thus for the incompleteness of quantum mechanics as a description of quantum reality? I wish I could ask Feynman to show me how the famous no-go theorems (and the experiments they spawned), which concern spin, defeat the intent of EPR. Do they? I don't think Feynman would ask me to just take his word for it or accept that the answer is over my head. Maybe he'd suggest an analogy, or some reading, or a course of study.
