people like him should live forever, his passion and the abilty to communicate this passion are very much needed in this world. these lectures are awe-inspiring!
@@saulremihernandez314 Except there is no mission to complete in the first place. Although "forever" would be impossible as of our current knowledge (because the universe itself won't be liveable in forever) most causes of death, will be eliminated eventually (granted we don't kill each other first). Even natural death is caused by nothing but accumulation of cell damage over a lifetime, this will be cured rather sooner than later. Nobody should go except on their own terms.
Feynmann literally acts like a metal genius decades before metal was even a thing. His mannerisms remind of me of Quorthon and Chuck Schuldiner. Being able to make art as complicated as possible sounding as catchy as possible. This level of charisma and profoundness with intelligenceis only something I know in metal.
You can, these lectures are great for getting a more intuitive feel for Physics. However to really understand it you have to read a good book that tries to explain it, do the problems. Do the Math yourself. According to Feynman actually the only way to truly understand Physics is by deriving the theories yourself, but well. That's hard.
yes but this is the lecture only so in my opinion this is its purpose ! What you can read you can read but during the lecture you can go further (if you are well prepared for the lecture of course) .
I always enjoy listening to his lectures .. amazing his understanding of the philosophy of it all. He truly can explain the hardest of subjects to a six year old & needless to say, listening to him I always feel like a six year old.
An amazing man! He explains in a clear manner how you are short changing yourself by believing that mathematic is not for you. Yes mathématique is not easy for every body but it does not mean to ignore it. There is still so many people that believe that they can live without understanding mathematics and this is worrisome as it leads to undisciplined way of thinking which is a very slippery road. Yes intuition and preference has its place in this world but there is more than that. Very entertaining. Some physicians prefer total abstraction of reality when playing with their formulas so they are in many ways mathématiciens. Thank you for sharing that amazing video.
I thought I knew what high intelligence was. That was until I watched a Feynmann video. What a genius. I love how he managed to go from maths to astrophysics, back to Newtonian physics back to Superconductivity and then interconnect it all with the energy release you get from a Sun. An amazing individual.
But his intellegence is only supposed to be 125 or there about. Elon Musk is supposed to be more intellegent. Also I don't believe he has calculated the postulations he make between 8 and about 10.5 minuts in. If the particles where traveling at the speed of light (being Photons) and the earths speed is only 3*10^4m/s I have caculated that the earth would only have slowed down about .768% in 4 billion years. I may be wrong of cause. I am not a mathematechian.
I have never been good at math or Physics but always love to watch tv shows like this. I love to watch science documentaries, physics talks even though i do not understand nothing, I enjoy watching and learning as much as possible. Few days ago I watched a lecture about gravitational waves in space, and to be honest I understood a little bit from the entire lecture.
8:27...If I tried, in a thousand years I could not draw two consecutive circles where the starting points and ending points meet as precisely as Feynman's did right there.
In the end it is his philosophical point of view towards nature and meanings near the end of his lecture I discovered to be the most insightful thought.
He is trying to prove that triangle S24 has the same area as triangle S23 (which he previously proved had the same area as triangle S12). Note that point 4 doesn't lie on line S3 but is slightly above it with line 43 parallel to line S2. Triangles S24 and S23 have the same base, the line S2. Line 43 is parallel to S2, the shared base, and therefore points 4 and 3 are the same height above S2. Hence triangles S24 and S23 have the same base and height and have equal areas.
How does he know that the pull from the sun would cause point 4 to cause a parallel line 43 and S2? You can't just average the pull of the sun as causing the middle point to shift, while the line still goes straight afterwards, can you? The object should curve or orbit.
I always wonder when I rewatch these lectures about the same thing. Or even more so - how many of these students weren't planning to make physics their specialty, but were inspired to switch their career choice and became great scientists.
7425park "Sadly no"??? How would you know? You kept an infallible track record of each one in the audience on the go? Bet you have quite a remarkable file cabinet containing dossiers of all them people that makes an examiner go "WOE!!!!" Who are you to type in this assumption implying it's not to be gainsaid or else be labeled "troll"? You super naturally omniscient? Guess an encyclopedia is mere tabloid compared to you, isn't it.
Its simply a proportionality constant, to make the dimensions of the quantities on both sides of the equation equal. Just like the gravitational constant in Newtons law of gravity, or viscosity in Newtons law (more of a model really) for shear stresses. Fyi, the units of the awesomeness constant must be [person.s^2/m^2], assuming the c is the velocity of light (with units m/s).
At 20:30 I think he must be using the cross product between the radius (r) and velocity (r-dot), to get the rate of change of area A-dot. Velocity is always at right angles to the radius in the case of Gravitational attraction. Can't be the dot product since that would be zero right away. Anyway, that's one question I'd have for Dr. Feynman, assuming there was time for questions after the lecture. I hope he took questions, even though sadly that was edited from the film.
Because the Earth travels at different velocities at different points at its orbit. When it is closer to the sun it travels faster and thus sweeps out a further area along the path of its orbit, while when it is further from the sun the it goes slower but the radius is greater. The same area is produced in both cases.
He is not comparing Sun-S2 with Sun-S3, those two line are not parallel. If you watch that part again you will notice that he drew a new line from S3 that is parallel to Sun-S2. This line represents the force vector exerted by the sun on the planet at point S2.
I am totally in awe of Feynman casually writing that equation at 7:00 and just #glossing over' with his style the depth that these maths can take us. He understands as if born to it. My love is lost, the man has past. I grieve my inability to talk directly to him as that English pr1ck he had to entertain later with his 'steady state model' and continue to humour an idiot with a PhD in Physics... [ you know the name ] #stillTheBest [ yes, America, he is one of yours. Thank you for being open to his family for immigration!!! ]
The educated Brit has, for much more than a century, envisioned themselves as an amateur scientist and strived to learn more, while the educated American has always envisioned themselves as the bearer of all knowledge with little more to learn.
I wouldn't call it 'way off.' Extending downwards along the path (against the direction of motion) he was just needing a point from where he could draw the height orthogonal to the path, in the direction of the sun. This gives you the height (altitude) for his 'cockeyed' triangles.
When he made the angle follow the orbit rather than the straight line case he should have made the top line distance from the sun above the top line in the straight line case. That little triangle left over when he showed the orbit change had to be included in the orbit area. Its area was a long thin triangle above the top line of the straight line case. That's why it should have been a second line above the line in the straight line case. He left that out.
Amazing man. It's interesting how many of the audience are wearing glasses. I guess they are mostly nerdy folk with their heads burried in books! What harm does our phones and tablets do to our eyesight? In a state of nature (pre-industrial), we would mostly focus 'at infinity', i.e., at least 6 feet or 2m away.
Dimensional analysis: awesome has a dimension of time squared, obviously, and uploader is clearly meter squared, so the original equation is (at least dimensionally) correct.
is there a restored version of this? i really would watch it again and again .. if theres a restored version with better sound .. or if someone can tell me how to filter it properly with f.e. audacity or such .. i would really appreaciate it ..
What I have been doing to watch these is, 1. I use this website to download the video as an mp3 convert2mp3.net/ 2. Load the audio in Audacity 3. Select the start of the audio clip which is just noise (Play it back after selecting to make sure you only have noise, the more the better) 4. Click "Effect" then "Noise Removal", then click the little button at the top of the window that appears that says "Get Noise Profile" 5. Select the whole audio clip (ctrl+a or click the track or whatever) 6. Press "Effect" then "Repeat Noise Removal" and wait a minute or so for it to fix the audio. When you're done the sample you used as a "noise profile" at the start should be a flat line and the majority of the noise should be removed from the rest of the audio. After that I have been just playing the audio in audacity and pausing it at a random part (The start of a word), playing the video from RU-vid, when I get to the place I paused in audacity I resume it then mute the RU-vid video. You could edit the video back together with the new audio... but it's allot quicker for me just to fix the audio and play the video from RU-vid. Hope that helps xx.
I too would be more interested in physics if it catered more to my sensibilities. Perhaps some popcorn and dancers would help. Or, I could apply myself... NAH!
I believe Feinman might be wrong in his statement at about 10 minuts in as he doesn't seem to take speed into consideration. I have made some calculations (I might be wrong) and I get that in appr. 4 billion years this slowing down of the earths speed would only have been about .678% of it's orriginal speed if the partickles described from about 8 minuts in are photons traveling at c and the earths rotational speed is about 3*10^4m/s.
Quantifying nature is the only way to get consistent knowledge. Mathematics deals with numbers that may express quanities. For that reason physics can only be expressed in mathematical terms.
he already knew about it at that time of course. 34:25 can be about it "number in every point in space" could be amount of curvature,just simplified into 'numbers' because 'curvature of spacetime' is harder to conceptualize
not many really. although we did apparently discover gravitational waves, which is a mechanistic process. still doesn't combine it with EM though or others
Yes, but so does quantum mechanics to some degree to which we understand it on small nano-scales in addition to Newtons' law of universal gravitation, motion, etc. Now harmonizing extremely small scales with the extremely larger scales of general relativity with the sixteen particles of matter and four forces of nature is the real challenge before us. Gravity indeed has been shown to bend a beam of light at a certain angular momentum at a change of velocity plotted in a graph from the change in the relative positions of the particles or whole objects, as the space around it also moves with them. But the uncertainty principle prevents us from understanding both the change in speed and the change in position of an atomically emitted particle at the same time due to the observer effect of decoherence back into the visible spectrum of matter that our eyes perceive. Plus, some degree of emitted particles are reabsorbed back towards the nucleus by the photoelectric effect towards classical stability of the lowest possible energy level or smallest molecules being broken down further into separate pure elements that can be split by nuclear fission into particles by the collisions of matter & anti matter. Then nuclear fusion at quantum level returns it back into the periodic elements & molecules again into general relativity.
Drat. There's not yet a discovered theory for gravity according to quantum mechanics and so it's mainly theoretical. However, efforts are currently being made to unify both general relativity and quantum field theory in curved space-time towards making a possible quantum gravity. Thus far, you may be right in that we will still have to see if there's a form of gravity beyond the classical Newtonian & Einsteinium levels. physicsworld.com/cws/article/multimedia/53367
hasen195 general relativity explains gravity as a bending of spacetime. the next step would be to explain what spacetime is. it is expected that a quantum theory of gravity would provide such understanding, though it is unknown if this will complete the picture or just push us further down the rabbit hole. i have had some long debates about how much gravity is explained by general relativity, and it really gets pedantic.
Ryan Keller It's a mark of a confident man. He is confident in his accumulated years of study and hardwork. He had nothing left to prove so he passed down his body of knowledge with intense enjoyment and gratitude.
19:45 when he proves that the 2. triangle is equal to the third triangle, he assumes that line S2 is parallell with line S3, wich they aren't. Am I wrong, or does this make his proof invalid?
NightcoRohak you might be closer actually..I know it was after I finished undergrad in Physics..it was a couple of years after that so closer to 30 than 20
Agreed. But Feynmans are hard to come by; few and far between. And they are generally not impressed or concerned with political maneuvering and the like. As I recall Feynman himself noticed the difference between his approach - one of trying to find the truth - and the politics involved in his participation in the Challenger disaster investigation.
