Sorry, but I cannot post all of them. Richard Feynman was an inspirational teacher and could illuminate many esoteric concepts in physics with his contagious enthusiasm. Watch at research.microsoft.com/apps/to...
Feynman truly was a legend, no one could explain science better than he could. For anyone looking for the rest of these lectures Microsoft's Project Tuva is hosting them all.
wish I was aware of Feynman when I was doing 'O' level physics. You'd have thought the teacher could have mentioned him once, even if he's not on the national curriculum.
I love the little pauses that allow you to take phrases slightly out of context, which makes them really funny. i.e "the only trouble with it is that it doesn't work"
These are incredible to finally have access to. Thank you, Sir, For being such an awesome friend, and an interwoven legend in the fabric of the universe. Thank you for pushing us through the process of “connecting “ the dots.
Faraday's laws of electrolysis relate the amount of liberated mass at an electrode to the quantity of electricity passing through the electrode. ... Faraday's first law states that the amount of current passed through an electrode is directly proportional to the amount of material liberated from it.
look up Microsoft research project tuva, or just feynman and if you download this in browser media player, Silverlight, you can watch all of the full videos. They are fabulous!!
i heard the bells; i instantly remembered the film "dirty dancing" (i am german, so thumbs me^^); i did a recherche; i found the hula hana song; later on i found the "Kellerman's Anthem"; then i googled "Kellerman's Anthem feynman" and finaly FOUND your comment!!! let me say, im stuck to your proposal, for i also think that feynmans bells really ARE from that movie..... dirty dancing ( :
Hi, thanks for sharing this video. I think you should make an effort and post all the other movies you've got, their value is historical, probably very few other people have them. Or at least burn some dvd's and give them to somebody who has the patience to upload them to youtube.
lol, I came up with that exact thing with the gravitation when I was younger too, kinda wierd seeing such an old video talking about it. Maybe science classes need to teach more of the disproved alternatives.
For those commenting "Everyone wore glasses". Yes, "everyone" wore glasses. We all had flat top hair cuts. We all wore ties. We all smoked cigarettes. We did that to go to work, to school, even to the beach or on vacation. Everyone from students to pro bowlers to NASA scientists to Army generals looked/acted like that. Perhaps like saying, today, "Everyone has a tattoo". My generation, your generation, all generations...we all look, act, dress like our peers. All in an (odd) attempt to seek individuality.
Yes it is mathematical and logical in nature. They have to remember object going up that is one piece of information and then another when the object comes down. In total them would have added at least too piece of information. Very basic of course like 1+1=2 or holding two apples.
*It's not the end of the theory.* The particles are emitted each iteration between updates. The forces variables for each bodies are computed in that step, then the bodies are moved according to them. Since the 'gravity' particles are not emitted continuously, bodies do not get hit more in the direction they are moving. Feynman understood the universe is a machine, but failed to see the algorithms used to produce what we can observe. You can't just say that 'it count stuff' and stop there. It count stuff for its return value.
@scout6686 - Okay then, my bad. Your comment just came across as negative is all - "mental masturbation" in this context is usually a derogatory term. I apologise. Also, it wasn't the point I was trying to make, but I also have a Bachelors in Physics, and am doing a second full Bachelors in Comp Sci as we speak. I guess at this point we should just be happy there are like-minded individuals who enjoy the same kind of shit, and go our separate ways ...
in the case of potential energy where PE=GMm over r^ the radius can be applied to any object being different in each case. Why do we use 2^ when finding the F of an object in motion?
As a science student i have experience that physics and mathematics are very very interconnected to each other . from the history of math and physics every mathematician has large number of contributions in physics and similarly physicists has also some contributions in mathematics . Keep in mind without mathematics physics is nothing ,physics is disable ,physics is meaning less . Physics is the language of mathematics .mathematics is the example of salt which use in every dish means mathematics is used on all branches of science . Shortly mathematics is the mother of science ......,..🇵🇰🇵🇰🇵🇰🇵🇰🇵🇰
Just off the top of my head I would say that it has to do with quantum (numbers) and their relation to the three spatial dimensions and 1 temporal dimension, in other words, quantum and its relation to the space-time continuum. An interesting philosophic question to ask (and in my view this is one of the main questions of the rationalism empiricism debate in philosophy) is which of these, quantum or the spacetime continuum, has greater ontological status, or are they equipotent?
So someone points up, and then reasons that it must come down. This takes math to understand? That's what you're saying. Kids who can't add yet realize this on their own. Do you reason that this constitutes mathematics?
i found out, that the cornell university uses the dirty dancing song as their morning-song. they call it "alma mater" and gave it an unsettling text. even more funny is the fact, that the same university uses "OH TANNENBAUM" (engl. oh chirstmas tree) as their evening-hymn ( : ...they call it "evening-song". for feynmans lectures where in the evening, they must have changed the bells. they obviousely didn't want to give santa claus thay little push ( :
Great video! Still I wished physicists would stop thinking that mathematics is a servant for... solving problems like equations of motion, particle behaviors and the like. Such things are almost arbitrary (but not infinitely!!) unimportant for mathematics. If physicists would stop converting mathematics to "understandable" nonsense, they would realize that they are already far beyond the Gödel limit in their theories. But of course... it is easier to calculate than to examine logic itself.
@scout6686 - Suggesting that a discussion about the relationships between sciences is merely "mental masturbation" (while using a direct product of those sciences as a means to communicate) is a tad ironic in my opinion. This man lived and breathed science for all his adult life, and advanced it more than any other in history, excluding perhaps a handful of people. And you don't have a clue what you're talking about. Let's listen to him talk, eh?
Mathematics isn't just numbers, lots of pure mathematics comes from logic and thinking, rather than doing computation. Equations come out of intuition and knowledge.
But that's just to conflate logic with mathematics. You can base one on the other, or attempt to, but you cannot identify the two together as they are defined. Most philosophers claim that mathematics is based on logic.
Besides logic and thinking, a lot of math comes from spatial relations in the real world. People who study spatial relations and describe their proportions and properties make valuable contributions to math, e.g., pi, area of a circle, area of a triangle, tangent to a curve, how two cubes cannot sum to a third cube (Fermat's last theorem).
@VanillaShoelace I'd dare venture the guess that Stephen Hawking xould have fit the bill. Of course, for obvious reasons, Hawking is no longer going to stand in front of an audience in the way Feynman is doing here. When you take note of Hawking's sublime sense of humor and the inpeccable timing he tends to show in the delivery of his jokes, it gives off the hint that the kind of thing you see in Feynman seems relatively common in people with a very, very high IQ. They're truly free spirits.
But! if the particles are traveling at the speed of light, and the speed of light remains constant to all observers, then this sideways force would not be predicted .
Good thought but the apparent momentum flux would still be changed. identical speed does not mean identical momentum in a quantum mechanical world (momentum is the inverse of wavelength even for a massless particle, and the redshifting/blue shifting effect would cause the same drag Feynman describes).
But you would have to have a relationship with up and down and 1000m/s. And that is all mathematics. It is impossible to do physics without mathematics so as to analyse even the most basic data. We do mathematics everyday with out even thinking about it. You do not have to take the classical mathematical modelling approach to have philosophical journey of science.
@ILikeMyYT123 Hmm..If that were the case I do believe we would not have achieved so much in last 50 years but we did. So your statement was merely regurgitation of your own pompous and unintelligibly ignorance that you use to belittle knowledge in order to give solace in your existence. We have people who are finding the vastness of the universe while other still howl at the moon, you sir fall into the latter.
