ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 2 ต.ค. 2024
- All parts of the lectures can be found in this playlist
• Quantum Mechanical Vie...
Richard Feynman discusses Quantum Mechanics in a workshop at Esalen. Topics are: Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, Bell's theorem and the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox.
I decided to upload this workshop, because I could not find it youtube. I think everybody should have the pleasure of experiencing Feynman's teaching, even if you cannot afford the DVDs.
I DO NOT OWN THIS MATERIAL. IF IT VIOLATES COPYRIGHT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, I WILL REMOVE IT IF I AM NOTIFIED OF SUCH A VIOLATION.
I’ve discovered a fifth force in the universe ... it’s name is Professor Richard Feynman.
This is a great series of lectures by Feynman, a nice concise explanation of the uncertainty principle. I think the most valuable thing he used to do was explain things in a very simple way where he uses mundane examples to give meaning to a very unintuitive topic.
I'm actually confused...
The very last few seconds he says "What's the problem? I don't understand it" as a big grin takes over his face. This is the attitude of a true scientist.
TheResidentSkeptic yeah...just rewatched that part coz of ur comment
I would have loved to go to Vegas with Feynman1111111
so true bestie me too
Just realized he gave this whole presentation barefoot...
Jack Charbonneau - ha! I also enjoyed his jacket... somehow unexpected...
I noticed that too, and it made me feel more sympathetic to his words, I don't know why...
I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels like extrapolating quantum mechanics into conventional everyday object examples like buttons on a box makes the concepts more difficult to grasp. It puts me in this mindset of trying to rationalize the strange quantum reality and I don't think that's valuable past a certain point. I think Feynman is one of the best at doing this, but I find it makes the concepts harder for me to grasp. It feels like he has to keep fine tuning and adjusting and finding new real world analogies for what he's trying to explain.
There was an instance in this video I realized they weren’t talking about a live whole chicken but a piece of a chicken being in the ice box. 🤣 I’m tracking on the principle of the idea, (as far as I know, which isn’t much.. but it is a point of location as it relates to understanding)...anyway... I could listen to this man all day, and often do. Much respect to people that challenge “traditional thinking”.
I'm struggling to understand why they are "arguing" with him over the semantics of an analogy. I'm either smarter than them or dumber. I haven't quite figured it out yet. I'm not a physicist. But I thought I had a basic understanding.
I prefer to think in other terms - like making a measurement of _either_ the speed (or velocity if you like) and the position. The more you know about (say) speed, the less you know about position. The result has a certain probability. With entanglement, another (say) particle will have the same (say) charge but with opposite sign (+or-) or opposite spin or polarization or whatever. It is very VERY strange but true. Einstein did NOT like this at all!
Who is on first, no who is on second.
oh my god i knew those interactions reminded me of something!!!
In the words of the great Chuck.
"I may be wrong, but I doubt it"
16:32 'I have to look that up or internet'? Did I hear that right?
He said: "I have to look that up or into that"
Yes. Probably to find references
ahahhah yeahhh (: entanglment! ahhahah
Lol what is he wearing? And the sound is out of sync. But cool more stuff to do with Richard Feynman.
It's funny, his voice is out of synch but his hand gestures are in synch, figure that?
That's the Jack la Lane look of the early 80's Av, where've you been?
He's so smart....genius....and handsome too....brainy and sexy...
Here I thought I've seen all his online videos... Thank you
I don't agree with what he says of the multiple entangled boxes. I think it would be consistent to make multiple entangeld ones such that any would agree, but only the first one you hit, and the everything else the same as if that first one would have been Feynman's 1 button.
Helberg- Thank you. I just came upon this workshop.
Weirdly, I tend to make the hand gestures for what I'm going to say in a few seconds. This leaves me to wonder what's normal...hard to do when some people don't make hand gestures at all.
Thank you for the video.
What is inside the box if there is neither chicken nor no chicken?
What is the logic Heisenberg derived the uncertainty principle from?
What does the uncertainty principle mean for everyday life, where there will ALWAYS be either chicken or no chicken in the box?
@silverrahul
Will I ever open a box and find it contains chicken as well as no chicken?
Unless someone or something has removed it. OR you are in a different universe
@@Rollmops94 Only if you are and not are at the same time will you be able to open a box and find it contains a chicken as well as it contains no chicken. (look up the theory of quantum measurements)
Yeah, common sense would be fun, but it doesn't apply to the real world as we understand it. Too bad.
thank you for uploading this!!
Thank you for sharing these.
Thanks
Maybe Feynman is wrong. Lol.
What he is saying is so simple that I don't understand why people have such difficulty with this. What he's saying is that after the first measurement, the correlation between the boxes is destroyed because measuring changes each box in a probabilistic way, so that you can't tell in advance what the change will be exactly. That means it could change one way on box one, and another way on any other box. There really is no need to suppose any spooky action at a distance to explain this. The only mystery is why it happens to be the particular probabilities that are observed. As he said, if it was simply some one-to-one correlation between buttons, then you would expect 1/3rd and 2/3rd probabilities, but instead, the probabilities are biased toward an opposite condition 3/4th of the time.
+Double Dragon If the two boxes are correlated, then you measure red on button 1 on the first box... then you are certain that you will measure red on button 1 on the second box, even if it is located on the moon. Before measurements nothing exists... but when the measurement on box 1 button 1 is done and found red... instantaneously it is fully determined that button 1 on box 2 is red. That's an instantaneous action at a distance. No getting around it.
+Double Dragon I think his analogy is simple to understand, but not the nature of the quantum system itself. Remember that human beings function and were evolved on a macroscopic scale and our commitment to reality being a collection of causes and effects is pretty hammered into us. It's hard to imagine that the concrete reality that we experience as something intrinsically probabilistic and in a sense chaotic.
Is there somewhere where I can read on the setup of this experiment? It seems that in the very beginning of the lecture he is implying that he has discussed the operation of the boxes with a different occasion. I was wondering whether there's some literature or video coming from him with more details on how the box operates?
@@limoneslj Kind of late, but I'm working on programming this experiment. Just trying to wrap my head around the logic of the 2 separate boxes.
If one may program it, it will not be random but pseudo-random. There are many programs that try to generate randomness but they all have turned out to be pseudo-random
Brilliant man. It is a difficult subject to teach entanglement on an ensemble of particles.
I thought, based on the first video of this series, he was trying to avoid this back and forth about the boxes. It seemed like he wanted everyone to have understood and accepted this analogy.
Which year was this lecture?
Some time in the early 1980's.
Brilliant lecture because of how he turns something that can be extremely complicated into a simple explanation.
It's not that simple for everyone.
Genius