ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 3 ต.ค. 2024
- Elementary Particles and the Laws of Physics
The 1986 Dirac Memorial Lectures
Developing a theory that seamlessly combines relativity and quantum mechanics, the most important conceptual breakthroughs in twentieth century physics, has proved to be a difficult and ongoing challenge. This book details how two distinguished physicists and Nobel laureates have explored this theme in two lectures given in Cambridge, England, in 1986 to commemorate the famous British physicist Paul Dirac. Given for nonspecialists and undergraduates, the talks transcribed in Elementary Particles and the Laws of Physics focus on the fundamental problems of physics and the present state of our knowledge. Professor Feynman examines the nature of antiparticles, and in particular the relationship between quantum spin and statistics. Professor Weinberg speculates on how Einstein's theory of gravitation might be reconciled with quantum theory in the final law of physics. Highly accessible, deeply thought provoking, this book will appeal to all those interested in the development of modern physics.
It's a real shame we're not able to see his projector images. 😞 Does anyone happen to know if Dr. Feynman has this written up anywhere in print?
Aha - it is in print. I found it here:
assets.cambridge.org/97805216/58621/excerpt/9780521658621_excerpt.pdf
nucleares.unam. mx/~alberto/ apuntes/feynman .pdf [without the spaces]
there is a book titled - "Elementary Particles and the Laws of Physics the 1986 Dirac Memorial lectures" it contains the whole lecture notes
@@darshbhatt1523 Following it right now!
@@darshbhatt1523 I found an electronic copy of the lecture book/notes under the following link:
nucleares.unam.mx/~alberto/apuntes/feynman.pdf
It matches presentation.
I don't understand it but I know he knows what's up .
He doesn't actually. QED has now fallen into disrepute.
@@bannedagain1483"disrepute"... Hardly
@@Dirty_realism The planet where people actually care that renormalization mathematics is abject garbage. Look into it yourself, its easy.
@@bannedagain1483disrepute? it‘s still to this day an exceptionally well established theory and you will not find any serious physicist trying to deny it‘s validity to describe the electromagnetic interaction
@@chriskindler10 renormalization is garbage, idc what institutionalized goofballs think. The mathematics are nonsense, no sound mind can think otherwise. The whole process was panned as idiotic in its day by minds greater than Feynman, and is now taught as if its scripture. Modern "men" particularly university rats, are uniquely adapted to treat the scientific process as some sort of religion now, and accept without question the most absurd theories simply from social pressures.
Perhaps 18 months from his death, and at the height of his powers. "He is another Dirac, only this time human." -- J. Robert Oppenheimer on Richard P. Feynman.
No he was Feynman
No, this is Patrick.
thank you genius cameraman who wouldn't zoom in on the projector screen.
Early 1980's VHS technology, coupled with a then affordable camera, probably resulted in a perfectly watchable original recording, in which the projection screen was legible.
Major degradation of VHS recordings happens during copying of 'domestic' recordings, and presumably this is not from the original tape. That, along with degradation of the tape with time, wear and tear of the playback machine's heads and electronics, losses and noise in the digitisation process, and finally the compression caused during TH-cam's processing of the uploaded video results in a very degraded video today,
It might also be the case that this video is a copy of a previously uploaded video from another channel. It often happens on YT.
If you have access to a VHS player, and a professionally-produced video, please take a look at the inferior quality of the video, in comparison to modern digital recordings.
A VHS tape was designed to be played back on a TV which had a resolution of 525 lines, with around 512 lines being actual picture (625 and ~612, respectively, for PAL, in most of Europe). That picture was only ~512i (~612i), at 30 (25 elsewhere) frames per second.
The total _broadcast_ TV signal, with video, sound, line and frame sync pulses, colour burst, monochrome data and colour data, etc, had a total bandwidth of less than 8 MHz in even the best of TV standards. The chroma signal usually had a bandwidth of little more than 1MHz, which is around 40 kilobits per frame. Uncompressed. Compare that with the video bandwidth of your computer, which will be at least 150 MHz on even a 1080p display, and you begin to appreciate the limitations of analogue television.
But with a VHS recording, several further compromises were made, because the tape and heads had severe limitations, in order to keep costs down. Total available bandwidth was around 4MHz, even on the very best recorders, and it could easily be less than 2MHz. The result was that the lines in the picture were effectively halved in comparison to a broadcast signal, hence ~256i (~300i). When you think about it, this video could have a resolution of no better than ~240p, even without any further degradation of the source material.
What amazes me is that his mind processes these complex points in real time, that is that he can discuss in detail "on the fly" what most of us would need hours to dedcribe, and do so with less clarity.
It's because unlike most people he understands what he's talking about
Ah yes, his mind processes that dedcribed
At this point he’s also spent his whole life studying this lol
I had known Paul Dirac about 11 years before I met Richard. No 'science' talk but, just another level!!
Feynman, who was so brilliant himself, paid proper homage to Paul Dirac who intuited the original equations (in other words, he wrote down what he thought the particle-antiparticle state should be; and later proved it!) It was a massive breakthrough in a problem which had defeated the earlier theoretic physicists and pure math guys. Together with Feynman's innovative invention of his famous 'Feynman diagrams', led ultimately to the best-tested theory in physics of QED (Quantum Electro-Dynamics). Just incredible really.
Isn't GE the best-tested theory of physics?
Hasn’t QED fallen into disrepute?
yes, yes it has. but the boomers haven't been told. LOL@@opiesmith9270
So, when I found out who my new friend Paul really was, , , , I was/am a science fiction paperback nut, , , I told him that one of the author's books used the "Dirac transmitter" and he made a comment about "quantum" whatever and I did not have a single clue!!!!
My scientific hero.
Woohoo! More Feynman!!
I had never seen this before! Thank you mrtp. (Downloading at the office to watch at home).
I can only Marvel at the power of the man he was walking living it's almost impossible to beleive the way high level physicists live it's almost mind-blowing
11:00-11:05 There you have ALL quantum physics.😃
He was a brilliant man.
Indeed he was. My old boss had him for his physics proff at CalTech. My boss went to MIT undergrad and CalTech for his Phd in nuclear engineering. My old boss told me that he was essentially a straight A student at both universities. However, he earned a C in physics from Feynman. He was angry about it, and said that Feynman intentionally made the entire course an order of magnitude more difficult than what was required to learn the subject. He said that when Feynman would walk past students in the hallway, they would express awe at his brilliance by saying, there goes the "great man". They meant it with utmost respect, which I think angered my boss even more. LOLOLOL
@@jimmydoolitle3764 Thank you for sharing 😊 It is a shame that Feynman worked for the atomic bomb- for that I give him an F.
@@claudiamanta1943 Feynman himself had much to say about that. Some of it in filmed interviews. You may well have seen it. But if not I would urge you to listen to his thoughts on it.
@@jimmydoolitle3764cool story im from russia tho wish u a good health
@@cocycaxap2797 Thank you. I wish you good health also. I bet you are proud of your famous Russian cosmologist Andrei Linde. He is a deep thinker and a brilliant man.
Exactly understand what he’s talking about it , he is the best professor of the time period
Thank you very much for putting this up.
He's the smartest person who ever spoke of physics... did Oppenheimer choose him for Los Alamos?
@@MissJami Hans bethe asked him to join the lab with him
What a pity you can´t read the ohp screen. I am a great fan of Richard and was lucky enough in my career to attend some his lectures in CERN. I would have been delighted to understand this lecture in detail. But without the screen data, that´s difficult to say the least..
As someone said there is a book look at the comments ⬆️
What a Fine man.
Hats off.
First of all, thank you ! Could you please post the Weinberg lecture that followed afterwards, "Towards the final laws of physics"?
Its a coincidence that after 2 years of this lecture a person got noble prize for nuetrinos❤️❤️❤️❤️
I'm a PhD but Feynman makes me feel stupid but I love him and love his brilliance and love of everything.
To feel smart listen to DOCTOR Jill Biden instead. Education degree, but DOCTOR Jill - she insists on being called DOCTOR - would assert its close to PhD. On second thought don’t waste your time
Looking at your CV, I can see why. 🙄
3:46 Feynman starts.
thank you so much for sharing this content!!!
Thank you for sharing.
I considered myself to be relatively intelligent. I'm just going to go sit in the corner and weave a basket.. WTF just happened?
A and B only exist in a small area of space and time in quantum mechanics according to the principle of superposition
Always learn a great deal
Thank you kindly ✍️
Starts at 3:45
He is a fine man, that Feynman. Proof we are in a simulation #658.
Does everyone know the story about the safe?
When he was working at Los Alamos during the Manhattan Project a diversion he liked to do was going into peoples offices and crack their safes. He describes in one of his books .
+Fredrick Nietzsche
He talk about some of it in "Los Alamos From Below" (audio only)
th-cam.com/video/uY-u1qyRM5w/w-d-xo.html
I have it in my phone and listen to it often as inspiration :-)
Read, Surely you're joking Mr.Feynman.
He tried using Pi, which didn't open the safe, so then he tried e, which did the trick. Social engineering techniques are useful.
I've done it! I've cracked safes and combination locks with Feynman's methods, starting in high school when I read "Surely You're Joking, Mr Feynman!" It really does work! I actually have a lock on my bedside table that I'm hacking by exhaustion when I go to bed, for absolutely no reason other than as a tribute to Feynman and just "the pleasure of finding things out."
I wish I could understand this
" Build Your Own Community then Communicate " 1 . Physically 2 . SpacePorts 3 . Telepathically 3:20
6 × 6 [ Carl Divergence Convergence Vector-Momentum EM Within ] @ Due Iďeal DESIRED ATTAINABLE geodisk 8:27
34:22 Rotation relative to what…? The observer. You don’t move anything, but rotate your mind around it.
Thanks
7:51 Why there must be antiparticles
Is there a better copy of this? His visual material is indecipherable.
Merry Xmas mr Feynman 🥳
Richard seemed emotioned speacking about the simple ideas that bring him to the verification of the existence of the antiparticles, isnt’it colleagues?
Suppose the complement of one in list one, two, is two, that "not" can be interpreted either complementarily, or oppositely and that point Y= {X, not-X} is constituted by two sub-points, then unless not is interpreted complementarily and hence is subject to the law of non-contradiction : nothing is it's opposite, Y cannot even be a dimensionless topo(s Greek for place )logical space , ( Y, t ) * ** , for set Y with a topology, t, where any subset of Y open sets - any element of some set Y subset like not-X say - , including the whole set and the empty set, either complement, intersection, or union, is also in the topology.
* Subject to Russell's critique that the set of all sets that are not elements of themselves, is a set that is not an element of itself and is not, a set that is not an element of itself, which Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory does not resolve, because the Axiom of the Unordered Pair (Wolfram Mathworld) permits Y consisituted by oppositely interpreted X and not-X.
** Metric space is a set equipped with a distance function for measuring the space between set elements, canonically defined by Pythagoras as the hypotenuse straight line segment length in a triangle where it's adjacent sides are perpendicular and the base square area plus the height square equals the diagonal hypotenuse square - for example base square side three and hence area nine from three multiplied by three plus triangle perpendicular height square four and square area sixteen implies hypotenuse square twenty five and therefore side five - , with a 'point' in three-dimensional space (length, width and height) called an 'open ball' and equal to all points whose distance from the centre of a sphere is less than it's radius, while apparently any metric space is also a topological space.
Never heard so many claps for someone.
The utter blurring of the equations that he is pointing to detract quite a bit from the lecture. I'd love to see someone go overt this lecture and do a closed captioning with the reconstructed equations, if anybody can figure it out.
They published a book on it so there's that!
@@BartAlder Here's the book
drive.google.com/file/d/1ScaMdeqtpSCO16thnzym1GkkmqywnAEL/view?usp=sharing
Here's the book
drive.google.com/file/d/1ScaMdeqtpSCO16thnzym1GkkmqywnAEL/view?usp=sharing
Camera work with zoom doesn't make sense.
23:37 To which statistic he is referring to hier? I couldn't understand the name something like Bosey ... thank you
Bose-Einstein
7:47 start
S good description
The one day you miss class:
Does anyone have the slides / notes?
There is a book, which was published in 1987. www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/physics/particle-physics-and-nuclear-physics/elementary-particles-and-laws-physics-1986-dirac-memorial-lectures
thank u
anyone have a copy of the slides ?
nucleares.unam. mx/~alberto/ apuntes/feynman .pdf [without the spaces]
Bose E. Statistics = Bose Einstien statistics (for bosons)
Genius people are always crazy.
Reanimate Richard Feynman 2020.
16:40 How does a wave have a momentum whereas waves are massless?
To have momentum, mass is not required..
@@shishram163 p = m(sic!)*v
A wave has energy. Energy and mass are equivalent (E=mc^2). Therefore it is possible for a wave to have momentum.
😮 I have no foggiest clue what he talked about, but it sounded rather good fun 😄
This whole quantum theory is a reflection of the human mind stretching and spinning around itself, trying to make sense of itself. It’s quite a religious experience with particles instead of dervishly spinning cherubim. Can consistency of the Quantum Physics model be achieved? Yeah… after introduction of further maths. However, consistency of an argument doesn’t make it valid and doesn’t inform about reality (‘reality’ which, by the way, we should keep within the horizon of human relevance). Quantum Physics is not science because how could one apply the principle of falsification? What do you test it against? Forever shifting sand dunes?
But it’s fun intellectual game, I grant it that. Has anyone tried different maths? Scrap the ‘zero’ and the ‘anti’ whatever (the ‘minus’), and see. The fact there is something rather than nothing should have raised questions about the validity of the matter-antimatter hypothesis long time ago. There cannot be antimatter as the logical shadow of the matter because they would have nullified each other. And you can’t have less antimatter because that’s kinda an illogical idea. From that perspective, the grand equation is awfully unbalanced and yet… here we are, trying to carry water with a sieve we keep poking holes into, to peek into The Divine. I ask you ‘What for?’ Remember the horizon of human relevance with its moral vectors.
Anti-matter has been created and proven to be real years ago now. 😅
“ … if nature started that way, it would be that way all the time and so the problem would be pushed back to creation and God knows how that was done!” 0:6:27 😂😂
It is very unfortunate that this is so out of focus.
hey!!!! why are they hiding feynman from us!!!! aaaaahhhhhh!!!!!
Aaaaahhhhhh!
Fuck I'm stupid.
Yep, that makes two of us…
video is too fuzzy to make out the overhead slide projections.
You can buy the book.
I feel like faynman and Einstein knew more than they let on
Why are you telling us that your feelings suck? ;-)
I love antipasto! Oh, never mind.
cool!
Williams Larry Brown Nancy Miller Elizabeth
Miller Brenda Smith Scott Anderson Kimberly
They LOVE inventive theories. Too bad it's not natural. Try Dewey Larson's Reciprocal Systems Theory of Space and Time. It's the theory you're searching for. And all these years later and the wedding between relativity and QM has turned out to be -- big surprise -- a barren hybrid.
To this day I have been searching for intelligent life in the TH-cam comment section. I still haven't found it. ;-)
Jones Scott Martin Steven Perez Steven
I have an Auntie Patty
And to think, he must have been quite ill by the time of his lecture.
Robinson John Martin Karen Smith Charles
White Joseph Anderson James Johnson Helen
😵💫
Feynman's quantum field theory (QFT) of virtual particles and anti-particles, observable and verifiable (Cashmere effect) , is the universal fabric from which emanates, strings, particles, everything.
This valuable lecture (although I found it difficult to follow, because of the blurring of the slides) explains spin 2 particles' (getting back to the original state) relation with universal field of Boson, if Feynman is explaining how they are related to the QF, there is a deeper significance, that I could not quite follow.
However, this field is fine tuned at its fundamental level, Feynman claims we are 'lucky', while others call it an 'accident'. I call it 'intelligent design' of the 'universal consciousness', in line with physicist Dr John Hagelin, explaining creation of life and consciousness, with perfection and with probability one.
We may not be able to explain how consciousness is simulated in empty space, QM can help us understand the process, by the double slit experiment, which shows how fields/waves turn into particles when measured/observed.
The situation is similar to the big bang, verified by MBR, but remains unexplained how and what produced the singularity of infinite temperature. Human consciousness verifies simulation of 'universal consciousness'.
The mechanism of heat production at the big bang does not follow anything we know about the mixture of 'source of oxygen' and 'source of explosives' demonstrated by chemists, in our world.
and what created the intelligent designer? Ad absurdum.
How universal consciousness simulated intelligence is not known, just like without oxygen and without source of explosive, the big bang occurred. Universal consciousness is eternal property of the Feynman's quantum field.
Feynman never said anything like that. He did say that God (i.e. intelligent design) was invented by man to explain the unexplainable, which is true.
If consciousness is part of QFT then you'd need a consciouness field and a gauge boson to carry it. Neither of those has been postulated let alone found.
Claiming "intelligent design" to explain away the unexplained is simply kicking the can down the road and invoking mysticism. Hardly scientific.
QFT is not only conscious and intelligent but also fine tuned. What made it conscious, intelligent and fine tuned is not known and we have no clue, like we have no clue how laws of mathematics and the rules of algorithm were present when we were not.The preexisting algorithm is also known as the mind of god, so physical reality have mathematical structure.
If you think that explosions can only occur with oxygen shows you've not got a deep grip on much science. Think nuclear bomb.
Talk about ancient ! Skip
Terrible lecturer. Only those with a Phd will follow
No such thing as antiparticles.
But does Billy Bunter have an auntie?
Of course there are. Don't be ridiculous.
majorana fermions beg to disagree-agree
Case closed. Thank you Bunter for this insight.
I think ,He travelled Throughout the Interstellar space ,form end to end
😢 F U
...😮 MR COUNTER WHERE DID YOU GET YOURS
...😊 AND WHERE DID I GET MINE