ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 3 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.
![[ TEASER ] เงาะป่า - วงL.กฮ. | TMG RECORD](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/M4ObdFfcPww/mqdefault.jpg)
this is more and more and more awesome... it's also like watching Feynman as a samaraii fighting 30 swordfighters with only a wooden sword himself.
Yeah lol only one has a Nobel prize
If you don't understand something I encourage you to ask questions... The desire to learn and understand is a beautiful thing.
Esalen audio tapes made a cassette from this series available years ago ( the soap bubble story ). Is there a video of that anywhere ? Thanks .
MORE!!!!!
Hippies on the floor! :D Great ending! Thanks for the videos.
2:23 I think they hit the nail on the head - the student and Feynman.
I cant hear it? What does the student say? Its not on subtitles!
@@kieronmcnulty6177 The student says, " ..I mean it could very well be that we are entering a new complex world where the ( common rules? or common/standard? ..) just don't apply anymore..." something like that...
@@StanKindly Cheers Mate!
Interesting to see how laid back the environment was in his lectures back then based off his dress code seating arrangement. No particular policy. Seems he wanted his audience to be comfortable. Plus the hippie era was still quite prevalent.
i dont undetstand if i understood, or how much of it i understood, or if understanding part of it is in any way significant for understanding the point of the exercise.
What was he about to say at the end about classical physics being probabilistic? Since I missed it, it sounds like the most important part.
this is awesome
What's that damn banging noise?
The problem as I see it is the confusion that arises between what can and cannot be know about a thing in advance, and the existence of the thing itself. Modern science popularizers make this mistake all the time and say things like "it isn't there unless you observe it," when what they should be saying is "You cannot know with certainty if a thing is there or not unless you observe it." Thus people think they are creating things by looking at them, which is patently absurd.
This is why I don't like the term "uncertainty principle" and prefer "indeterminacy principle". The latter clears away all this nonsense about measurement "disturbing" the quantity being measured and makes it crystal clear that (in most cases) the classical state DOES NOT EXIST before the measurement occurs. In QM, classical states are a degenerate exception produced by measurement; the rule is actually mixed/entangled quantum states, which can be shared (entanglement) and transported (quantum teleportation), but not cloned (no-cloning theorem).
Seems like everyone lost interest in these lectures after the 3rd video.. Probably because of the audience.
I certainly didn't. Feynman is absolutely right and everybody has their own individual method of teaching. His is perfect. As Hans Bethe once proclaimed "He spoke like a bum." for those who are familiar with the friendship between Feynman, Bethe and Dyson.... it's a real tearjerker in the sense that Dyson is the only collaborator still alive.
Analytically though I see where you're coming from and it's a darn shame.
the audience lost interest because of the audience you say?
If you find half a chicken... it was me.
I love quantum theory, but for the life of me I can't stop thinking like an engineer when I hear this stuff. If predictable and instantaneous state change across distance holds up (even if for just one "button" and we can harness it), we could communicate instantaneously across untold distances digitally...a computer on Earth holds one set of "Button 1 Correlated" particles and the computer on our distant spacecraft holds the matching set. Duuuude...
Yeah, I feel that impulse too. The difference between influence and communication is a relatively subtle point that I always have to think about.
I think the crux is this: imagine you could prepare a pair of entangled particles with known states (spin up+down) and take one with you to Alpha Centauri. When you prepare the two boxes, you decide whether their measurement bases are parallel or perpendicular to the prepared spin states. Let's assume that you know which particle is up and which is down before you set out. I'm not sure this is possible in QM - if not, the conclusion for the "perpendicular" case below also applies to the parallel case.
Parallel: measuring at Alpha Centauri means that you can "communicate" a bit to Earth by having Earth measure its particle at a prearranged time - BUT you haven't actually communicated anything because the states of both particles were known before you set out.
Perpendicular: the measurement at Alpha Centauri is random since it's perpendicular to the particle's known state, and although the result of the measurement on Earth will be antiparallel to the result at source, nothing is communicated because the state on Earth looks, locally, just as random.
@@musicalfringe responding to a comment from 2 years ago which was a response to a comment 7 years ago:
th-cam.com/video/0xI2oNEc1Sw/w-d-xo.html
Still he have that element of humor
Growth and degradation
He says icebox , they haven't been around for 70 or so years . He is duffy bs ' er
Out of sync