David Tong should be groomed to present these ideas to the masses. He is much more entertaining and enthusiastic than his famous American counterparts.
David is a genius, I don't say that because of his particular use of string and quantum fields but because he can relate the concepts at a novice level with lucidity that is a joy to listen to, and not only energetically enthusiastic but humorous as well.
Thank you, Dr. Tong, such an interesting lecture with new ideas! I was particularly struck by the idea that the quantum state can be used in understanding the math of manifolds. And also, in the Q & A, the non-fruitfulness of the multiverse idea, and the final Q about why physicists are not enthusiastic about "realistic interpretations of quantum physics." I'd be interested in learning more about that last Q, especially clarification of the idea of "non-local dynamics" vs entanglement.
The reason Mathematics and Physics are so compatible is they are two of the trinary sciences under Modeling science, the third science in the trinary is Automation science which is yet to be formally recognized as part of the trinary. Automation will come on its own once AGI is achieved.
Maybe the building blocks do progress smaller and smaller into infinity and that may explain the "origin" of the universe.......i.e., it always existed in some "form" and the Big Bang was simply an "accidental" event. (Sorry, I haven't described my point very well but it's late and I'm tired :) ).
String k theory 2*3.14(2-2(3))=-8*3.14 shape landscape of space time by vacuum energy ch symmetry at Planck,proton,atom 3 scale, gravitational potential energy ch equal to gm^2 time sum of 1/n which's zeta function.
I really like all this of course and I try to understand .... yeah I try ... but it is not clearly explained hé : he speaks about the number "g" and says it shows us how fast the spin of the electron changes when influenced by a magnetic field ... ok .... BUT BUT "how fast" ?? what does that mean ?????? after 2.0023 seconds ..... milliseconds ??? it makes a whole turn in 2.0023... milliseconds, it "starts" turning ? very obscure statement .... and what does it have as importance other than experimentation gives a better result ..... ???
g is dimensionless. If you treat electron as a classical particle e.g. charged sphere and calculate its magnetic moment you'll see it's 2.0023 times smaller than the actual value, that's what g-factor tells you.
Neither the effectiveness of Maths in Physics nor the effectiveness of Physics in Maths, nor indeed the historical order in which those effectiveness-es appeared are unreasonable. Mathematical intuition is emergent in a brain whose inputs are coarse perceptions of the physical world, and so Euclid and Newton noticed that these intuitions could be used to describe geometry and physics at the coarse level the human brain experiences them (Step 1 Maths is useful in physics). But our perception is coarse so this could not be the end of the story. Further, more precise physical observation and analysis led to concepts not immediately obvious to the human brain (relativity, quantum) and eventually and completely unsurprisingly to new Maths (Step 2 Physics is useful in Maths). tl;dr Maths is the human brain's coarse conception of physics so of course it was useful in early "coarse" physics; more finely observed physics of course then led to new Maths,
It has nothing to do with the human brain. Mathematical logic is isomorphic to naive set theory. Naive set theory is simply the observation of the behavior of finite numbers of classical objects and their unchangeable properties. In other words, set theory is basic physics. So is finite group theory, which deals with the permutations of objects/physical symmetries of objects. So are finite natural numbers, which are just the cardinal numbers of finite sets (How many marbles in that basket?). All of commutative algebra is basically just applied physics. We can extend this observation all the way to basic calculus, graph theory, number theory etc.. Complex numbers are basically just rotations, so are quaternions. All SU(n) groups are higher dimensional versions of rotations and so on. Mathematicians have ALWAYS taken physical observations and they have generalized them for ever larger numbers of objects. That math works in physics is simply based on the fact that physics came first. Not all of mathematics is derivative, of course, but much of the math that we use in the sciences is.
David Tong should be groomed to present these ideas to the masses. He is much more entertaining and enthusiastic than his famous American counterparts.
I was lucky to have Tong as my lecturer in my undergrad!
U r Very lucky
I can listen to David Tong all day, everyday, and be thoroughly amazed 👌 I wish I could meet him someday
I have met him. He is truly as humble as he is smart.
So do I🤩
Very good speaker. Always showing energy and enthusiasm.
David is a genius, I don't say that because of his particular use of string and quantum fields but because he can relate the concepts at a novice level with lucidity that is a joy to listen to, and not only energetically enthusiastic but humorous as well.
Super presentation, brilliant talk and nice explanation on equations in relation to quantum theory.
Excellent! What a fascinating scientist to listen to.
What a joy is it to listen to David Tong!
I have just discovered a great science speaker..... Prof David Tong
Thank you, Dr. Tong, such an interesting lecture with new ideas! I was particularly struck by the idea that the quantum state can be used in understanding the math of manifolds. And also, in the Q & A, the non-fruitfulness of the multiverse idea, and the final Q about why physicists are not enthusiastic about "realistic interpretations of quantum physics." I'd be interested in learning more about that last Q, especially clarification of the idea of "non-local dynamics" vs entanglement.
It’s pretty simple... I see David Tong, I click the link
Alwayssssss........❤
I want to meet my favourite and respected prof.David Tong.
The reason Mathematics and Physics are so compatible is they are two of the trinary sciences under Modeling science, the third science in the trinary is Automation science which is yet to be formally recognized as part of the trinary. Automation will come on its own once AGI is achieved.
Excellent talk.
amazing lecture!
hippies at the end are the icing on the cake
Many thanks.
Maybe the building blocks do progress smaller and smaller into infinity and that may explain the "origin" of the universe.......i.e., it always existed in some "form" and the Big Bang was simply an "accidental" event. (Sorry, I haven't described my point very well but it's late and I'm tired :) ).
I would like to meet this genius
String k theory 2*3.14(2-2(3))=-8*3.14 shape landscape of space time by vacuum energy ch symmetry at Planck,proton,atom 3 scale, gravitational potential energy ch equal to gm^2 time sum of 1/n which's zeta function.
Biologists: Hold my mushrooms
I really like all this of course and I try to understand .... yeah I try ... but it is not clearly explained hé : he speaks about the number "g" and says it shows us how fast the spin of the electron changes when influenced by a magnetic field ... ok .... BUT BUT "how fast" ?? what does that mean ?????? after 2.0023 seconds ..... milliseconds ??? it makes a whole turn in 2.0023... milliseconds, it "starts" turning ? very obscure statement .... and what does it have as importance other than experimentation gives a better result ..... ???
g is dimensionless. If you treat electron as a classical particle e.g. charged sphere and calculate its magnetic moment you'll see it's 2.0023 times smaller than the actual value, that's what g-factor tells you.
22:33 that's where the action is
What Eric Weinstein should have said: "hey Terrance, watch this talk"
Neither the effectiveness of Maths in Physics nor the effectiveness of Physics in Maths, nor indeed the historical order in which those effectiveness-es appeared are unreasonable.
Mathematical intuition is emergent in a brain whose inputs are coarse perceptions of the physical world, and so Euclid and Newton noticed that these intuitions could be used to describe geometry and physics at the coarse level the human brain experiences them (Step 1 Maths is useful in physics). But our perception is coarse so this could not be the end of the story. Further, more precise physical observation and analysis led to concepts not immediately obvious to the human brain (relativity, quantum) and eventually and completely unsurprisingly to new Maths (Step 2 Physics is useful in Maths).
tl;dr Maths is the human brain's coarse conception of physics so of course it was useful in early "coarse" physics; more finely observed physics of course then led to new Maths,
It has nothing to do with the human brain. Mathematical logic is isomorphic to naive set theory. Naive set theory is simply the observation of the behavior of finite numbers of classical objects and their unchangeable properties. In other words, set theory is basic physics. So is finite group theory, which deals with the permutations of objects/physical symmetries of objects. So are finite natural numbers, which are just the cardinal numbers of finite sets (How many marbles in that basket?). All of commutative algebra is basically just applied physics. We can extend this observation all the way to basic calculus, graph theory, number theory etc.. Complex numbers are basically just rotations, so are quaternions. All SU(n) groups are higher dimensional versions of rotations and so on.
Mathematicians have ALWAYS taken physical observations and they have generalized them for ever larger numbers of objects. That math works in physics is simply based on the fact that physics came first. Not all of mathematics is derivative, of course, but much of the math that we use in the sciences is.