ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 13 ก.พ. 2013
- 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. - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
In classroom teaching I have done, not to compare myself to Feynman even for a moment, there is a difference between a student asking a question to clarify a point they don't understand, no matter how basic the question seems to be, and someone who seems to want to monopolize the classes time, and/or get attention from the teacher. It is fascinating to see one of the greats in his field go through of what some of us mere mortals sometimes experience in front of a class.
This man had infinite patience with this group because he is quoted something like,"If you cant explain something to someone you don't fully understand the subject." To fully appreciate the man can only be comprehended by the multitudes of his accomplishments. The shuttle explosion explanation, his bongo playing, and giving book recommendations for public schools are stories that are worth exploring to mention a few.
it's an interesting thing to watch... especially when Feynman, who is always so friendly and wise sometimes goes all "hold on, stop, no, it doesn't matter" or whatever...
Good. Now watch it again.
@13:55 .... mind blown.
pressing the button and looking at the light *was* making copies.
here are a couple of timestamps of interactions i found great, just for fun.
5:44 i love the way he says the last sentence, aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa so silly so goofy
decent student: could you at some point say how you actually prepared this?
mr. feynman: i probably will, it gets a little technical and i don't know- i haven't prepared that. i'll have to think of a way of describing it in a simple way, a precise example of such measurements.
student who keeps picking at mr. feynman: *starts trying to come up with another stupid way to stump him*
mr. feynman, facetiously: you might have to wait longer than i think...
8:49 i adore how the students start joking about what to do with the boxes and mr. feynman is working to answer them simply but still keeping them in the equation, while the students dont really know that until one of them asks, still joking, "are you in the business of manufacturing these boxes?" to which he replies, "in general we are, that's called measuring." SO BRILLIANT. GOD! AMAZING! AHHHHH!
I think you are right, in general, and I have to admit I haven't seen the entire series yet. I find it fascinating to watch Feynman teach in such an informal setting. From what I have seen, I do get the impression that one, or two people, are sometimes holding things up by bringing up issue after issue. At one point Feynman seems to get somewhat annoyed.
"Philizawfigal." Love this man. Wish he was still around.
Would this work in an octopus's garden if I turned the box upside down?
what a great teacher, what an incredible brain
He taught me well and his tapes continue to teach me, well into my 60s. There is no better way to learn the quantum than through Dr. Feynman.
A quarter of a photon is done by quarter sizining
The prizsm by energizing the amount of light through
I find it hard to believe that this audience finds this difficult.
Back then, this was all new. We take for granted learning through video from multiple sources.
He's being so clever discussing the measurement problem and the possible implications of that process (quantum branching or whatever you want to call it) and the students or whatever kind of people are attending this lecture/workshop are completely oblivious. It's dangerous to try and explain quantum mechanics with classical objects as examples, sometimes it goes right over peoples' heads.
That's an interesting perspective. Thanks!
The audience is at the "consciousness expanding" Esalen Institute, to explain a concept "mind-blowing" in a different way than the ideas of the typical person there. Among Feynman's immense pleasures in life was interacting with people with an outlook on life that was currently a mystery to him, so this place was perfect. I image he thought this presentation was something he could give the people there in return for what he got.
@9:58 he felt something deeper there that only he knew!!
Of course you did. No one so great is ever fully understood.
You seem a person of superior perception. I pray that you are YOUNG and will go on to brighten this world with either science or art of transcendent quality.
Go; -find interest in things. Then, do them better. Live with a rampant enthusiasm for all things interesting, no matter how seemingly insignificant. Do not allow anyone to detain you in learning, discovery or creation. Do not allow yourself to overlook another person's worth, knowledge, talent, ability. Feel free to borrow other's thoughts or creations for your own work. None of us are original,and thus, we must ALL steal from each other. It is not theft, but collaboration. True theft in art or science is far rarer than is commonly thought. We speak English. We are struck. We are forced to draw from each other.
Listen to the song "my Sweet Lord" by George Harrison. Then listen to "He's So Fine" by The Chiffon's. Are the records truly exactly the same? Are they even close in their delivery of artistic purpose? Alas, their written notation match in most parts. John Lennon even warned George Harrison of a possible plagiarism violation. It did not matter to Mr. Harrison. My Sweet Lord was a fine pop record that told a much different story than "He's So Fine".
-Another modest example of plagiarism for which I rejoice.
@9:17 " can dolphin press the box?" i better give her money back nd kick her out!
If the questions seem odd, remember that this presentation is at the "interdisciplinary" Esalen Institute during the hippy/psychedelic/sex-revolution era. The intelligence of dolphins, astral projection, UFO's, levitation, transcendental meditation, sensory deprivation, the primal scream, ESP, LSD and the uncertainty principle was a normal mix there. Feynman once had an out-of-body experience during sensory deprivation. He loved the place and the people. Note his bare feet.
That explains a lot! Thanks.
what a wonderful teacher!!
One of many.
I'm still with Einstein in not totally agreeing with quantum theory, but Feynman explains it well enough that I may switch over. Michio Kaku makes me hate quantum theories. Yeck.
What a brilliant scientist was Richard Feynman, even I a non- scientist can see what he's getting at.
Yep, that's the point.
all these people in the comments thinking they are bright,you are what feynman despised.This was a different time,but anyways the fact that people are interested is what is important here,there are no stupid questions as they say.
The left button is arbitrary right? They seem very stuck on this.
At minute 16:00 to 17:00 the students in the room try to relate to Feynman an idea that the measured uncertainty does not reflect an uncertainty in the physical system, but is actually representing uncertainty in the KNOWLEDGE OF THE MEASURER. They used a story of a drunk person confusing the left and central boxes. Feynman tries to counter this idea, but he is not altogether convincing. This interpretation is known today as "Quantum Bayesianism" and it is taken seriously in physics.
Can you try to explain this on the level of this lectures? Seemed to me more philosophy than physics.
+Estóico Ouldmen it indeed sounds like making a mainly philosophical case for epistemic uncertainty, that is uncertainty of our knowledge of the world, rather than ontological uncertainty in the phenomenon. Although in the interpretation presented by Feynman etc. if there are inherent limitations in the subatomic world that prevent us from knowing aspects of that world - and if like me you think observers are inherently part of that physical world - then this can be seen as both uncertainty in an ontological as well as an epistemological sense. I suspect Feynman therefore didn't see an issue. On the face of it the other interpretation to me seems to more or less accept such inherent limitations to knowing, but seems to add mostly speculation about what happens behind these limitations that we cannot observe. This is what it looks like to me, though I am not a trained physicist so I do not know if this alternative interpretation accepts inherent limitations to knowing or if it hopes to ever get experimental confirmation, nor if it also makes different predictions.
And then what happened?
Dr. Feynman taught me the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle employing the sieve construction. He has several deadly effective methods of teaching this, perhaps the most difficult of all quantum physics.
You know the price of the art, but not its value.
Does it weaken with each additional box
Does what change with more boxes, more than 17?
Some of these students seem to be trying to stump Feynman. Good luck with that.
I think a state such that any of the three buttons will give the same result if pressed first was actually discovered later: Search wiki for Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger state
Ha...love the whole goofing off going around..
The return button
Some of these students seem a bit pretentious when arguing with the (cough cough) nobel prize winner.
Dr. Feynman would be the FIRST to disagree with you. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, and it's relationships, is generally considered the most difficult Law of of Quantum Physics to comprehend.
If not for Dr. Feynman's use the sieve construct, I would NEVER have understood The Uncertainty Principle.
When Heisenberg initially published The Uncertainty principle (circa 1929 - 30), Professor Einstein quickly called 'foul' and published a letter objecting to the finding.
Of course, Einstein was wrong (as Heisenberg's Nobel Prize for the work indicates). Initially, Einstein's angry response was that, "G-d does NOT play craps with the universe!"
Unfortunately, this quote has since been repeatedly taken out of context to prop Professor Einstein up as the grizzled wise veteran of the Quantum that he obviously is...;however, the quote is probably Einstein's most embarrassing professional moment. 'Tis a pity that too many literate people misuse this quote and do not understand or know the derivation nor history.
Einstein later , of course, ate crow. A Proof is a Proof,. The great Einstein was wrong, and later owned his mistake. Regardless of whether a physicist is a filthy nazi or a self-made Gentleman Scholar, Scientific Genius, Father of The Quantum, and a most distinguished advocate of world peace (I mean, of course, Professor Einstein!), a law of science will remain a law. Once that Proof is complete, it remains scientific law forever.
Werner Heisenberg will always remain a significant quantum physicist, and a human being desperately wanting of humanist values. Later in life, Heisenberg spent most of his time trying to become a proper human. Did he succeed? Who knows. Not even the iconoclastic, brilliant physicist Niels Bohr, Heisenberg's father confessor, could say. Heisenberg's Nobel Peace Prize was richly deserved, but it sadly ends there.
However; Albert Einstein IS Science's and The Quantum's Historic, Wise Father; -and a far greater human than Werner Heisenberg was capable of understanding.
However, that Heisenberg discovered The Uncertainty Principle (now a LAW of physics), will always remain Science FACT and an accomplishment to garner great respect.
Heisenberg never regained his initial promise as a physicist.
Einstein's Relativity theories have long since become science LAW. We no longer refer to them as "The Relativity Theory", but rather as The Laws of Relativity. Once a Law always a Law.
I am long winded. Perhaps, a compliment on your comment.
Does anyone know in what year this video was recorded?
1983
1983 seems a tad late as he was ill, but it is possible. Dr. Feynman never let up; -EVER. No student was insignificant. No person seeking to understand was too much trouble. God Bless Dr. Feynman
I think his choice to follow on with the guy's suggestion to name the buttons left, center and right confused everything..."correlations of the left buttons on all boxes gives you a right answer"...wtf impusibruu
Your response unfortunately reveals your most embarrassing qualities. Qualities that you try to hide from the world. These qualities began with the words "I think..."
@@BixLives32 the guy had a valid criticism. It could be confusing because of the double entendre of the word 'right' in English.
Lucky bastards.
he is very patient with such a dim audience
Obviously Richards is trying to explain to asses and critics who really want to know the beginnings of understanding, that everything is unknowable. They don't get it.
Indeed. Let us thank G-d that Professor Feynman DID get "it".
I feel like the entire room is just trolling the guy. For the most part he is pretty clear about things.
The guy near the end trying to sound smart and spouting the philosophical crap needs to get slapped. Someone get on that.
+Frosty. Most of them are just having trouble -- it is 1983 after all. But yeah there's one guy who clearly believes he is smarter than Feynman, Heisenberg, and the rest of the QM pantheon. I think if we found him today, we'd see he's right where he belongs.
But the tape you were watching exists only in your head.
The questions from the audience were mostly annoying.
This audience wasted too much time asking trivial questions.
+Oedibias Now that I think about it, they weren't so trivial at the time considering that none of this information was as common then as it is now.
Till this day, quantum entanglement is not a well explained idea. We know the correlation exist. We just don't know its magnitude of correlation, whether it is emergent, whether it has a preferred direction, whether it has a speed limit, whether it is symmetrical, how entanglement emerges, whether entanglement create spacetime geometry, what is the fundamental topology of entanglement, and other characteristics. There are many peculiarities that create exception to the rule.
This audience asked questions to help understand what was being presented.
@@crazieeez There's no "question" about anything.
The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is generally recognised to be the most difficult of all the Quantum Laws to understand. Not even Einstein understood it in the first year.
If not for Dr. Feynman's alternate use of the sieve construct, I'd have NEVER understood the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (now quantum physic's LAW).
Frankly, I found those student, bloody sharp, -even brilliant. Surely, far more capable than I was at the same age. Dr. Feynman ALWAYS encouraged his students NOT to give a rat's arse About their intellectual vanity. Intellectual vanity has never fostered a new law of physics. only by relentless hammering away at physical theory as well as established law, will physics progress and truly reconcile the quantum to the Newtonian world. And we all, bloody well pray that this occurs or the universe will be up for grabs and you and I will probably never have existed.
So conscious human 'observer' is needed. But when the quantum field collapsed to create fine tuned particles, who was the observer? Does the QF sels-simulate an intelligent conscious 'observer', in that case QM may lead us to realize divine purpose, implying proving the Anthropic Principle.
Is it my imagination or is there one person in the audience that's being a particularly obnoxious goober? It's like he's trying to "take Feynman on" or something.
It’s not your imagination, I’ve realized that too. However, I’m impressed by Feynman’s patience and acceptance of said person’s criticism considering he was really annoying. If I were in Feynman’s place, I would’ve probably kicked him out.
Shows you how good a teacher Feynman was
@@Agent-kv8fl Yes, I'm not always a terribly "tolerant" person. I'd be enormously patient with anyone who was genuinely trying to learn, but rudeness would really set me off.
They should try stumping him right now. Oh, wait.
Really, fucking dolphins?...
She was getting at the "observer" b.s. it was a valid question in that light.
+Daniel Burke agreed.
Rule 30.
Cushion...
Bell's Theorem in which the 2 things help prove that we know the test doesnt work.
Things, particles, atoms, cannot be somewhere in a state and be traveling.
Particles move.
Particles do things at random.
Particles cannot be examined properly by human beings.
Particles have states in our reality but, not neccasarily in other realities for others.
Parmenides, a Greek Philosopher, put it back before humans even thought of particles in "States" or any law.
It can be said that IF you are in a State of Being then you have the ability to define truth.
Said another way:
Nothing exists.
Nothing does not exist.
then again
"Nothing" exists.
"Nothing" does not exist.
The question is, what is the truth about how these particles exist?
Seems to me as qauntum mechanics gets further along defining being and wether or not everything else exists its clearer and clearer nothing exists as more then part of the knowledge that makes up the Universe.
In some sense it is the use of all of our intellect along with imagination that make the entire Universe a computer of sorts.
14:00 -- "Looking at the light really was making copies..." - ....and if the audience who see the light has anyone who is colour blind... :D
You seem to have made, in your own mind, a brilliant calculation. Indeed, as Wile E. Coyote has written on his business cards,
"Wile E. Coyote
Super Genius!"
the audience are so dumb!!! just let the guy explain in his beautiful way!!
When I was quite young, My teacher was teaching Othello. I remarked that the language was rubbish and seemed pointless.
My teacher calmly walked to my desk with the large text book in hand. He then gave me a modest whack on the head with the large book.
This teacher than asked me,
"What sound did that make?"
I answered, a tad off balance,
"It made the sound of a dull thud."
My great teacher said,
"Yes! And the dull thud did NOT come from the book!"
This was NOT a dull audience. Caltech does NOT permit dullards into advanced quantum physics classes. To marvel at Dr. Feynman's genius is not great feat.
To comprehend exactly how he carries his students along a difficult journey, and to see those students change with his teaching requires a tad more realisation than you seem to have.
The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is commonly thought to be one of the most difficult Laws of Physics to learn in the Quantum.