Paul Steinhardt: My Mentor Richard Feynman

Рет қаралды 12,096

Ай бұрын

Join my mailing list briankeating.com/list to win a real 4 billion year old meteorite! All .edu emails in the USA 🇺🇸 will WIN!
How do you deal with one of the greatest minds in physics of all time calling your ideas stupid and impossible? My guest Paul Steinhardt, who had the honor of being mentored by the one and only Richard Feynman, has experienced this not once but many times! In this video, he explains what it was like to be a pupil of the legendary physicist.
If you liked this clip, check out our full interview here: • Paul Steinhardt: The S...
Paul J. Steinhardt is the Albert Einstein Professor of Science at Princeton University. His pioneering work has significantly impacted our understanding of the universe’s early moments and its fundamental constituents. Throughout his career, Steinhardt made significant contributions to theoretical cosmology, condensed matter physics, and the study of quasicrystals. He is arguably best known for developing the inflationary model of the early expansion of the Universe, a groundbreaking theory that explains the uniformity of the Universe on large scales. He also challenged conventional cosmological paradigms with his work on the cyclic model of the Universe, proposing a cyclic theory of cosmic evolution in which universes are endlessly born, expand, contract, and rebound.
Additional resources:
➡️ Follow me on your fav platforms:
✖️ Twitter: / drbriankeating
🔔 KZbin: kzbin.info...
📝 Join my mailing list: briankeating.com/list
✍️ Check out my blog: briankeating.com/cosmic-musings/
🎙️ Follow my podcast: briankeating.com/podcast
Into the Impossible with Brian Keating is a podcast dedicated to all those who want to explore the universe within and beyond the known.
Make sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode!
#intotheimpossible #briankeating #paulsteinhardt

Пікірлер: 34

@cybervigilante 26 күн бұрын

However, the best Physics put-down of all time was Pauli's "It's not even wrong!"

@lwss1617y Ай бұрын

Richard Feynman was a human Genius, not a god-like genius. Thanks for this biographical episode!!!

@douglasstrother6584 28 күн бұрын

Matt Sands was my Senior Project advisor at UC Santa Cruz; he taught me to write physics properly. (He went through a lot of red pens!) Matt did most the writing and translation from Feynmanese to English for the Feynman Lectures.

@DrakeLarson-js9px Ай бұрын

Paul&I are the same age...Feynman was a true character... and a showman...(Feynman's lecture books were interesting (but only so-so in my opinion), but telling)... I thought Paul's description of Richard's 'impossible' is essentially what I witness the few times I met Feynman...

@0neIntangible Ай бұрын

Into the Impossible, with recollections of Mr. Feynman stating "That's impossible!"

@claudiamanta1943 Ай бұрын

Thanks for sharing. That class sounds perfect 😊

@AquarianSoulTimeTraveler Ай бұрын

I would like to know his thoughts on concave and convex reflection which creates a singularity point in reality and we can observe the singularity in reality so it is proof of a singularity that we can physically observe...

@letitsnow8518 28 күн бұрын

Love Paul,

@PeterRice-xh9cj Ай бұрын

A billionth of a second is far too fast for us to experience, so it’s fair to say that in that short time interval we don’t have a sense of being. The problem is that the time frame we are aware of such as 1 second feeling like 1 second, is joined together by by extremely short time intervals where we don’t have a sense of being, so how do we have a sense o being at all. We also need to be focusing on a colour to have a sense of being even if we just picture something in our heads. If 100 years go by without us having any sense of being, to us it would seem like a blink of an eye, because we wouldn’t have any memory of not having a sense of being, such as an extremely short time interval. If a group of people were individual zero dimensional points that mixed together to form one single zero dimensional point without any dimensions, every one would agree with what number they are looking at because every one would be one individual point. If zero dimensional points were not in any particular space or not separated by any space, they would be separated by time, each being zero dimensional universes. Our sense of being is zero dimensional, so does that mean we could be individual zero dimensional points. If we don’t have any sense of being such as in an extremely short time interval, we wouldn’t exist, not even being zero dimensional points. What if only two multi point points exist. One was the digit one that all numbers up the number line really are, and the other was a gap or boundary that separates numbers. How do we stop more than 2 points existing. Now let’s say there are 20 scattered points. Now you are an individual point with a consciousness of 20, so by imagining these 20 scattered points you are looking at yourself as a an individual point with a consciousness of 20. Now let’s say there are 90 other individual points mixed in with you. The 90 other points might also think their the ones theorising 20 scattered points. Now let’s say there are a number of scattered points you don’t know how many. You can’t count something you don’t know is there, neither can you count infinity. You can mix an infinite number of zero dimensional points points together because they are zero dimensional. So if you don’t know how many scattered points there are, dose that mean you a looking at the point your in not as a number conscious point, but looking at it as the fact there might be an infinite number of individual points mixed in. An infinite number of individual zero dimensional points should be able to be mixed in to make one single zero dimensional point. There would be no order of how many individual zero dimensional points would be mixed in to form one single zero dimensional point.

@PauloConstantino167 27 күн бұрын

hi Prof. Keating, I want to study a PhD with you on KZbin channel engineering. Are you up for this?

@jeffwads 28 күн бұрын

He never minced words.

@PeterRice-xh9cj Ай бұрын

We could be part of one zero dimensional point where one second seems like one second. A physical system like a hurricane or falling line of dominos could be an intelligent being and be another zero dimensional point where one week feels like one second. The two zero dimensional points we are part of and the physical system are part of can be two zero dimensional universes separated by time, but both still existing simultaneously. If we are a zero dimensional point where one second feels like one second, and another intelligence is part of another zero dimensional point separated by time, where one week feels like one second, it makes sense for both points to be separated by time but still both exist simultaneously.

@klgamit Ай бұрын

Feynman was just not about being PC but rather always stayed true to himself... it rubbed some people the wrong way, while others realized the value of having an honest friend and colleague that wouldn't spare them neither criticism nor even what comes to his mind at each moment of his thought process.

@PeterRice-xh9cj Ай бұрын

Let’s say you have two colours that exist on one side of the tennis court, and the other side of the net you have two colours that don’t exist. Each colour one side of the net could each be part of two systems. Each colour that exists could also be a colour that was originally a colour that never existed that has has already crossed over the net from the other side to become a colour that does exist. So the two colours that exist could be part of two systems. The two colours that don’t exist the other side of the net could also be part of two systems. If we look at the two colours that exist from above the court with our head pointing away from the other side of the court, we may see red on the left and blue on the right. But we don’t see the spaces they take up because the spaces don’t contain any colour. What if the space the red colour was in on the left was the blue colour on the right, and the space the blue colour on the right was in was the red colour on the left. And what if the empty spaces thought they were the colours and the colours were the empty spaces they were filling up. Their is on point to make here. Both the empty spaces and colours that are filling them up are both from two systems, the empty space originating from the other side of the net as a colour that does not exist to cross over the net to become a colour that does exist, and the colour that is filling the spaces up is part of the system that is home on the side of the net it’s on. There is also two colours that don’t exist the other side of the net that is also part of the same two systems. The reason the empty space the red colour on the left is in could be the blue colour on the right, is because a colour can’t fill up a space that is the same colour as it is. So we are looking down at the two colours that exist with the top of our head Pointing away from the other side of the net, and we see a red square on the left and blue square on the right. Now if we look at the two colours that exist from underneath the tennis court still with the top of our head pointing the same direction, could we now see a blue square on the original left and red square on the original right, now seeing the empty spaces being the actual visible colours. Now when the two colours switch spaces with each other, in a way the spaces are moving to because they are now entering different colours thinking they are different spaces. A way we can see the two colours one side of the net and spaces they fill all move together without seeing the spaces still, is if the two colours move over the net in a straight direction, and the two spaces they leave move diagonally over the net to the other side of the court. But shouldn’t the two colours now be two colours that don’t exist? If the two colours and new spaces they are in turn into each other once they cross the net, the colours now being spaces will have to change colours because a colour can’t fill an empty space that is the same colour. The side of the net the colours and spaces have crossed over to becoming each other in the process are meant to be for colours that don’t exist, but now becomes the side of the net for colours that do exist. The original two colours that don’t exist and the spaces they fill, and the two colours that do exist along with the spaces they fill, have all crossed the the net to opposite sides, thus the opposite becoming original sides. So if we look down on the court and see red on the left and blue on the right, then we look from underneath the court and see blue on the original left and red on the original right because we are now focusing on the empty spaces as being the colours, is that because by actually observing from underneath the court we are causing the colours and spaces to cross the net turning into themselves. When we see some thing cross the net we observe the outcome. But by observing the two colours from underneath the court and seeing the outcome (if) the two colours cross over the net, could we be actually causing the two colours to cross over the net. Therefore by looking underneath the court, we are actually looking across the net to other side of the court. The structure of the theory is an empty space can’t be the same colour as the colour that fills it up. If we look at the two colours from above the court, could the reason that we can’t see the empty spaces be that we are looking at the future where the other side of the net is on, and where the two colours that don’t exist are located. which are two colours that don’t exist that are at the other side of the net as the two colours that do exist are on their side of the net. They say particle physics is based on symmetry. What kind of symmetry? If you have 10 different things, what makes them the same thing is that they are all in the same category as being a different thing. All numbers are really just a digit one a certain way up the number line. But the gaps or boundaries in between the numbers look like a truly different thing altogether. Logic is based on numbers, but can we create a new kind of logic based on gaps and boundaries in between numbers.

@jasonbrady3606 Ай бұрын

Yes, we should hold on to our bests', that's right. A lot of people ignore reality.

@darrenpickens5608 Ай бұрын

What?

@jasonbrady3606 Ай бұрын

@@darrenpickens5608 The center, complex.

@PearlmanYeC Ай бұрын

Nice. Thinking of all those missed opportunities advancing physics when playing with superballs growing up in 60's.

@EinsteinsHair Ай бұрын

I had a superball, too. For those from other countries, or too young, a superball was a brand of small, compressed rubber ball that bounced much higher than the soft balls sold at the time. Sold to children as a toy.

@shikshokio1 28 күн бұрын

Yes… So about quasicrystals, not only Linus Pauling was wrong, also Richard Feynman.

@hakiza-technologyltd.8198 Ай бұрын

Great

@Mentaculus42 Ай бұрын

Feynman, not exactly a “nurturing mentor” for “anyone without an extremely high level of self confidence”!! Wonder how many people he chided with his “stupid label” that didn’t take it as a challenge ‽

@EnthusiasticTent-xt8fh Ай бұрын

They all gave up on science because they all just believed him.

@kauffmann101 Ай бұрын

You do have strong mentality while against Feynman's comment on you. He's not always right , everyone's learning rythm and the level of understanding is different. Some fast and some slow , eventually it can reach the goal is fine. What's the best attitude to encounter the kind of Feynman's personal commens is in Feynman 's way -Ignoraning them.

@janklaas6885 Ай бұрын

📍4:29

@markheller8646 Ай бұрын

Guess he was simply smarter.

@theomnisthour6400 29 күн бұрын

Ten men don't make a just jury, and adding two fake and fickle females doesn't improve the paradise paradox. You are missing something very fundamental