Mod-01 Lec-20 Classical statistical mechanics: Introduction

[@arfatahmad285]

We don't want u to be old, May u live long , the finest professor of all time.

[@allankane6026]

Dr. Balakrishnan's intuitive ability to probe interesting details at every step of every lesson is unparalleled. What a wonderful teacher.

[@GuillermoValleCosmos]

Yes

[@paulg444]

@@GuillermoValleCosmos this guy is special!

[@harihar5767]

Prof. Balkrishnan is is a next level teacher its amazingly awesome to watch

[@imihsanulhaq]

Huge respect for Dr. Balakrishnan. Lots of knowledge with sweet humbleness. Love this man

[@ahangertaushy5592]

who is this Dr. Vinod, I wonder🤔🤔

[@imihsanulhaq]

@@ahangertaushy5592 Isn't it Vinod Balakilrishnan? Plz orrect me if I'm wrong.

[@ahangertaushy5592]

@@imihsanulhaqnope.... it is Venkataraman Balakrishnan

[@imihsanulhaq]

@@ahangertaushy5592 thank you.

[@maujo2009]

NPTEL: Please upload more lectures from Dr. Balakrishnan!!!!!!

[@hericklenin]

Wonderful lecture. This professor is truly an artist. Thank You NPTEL.

[@manojsingh-hm1mh]

The wit of this man always forces one to explore the unexplored!! He should have written text books for Undergraduate courses like the Griffiths Volumes

[@abhishekroy7736]

his quantum mechanics videos are best

[@madhavpr]

Crystal clear introduction to statistical mechanics. Amazing!!

[@jdtaramona]

He is extremely talented in both scientific and teaching!!!

[@josegadelha8271]

Really really great! Thank you so much, professor Balakrishnan! These lectures are awesome! Greetings from Brazil!

[@dheerajverma5030]

The Historic lectures given by Dr. Balakrishnan.

[@AmanGupta-fd6ig]

such a fantastic teacher he is!

[@mubeenabanu6791]

His ability to relate all the concepts shows his in-depth knowledge ,very clear in concepts and his wit sometimes! amazing lectures .

[@vsprasannaa]

Prof.V.Balakrishnan==genius!

[@shibammishra5906]

He is not only a genius but a super super super genius.

[@sombh1971]

I have something to say about the claim of unprovability of the equal priori probabilities of microstates not following from the postulate of thermal equilibrium. I would like to claim that it follows from the ergodicity property of thermal equilibrium. The fact that the microstates become distributed equally densely in phase space in the process of evolution as some initial microstate is allowed to evolve. What that means is that there is a trajectory in phase space from the initial microstate to any microstate of the system, and what that in turn means is that given enough time, all microstates are reachable with absolute certainty, so at any given point in time, you are certain to find one specific microstate, not a probability distribution of them. So the probability distribution of possible microstates as a function of time is an evolving delta function, with its centre centred upon the position of the evolving microstate in phase space. Now consider the thing from the block universe point of view. Each microstate is visited an equal number of times given enough time, which follows from the postulate of ergodicity, and hence in the block universe they are all equally probable. The proof then follows by fiat. 26:00 What exactly do you mean by saying that the probability distribution is not a physical observable? In principle, it can be measured, right? 33:06 Interesting point. Has anyone ever worked out how the stresses might actually follow from the Pauli exclusion principle? That would be something. 39:43 I thought it had to do with the inability to measure the positions and momenta with infinite precision. Why is that wrong?

[@paulg444]

what a unique talent!

[@aerodynamico6427]

Some other very good teachers have very poor voices; not their fault at all. I wish there was a technology which converts their voices to a deep, sonorous baritone voice, like that of Prof. Balakrishnan. We are at the next stage of online learning now; we not only want the best, we want the best of the best (and we know the Chinese can no way compete with us on this!)

[@elamvaluthis7268]

Crystal clear lectures thank you.Excellent.

[@aravindhansivakumar2740]

No words to say. You are a genius.

[@vengatesang9369]

Anney Nengalaa 😸😸

[@aravindhansivakumar2740]

@@vengatesang9369 hi venkat..

[@shambhavimishra8928]

A one hour lecture and an infinite knowledge imparted. I realised that I can't write all of it in my notebook!

[@gvraophysicist1764]

Please update more videos from prof balakrishnan sir...I request to NPETL

[@prabhuthomas8770]

Mohit Das said below: "better than Feynman in teaching...". That is very true.

[@physicsforeveryone1293]

You can not compare both of them , he was a scientist , and explain the physics in a very simple manner that non physics guy can also understand it , and balakrishnan sir is a teacher who teaches high standards physics effectively , We have a very bad habit of comparing. He was at different place and he is at different I hope you understood

[@prabhuthomas8770]

@@physicsforeveryone1293 You're absolutely correct. Thanks for chipping in.

[@shivendrarai7269]

first of all do not compare ,second feynmen is far far genious,no comparison,reason why 1 he cal inculcate interest in physics even in normal public by his phiosophy,second he is much more genious,mit,princeton alumni, and most importantly feynmen is very innovative scientist physicst while bala is very good teacher of higher physics....

[@benefactor4309]

Balki is an average physicist​@@shivendrarai7269

[@koushikbhattacharya3778]

need you to do lectures on quantum field theory 🙏

[@djbnpable]

An hour very well invested!!

[@পদার্থবিজ্ঞান-চ৯হ]

when you're differentiating isn't the order of the summation will also change ? @ 55.40

[@adch9972]

At 23:57, he calls rho the probability density in the Liouville equation. But its the phase space density and not a pdf.

[@neerajdeb7978]

Plz upload lecture on Quantum statistics

[@akankshyapanigrahi2514]

I can't understand why he said h^3N..... for a phase space.... please explain.

[@dheerajverma5030]

Since, property of energy doesn't even exist less when the energy is less than planck's constant(h). So, intrinsically , he is defining the energy equals to 'h' for each conjugate pair (q,p). Therefore, h^3 for each particle(3 degrees of freedom for each particle) and h^3N for N particles.

[@nickneutrino3405]

God of theoretrical physics

[@elamvaluthis7268]

Very nice explanation.

[@Dawn_Of_AI]

why is the number of macro states N+1?

[@ayushpaliwal1880]

start counting from 0, mate, 0 to N.

[@MohdSameer-rx9gj]

Is this course for BSC students?

[@shashi7371]

Refrence book : F Reif. Arguments are similar.

[@souravbhattacharjee7553]

beautiful

[@bushranisar7791]

duf6rhcnxnv

[@omprakashsingh123]

its awesome thanks so much sir

[@atiqurrahman3916]

Any one whos, Please mention the book followed.

[@ajitkumarmehta2637]

....genius...

[@PROFBCRAI]

Finite resolution is an assumption here.

[@nesaralititumir6153]

23:44

[@ajitkumarmehta2637]

wow....

[@raultarufi2817]

ommmmm

[@Dark-tk9xu]

God speaking.

[@akashbaidya0]

nice

[@Physics-pg8zp]

❤

[@남준황-q1m]

Dynamite

[@drscott1]

👍🏼

[@cescllopis]

Was soll diese Musik?

[@timetraveler8272]

Hello, Statistical Mechanics and Entropy begin their hypothesis with assuming randomness or equal probability. The very scientific approach is to always assume order and look for it and provide evidence for it's presence. Randomness should always be the very last assumption by default if it should ever be assumed at all. Next logical question is that are micro-states truly random as Boltzmann assumed? Did Boltzmann ever look for order or just simply started his hypothesis with assuming randomness? Could microstates be in an order instead of being random? If so then both Entropy and Statistical Mechanics arguments are completely invalid. Completely! And they are as Boltzmann never accounted for the Gravity's order. How can microstates have equal probability of being anywhere in presence of Gravity as Gravity creates a certain bias for a microstate so it is more likely to move in one direction than any other. So no Boltzmann assumption of equal probabiliy is false. Gravity arranges microstates and macro states in a predictable order and hence eliminates randomness. All matter and radiations obey Gravity and arrange themselves in an order over time. Hence time arrow restores order and does not bring disorder as Entropy states. Matter will rearrange itself over time to restore the order of Gravity. Sand falling down in a hour glass is a perfect example of restoration of Gravity's order over time. As all matter and radiations obey Gravity's order and it is Gravity which arranges matter in a predictable arrangement and with that it creates everything we see in the sky. So Gravity is that unknown invisible omnipresent Singularity which created everything and created orders for everything and everything obeys those orders. As universe was only assumed to be random but turns out it is not random and rather is arranged by Gravity's order. Hence It proves: As Gravity = Lord/Creator of the universe = God (Gravity as God proves monotheism to be the only true scientific concept about how the universe is created and works.) Q. What makes the World go round? A. God Where, Gravity = God , Everything else = Stardust Gravity = God = Theory of Everything. It is true and cannot be proven otherwise.

[@timetraveler8272]

@@kritikakhanwal614 Hello. I am challenging the assumption Entropy and Statistical Mechanics assume and that is that micro-states have equal probability of being any where. This assumption is not only wrong but also is an invalid assumption to make as Boltzmann never even looked for any order as I understand before assuming absence of order. I could be wrong though. Did Boltzmann look for order first? Absence of order has to be proven by evidence that one assumed order existed and one looked for it using certain methods but did not find order. Only then absence of order (Null hypothesis) can be used to build any argument or draw any conclusions. If Boltzmann never looked for order then he was in position to assume absence of it so his assumption is invalid. Boltzmann simply assumed Null Hypothesis to be true without proving it and build a law of physics and an entire branch of Physics on it! Turns out and as Gravity makes micro-states prefer one direction over all others then that means his assumption is wrong. You cannot assume Gravity does not exist as it does. Even photons obey Gravity. A predictable order exist. Microstates have parabolic trajectories which are predictable if you know the variables. Examples: If you put Oxygen and Helium in an isolated/closed system over time Gravity will Bubble sort all the microstates predicably. Matter over time is getting Bubble sorted according to Gravity's order hence Entropy is always decreasing as matter gets Bubble sorted over time. A sand falling down in an hour glass is a perfect example of Entropy decreasing over time. Entropy could be created but Gravity will Bubble sort everything according to it's order. Hence, Second Law of Thermodynamics is both invalid and wrong. Entire Statistical Mechanics philosophy is invalid and wrong. That is an undeniable truth.

[@timetraveler8272]

@@kritikakhanwal614 This is my original theory so there is no reference for it. I did not read it anywhere. It is common sense. Every molecule of a gas has to obey Gravity and has a predictable parabolic trajectory like a bullet or a bouncing ball if you know all the variables. Sand castles fall down because Gravity is sorting things out in a known order using Bubble Sort. Sand is heavier than air so it falls down in air. Helium balloons do not fall down. Their position is above air. So they have to go up. Gravity creates the stars an stardust and planets and every thing else again by using this Bubble sort. So if everything is bubble sorted the what is random or has equal probability? Answer: Nothing ! Equal probability does not exist in presence of Gravity. But what is Gravity exactly? It is something invisible and omnipresent whose order matter obeys and arranges itself in a known and predictable order using Bubble sort but we don't know how it creates these order and why matter obeys these orders. This proves monotheism that matter in the universe obeys one invisible Lord who created everything in the sky to be a scientific fact without a doubt.

[@timetraveler8272]

@@kritikakhanwal614 My ideas about Gravity being proven as God (Invisible Creator + Lord of matter) are original so there are no references. Just critically evaluate the assumption Boltzmann made about micro-states and you will see how flawed his approach was and how wrong his assumption is. Gravity not only makes matter gravitate but also Bubble sorts it as well. A Periodic table is an example matter sorted by Gravity's Bubble sort. If matter has been sorted then that means there is no such thing as random or equal probability and that happens even at atomic level. Evens photons obey Gravity. How can you ignore the bias of Gravity and assume equal probability and then try to defend it? As I understand, and I could be wrong, Boltzmann accepted the Null hypothesis to be true without evidence and scientific community has since been defending the Null hypothesis. Null hypothesis are not made to be defended. Scientist are busy defending Null hypothesis instead of trying to disprove it and that is where they have gone wrong. You can also read my comments on Stanford University lecture series on Statistical Mechanics by Dr. Susskind. I am hoping he or someone from Stanford Statistics department would reply.

[@augustineokekeoma1750]

@@timetraveler8272 You are completely correct, I think. The only thing you need to reckon with is the fact that the nature of the microstates, like the unbiased shape of a coin(where perfect symmetry of shape is assumed), creates no basis for gravity to prefer or to favor one outcome over another. In other words, the effect of gravity on the microstates is absolutely blind and that is the basis of the randomness. Else, construct for the physics community a rule based on the effect of gravity on a coin which can predict the outcome(H or T) at a throw. Yes gravity impacts the throw but there is no feature of the microstates which makes gravity segregate between outcomes. The action of gravity in this regard is random and cannot be modelled. Think about it. But I must commend your confidence in thinking for yourself.

[@yashsingh6793]

1 minute ka intro 😑

[@sandeeptiwari5189]

it is worth listening to tho, i think it is good

[@faizanhilal4705]

checkout Leonard suskinds lectures.... really awesome! this man don't know the subject well

[@darkinferno4687]

fuck off bugger

[@siddharthaganguly9286]

How can you even say that ? don't throw your bullshit opinion based on your hate for a country , you're here for physics i guess , if you enjoy something try to appreciate it moron

[@ALEX-gr7dx]

I ve watched suskin . Both are amazing in their own ways. May be you didn't understood Balakrishanan sir. By the way WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU ?

[@abhishekroy7736]

@faizan. you fucking idiot kzbin.info/www/bejne/pnK7iYJ9brmIiMU this is what you post , asshole , clearly you know nothing about physics

[@arjunbanstola1943]

not able to understand the subject it's YOUR faults not that of professor.

[@EduMission]

nice