Murray Gell-Mann: Beauty and truth in physics

[@angela1894]

This guy is one of the most brilliant people on the planet. ANd he's well-rounded too. Not just good at math, he's knowledgeable in languages, the arts, biology, etc. He demonstrated it in this talk when he gave a perfect, phonetic pronunciation of the name of the French mathematician "Coulomb".

[@chayoto]

Or when he pronounced that name in Mandarin.

[@michael_bryant]

According to Yann LeCun, Gelman tried to teach Yann how to (wrongly) pronounce his own name. So he was a bit arrogant too

[@Sean_Coyne]

Gell-Mann has always been an entertaining speaker, the sort of theorist you could listen to all day. He's still got it.

[@tonyduncan9852]

This is still the simplest and most stimulating lecture I have ever experienced. It's been ten years now. Thanks so very much.

[@marciasouthwick9748]

I haven't listened to this lecture in a long time. After he told me about Newton's summer (I think Newton was 17) I replied. Wow. He could have written a great high school essay "what I did on my summer vacation," Murray had the soul of a poet and the mind of a physicist. I had the mind of a poet and that's about it.

[@jonnieve2483]

That laugh is quite infectious

[@nikithanayaer6302]

Jon Nieve

[@manandholakia9023]

I had exactly the same thought and was going to express it with the same words ;).

[@otivaeey]

he didn't make me understand more about his quark proposition, but his humour is exuberantly huge, philosophical appreciation from his speech is to the MAXimum. I really love this talk.

[@szanndij]

I mean why people don't grasp the meaning of when he says hi to newton and einstein. It's in fact a history in the History of Sciences. He survived his eternal archrival Feynman on engaging physics to us laypeople of the world.

[@grahamblack1961]

He's in his late 70s here and he's sharper than most people are in their 20s.

[@jceepf]

He is one of the greatest physicist of the 20th century..... as long as he does not get dementia, he is sharper than most of us. What he said at the end is so true. Neurology is from Biology, Biology is from Chemistry, Chemistry from Physics. And Physics describes the law of nature at their most fundamental level. Yet all are necessary to describe succinctly what we see. But each level need some accidents. It is most clear at the biological level: another planet, another climate and no life possible. Intelligent life is an incredible fluke on our planet: dinosaur got killed allowing little mammals some peace, some random mutation to separate us from our ape cousins, we somehow survived when reduced to perhaps just a few thousands individuals..... all accidents.

[@hank1519]

@@jceepf Beautifully stated!

[@TheDavidlloydjones]

People in their 20s are sharp?

[@achildofgod9954]

That’s b/c his brain has been sharpened since his 20s

[@tomj2810]

Maybe because his IQ is so high that even if he loses a bunch of points with age he’s still way higher then others?

[@MISTERASMODEUS]

This talk was beautiful and symmetrical. It really is a way of merging and expressing art in a way that merges with science. No angst. Just beauty.

[@ashish19]

I did not even know such a talk existed! Its like being a part of those who created history. I hope people are able to appreciate whom they are listening to!

[@echymp]

Murray Gell-Man autographed my Ti-89 graphing calculator at a lecture at Washington University in St. Louis

[@boltzmannbrain8698]

I just saw his personal copy of Finnegan’s Wake going for $2500.00. I bet the line about quarks is highlighted

[@UUBrahman]

The last minute (15) is a excellent summary:1. Life can emerge from existing physics and chemistry, 2. neurobiology explains the emergence of the human mind "consciousness", 3. Nothing further is needed in terms of supernatural concepts to get something more, just further refinement of existing science and an understanding of "occasional accidents". Finally, this is all there is, there is not anything else at all.

[@gaurav.raj.mishra]

"Doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment then it's wrong." -Richard Feynman

[@joeyfeliciano9199]

Yet, there are tons of THEORIES about the origin of the universe , non of it is wrong. LOL!!!!!

[@jasonbennett2194]

Depends on what you mean by wrong. What is the objective of the theory was to uncover new mathematics?

[@kylethompson1379]

Yes, though this doesn't mean that the ultimate theory is not beautiful. Modern physics is just a step, and provably inconsistent. Maybe the full theory, is beautiful after all.

[@us-Bahn]

@@joeyfeliciano9199 True. Without experiments and data the number of theories (neither proved nor disproved) will increase.

[@Horndogthehorneddog]

Um Gell man’s opinion is just as valid if not more

[@halnms62]

Spent the better half of this weekend listening to Dr. Gell-Man. It reminded me of my college days and I recalled the terror of “Modern Physics”.

[@chayanbosu3293]

Can Physics explain conciousness ?.

[@theashenpodcast3638]

​@@chayanbosu3293 No.

[@barrywilliamsmb]

What a great voice and mind this dude has! I could listen to Mr Gell-Mann all day long. Thank you TED.

[@alfwiz]

Well done! "you don't need something more, to get something more"

[@DrZenith]

He 'gets it' perfectly; he's saying that any intelligent entity exploring the nature of reality would find the same rules such as the inverse square law for gravity. Also, that the scientific endeavor is the attempt to develop models which get ever closer to the way things are. Nothing short-sighted about that view.

[@JordanManfrey]

i wish I had watched this 14 years ago lol. At least my kid will have the benefit of understanding the nature of scientific discovery better than I could, not as a solely borish hyper-deductive permutative process, but going hand-in-hand with the inductive spark that drives all invention and innovation. The patterns are the point.

[@Evemky]

This is what I want to see! I love TED talks. Genuinely intelligent and entertaining. Is there anything else like this on KZbin?

[@77bovi]

Wonderful presentation, can really feel his passion for the subiect. Though have to say its strange that for all the beauty symmetry simplicity that he observes, believes and dreams of, he credits "accidents" as integral to explain things.

[@blasterelforg7276]

RIP the world's greatest riddle solver. I guess he was speaking philosophically here comparing if you believe in something you don't understand it's superstition vs. finding truth through intelligent deduction or through trial and error.

[@philhellenes]

Gell-Mann and Feynman worked from offices virtually next door to each other and used to argue all the time, in the best possible way ofc.

[@MetaSynec]

So, this talk was actually about simplicity and symmetry in mathematical physics.

[@vinayseth1114]

+Incongruent I I think it's also about stripping down to the bare essentials and building upon and refining previously existing laws.

[@salvadorvidal518]

I think all the way around: go with a new idea and try to get back to the old ones. To progress from the old ones sure that was already tried.

[@us-Bahn]

Is it necessary to say “mathematical” physics? Should we also be saying “verbal” literature?

[@ashoksupadhyay6455]

@@us-Bahn yes since physics can also be studied w/o the use of mathematics. You can throw a stone from a building and find it going down, from there you can put predict that anything thrown will always go down. Now you may quantise these notions about nature or make them more general through the use of a framework called mathematics. Some may argue that my first example was also an example of mathematics since I observed a phenomena and hypothesed an "axiom".

[@CharlesSalvato]

Sounds like Machio Kakos field string theory inverted... some good points. For math to exsist, there has to be a master mathematician. This isn't by chance, it is by design but the snapshot of time which is so extream that it keeps us learning and evolving.

[@philhellenes]

Love that man. Love that mind. Our greatest living theoretical physicist.

[@chernobila]

I love all of this lectures man

[@FarFromEquilibrium]

my hero! Murray is so awesome. I would love to have him derive the QCD Lagrangian on vid, even better in person. I doubt Id remember it all the first several times but its just a beautiful equation.

[@xT..]

I could listen to this man talk about physics all day... probably anything really.

[@TheDavidlloydjones]

Re 6:25: When *I* peel an onion I certainly can or could peel a few or several layers down and find more layers. Very often there comes a last single-layer followed by two or more cores. Two is frequent. Three sometimes turns out later if at all. I think Gell-Mann's model of how our science approaches whatever-it-is is probably correct. But it doesn't work for onions. I don't think this suggests a multiverse; it suggests that some of the other -verses might not be unitary in themselves, i.e. a multiplicity of multiplicities. Um, multiplying "all the way down"? Toward the end, he lists the "unreasonable effectiveness of certain parts" of mathematics. What an overdue and welcome limitation that "certain parts" is! This superb speech is a reminder of how good TED used to be. Damn! And Murray Gell-Mann recently passed away. 'Nuther damn!

[@adimaratov74]

так интересно рассказывает, с чувством юмора. жаль я не физик.

[@themetalgod21]

You just have to watch the lectures to see it.There was a list that came out for the top 10 physicists of all time.The only physicist on that list that was born in the 20th century was Feynman at 7 which was low for him.

[@VERGIS92]

@Belial690 This ain't a university lecture, he gives simple understandable examples about evolution of science. Mr Gell man was the competitor of Richard Feynman, they were working on particle physics in the 60s, he's extremely well educated and even his school professors felt intimidated in front of him, he could beat them at what ever subject they talked about. But above all it's his particle physics, do you know how hard it is for the average person to understand advanced physics?

[@paulgnr]

This guy is the patron saint of super nerds.

[@Arun-nt4kv]

Simplicity is not so simple to reach. This Simplicity reached after great leap of faith and out of the box thinking by physicists.

[@mrkvamaster]

I find it funny that a video this great only gets a few thousand views, while plenty of absolutely WORTHLESS videos get more than a million!

[@devinkoshney]

“You don’t need something more to explain something more” hah what a beautifully concise statement. You also don’t need a supernatural being to explain free will, as it is an emergent property of the quantum “accidents” he frequently mentions.

[@PrashantDelta]

amazing talk..!

[@themetalgod21]

i think i have an answer for you as i was thinking someone might ask that!!! .I been downloading all of Feynmans lectures onto my ipod.every lecture from from Cornell up to the University of Zuckerberg.One of the lectures from Zuckerberg sealed the deal why Feynman is FEYNMAN and Gell-mann is ok.Feynamn went through this lecture of electrons and their interactions as if he was adding 2+2 was 4.His grasp of every aspect of physics and his memory remembering the exact distances between particles

[@Ramatganski]

Anyway, I've managed to refine my point: The purpose of science is non other then to describe, just like rational, factual thought itself. Therefore, "scientific" facts (as all facts, for this matter) don't actually exist in reality as descriptions, but rather as things described. Accordingly, "laws" of physics don't exist before hand as formulations but as what's to be formulated.

[@htmlman1]

Ok his pronunciation of Frank's name at 10:42 just blew me away. I'm Asian and he might have said it better than me...

[@UUBrahman]

me too, I was shocked at his accuracy of pronunciation, and the punch line "We call him Frank Yang"

[@MohsinRasheed]

This man has a remarkable impact on theoretical physics

[@pedterson]

Can you possibly re-upload this with a higher display resolution? I know Gell-Mann was all about elementary particles, but we don't need to see them each individually.

[@Philosophickle]

Absolutely marvelous!

[@eapst28]

wonderful perspective

[@kirbyok]

哲学是人们以前寻找真理的主要武器，但现在它显得如此无力，并不是他落后了，而是现在的物理尤其理论物理已经成为替代它的更好的武器，现在的物理是寻找一切真相的钥匙！理论物理有个好处，不用记大量定律进行大量实验，但要求对整个物理学现状有清晰的认识。霍金就是理论物理学家。

[@Rantandreason]

Your point is well thought out and highly researched. Backed by loads of peer reviewed evidence.

[@otolith5]

"You don't need something more to explain something more"

[@giuseppevianello9288]

He is amazing!

[@88coe]

Master Yoda's human form:) Love him!

[@abdulkaderjaleelmuhammad5259]

Because the 'onion'' is almost symmetric and almost beautiful, therefore laws of physics are symmetric and beautiful! An enjoyable talk from a great physicist. But not knowing something does not mean it does not exist!

[@98danielray]

apply that same argument to big foot

[@jfooj]

What an absolutely charming man.

[@MooYoungKim]

if slices are similar, is it because the the entities are similar, or the same epistemic structures are deployed repeatedly?

[@RubenMartinez-jq7hm]

Interesting analogy of the onion, but now it begs a metaphysical question: *from where hence does the onion come from?*

[@Mordochai]

Excellent vid!

[@jonahanton7212]

Joyous

[@crazyengineer101]

This guy is great!

[@aliqasim9157]

The important thing to note in presentation is the realization of the idea that we can and will never be able to have ToE. Bcoz ToE includes both Fundamental Law and Outcome of possible chance events. Even if we completely figure out the Fundamental Law and unify all the fundamental interactions of nature, say standard model is completed, we still will be utterly helpless about outcome of possible chance events coz it essentially means to work upon infinite number of equations and is impossible thing to do. Nature is so complex that we as human beings struggle to understand its reality. Although we should feel happy even to get to know the the things which we have understood uptill now. :)

[@aliqasim9157]

+jimmyshitbags Didn't Murray himself said that ToE includes both fundamental law and outcome of possible chance events and u are saying " ToE just refers to unifying the electroweak, strong and gravitational interactions in the same sort of manner that electricity and magnetism were unified under electromagnetism, and then electromagnetism was unified with the weak interaction". This is contradictory to what he said. He also said that there are other fundamental interactions besides strong, weak, electromagnetic and gravitational interactions which we have not yet discovered . So if we even have not yet found all fundamental interactions of nature then the completion of Fundamental Law is a long way to go. Also apparently LHC has found particles that defy SM of Physics and now theorists have some work to do and figure that thing out.Check this. www.iflscience.com/physics/lhc-finds-particles-defying-standard-model-physics. OK..I get ur point on predicting the probability of outcomes and it is statistical but the question is do these equations work and why can't we include them inside the framework of fundamental law. What is fundamentally different b/w the two? What I have concluded is that universe is not necessarily deterministic but we try to figure it out with deterministic laws. (What do u say)

[@aliqasim9157]

+jimmyshitbags Hmmm... just to be curious...u hold a masters or PhD degree in Physics?..or u have studied and researched by urself?... Thanks.

[@aliqasim9157]

+jimmyshitbags U have mentioned that "none of the particles in the Standard Model can be a viable candidate for dark matter".....but gravitons as predicted by SM are most probably responsible for dark matter and viable candidate for it...and after the discovery of gravitational waves, the probabilty of them being the viable candiadate has also increased.

[@aliqasim9157]

+jimmyshitbags Well good luck to u now and in future endeavors...I have learned somethings which I was not clear before..well on a lighter note..u should change ur name from jimmyshitbags on here..why select this name..haha

[@aliqasim9157]

+jimmyshitbags I just have one question. Will we be able to figure out in the near future how universe was created or did universe come out of nothing or some say about virtual particles..? Also we are not even sure about whether Big bang (13.8 billion years ago) really occurred. I used to really believe that scientists have once and for all settled the matter of big bang that it certainly occurred. I read the material from WMAP (Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe) team as they had determined the age and shape of the universe besides other things. Then a few months ago I read that it is possible that universe may be eternal... Scientists (Ahmed Farag Ali and Saurya Das) in their paper "Cosmology from Quantum Potential" presented that there may be no big bang and universe is eternal. I am profoundly confused on this. Can u shed some light on this. Thanks.

[@HardikBhakhar]

Rare kind of intelligent and yet funny scientist❤

[@vinayseth1114]

'You don't need something more to explain something more'- Didn't get that...I mean, after all, although the Coulomb's Law and the Gravitational equation are pretty similar, they are operating on different levels, right? That's why electrons don't behave like planets. I feel a little lost here.

[@supereminem000]

well I'm just an 18 year old, so what do I know :p but what I think is this: when he was talking of emergence and how we've discovered certain laws that are outcomes of even more fundamental laws, he probably meant that we don't need "new information" to find about these "more fundamental" laws. like the peels are similar, the mathematics needed to break down to a better level of understanding appears to be similar too. so with critical thinking (well a llooooooot of it) you could get at the heart of the most basic of laws ---assuming this symmetry in nature truly exists, as it appears at the moment. feynman once said the whole essence of quantum mechanics could be gleaned (is this the right word? :p) from the double slit experiment. of course he said this after a lot of the mathematics had been done and experiments performed, it still lead him to realise that physicists weren't just "receptive" enough to the information that this onion peel was offering. am I making any sense or...

[@vinayseth1114]

+supereminem000 Sure sure thanks a ton! :) And don't let your age bog you down!

[@powpanda]

@lubermanl Here is why I disagree with you: it makes sense that you can use simple constituents to make things that are more and more complex - so complex that it is almost impossible to believe that at the base we have such primitive constituents. However, things like love and compassion, are not merely very complex. There is something about them that makes me (and many others) believe strongly that they cannot be created by bits alone.

[@davidwilkie9551]

Very good teaching. At last I can see why Mathematical Beauty has such regard, it's the "learning by doing" technique, a (very skilled) "park by feel" emulation of natural AM-FModular interference calculations. Ie from the math-physics "centre of Time" coordinated timing frequency and reciprocal Spinfoam bubbles of wave-package spacing modulation in format.., the superimposed potential possibilities of harmonic-coherent sync-timing are turned insideout as particular orbital wave-envelopes in Math-Phys-Chem Geometry and rational proportions of Temporal Superposition-point Singularity positioning.. hologram. The "force" of gravity is cause-effect of "symmetrical" resonant harmonics, the "leakage" of de-modulating frequencies "out of tune". Which is the flow in a direction of time.., the rate of change of the rate of change in resonance relative to absolute zero difference in time duration timing, ..origin-symmetry, the ground state.., and a co-property of "Mind")

[@dagomasere3248]

Gell-Mann for president, 46.

[@hayeder]

that is brilliant!

[@travishenrichs]

Just watch some of his lectures and/or interviews.

[@wassilykandinsky4616]

Beauty sounds more mysterious than simplicity.

[@DSBrekus]

@diegoarmino Well said, intellectual honesty is the only road to progress. I'm sorry for replying to a year old comment but you seem to be getting a steady trickle of nonsensical replies and I just wanted to show some support.

[@angela1894]

mozaart has a point. I'm an avid science reader, I've read several biographies of great scientists, and I visit many physics blogs, and never once have i heard this claim that top physicists are funny. Maybe gell-mann is (he seemed so to me), and i know feynman was, but that's just two top physicists out of many.

[@NothingMaster]

The reason that a beautiful or elegant theory is more likely to be right than a theory that is inelegant are essentially due to the facts that: (1) it is infinitely easier to come up with an inelegant theory than one which is inherently elegant, and (2) nature seems to prefer the theoretical frameworks that avoid the redundancies, the unnecessary assumptions, and the frivolous mathematical complexities.

[@dudepal187]

@senorinsanio Depends what you mean by spirituality. Science can certainly be beautiful and have that "spiritual" feel with eureka moments and all that good stuff.

[@vinayseth1114]

Is beauty synonymous with order here? As in, growing from a messy set of equations to simpler, more well-ordered ones?

[@anishupadhayay3917]

Brilliant

[@-Dr.NEMESiXs-]

This is for life

[@Mjhavok]

Good stuff.

[@Hao1981]

You pulled the quote out of context. By 'emergence', he was only referring to the 'onionlayers' and their overlapping explanation. And what religion calls god, science calls not yet fully understood. And it is not just semantics, science keeps asking questions where religion does not. A crucial difference in my opinion.

[@angela1894]

I LOVE his laugh

[@vinayseth1114]

But what decided that the fundamental law (yet to be discovered) should be the way that it is?

[@eulefranz944]

Wow. It was so short sadly

[@LeonGalindoStenutz]

Beauty, elegance, nature, truth, fundamental laws, consciousness and neurobiology, ... "You don't need 'something more' to 'get something more...' > See "The Quark and the jaguar..."

[@powpanda]

@lubermanl How is love still love if there is nothing but chemistry and accidents?

[@milosnoze]

funny guy Gell-Mann (2:06) - every good physicists has good sense of humor

[@phy29]

humm Scale theory is so beautiful .......

[@NGC6144]

"Strangeness" has left the building. Rest in Peace.

[@epirvsflavivs]

love his laugh

[@KeithJones-yq6of]

A true scientific great, if not as popular as other greats

[@NicholasRegan]

Hey... Thought you all might be interested in Binary Relativity on youtube. I also love physics and thought you might want to know about some new theories...

[@angela1894]

is there a video out there demonstrating his 'sharp wit' ? I wouldn't be surprised if you're right, a guy that smart should have a sharp wit.

[@themetalgod21]

such as say 10-27 centers meters for this particle and 10-29 for that one and this number is .56798040456 + or - 6 for the last digit. He went through physics with such a command, going board to board drawing sine waves and photon reflections without thinking just doing as if he was a great baseball hitter just seeing the ball and hitting it.It was child's play for him!!!!!!!!! I've watched Bohm and Einstein and neither could explain with ease to the layman or physicist the way Feynman could.

[@doodelay]

rip a great intellect and great speaker

[@johnny4aces410]

Amen!

[@patrickobrien8851]

Well, RIP... I expect "no" in Gell-Mann's view of the world. He made it very clear in this talk: "You don't need something more to get something more" - so, no supernatural and, indeed, no "resting in peace" - there is no resting, only the inevitability of non-existence. I assume the RIP and Amen in these comments are said ironically or else the posters didn't understand one of the main points of the talk.

[@juniorloaf12]

@@patrickobrien8851 I bet you're fun at parties.

[@98danielray]

​@@patrickobrien8851 resting in peace has a lot more meanings than your favorite bs couplings with the supernatural.

[@98danielray]

​@@patrickobrien8851 also, amen is obviously part of the common discourse regardless of statement. it doesnt need a religious meaning. it just means some agreement. what a stupid statement

[@travishenrichs]

Haha, his voice probably isn't the best for joke delivery but the guy does have a pretty sharp wit.

[@Flyborg]

GAFOIGAN! ..sorry, I was expecting him to say that. He has an awesome voice. I can't tell if I'm thinking of Professor Frink, or someone else. It's just familiar.

[@Ramatganski]

Oh, but it DOES inform us of a fundamental truth about OURSELVES which regards our endeavors to explore and understand the universe. That we can't escape from ourselves and that everywhere we go and in any thing we discover we'll keep on finding that were staring at our own faces, over and over again - because reality is also our creation, our projections.

[@monsieurmitosis]

I’m confused, if magnetism only comes from electrical charges and currents, what’s holding up those things on my fridge?

[@bushfingers]

From some elementary observations on the forms of physical equations, to stating that it's just accident and these equations that have resulted in everything that exists, and that there is nothing metaphysical. WOW!! That's some of the most impressive hand waving I have ever seen. Pity there's not a Nobel Prize for "The stating of impressive conclusions without the need for a logical argument or set of premises" - he'd be a strong contender.

[@majedahmed5410]

it is all in your head...!

[@sanketsarkar9890]

But Sir what I believe is beauty of physics is when we get the feel of it. Mathematical interpretations just give us an understanding of the law but the theory gives us the feel of nature....

[@pakitojuan2405]

This man called Lederman a "plumber". Lederman, as a huge experimenter, probably did more for physics than this guy ever did.

[@TedDGPoulos]

Think of the underlying law of nature. The way of all things. Consider its astounding inferences and implications. The single, underlying law ... of nature! Not merely of physics, chemistry, psychology, biology, etc., but of all fields of inquiry combined! The law we can all relate to, identify, understand and apply. Ask yourself. What is the underlying law of nature? Delight in the question. Have fun in the process of finding the answer firsthand for yourself. Google it, as a start.

[@amritsharma5373]

Which pixel do I look?

[@alfwiz]

Think of it in terms of "Fractals", you don't need "something more" to get "something more or something else" for that matter, because what you have is all that is needed. It's a fractal.

[@ricardocesargomes7274]

Espetacular...

[@unhealthytruthseeker]

If the parabola is expressed in the form y = ax^2 + bx + c, then the second derivative of the parabola with respect to x is y'' = 2a. What the hell, however, does that have to do with anything whatsoever?

[@lubermanl]

In other words, what do you believe love is? and why. We know that if interact physically with the brain it messes up people. If you de-organize the brain people aren't the same. If there is something outside of the physical brain then how do you know, and what does it do? Could it be like this web site? it is just 1's and 0's transmitting through wires. But is that really all it is? Its a complex organization of 1's 0's which makes it far more meaningful. The brain is probably similar.