Richard Feynman: Quantum Mechanical View of Reality 1

In this series of 4 lectures, Richard Feynman introduces the basic ideas of quantum mechanics. The main topics include: the basics, the Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, Bell’s theorem and the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox.

[@thomasturner2390]

I love watching Richard Feynman. I always understand little. But i read, watch again, watch others and read more and little by little, i understand a bit more (or at least i think i do!). I get that so many people at the time didn’t fully appreciate the privilege of being in one of his lectures. But the arrogance that fortunately sits its arse behind the camera is unbelievable. Its like people were in that room to try and prove him wrong or make him look stupid!! I could only wish that Leonard Susskind was in that room at the time. There certainly would have been less ego! I first heard of Feynman through ‘the big bang theory’. And was curious and watched his video where he is just sat in the chair explaining things. His enthusiasm, his excitement to teach anyone willing to listen was amazing. And how much he tried to simplify everything. I’ve been able to visualise/imagine sooo much in life through his teachings. And for that i will always be grateful of him! In my opinion he’s the greatest teacher to have ever lived. Susskind once said (im paraphrasing) ‘he loved being in the room with Richard as he always made me feel smarter’. What a simply amazing human being! I loved in ‘oppenheimer’ when the bomb was a success and you could hear them all cheering. You could hear the bongos! My favourite bit of the film 👌

[@deepdrag8131]

Amen!! Feynman is the best. An absolutely brilliant theoretical physicist and an even better teacher. He could teach the most brilliant post-doc as well as the guy cutting ham in the deli. On top of that he was a top notch humorist. And the ladies liked him!

[@nimo517]

Same! His ability to talk to a camera and explain simple ideas without an outline, but instead a flow of one idea into another… naturally… intelligence is not black and white, but the ability to explain an idea to someone with just words? That’s the art of brilliance: translating into a dumbed down version for us to study, and memorize, instead of subconsciously understanding a subject to the core

[@adankseasonads935]

When you try to fall asleep listening to Feynman, but its so interesting that it's now 3:30am and you're wide awake. 7am work is gonna come quickly.

[@DudeBoerGaming]

I know the feels bro

[@FartMustard]

Lol I also watch these videos to fall asleep

[@JordanREALLYreally]

I ALMOST fell asleep... now I'm up.

[@DemandAlphabetBeBrokenUp]

I'd been at work two hours by your example. This is why I take sleep aids.

[@MikeHillMusic]

6:25am...

[@Steve1734]

He once said that the ability to understand something is not determined by intelligence, but by your imagination. Some people could imagine better than others.

[@SeaJay_Oceans]

TRUTH

[@mikemilne6830]

I imagine standing on the event horizon of a black hole. Time has stopped, thus I will watch the universe end and not fall into the black hole. Nothing could fall in because there is no time. You need time to have matter move.

[@simengrandal6898]

@@mikemilne6830 Why do you claim the time will stop?🤔 Time will not stop for you, being at the black hole's event horizon. From your perspective time will flow as normal. An observer some distance away will observe you as "frozen" at the event horizon. But you yourself will not experience this time dilation 😉

[@paulodonnell753]

@@simengrandal6898 not frozen, just very, very, very slowly in relation to you. Which means from his point of view, you are moving very, very, very quickly thru time.

[@nichevl]

@@simengrandal6898 Well though you would experience time compression as you'd see the universe just flash past into oblivion and be exposed to far more heavily blue shifted to high gamma progressively tear you to shreds as you, in your reference frame, were drawn into the BH innards and spaghettified too along the way, eek !

[@sofatrooper5266]

Feynman's charisma was powerful, because I just sat here listing almost 30 mins only to realize I have no idea whats going on.

[@Rick-the-Swift]

SofaTrooper, Feynman was a master at keeping retards' in total befuddlement and captivity! If you quit listening after 30 minutes there is hope for you!

[@nolan412]

He can press buttons and they do what he told you they do.

[@nickb4302]

Me too. Almost forty years later.

[@shiroi_usagi]

@@Rick-the-Swift suppose it is better to be befuddled, then to lack creativity & stop listening. seems the later is the more befuddled response though. but what am i saying? you used the word “retard”, you must be super smart 👍

[@reubenherrera9827]

I can see clearer now. I could not sleep a few hours ago. Listening to this relaxed me. Did not fall asleep. Listened to all. Now may rest.

[@entropy7888]

And just like that my depression is gone.

[@tomfreemanorourke1519]

Being 70, lifelong learning, understanding, observation, experience, re-examination 24/7 365 I firmly believe that if Richard was here today he would say "why are you not beyond what I spoke of?. Science or the art of enquiry should never remain static."

[@kenw8875]

gents, year recorded? early 80s? late 70s? God I love Fehyman’s insight, style, and humor. genius bro

[@user-ey6qd5pe1j]

Most people can't grasp schlonkis physics.Pure genius!. Great series. Equally important for physicists and those interested in science..

[@mikezappulla4092]

Brilliant way of explaining his point

[@ericmelto7810]

He’s bare foot. I love it. The greatest teacher of all time. If you read this watch “fun to imagine”. And you will understand where trees come from and where the heat and light comes from when wood burns.

[@Japanology]

Even a superstar teacher like Richard Feynman had a great amount of trouble teaching Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Still, the engagement of the audience tells us he is a great teacher.

[@martinnermut2582]

Heisenberg uncertainty princile we know very well from statistical survey of public opinion. The more you want to get an exact result tryin to get as much as possible information from a respondent, the more you are limited to certain kind of people and the statistic result is more and more inaccurate. Because busy or angry people have no time nor effor to answer silly questions :-)

[@Franklin-pc3xd]

More like a dope-head

[@gameurai5701]

@@Franklin-pc3xd wat

[@koenth2359]

RF was a remarkable, outstanding, very patient teacher, even with these extremely stubborn students. A striking example: The question at 1:42:26 is based on an incorrect record of what he said earlier (*). He never spoke of three states, but referred to three buttons, or said 'measuring three things'. RF is quite certain about what he could have said, and expresses that he can't believe that he actually spoke about three states, (which he didn't), the student persists: 'I wrote it down as soon as you said it' (!). He then saves the situation saying that he might have said it, just in order to ease the student. And just explains what he meant. Ending with 'If I did say it, I made a mistake'. Now other students are starting to believe he said it (1:47:40 'I think that's how you used the word states'. RF: 'Oh, it that right?') And again, at 1:53:52: 'I may well have said something about states or something that was incorrect, we just sometimes fall off the wagon when trying to reason.' I believe the button analogy is such that each button corresponds to a way of measuring something, and not to the state of a particle or system. I think the student may have mixed those up. Choosing a button e.g. corresponds to the orientation that you choose for your Stern-Gerlach apparatus (either 0°, 120° or 240°), and a green light corresponds to measuring spin up (and red to measuring spin down) (*) I checked what he actually said at 1:06:40: 'You need at least three [buttons] before you get into trouble. You can show that there's no situation where you can measure just two things, where the probabilities are not something that you could imitate with cards. So that's why it involves three in his [Bell's] theorem.' Note his incredibly precise and correct formulations!

[@prioritizedexperiencereplay]

1:31:02

[@alial-faraj8396]

An attempt to timestamp Q & A 3:36 Brownian motion 10:01 Feynman diagrams ------------------------------------------- Lecture starts. 17:57 two three-button lightboxes analogy -If you push any button any box the odds are 50% green and 50% red. - if you then push another button, it only agrees with the first one 25% of the time - if you push a button on box 1 and then push the same button on box 2, they will agree 100% of the time. 20:38 uncertainty principle, bells theorem, and the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox (EPR paradox) 20:57 box 1 25:53 Heisenberg uncertainty principle 59:00 EPR paradox 1:04:37 bells theorem 1:11:40 a third box

[@LDam-pf6lx]

Thanks!

[@theshadow8900]

Thenks man

[@glutinousmaximus]

Richard Feynman admitted that he was very concerned about his teaching style. He actually welcomed the 'stupid' questions which demonstrated to him that he needed to continually improve his teaching methods. Quantum Mechanics is notoriously difficult to get your head around. One of his quotes was: "If you think you understand QM, then you _don't_ understand QM!"

[@glutinousmaximus]

But here's a more tricky Feynman-type question:- "Why is Richard's shadow onto the whiteboard a sort of orangey-red?"

[@Projecticles]

The better and more simply that you can explain something the more you understand a out it. That's why he continunaly put himself in the position to teach. People have known this for a long time that's why you have to teach in order to achieve certain degrees.

[@TappedOutCY]

His brilliance is multi layered. Not only does he have an IMMENSE intellect, but also an amazing ability to dumb it down; for me.

[@RohitSharma-mi8gt]

Great series. Equally important for physicists and those interested in science.

[@EstraNiato]

Makes you wonder how far ahead we would be if all teachers would be like Feynman :)

[@schmetterling4477]

Not far. Kids are not that smart. How do I know? I was a kid.

[@shiroi_usagi]

@@schmetterling4477 oh, that logic is stellar 👍

[@schmetterling4477]

@@shiroi_usagi Experience is worth more than a thousand books in the library. :-)

[@shiroi_usagi]

@@schmetterling4477 yes and no. depends on the books & depends on the experience… heard & lived a 1000s of experiences that don’t even add up to ‘Mary had a little lamb’. but still, you make a valid point & i agree for the most part, especially since the way most people learn is by hitting their head on the wall twice. but i still disagree with the point that kids are not smart then. in fact, some are too smart for their own good..lol..what they mainly lack is wisdom perhaps..js. but what do i know? i’m only a kid to someone else. yours seems worthy of that library but that does not go for most. well done, sir.

[@schmetterling4477]

@@shiroi_usagi True. Some experiences are rather crappy and should be avoided. Point is: the average kid is not even teachable. By the time they get into school the damage by parents who don't know how to keep their kid's minds "open" to actual learning is mostly done. Even if we assume that we are all born with a perfectly fine mind (and there is absolutely no indication that nature gives us this gift), the early childhood years are doing enormous damage. One should really do some serious experiments by raising kids in a clean-room environment where they are not subjected to parental ignorance about early childhood learning. The problem with that, apart from ethics, is that young children suffer from a devastating phenomenon called "hospitalism" if they are being separated from their biological parents at a young age, so what one may be able to gain on the side of logical thinking and intelligence is easily lost in terms of emotional behavior. Again, that is one of those experiences that one should not strive for...

[@jimihendrixx11]

Wow such a great teacher - I understood the concept right away. Interacting with the universe ie measuring it - changes the state of the universe. At a quantum level. You cannot use these mechanics to predict as the information at this level no longer exists. Uncertainty theory.

[@schmetterling4477]

In other words... you are parroting, not understanding.

[@jonioden6323]

a great asset to the human mind. what a brilliant man. sad loss. someone mentioned an audience gave Mr. Feynman a hard time. these scientists live for this. they love nothing more than to inform the other how correct proven findings are correct...he even said "from the guy who knows too much"... this was a Nobel prize winner folks. there's a reason he earned that. I love that he's walking around barefoot. he must've felt more comfortable with his lesson that way.

[@Rick-the-Swift]

Nobel Snowbell. God, you and your foolish kind who think the approval of the Swedes is all important will certainly one day realize your own stupidity. They give those prizes to the best actors!

[@jamesdolan4042]

@@Rick-the-Swift WOW, that was a disrespectful statement.

[@Rick-the-Swift]

@@jamesdolan4042 Perhaps it was taken as 'disrespectful' by some who have actually "earned" their Nobel Prize- whatever that is exactly. However, that doesn't take away the truth that many of these so-called 'awards' are only given to individuals who act confident enough to argue merits, some of which simply cannot be proven by humankind. I'll leave it up to you to argue in their defense, but my time is too precious to quibble if that is what you are after.

[@Rick-the-Swift]

@uncletigger No offense meant towards you mate, and glad if you're happy to believe what you are told, regardless of your lack of comprehension. I suppose you can take some solace knowing that magicians have long relied on audiences such as you. Oh, and while on the subject of Noah's Ark, the fact is there is far more hard evidence supporting the great flood which was unanimously written about by past cultures, than there is evidence supporting "Dr." Feynman's supposed theories regarding the so-called quantum field.

[@Rick-the-Swift]

@uncletigger It's quite telling and obvious that you try to act as if you your thought process is scientific, and that your conclusions are based there upon. However, your failings (shortcomings) would not slip the attention or scrutiny of all but the laziest academics. What proof, or even the slightest shred of evidence have you that I am "Religious" or that I've been speaking on behalf of any religion as you have blatantly stated more than once? You can regard that question as rhetorical as I am already aware of your minimal level of ignorance, which is as vast as the visible stars, so no need to waste your time trying to cover up your blunders. Part of how I've made a decent living is to understand where when and why others have failed in their endeavors. I simply understand many of Mr Feynman's own shortcomings, just as I can see your own failings, while you are still not not yet able to. I also already have a good idea of why you would think in the terms you do, yet I can assure you, my scientific opinion has nothing to do with any religious zeal as you've been tricked to believe.

[@GHS948]

He is very thin. I suspect this lecture occurred when he was ill with cancer. He died of cancer, but only after several operations. I have the deepest respect for Feynman.

[@trapped-ion]

He was always thin even in the older videos were he wore suits

[@chem7553]

Yeah, it's very important context for this lecture. He's clearly exhausted

[@fastundercoverkitgoogle7381]

The lecture proper starts at 17:55 . Earlier he was answering some technical questions for the more advanced students while the students with some difficulties in understanding were helped by his assistant. You could skip that part, it's not very interesting

[@why772]

Thank you

[@clownhands]

Should be the top comment

[@puttaadithya8746]

Tq

[@mikezappulla4092]

Watching him try to explain Feynman diagrams is not boring.

[@lifeson90]

beautiful guy, his students goddamn lucky to have had him as a tutor

[@robbyslash9948]

brings fourth a a comforting sense of mental yoga .... also how it manifests, expands, and sparks in other areas

[@tolifeandlearning3919]

Thank you Prof. Feynman for sharing your knowledge

[@MrLundefaret]

This is actually brilliant! The example about the boxes and lights, it took me a little time to understand, but it is a great way to explain the randomness and the importance of it in the difficulty it represents. If I haven't just misunderstood it all :)

[@Mrbfgray]

The most accessible "monster mind" of 20th century physics for certain. (reference to his biography)

[@ansfridaeyowulfsdottir8095]

*_"This is actually brilliant!"_* I think I must have missed Part 1. I should be with the other, non-technical types he put in another room with his post grad! {:o:O:}

[@mobieus7]

Would you agree with the following? The catch to his 3 button example was understanding the result from your previous button push affects the result of your next button push. While the results of that next button push is also entangled with the next button push for the second set of switches. Knowing what change in position is affected (pressing the button) depends on knowing its existing state (results from previous button press). No different than determining the position of a number on a Sudoku board when the given numbers are approximate to measurement you made from any given particle in an atom. Understand that measurement is a still photo of the super position. Physics is attempting to turn that still photo into video. We already know how to "rewind the tape" through manipulation of magnetic fields, we just don't know how the image progresses and on what scale it can be adjusted.

[@lewcrowley3710]

You have to watch this twice, or more, if you really want to get the most out of this. This man is Putting Out. He is stretching, and using self-control, and patience, and teaching. The material is so beyond our day to day, that it takes a human teaching effort, to bring people along. A great capture of what humans can do. We can teach. Animals can copy.

[@lewcrowley3710]

THIS IS EXTREME TEACHING!!!!!

[@IbnFarteen]

you have to watch several times because he introduces an original 3-button device that he understands but appears to be having a very bad time articulating what it means. His audience is freaking out about it and then in the questions he argues and scolds.

[@bfyrth]

There are some things we are not supposed to learn

[@stephenjones796]

Lord I wish I had teachers like Feynman in high school! Ive learned more in the last two years than my 4 years of high school. I know mostly my fault!!

[@Rick-the-Swift]

Stephen Jones, if your lack of education was mostly your fault, then it's doubtful Feynman, Einstein, Newton or the rest of the theoretical bunch could have helped you out much! It's okay to let go of your past frustrations and angers, and not blame your old teachers for your lack of effort. It was mostly your parents' fault anyhow..

[@shiroi_usagi]

@@Rick-the-Swift Stephen can be taught…for you, there is no hope. you can not be taught to be a good, nice person. nor can you learn anything because you already think you know it all. attacking others because you have a bitter life does not help you. but you’re a genius & know that already.

[@Mrbfgray]

He was way to precious for high school, but YEAH. My oldest bro used to see him around CalTech campus but bro had moved from physics to economics by then.

[@Jawnderlust]

64 seconds in and this is already the best science video I’ve ever seen.

[@chrislebon5927]

The clearest explanation of quantum physics I've ever seen.....

[@rayrowley4013]

I have observed brownian motion in the microscope. I did not know what it was and just assumed it was due to small environmental vibrations (people walking, me touching the microscope, air movement in the room...) Very interesting.

[@bryandraughn9830]

Most people can't grasp schlonkis physics. Pure genius!

[@shizzle5150]

Love the way this starts... Richard pretty much said, "If you don't understand yet, let us know and we will continue to work with you in separate." The guy wanted steak and taters questions! At the same time he was very accommodating to the people that didn't understand. Class act!

[@georgesos]

Does anyone know where i can find notes of this talk? I m interested in reading this green red example ,as i kind of lost it at the end with the questions.

[@jasonmitchell5219]

Wow he definitely held his patience beyond what I could've! You might with difficulty change peoples beliefs but not their convictions.

[@richardparkins]

Jason Mitchell I

[@Rick-the-Swift]

Claudius, sorry bub, but Feynman neither mastered "this stuff", nor did he have infinite patience. The fact that you think he did both clearly shows how "special" you are. Just saying..

[@Rick-the-Swift]

Roderick, Feynman himself said anyone who claims to understand qe is a liar or mistaken. He contributed to a theory- that's all. In fact most physicists are quite discomforted by the lack of continuity/reliability in QE, just as they are with relativity. These ideas are fantastic, but there is little doubt in the scientific community that they are both highly flawed. You can't really master a false idea/conclusion, can you?

[@Rick-the-Swift]

Roderick, I don't really have any issues with modern physics, but merely observe and report what I have observed. You are mistaken, just as are many modern physicists, that the speed of light is constant- therefore it isn't a hard fact at all, but a simple suggestion which has been proven to be wrong, when considering the entire scope of experimentation. Also, Young's "double slit experiment" has never been observed- not even once, and certainly not by Young or any other physicists. You obviously are getting your "facts" from clever documentaries and/or thesis papers, but in no way are you deriving your facts from direct observance of the actual experimentation. The fact that you have fallen for such a ludicrous suggestion tells me that you aren't inclined to understand such experiments at any rate, for if you were, you would quickly realize that the "experimenters" are nothing more than sophisticated con artists. Think about it. Is it really possible to say that something only happens if it is observed? Conversely, if an event wasn't observed, then how is it possible to say that something didn't happen? What you have fallen for is Schroeder's imaginary cat, yet ironically there really never was a cat to begin with- just a theory. And finally, history is full of theories that were supported by experiments and predictions, only to be later over-turned by more sophisticated theories, which also eventually turned out to be false. "Spontaneous Generation", for example was a rock solid theory for who knows how long- strongly supported by experimentation and predictions.

[@Rick-the-Swift]

Roderick, to straighten the record, I didn't state that light interference hasn't been observed. What I said is that Young's double slit experiment hasn't been observed, with "experiment' being the key word- not "interference" as you would have me say. You see, it's quite easy for a documentary, or quick video such as this kzbin.info/www/bejne/jp7UkHmAmZaii7M to say or portray something, but it's another thing entirely to correlate these simple ideas into real world situations. Watch the video, and as long as you take for granted that the video producer is the authority on the matter, then undoubtedly you will walk away from it thinking you have learned something, or have been enlightened by such fantastic "science", but what exactly did you really just witness? Go ahead and watch the whole thing, if you haven't seen it before. Even if you haven't, I'm sure you've probably already seen or heard quite similar presentations- just as the bright Dr. Feynman as demonstrated. But the hard fact remains, that the "experiment" has never really played out the way some very clever people would have you believe it has played out. But you must be willing to ask the right questions before you can realize that you have received a false teaching. And to satisfy your curiosity, the answer to your last question is No, I'm not a flat earther. Although just the fact that you would think it an insult to call me one, tells me something about your own level of brainwashing. You see, at least I am able to admit why I'm a globe head like yourself- it's because of the severe amount of brainwashing we have both been given since day one. In fact, even if it were true, you would still have a very hard time convincing me the that the earth is flat, for I can see hills and valleys from my bedroom window ;)

[@GerardVos]

I so love the way he says ‘interesting’

[@alexlohan2988]

Absolutely gobsmacked by the ending after following the entire program. It builds in your mind bit by bit until you realize there is an entire world out there to be seen through a new lens

[@tomangus5319]

Love seeing people debate and moving human understanding further. Great mind. I'm a little late to the show.

[@karlerik7593]

I Loves me some Feynman dialog!!!!! thankYou

[@b.terenceharwick3222]

There is such a thing as a pretentious question. But there are no stupid questions when engaging something new. The challenge for another step is to find a different point of view for looking coherently at an enduring problem. Nice job of seeking to respond to a diverse audience as simply as possible Professor Feynman.

[@CasperLCat]

Perhaps those pretentious questions ARE the only stupid questions, because the questioner is really trying to display his superior intelligence to his teacher, of all people, rather than following Socrates’ dictum that the wise man is the one who knows that he does NOT know, and therefore is eager to be taught.

[@lwskiner]

Always have found it interesting that Feynman hated philosophers yet his answers can from time to time have a philosophical quality to them.

[@nolan412]

They were wrong?

[@abrarfaiyaz6503]

He didn't hate philosophers. He hated ambiguous and imprecise philosophers. He's been pretty clear about this

[@superjeffstanton]

40 years later, youtube decided it was time.

[@raulacevedo-esteves9493]

Thanks! This is great.

[@al2642]

thanks, man, love you

[@jamieostrowski4447]

Many of these students demonstrate what happens when our hubris overtakes our curiosity.

[@mcgil8891]

Exactly what I was thinking

[@madmountain5072]

This video should be titled “A group of people ask Richard Feynman the same question over and over again for two hours”

[@ericmelton4186]

He’s absolutely right. I am very uncertain about predicting reality.

[@naimulhaq9626]

This guy is so far ahead of his time. His QFT and the theory of quantum computers, demonstrate he surpass Einstein and Newton. His quantum field demonstrate how this field have a mind of its own.

[@Mikeontube]

YES!! I finally do not understand quantum physics, but i know how it works! Thank you Richard Feynman! Great lecture!

[@lolafinch]

I understand it.

[@Rick-the-Swift]

Oh great, maybe youns two will be candidates for the next nobel laureate, along with a looooong line of other ass hats that never contributed a thing to the real world.

[@travelrewind422]

Rick the Swift im sorry to hear that you believe that the multitude of nobel laureate discoveries that make your life easier "never contributed a thing to the real world" I would recommend reading up on the past twenty or so nobel laureate discoveries, many of which make modern technology possible.

[@hendrikdebruin4012]

How does it work?

[@nm-de3bw]

@@lolafinch congrats!

[@michaelfranklin1470]

Be aware that there appear to be 5 lectures in this series, but only 4 are on line. After watching those 4 I really wanted to see the last one (because Feynman says he is going to revisit what is covered in this the first lecture), but it's not anywhere to be found.

[@Alchemerrific]

It's no coincidence every question from that student was avoided. Feyman is nothing more than a magician. He pursued a field of science that takes you at your word. There have been many instances over the years where a person of average intelligence (Feyman was 115, average in the US is between 85 to 115) exploits a system based on good faith. An example that happened recently is the Schoen scandal with BELL Labs that resulted in his doctorate revoked. All Schoen did was take articles from the scientific periodical "Nature", copy an article of his choosing, then publish it to the sister company "Science". It went unchecked for close to a year because his work is based on good faith

[@superjeffstanton]

Was it found?

[@williammacdonald9870]

Feynman is the best

[@GUPTAYOGENDRA]

The end of physics can not be reached by logical path but only by intuition based on penetration into the essence of our experiences.

[@Rick-the-Swift]

Yogendra Gupta , umm, sorry bub, but "the end of physics" can't be reached period. That is unless you are God!

[@christopherbayne]

It seems like there's an earlier explanation of the box that's missing from this video. Does anyone know if this is available anywhere?

[@TonecrafteLuthiery]

I think the verbs he uses to describe the motion of atoms is hilarious. He's probably said, "Jiggling" 30 times so far, and I just can't stop laughing long enough to understand him lol. God damn that's funny. Now I'm never going to be able to stop thinking about how every I can see are little lumps of jiggling little balls.

[@Rick-the-Swift]

Happy Thoughts, you may want to lay off the nitrous oxide there bub, just saying :)

[@fennercolson8680]

Feynman draws a comparison to his work and the solution to a Geometric Series at around 12:00, really interesting

[@OpenBridle]

we'll get back to 'them' later.....I love Feynman.

[@hamid1398]

Richard Feynman was a great physicist of twentieth century. Some believe he is number two just to Einstein. However I believe here he hasn't explained the uncertainty rule clearly. That box with 3 buttons and a lamp on it, just added more confusion. You would notice that with the reaction of the audience. And specially he changed the rules of his examples several times . I should say though, I saw some other videos of him in which he explains physics much better.

[@jimihendrixx11]

From what I know he is next after Einstein. He developed quantum technology.

[@foffjerkholes4995]

What he really is trying to get at, is that there is NO CONSENSUS BETWEEN EVERY QUANTUM PHYSICIST that agrees on the foundations of what Quantum Mechanics really means. He is trying to get his students to start trying to look at Quantum Foundations from a different view point, ask new questions and make sense of QM. Physicists working with QM all agree on the predictions and calculations that Quantum Mechanics has given and continues to give, but no one really understands what Quantum Mechanics actually is, so there is no argument between the professionals on the true foundations of the subject. There are over a dozen models of what QM really means, but no one has been able to prove that their idea deals with the actual FOUNDATIONS OF QM. Hopefully, someone reading these comments will be able to answer the subject that is falsifiable and stands the test of time. It's much different than General Relativity because we have so much proof from experiment after experiment that keeps confirming that General Relativity describes gravity, mass, orbits, energy content of mass, the speed of light, gravitational waves and for the lay person, your GPS system in your phone or car. Without General Relativity equations programmed into your GPS systems, it would begin to be off by up to ten miles a day, essentially making GPS useless. We don't have this type of understanding of Quantum Mechanics yet.

[@aqilshamil9633]

@@foffjerkholes4995 stop being dumb man ,paper by the U.S. Naval Observatory tells us that, while incorporating Einstein’s equations into the system may slightly improve accuracy, the system itself doesn’t rely on them at all. To quote the opening line of the paper, “The Operational Control System (OCS) of the Global Positioning System (GPS) does not include the rigorous transformations between coordinate systems that Einstein’s general theory of relativity would seem to require.” At high altitude, where the GPS clocks orbit the Earth, it is known that the clocks run roughly 46,000 nanoseconds (one-billionth of a second) a day faster than at ground level, because the gravitational field is thinner 20,000 kilometers above the Earth. The orbiting clocks also pass through that field at a rate of three kilometers per second - their orbital speed. For that reason, they tick 7,000 nanoseconds a day slower than stationary clocks. To offset these two effects, the GPS engineers reset the clock rates, slowing them down before launch by 39,000 nanoseconds a day. They then proceed to tick in orbit at the same rate as ground clocks, and the system “works.” Ground observers can indeed pin-point their position to a high degree of precision. In (Einstein) theory, however, it was expected that because the orbiting clocks all move rapidly and with varying speeds relative to any ground observer (who may be anywhere on the Earth’s surface), and since in Einstein’s theory the relevant speed is always speed relative to the observer, it was expected that continuously varying relativistic corrections would have to be made to clock rates. This in turn would have introduced an unworkable complexity into the GPS. But these corrections were not made. Yet “the system manages to work, even though they use no relativistic corrections after launch,” Van Flandern said. “They have basically blown off Einstein”.

Paul Dirac is #2

[@dotanoob466]

man, not to be on feynman's dick, but i LOVE this guy. His curiosity alone is the fucking shit

[@powrfulnonsense]

Your comment + your profile pic = Much win

[@stegwise]

nah you're right he's one of the greatest teachers in all of human history

[@Moronvideos1940]

Stop using foul language. Dirty words cause mouth cancer

[@sjkebab]

I miss the days where some fuckwit's opinion is comfortably ignored rather than broadcast at large to the unwashed masses. So do us a favour Hawker75, and fuck right off.

[@mutlugundiler4458]

I understand there was an earlier seminar when he first explained the ideas. Does anybody know anything about that earlier event, a link, a book etc.

[@mutlugundiler4458]

@Андрей Бахарковскй Zoom lecture at Feynman's time? Seriously?

[@millerfour2071]

“A workshop at Esalen Institute with Richard Feynman assisted by Ralph Leighton, Faustin Bray, & Brian Wallace, November 1983, Big Sur, CA."

[@charleschidsey2831]

Thank you! I was almost certain with the informal setting (bare feet, track suit, frequent interaction with audience, etc.) that this was a seminar at Esalen Institute. Also, the apparent composition of the audience being non-physicists was another clue. Wish I could have been there. Feynman was a great and patient teacher with a formidable wit.

[@jannisalexakis6436]

The first description of the Brownian motion is described, as Aristotle said, by Democritus. Contrary to the wrong assumption of Brown, that the pollen corns were moving because they were alive, Democritus came to the correct conclusion that the movement of the dust particles he observed in a dark room enlighted by a light ray, was caused by atoms hitting the dust particles from all directions. You can read about that in the poem of Lucretius De Rerum Natura, book II, 112-124 and Aristotle Περί Ψυχής and Μεταφυσικά.

[@Parkerman3000]

I could listen to this man explain the phone book...and kids in this day in age need him too...

[@Parkerman3000]

"Einsteins favorite joke...""I've thought about gravity so much I've became stationary""

[@ricardoabh3242]

Honest class.

[@dylanmenzies3973]

Its like hes still alive, how many lectures will give that impression in the future?

[@Telonious_Terp]

51:35 "a statement[which implies] that by measuring something you have to disturb the predicted expectation of something else." First: His delivery is emotive and deft. Second: Is he essentially describing how every action has the consequence of erasing the once existing probability of any other action? Because if I simply walk 5 fett across the room, that is itself in effect a measurement, and the act of measuring. In that, I *could have*(aka probability?) only walked(or measured) 3 feet, but instead walked(and measured) 5- virtually disturbing any infinite amount of probable outcomes outside of the one measured outcome of walking 5 feet... yes, no?

[@firstal3799]

So much to learn thanks.

[@modolief]

Please put date and location of the original recording in the video description.

[@Rick-the-Swift]

modolief, oh hell if that's what you want, then you best stick to the local PBS channel and watch real close for the credits. This is youtube son- the land of free vids, and false teachings. take your silly demands and write them to your state representative.

[@JamesHill-vs4kn]

Thank you!

[@louisdebmusic]

22:45 Is that a property of the conjunction? If you pressed button 1 OR button 2, there wouldn’t be the change? (Or would there)

[@niranjansaikia9379]

great to see him,❤❤❤❤🎉

[@mickybadia]

The guy is fun and brilliant, and I love to hear him giving those lectures with passion. But in this instance I could not help thinking that the box analogy was tedious and unhelpful. After two hours of repetition and confusion I feel he would have done a better job just explaining the facts in half the time, instead of insisting on landing a comparison to something nobody relates to in the first place. I personally know most of the basics he tried to get across, and I think the only stuff I understood here is a vague connection to what I already knew. The interaction with the audience makes me think I am not alone.

[@lilydog1000]

For the time spent talking, the amount of stuff covered on the blackboard is very very small.

[@daviddlamini4290]

"Little boxes on the hillside Little boxes made of ticky-tacky Little boxes on the hillside Little boxes all the same There's a green one ..."

[@chicanohek]

Well done

[@fawzibriedj4441]

Imagine you're sitting there and asking Richard Feynman a question about smth you didn't understand on Feynman's Diagrams... How lucky!

[@hugoramirez212]

Hello all, Could anyone tell me what exactly is being said between 1:54:26 and 1:54:38 of this video? In short, someone made an statement about our reality/universe and Feynman agreed completely !!. The whole video is about understanding the implications of quantum mechanics trying to explain reality and he (Feynman) believed to be “fundamentally correct”. Cheers, HR.

[@not_x]

I am trying to understand it as well, I think this is the first half of what he said: "I mean there could very well be that there is a complex world we are entering ..." ..and of course I do not understand the last and most important part.

[@Turgor]

I couldn't understand it but I doubt one comment from the audience on one lecture by Feynman is hiding some informaion that you can't get anywhere else, so don't sweat it.

[@MrSenseofReason]

"I mean there could very well be that there is a complex world we are entering ... and the common ways just don't work anymore" That is what he said!

[@MrSenseofReason]

"I mean there could very well be that there is a complex world we are entering ... and the common ways just don't work anymore" :)

[@MikeGlanfield]

I don’t think he’s wearing any shoes, and I also think it’s him playing the bongos in the introduction music. That’s about all I can understand about him except that he seems a very interesting character.

[@0x90meansnop8]

Oh I love the way he handles his colleagues :D

[@aaronrobertcattell8859]

the more you do it a press whats the rate if I push at a rate?

[@aarencochran4505]

When he started to talk about the instantaneous reaction linking the two boxes together wherever they are started to get me thinking on the lines of entanglement.

[@thevegg3275]

Regarding right around 40 minutes into the video they’re talking about three boxes attached to a lamp. No one ever seems to question what the circuitry is that makes this function. Are variations in the circuitry at all related to the outcomes re quantum uncertainty? So it seems you need two different colored lights in box 1. If box one were hardwired red only, there would certainly be no green ever in box number one. It seems you need a minimum of two options for quantum uncertainty to show itself. And another point when it comes to a software algorithm, if this system were modeled in an algorithm, would you also see the same uncertainty? I think that would be impossible, because then that would require a change in the software algorithm. I’m wondering if anyone has any thoughts on these points. Thanks

[@JacobRise]

A great human being. I never thought I would find someone like that in my life. Since i see so much bullshit people in my life. thanks freyman for the inspiration

[@stargazer7644]

He died 35 years ago.

[@stella_7mccarty649]

So much joy 🤩 even just hear his jiggles of his laugh

[@vvanderer]

I don't know what forum he was addressing, but he did so barefoot & in a tracksuit!!

[@s_patzz8212]

Ummm... anyone got a video of Ralph's lecture???

[@savageberny]

A Genius

[@jeffbingaman2754]

So from now on when I go to the grocery store I can say that anything on the other side of the decimal point fluctuates and decide how much on that side to pay. Because the price on the left side remains constant. Thus when a sale price is advertised. I can go back after the sale and argue that the sale price is still in affect because of where it sits according to the decimal point.

[@giacomobonfanti9573]

Does anyone know where I can find the written lecture???? I would likw to work on the math

[@FlockOfHawks]

📚 The Feynman Lectures on Physics

[@WiiSpords]

That Quantum tracksuit is fashion

[@aaronrobertcattell8859]

what happens if i push 2 button at same time? or 3 to n

[@anonymoushuman8344]

I wish I could have a conversation with Feynman about the double slit experiment and ask him to explain why he can't accept the Pilot Wave interpretation of de Broglie and Bohm (or something like it) as an explanation for what happens. It seems so much like the obvious way to go: Waveguide always goes through both slits, particle-like aspect goes through one slit or the other whether measured or not, and the presence of a detector inside to pick up the particle aspect disrupts the waveguide causing loss of the interference pattern. Done. Why not?! What's wrong with this picture? Similarly, why regard EPR as a paradox? Why not regard it as it was intended, as a sound argument for measurement-independent position and momentum and thus for the incompleteness of quantum mechanics as a description of quantum reality? I wish I could ask Feynman to show me how the famous no-go theorems (and the experiments they spawned), which concern spin, defeat the intent of EPR. Do they? I don't think Feynman would ask me to just take his word for it or accept that the answer is over my head. Maybe he'd suggest an analogy, or some reading, or a course of study.

[@Eric06410]

The track suit 😊

[@AlinNemet]

such great and funny teacher

[@Rick-the-Swift]

Alin Nemet, retarded people loves it!

[@MarcusT89x]

The people in the audience are uncertain whether they understand or not the uncertainty principle :D

[@Rick-the-Swift]

True, but I think it's safe to say that at least some of them were certain that Feynman was a lying a-hole! :D

[@xOxAdnanxOx]

Rick the Swift lying a-hole? 🤔

[@john5554]

Or are they?

[@Rick-the-Swift]

@@xOxAdnanxOx Hi and yes, Feynman was at times a liar, and a deceiver.

[@PJFunnyBunny-yl7co]

Oh wow. . . the jiggling and the tracksuit 😂

[@afarro]

What year is this?

[@andrewbellinger6120]

If I had a nickle for every time Mr Feynman said jiggling...

[@stephendicke6495]

What 1/4 slash 3/4 come from? He excused those who did not know out of the room. I am trying to understand the details that those who left got to learn.

[@TronSAHeroXYZ]

Thanks.

[@ryandiamond01]

can anyone explain to me further the discrepancy that he finds between the 1/3 probability, and 1/4 probability? I understand the 1/3 part, but not the one forth.

[@ericmeacham9532]

Ryan Diamond, it's not a one third probability, that's what makes qm (quantum mechanics) difficult to comprehend. If you pressed the middle (central) light 4 times, 3 of them would be the same = 3/4 probability. 1/4 of the time is uncertain, which is the uncertainty principle, thus known as the EPR paradox (Einstein, Podolsky, & Rosen). This all leads towards quantum entanglement, a most interesting phenomenon...

[@ryandiamond01]

He mentions that common sense would dictate the results to be a certain percentage, and that with qm the percentage is actually not common sense. I seem to have trouble understanding how he got the common sense percentage that doesnt seem to happen at a quantum level.

[@ericmeacham9532]

That's the thing of it all, he didn't. If you have trouble understanding qm, trust me, you're not alone,very few people understand it yet know that it does work. I may have addressed your question incorrectly, what Feynman does say is this : " the system can remember two steps back, but not three." ultimately, with the two boxes whenever you push the left button on one box, the other box automatically (seemingly instantly) seems to know what color it is going to be, for example, red or green. That's quantum entanglement, and I think that's the entire point of all of this. It's a pretty old video, Feynman is still a fascinating character to listen to though in my opinion. Particularly his diagrams, well known as,"Feynman Diagrams. " He put physics in simple picture form, which is pretty amazing.

[@ericmeacham9532]

This will help explain if you follow the things you're interested in, en.m.wikipedia.org The old adage, a Feynman Diagram is worth a 1000 words ~

[@Rick-the-Swift]

Eric Meacham , the main point is many people will believe anything that others say. "The system can remember two steps back, but not three". Okay that's great that someone said it, but where exactly is the proof of such a statement? Certainly gullible people didn't need proof back then, as they still don't today.

[@doodelay]

who is this audience who do not know that formula can be expressed in a multitude of ways?

[@ARBB1]

The precise problem is because they do _know_ , they do not _understand_

[@v3le]

genius and the leader

[@Rick-the-Swift]

You are talking about the person who is calling this fraud out at 38:15, no?

[@Killer_Kovacs]

Is it possible that particles are being spaghettified?

[@DannyBoy443]

Is he, is he wearing a navy track suit? lmao. I love this man.