Lecture by Douglas Hofstadter: Albert Einstein on Light; Light on Albert Einstein

Lecture by Douglas Hofstadter, Indiana University, given on 18 December 2017 in Siegbahnsalen at Uppsala University’s Ångström Laboratory.
“Where does deep insight in physics come from? For those who view physics as a highly rational science grounded in strict mathematics, it is tempting to think that it comes from the purest and most precise of reasoning, following ironclad laws of thought that compel the clear mind completely rigidly. And yet the truth is quite otherwise.
One finds, when one looks closely at any major discovery in physics, that the greatest of physicists are the most daring and are constantly being guided by blurry, instinctive, nearly irrational mental forces. Albert Einstein ideally exemplifies this thesis.
In this talk, I will discuss the eternal mystery of light, which, over the course of millennia, was puzzled over, pondered on, and slowly worked out by a series of great minds, and finally, in the nineteenth century, was definitively settled with clarity and rock-solid certainty. And yet one day in the early spring of 1905, quite out of the blue, came an absurd-seeming new suggestion from an unknown Swiss patent clerk, third class, clashing violently with that rock-solid piece of collective wisdom. How did the brazen patent clerk come up with this crazy idea? How it was received by the physics world? What was its eventual fate? And what can we learn about the workings of the human mind from this twisty story filled to the brim with ironies?”

[@brettmangel36]

1:55 to skip the intro

[@francescgarcia7340]

This is a true gem. Thank you so so much for sharing!

[@Silvertestrun]

Thank you!

[@bonob0123]

Hofstadter's Brilliance : Insufferability ratio = 1.0001

[@rajchowdhury3006]

Cleared many popular nisconceptions,ossum lecture

[@John-lf3xf]

the spelling in this comment is astounding

[@soumitralahiri9393]

Awful spelling, but awesome lecture indeed!

[@Chris.4345]

ossum possum

[@rgaleny]

IF RESONANCE MATTERS, WHY ISN'T IT USED IN FUSION REACTORS?

[@voidshell6273]

His German is flawless!

[@anywallsocket]

ironically modern QFT doesn't have any rigorous definition of a localized 'particle', as an excitation of the associated field.

[@schmetterling4477]

It's not the first time that otherwise smart people fell for the corpuscular\stoff hypothesis. It happened before to Newton and during the days of the phlogiston.

[@anywallsocket]

@@schmetterling4477 "particles" are clearly digestible thoughts, whereas "waves" clearly aren't. more precisely, particles are aspects of humanly digestible "positions", and perhaps vectorless masses. whereas waves are humanly digestible "momenta", and perhaps vectorless energies. so i agree it's not surprising.

[@Achrononmaster]

While we sipped on our cups of tea/ Doug showed us analogy/ Each surrounded by a cloud/ of meanings that ring true and loud.

[@Eldooodarino]

Ideal gas particles don't bash into each other. They're point particles. They bash into the walls.

[@cizbarca]

Am I the only one missing sound?

[@HeadphoneTaco]

My audio is working fine, now. Is yours?

[@alimurreza]

Amazing talk!

[@barissannan2731]

simply wonderful!!!

[@GodEmperorSuperStar]

Unpopular truth beats popular untruth.

[@orsoncart802]

Gott im Himmel! 😁 Seriously though - *excellent*! Thank you. 👍👍👍

[@schmetterling4477]

Unfortunately for all of us, Einstein was absolutely wrong about the particle nature of light. I wonder if he may have come close to admitting his mistake in the end, at least to himself. The answer what quanta are is, of course, trivial. Quanta are (irreversible) exchanges of energy between one part of a physical system and another. What "one part" and "the other part" are, is an arbitrary choice made by the physicist analyzing the situation. Is it therefor surprising that nature won't give us a unique answer? We are not even asking a unique question!

[@LoganMarcosSchmidt]

Lol trivial ok edge lord

[@schmetterling4477]

@@LoganMarcosSchmidt Ah, and there is the random internet person who didn't pay attention in science class.

[@ericsu4667]

The actual gravitational deflection of light predicted by Schwarzschild metric is about 2.1 arc seconds from a star to the earth. It is not 1.74 as claimed by Albert Einstein. Click on "70. Gravitational Deflection from Schwarzschild's Metric" on this website. sites.google.com/view/physics-news/gravitation

[@davidwilkie9551]

Amateur observations on quality professional expertise commentary are unnecessary and not justifiable. (Personal rule not to make personal comments about personality)