Back in the days, I took advanced physics at University but if the lectures would have been like this. I probably would have been a researcher!
I have been somewhat hooked to the lectures of Richard Feynman for the past 2 weeks. The whole binge on lectures started when a friend had many theories and he saw a 2-slit experiment and started to explain many things based on what he understood, backing nothing with scientific publication and I had to point out even that one of his source was actually a creationist. Long story, short, I end up watching more than I need, reading through papers and finding my university books under a pile of dust (10 years). Don't get me wrong, I have no intention (yet) to really study this and no claim that I really will understand but somewhat I started to see a lot of real life parallels.
I found it fascinating that based on this lecture back in time when no-one had heard about a laser disc, I could not only understand the reflection mechanics on the disc, the angles but also understand how the reflection will look on the DVD-disc. I didn't even noticed before that difference.
One nice parallel to real life and quantum mechanics I though about was the lottery. Everyone has a ticket, each ticket is a probability to win. You would be now thinking about the money as a wave. Yet, the second the numbers are drawn and you check, the money can be though as particles. As long as you haven't checked, you can't throw out the ticket, even though the numbers are their and the ticket has now a clear value.
There is more, if you start looking at the different way an electron may reach it's destination, everything is so cool and I'm not . Enjoy the show, share references to me, I'll be grateful!
Reviewing quantum mechanics for MCATs right now, absolutely hate it; as cool of a guy Richard Feynman is; no matter who teaches quantum mechanics, I despise the topic.
Quantum mechanics is part of the physics I don't despise too much because with what was asked of me, being good at linear algebra meant one of the easiest A of my life :D
Did you read the recent article about the speed of quantum? They said 10,000 x faster than light. That's astonishingly fast, but if this is true, its no longer classified as instant. Kind of disappointing in a way..
On March 31 2013 03:57 NerdUpgrades wrote: Did you read the recent article about the speed of quantum? They said 10,000 x faster than light. That's astonishingly fast, but if this is true, its no longer classified as instant. Kind of disappointing in a way..
In lieu of the article could you at least explain what you mean by this?
I am really mixed about the whole "explain theoretical physics with no math for the masses" movement. On one hand its sort of interesting and makes some people enthusiastic about the actual science. But on the other its honestly a completely load of bullshit analogies masquerading as understanding, with actually no real basis in the science, which is PURE FUCKING MATH.
Especially in quantum, the whole thing is that while the insanely complicated math works out, it doesn't actually make any logical sense to us, because its operating at a level where anything past out most basic logic systems were not designed for and do not work. If it made sense to you then you wouldn't be able to function in real life. If you THINK you understand it, you don't.
Its just math, and no matter how many bouncing balls and rubber sheets and cars and stop watches and shit they analogize, you can't even begin to really learn it without being a mathematician.
On March 31 2013 04:02 sob3k wrote: I am really mixed about the whole "explain theoretical physics with no math for the masses" movement. On one hand its sort of interesting and makes some people enthusiastic about the actual science. But on the other its honestly a completely load of bullshit analogies masquerading as understanding, with actually no real basis in the science, which is PURE FUCKING MATH.
Especially in quantum, the whole thing is that while the insanely complicated math works out, it doesn't actually make any logical sense to us, because its operating at a level where anything past out most basic logic systems were not designed for and do not work. If it made sense to you then you wouldn't be able to function in real life. If you THINK you understand it, you don't.
Its just math, and no matter how many bouncing balls and rubber sheets and cars and stop watches and shit they analogize, you can't even begin to really learn it without being a mathematician.
On March 31 2013 04:02 sob3k wrote: I am really mixed about the whole "explain theoretical physics with no math for the masses" movement. On one hand its sort of interesting and makes some people enthusiastic about the actual science. But on the other its honestly a completely load of bullshit analogies masquerading as understanding, with actually no real basis in the science, which is PURE FUCKING MATH.
Especially in quantum, the whole thing is that while the insanely complicated math works out, it doesn't actually make any logical sense to us, because its operating at a level where anything past out most basic logic systems were not designed for and do not work. If it made sense to you then you wouldn't be able to function in real life. If you THINK you understand it, you don't.
Its just math, and no matter how many bouncing balls and rubber sheets and cars and stop watches and shit they analogize, you can't even begin to really learn it without being a mathematician.
Because Biology majors like me need to understand Quantum Mechanics to a certain extent for General Chem, and Organic Chem, but don't have the time to take upperdivision math, cuz course load.
On March 31 2013 04:02 sob3k wrote: I am really mixed about the whole "explain theoretical physics with no math for the masses" movement. On one hand its sort of interesting and makes some people enthusiastic about the actual science. But on the other its honestly a completely load of bullshit analogies masquerading as understanding, with actually no real basis in the science, which is PURE FUCKING MATH.
Especially in quantum, the whole thing is that while the insanely complicated math works out, it doesn't actually make any logical sense to us, because its operating at a level where anything past out most basic logic systems were not designed for and do not work. If it made sense to you then you wouldn't be able to function in real life. If you THINK you understand it, you don't.
Its just math, and no matter how many bouncing balls and rubber sheets and cars and stop watches and shit they analogize, you can't even begin to really learn it without being a mathematician.
Because Biology majors like me need to understand Quantum Mechanics to a certain extent for General Chem, and Organic Chem, but don't have the time to take upperdivision math, cuz course load.
This also holds true for people like me who, though they can take and succeed at physics to a certain point, need those analogies to attempt to grasp the material. Though I'm going to be a college freshman, when my teachers began explaining rudimentary quantum to me in math terms I was like... dafuq.
On March 31 2013 04:02 sob3k wrote: I am really mixed about the whole "explain theoretical physics with no math for the masses" movement. On one hand its sort of interesting and makes some people enthusiastic about the actual science. But on the other its honestly a completely load of bullshit analogies masquerading as understanding, with actually no real basis in the science, which is PURE FUCKING MATH.
Especially in quantum, the whole thing is that while the insanely complicated math works out, it doesn't actually make any logical sense to us, because its operating at a level where anything past out most basic logic systems were not designed for and do not work. If it made sense to you then you wouldn't be able to function in real life. If you THINK you understand it, you don't.
Its just math, and no matter how many bouncing balls and rubber sheets and cars and stop watches and shit they analogize, you can't even begin to really learn it without being a mathematician.
Because Biology majors like me need to understand Quantum Mechanics to a certain extent for General Chem, and Organic Chem, but don't have the time to take upperdivision math, cuz course load.
The mathematics involved in quantum mechanics, at least at introductory and undergraduate level, is not in the realm of "upper division" mathematics, but something you'd learn in your first or second year, primarily calculus, linear algebra, and partial differential equations. "cuz course load" of a biology major is hardly a convincing argument either, especially if you say that to physics/mathematics professors.
Real life examples and analogies are fine and extremely helpful to gain a foothold of a concept, but it can never substitute having to go through the frustrations of understanding the mathematics behind it.
On March 31 2013 04:02 sob3k wrote: I am really mixed about the whole "explain theoretical physics with no math for the masses" movement. On one hand its sort of interesting and makes some people enthusiastic about the actual science. But on the other its honestly a completely load of bullshit analogies masquerading as understanding, with actually no real basis in the science, which is PURE FUCKING MATH.
Especially in quantum, the whole thing is that while the insanely complicated math works out, it doesn't actually make any logical sense to us, because its operating at a level where anything past out most basic logic systems were not designed for and do not work. If it made sense to you then you wouldn't be able to function in real life. If you THINK you understand it, you don't.
Its just math, and no matter how many bouncing balls and rubber sheets and cars and stop watches and shit they analogize, you can't even begin to really learn it without being a mathematician.
Because Biology majors like me need to understand Quantum Mechanics to a certain extent for General Chem, and Organic Chem, but don't have the time to take upperdivision math, cuz course load.
The mathematics involved in quantum mechanics is not what in the realm of "upper division" mathematics, but something you'd learn in your first or second year, primarily calculus, linear algebra, and partial differential equations. "cuz course load" of a biology major is hardly a convincing argument either, especially if you say that to physics/mathematics professors.
Real life examples and analogies are fine and extremely helpful to gain a foothold of a concept, but it can never substitute having to go through the frustrations of understanding the mathematics behind it.
But the difference is Organic Chemistry only needs the basic understanding of quantum mechanics, so far as it relates to orbitals, and energy states of electrons. The math part never really a necessity. Also, 2nd year is already the year for Organic Chem encounter, so if 2nd year math is required as a pre-req of understanding quantum mechanics, Ochem would get shoved back to 3rd year of college, and no Bio major would be able to graduate in 4 years; since Ochem is a pre-req for upperdiv biology.
On March 31 2013 03:57 NerdUpgrades wrote: Did you read the recent article about the speed of quantum? They said 10,000 x faster than light. That's astonishingly fast, but if this is true, its no longer classified as instant. Kind of disappointing in a way..
You're slightly misinterpreting this experiment. Theoretically, this process should occur instantaneously. The experiment is putting a *lower* bound on the "speed" of this "interaction." (It's not really an interaction, but that's not important). The main thing to take away from it is that entanglement is a non-local phenomena: there isn't a signal being sent between the two particles.
It's a little subtle, but entanglement can't be used to communicate faster than light. That means that there is no violation of relativity here. This experimental result is pretty impressive technically, but doesn't really give evidence of anything new.
Yeah, I know the feeling, things are much less fun and interesting when you have to work to really understand them. I wanted to point out that even in those situation, having a great teacher can make the whole difference. I passed the first course of physics, then the teacher changed, I struggled to stay interested.
Anyway, I don't find the discussion around mathematics interesting. Sure, Feynman is leaving out all the math, but he does a damn good job at explaining in a way that if you could handle the math, you recognize the tools he would be using. It is not important if the only goal is to be amazed by that stuff. Sure, it's unfair to get all the candy and not having to pay for it, but if you tell me I can't truly enjoy the candy without knowing how it was made, then gtfo
On March 31 2013 04:42 0x64 wrote: Yeah, I know the feeling, things are much less fun and interesting when you have to work to really understand them. I wanted to point out that even in those situation, having a great teacher can make the whole difference. I passed the first course of physics, then the teacher changed, I struggled to stay interested.
Anyway, I don't find the discussion around mathematics interesting. Sure, Feynman is leaving out all the math, but he does a damn good job at explaining in a way that if you could handle the math, you recognize the tools he would be using. It is not important if the only goal is to be amazed by that stuff. Sure, it's unfair to get all the candy and not having to pay for it, but if you tell me I can't truly enjoy the candy without knowing how it was made, then gtfo
As a maths major, the maths inside are the candy, and the physics is the hocus pocus to put me to sleep... :p
Personally I dont prefer the the written version of Feynman's lectures over, say, Landua's series on Theor. Phys. or Messiah's. However, in audio/video format they are some of the best lectures you will ever have, although mathwise they are very "hand wavy", Landua and Messiah have far more rigorous coverage. For math majors I would recommend books like Linear Algebra in QM, The theory of groups and QM, etc
I love Feynman. I honestly don't think it matters what he's explaining, he'd have me enthralled. If it weren't for:
I wouldn't have returned to education to study physics and even gained an appreciation of math too. I found within the two a motivation which I really hadn't known prior to thinking about that video.
On March 31 2013 03:48 micronesia wrote: Math aside, quantum mechanics is absolutely fascinating.
Math not aside, make sure you are good at eigenvectors, second order differential equations, and complex numbers.
Math aside, there is no quantum mechanics. Anything you can express purely using a language like English with regards to Quantum Mechanics is likely to be erroneous or incomplete. Technically, I guess that's true of any hard physical science - but then with Quantum Mechanics it takes it to whole 'nother level.
I think the best sentiment about quantum mechanics you can put into English is "MAGIC!!" (Close enough for the vast majority of people, and there are still some things that might as well be to researchers. But they're working on it.)
That said, yes, it's absolutely fascinating and I have no where near the kind of math skills to begin to appreciate how really freaking weird and wonderful QM is as a field.
On March 31 2013 03:48 micronesia wrote: Math aside, quantum mechanics is absolutely fascinating.
Math not aside, make sure you are good at eigenvectors, second order differential equations, and complex numbers.
Math aside, there is no quantum mechanics. Anything you can express purely using a language like English with regards to Quantum Mechanics is likely to be erroneous or incomplete. Technically, I guess that's true of any hard physical science - but then with Quantum Mechanics it takes it to whole 'nother level.
I think the best sentiment about quantum mechanics you can put into English is "MAGIC!!" (Close enough for the vast majority of people, and there are still some things that might as well be to researchers. But they're working on it.)
That said, yes, it's absolutely fascinating and I have no where near the kind of math skills to begin to appreciate how really freaking weird and wonderful QM is as a field.
You can definitely discuss the basic ideas of quantum mechanics without advanced mathematics (advanced meaning above what you learn in high school). What happens when you shoot a beam of electrons through a double-slit and observe the pattern on a screen? You don't need mathematics to discuss this type of quantum nature.
What happens when a particle is trapped in a square well? You don't need mathematics to discuss how the energy levels are quantized up until the energy exceeds the top of the well.
That's not to say a non-mathematical discussion is sufficient to truly appreciate it, though.
On March 31 2013 04:02 sob3k wrote: I am really mixed about the whole "explain theoretical physics with no math for the masses" movement. On one hand its sort of interesting and makes some people enthusiastic about the actual science. But on the other its honestly a completely load of bullshit analogies masquerading as understanding, with actually no real basis in the science, which is PURE FUCKING MATH.
Especially in quantum, the whole thing is that while the insanely complicated math works out, it doesn't actually make any logical sense to us, because its operating at a level where anything past out most basic logic systems were not designed for and do not work. If it made sense to you then you wouldn't be able to function in real life. If you THINK you understand it, you don't.
Its just math, and no matter how many bouncing balls and rubber sheets and cars and stop watches and shit they analogize, you can't even begin to really learn it without being a mathematician.
A criticism I'd have here is that, just because we can describe something mathematically, doesn't necessarily mean we understand it either. That's ok, we can still get the right answer and use it to build technology, but I think when we falsely believe we understand something that we don't, that's a bad thing. (known as reification)
The nice thing about these analogies is that our own ignorance is obvious to us, so it keeps us honest about what we really understand and what we don't. Because once we think we understand something, we stop asking questions and stop learning.
EPT
. Enjoy the show, share references to me, I'll be grateful!
