TRUTH

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.

@@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 😉

@@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.

@@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 !

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!

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

Me too. Almost forty years later.

@@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 👍

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.

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!

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

I know the feels bro

Lol I also watch these videos to fall asleep

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

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

6:25am...

Brilliant way of explaining his point

1:31:02

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

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.

Thank you

Should be the top comment

Tq

Watching him try to explain Feynman diagrams is not boring.

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 :-)

More like a dope-head

@@Franklin-pc3xd wat

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

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

Thanks!

Thenks man

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

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

@@schmetterling4477 oh, that logic is stellar 👍

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

@@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.

@@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...

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

*_"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:}

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.

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..

@@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.

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.

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!

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

@@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.

@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.

@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.

Jason Mitchell I

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..

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?

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.

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 kzfaq.info/get/bejne/jtOhkql7yZfThYU.html 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 ;)

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.

THIS IS EXTREME TEACHING!!!!!

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.

There are some things we are not supposed to learn

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

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

They were wrong?

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

Exactly what I was thinking

Your comment + your profile pic = Much win

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

Stop using foul language. Dirty words cause mouth cancer

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.

I understand it.

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.

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.

How does it work?

@@lolafinch congrats!

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.

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

Was it found?

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

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

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.

@@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

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

Alin Nemet, retarded people loves it!

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

He died 35 years ago.

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.

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.

"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!

"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" :)

Ha! I was thinking that too.

Good eye.

Hahahaha that’s hilarious

Such a good call.

I was thinking David Lee Roth.

Well done

Good work.

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.

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

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

📚 The Feynman Lectures on Physics

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

Rick the Swift lying a-hole? 🤔

Or are they?

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

VeryStableGenius, why did he infuriate you?

Scientific progress thrives on the continuous challenge and scrutiny of ideas between scientists. Without this essential process of questioning and critiquing one another's views, the remarkable advancements and discoveries we witness today in science would not have been possible.