Yep, another truly fascinating video. Just what we've come to expect, no pressure lads! 😂

Tony’s positive energy is infectious. Love that guy

He loves his job

Legacy papers tend to get superseded in citations by more recent developments, for better or worse. Imagine if every single physics paper had to cite Newton, for example.

​@@frankjohnson123that would be amazing. You would have to like cite Euclids elements when you work with the euclidean geometry and the guy whose name was used to name algebra when you solve even trivial equations.

Density Functional Theory introductions always starts with the Born-Oppenheimer Approximation.

⁠​⁠@@user-nm5ge9ht3cthat’s called bureaucracy. It’s not amazing. It’s boring. Just like every audio book, spoken and interpreted by sheep.

After all we like to game the citation numbers for the current scientists. I remember I wanted to cite some of the foundational stuff in my work, my advisor said that it was absurd. I disagree, still. We could come up with an abbreviated way of doing that, but still doing that.

Technically, always true.

I hope so. Otherwise, he'd fall straight through.

Radioactivity was discovered in 1896, quantum mechanics in 1900, and relativity in 1905. These discoveries opened up huge new fields of physics that nobody had been looking into before. Europe and North America had the institutional infrastructure and the funding to unleash an army of very well educated physicists to look into these new fields. I think the ones who became famous because their names got attached to the phenomenons they described were mostly just lucky to be first with their breakthroughs. Even if none of them had gone into physics research, there would have been still enough just as capable people to make all those discoveries maybe just weeks or months later, and they would have gotten just as famous today. And yeah, when a completely new field opens up to research, the "easier" problems will all get solved pretty quickly first, which is why you have this initial burst of amazing discoveries. And 30-40 years later, it's only the much harder ones that are still left, so the pace of discovery becomes much slower.

Dirac is underrated among the public. Many have heard of Heisenberg and Schrödinger but should have heard of Dirac too. He might be comparable to Einstein. Also, he was Feynman’s hero, when Feynman was a young physicist. I think Feynman might have even learned quantum mechanics from Dirac’s book.

​@@Yora21I was thinking about that for a while now and I always wondered why there was such a phenomenon of the creation of geniuses in the early 20th century? There must have been a different educational system back then.

Thanks. Paul Dirac's work was very important, and it still has important ramifications. It's odd that he is glossed over so nonchalantly by 'popular science'.@@topdog5252

@@mendax7125 New fields are, broadly, easier to make discoveries in. Because they're new, you know. Also having the luxury to sit around and just _do_ Physics. We don't have a lot of time these days to just sit around having a think about things on account of so many folks working 2+ jobs trying to just stay alive. Also higher education wasn't life-breakingly expensive.

Not sure what Tony will think of that! :)

I haven’t got a Manchester accent!!!!

@@apadila1975 The final paper also links to Nolan's previous film with his collaboration with Kip Thorne. Oppenheimer sowing the seeds of the (continued) career of the movie maker who would end up doing his Biopic.

hopefully, most folks on social media will still continue to "make their own research" and come up with every sort of nonsense 😂

​@@_ilsegugio_ "do your own research" is exactly what these 20s century physicists did. They were even bitching each other like on social media today. There are lots of funny letters in the archives. Difference is they got proper science education and knew how to be critical and evaluate info. What I am trying to say: Not bashing "do your own research" but teaching scientific methodology is the way.

​@@bluesmanshoesI kinda doubt they did the sort of "do your own research" that modern people are saying. Modern people just look up the first thing that pops up on google that aligns with their pre-existing belief. If a person has enough overconfidence in themselves and if they didnt find what aligned with their view, then they will scavenge the internet for quite literally anything that aligns with their view to satisfy their ego. I had a previous coworker tell me that he "did his own research" to say that smoking pot doesn't affect your lungs when 1. logically that is nonsense and 2. this is proven untrue. I was flabbergasted then, but it fits the bill for that man's sad life. In stark contrast, i believe people like Oppenheimer probably stuck to trusting academic circles and what was popularly accepted as breakthrough info at the time. You see this in the movie with how he goes to parties full of experts and so fourth while talking about the newest and/or popularly accepted theories. I mean, the idea of "following the experts" goes back to Plato. Einstein was a patent clerk or whatever it is called, he was quite literally working with the freshest new ideas in physics constantly. If you have the courage to take in new information/beliefs that goes against "common sense" (which is usually nonsense), the wisdom to gain this info from the correct sources, and the creativity to take 2+ bits of information to make a whole new logically great conclusion... well you get Oppenheimer. At least that is how I see it, but I'm a simple fool so I am likely wrong

Thanks - glad you liked it!

the incineration of so many civilians is actually minimized in the film, but yeah, no point in talking about that now, is there... @@sixtysymbols

@@BobBob-nr1zt weak troll

you're a bit weak yourself there@@frankjohnson123

They're still learning jack shit about chemistry and physics. It's typical, cheap Hollywood entertainment with no real educational value

Ikr

from what I've heard, observers will see the objects stuck on the event horizon slowly fade until they disappear

According to our reference frame objects never finish falling in. However we will eventually stop seeing them because the light they emit redshifts to infinity.

@seekr99 @KurtBlanken oh that makes sense! but still, I think this effect would result in a form of "accumulation of images" on the surface of the black hole (because yes the images of matter are redshifted until its gone, but matter keeps falling in while that happens... I don't really know the rate of redshift vs the rate of accretion) making it brighter than if matter appeared to just pass straight through

Like, did he have a car?

This was the biggest let down of the whole film.

They have a few beers, and complain ENDLESSLY about the university administration and a lot of trivia about work. And every week it's the same discussion. ;-)

An architect, an astronomer, and a physicist (natural philosopher in those days) did walk into a pub. Imbibed a few ales, wondered about how Kepler's law worked and made a bet. Whoever could figure out how Kepler's laws worked would get a few pounds. Christopher Wren did not bother, Robert Hooke pretended to have found out but wouldn't tell the others so that they could figure it out for themselves. Edmund Halley worked on the problem but then sought help from a math professor. Isaac Newton told Halley that he had solved that issue some twenty years before. Halley asked him to publish but Newton wouldn't do it unless someone else paid for the publishing. Halley agreed to pay and the Principia gave us modern physics.

The physicist would be trying to work out the thermodynamic system of vodka on the rocks until they're too wasted to write legibly. The chemist would ask for separate pitchers of gin and vodka and several empty shot glasses, conducting a number of experiments using measuring tools from the lab to find their preferred vodka martini. The mathematician would try to abstract the concept of a cocktail into something more general described by category theory. Never orders a drink and drives the other two home.

"Ouch" they said - it was an iron bar!

that's how quantum chemistry was born.

It's the spooky Nolan action at a distance. Thankfully, @sixtysymbols doesn't have action sequences.

I’ve noticed this across loads of KZfaq videos recently

and youtube shorts seems to have their volume boosted to almost meme levels

@@mushroomsamba82 YES!! I’m so glad it’s not just me going insane.

When the video is uploaded to YT, the audio needs to be normalised, otherwise the outro at the end around 19:40 has a loud volume level which dominates the main interview.

Most likely none before. But, most likely several as a part of the Manhatten project !

I believe there are many, one equation that remains classified came from Feynman according to a colleague who’s clearance would place him in a position to know.

It's a Nolan reference

I had no idea how important the Born-Oppenheimer was to chemistry. I'm glad that you're shedding light on this topic.

At least I'm not the only one noticing that :) It seems pretty rare, on KZfaq, for Schwarzschild to be pronounced as two German words (schwarz + Schild) rather than a confused mix of German and English (schwarz + child). The only channels I've heard pronouncing it as schwarz+Schild are _PBS Space Time_ and _Minute Physics._ (I've still read comments complaining about the pronunciation on PBS Space Time, but I'd argue it's close enough. Isn't Matt an Australian living in the USA … saying a German name? Minor pronunciation issues can probably be blamed on his accent ;)) Also, "black shield" is a much better surname than "black child" lol

For an outside observer, that something would fall in slower and slower until is stopped at the event horizon. An outside observer cannot see something go past the event horizon. It would also get dimmer and dimmer (and redder and redder due to red shift) until it eventually disappeared too though (since that thing would no longer be emitting photos that can escape the black hole), so you wouldn't see a black hole with a bunch of things hanging out at the event horizon.

Ironically, re-normalization feels extremely abnormal.

I could be completely wrong about this, but theoretically, I think we could tell due to changes in the apparent gravitational field the black hole exerts around it. Picture this: you have a black hole that one of more bodies orbit that you can observe (like stars or planets). These bodies would orbit around the black hole in such a way as to tell you how much mass the black hole itself has. Now, imagine the black hole swallows a significant amount of matter, enough to significantly change its gravitational field. What would we see? Well, we would never see the matter itself go into the black hole, as it gets redshifted to infinity as it get closer to the event horizon. However, the matter DOES go through the event horizon, which increases the black hole’s gravitational field. Therefore, we would see a change in how the objects orbiting the black hole change their orbits, making it clear the black hole’s mass has increased, even if we never see the matter cross the horizon; we know it must have. At least, that is my idea, when gravitation changes, those effects become apparent practically immediately. If this is not correct, please let me know.

😂😂😂

But not the bombe.

They didn't, necessarily. Mechanical calculators were a thing and I believe universities employed people whose job was just to do calculations for scientists.

No, I think the normalization you’re referring to is the integral over the squared modulus of a given wave function. It’s normalizing the probability density of measuring a particle in a certain position, or of certain momentum, etc. at a certain time. The integral of the squared modulus over all of the system’s degrees of freedom must be 1. In other words, if you’re measuring position, for example, the total probability of finding the particle SOMEWHERE must be 100%. Renormalization is a technique first developed in QED to make sense of the divergent integrals that give infinite answers for closed loop Feynman diagrams. The problem extends further than that, however, and can be interpreted as the consequence of phase transformations in scale, likely complicated by perturbation theory. For instance, at high resolutions, an electron appears to be composed of electron-positron pairs and photons. The electric charge even slightly differs from the dressed electron at larger scales. Renormalization resolves these issues by considering the magnitude of the observable as the length scale goes from small to large. In doing so, the divergent terms end up being cancelled by counter terms. If one only considers a system at very high resolution, the screening effects that take place at larger distance and time scales get neglected, and some terms blow up to infinity.

We need the Physicist Barbie to explain.

For old papers like these, googling the title and author name usually fetches the full text for free.

@@Lavabug But for new papers? I've tried many apps out but I don't get it where scientist actually publish their papers. Are these journals they publish it in chargeable?

​@@cherry1leiiyes the journals they publish on are subscription based. You will mostly find only the abstract in the open. Nowadays many people post their papers on the open access ArXiv server. You can also sometimes just email the authors for a copy of the paper. For everything else there is sci hub, since access to these papers should fundamentally be free.

@@cherry1leii Virtually all journals today have websites where you can read the abstracts but you have to pay to get the full papers. If you contact the author, they're usually happy to send you a copy of the paper for free.

Because it can be used to predict their behaviors in chemical reactions and electromagnetic interactions among other things. It allows you to simulate (calculate) the answers instead of having to try all the possible combinations to determine which ones work.

@@susanyoung6579Thank you for answering. Can you give me an example of needing a specific energy of atom/molecule for those chemical reactions or EM interactions?

@@joeaverage8329 not really, this isn't my field. Sorry.

@@susanyoung6579 No worries. Thank you!