It's a warm summer evening in ancient Greece...

This guy got his PhD in physics when he was 21 years old!

What a masterpiece of a post, please continue !

It is amazing that in a short time so many things are discovered and more or less understood. It is a miracle that i can lay on the couch with my laptop listening to one of the most brilliant scientist telling me all about it. We live in a somewhat troubled golden age that i wish more people could enjoy.

This is the 2nd time I watch this video. On my first watch, being foreign to the sciences, I was totally lost. On my re/watch, after consuming many smaller videos on the particulars, I was able to enjoy the talk MUCH more! Thank you so much for sharing a chronological development of physics in a consumable manner! It was very helpful to my understanding!

Thank you so much! Please continue posting, the way you present material is very intuitive and immensely useful.

Absolutely loving these talks. Thanks so much for sharing your knowledge and work!

Thank you Stephen Wolfram for your astonishing work. I discovered you through lex fridmans podcast amd have relistened to those podcasts several times. Ive been through your and your colleagues 2018 (i think) hypergraphic analysis of euclids geometry. Dazzling! Ive got A new kind of science at the ready on my table. I just need to do a few weeks of push ups and yoga to be able to lift it up without straining my back. In addition to your wonderful insights two things i have appreciated in your work have been: your comment about intellectual self confidence being instrumental to your elaboration and integrarion of your own ideas toward their coherence and explanatory power. I also appreciate your genuine enthusiasm for and gifts of explanation. Bravo and many thanks

Mr Wolfram, you're the man. Please keep up the amazing work you're doing and please keep telling us about it. I just watched your presentation on "Computation and the Fundamental Theory of Physics" at the Royal Institution and I was really impressed and I would like to know everything about your project and how it is going into the future.

I like the way Wolfram talks, it's very precise and clear.

This is incredible that Stephen is able to give an entire history of physics with no notes or anything. What a genius.

Thank you so very much for this!

Thanks Stephen!

Physics is such a difficult subject but I followed this because you are a very good teacher.

What a wonderful talk, particularly enjoyable listening to nowadays ie during lock down in London.

Love your lectures, Steve. Thank you!

We need you on the Portal , Mr.Wolfram!

This video is a treasure, thank you!

Hey Stephen, how important do you think it is to understand the history behind the ideas to understanding the ideas themselves? I personally find that it's much easier to understand some mathematical model or another if I understand what people were thinking at the time they came up with it.

Thank you Mr. Wolphram it was really fantastic!

Thank you for the great post!

I very much enjoy your posts, videos, I know so little and then it’s a matter of retrieval you’re doing it Beautifully!

Thank you for sharing!

You are in credible. Please don't ever stop!

You are a very good teacher. Please make a course. Thank you.

You're forgiven for almost forgetting to mention Newtons contribution before resuming 18e-century physics. Very entertaining presentation !

Many books behind you!! Interesting!!!

I wish all these lectures were available on Spotify so we can listen to them in an airplane

Happy to see your views and discuss further the physics and math with you. :)

Thank you Dr Wolfram!

Many thanks Wolfram.

wow! thankyou painting my veranda listening to this wonderful man share his knowledge. reliving my high school physics and more.

Love your love for natural phenomenon.

Thank you for bringing the focus back on to history for a moment. I teach Engineering students who think they don't need to know who John Von Neumann is "because we have computers now". God help us if this continues.

Excellent synopsis.

This was wonderful.

Thank you Mr. Wolfram

Thanks Stephen

Thank you

Thanks so much!

Very good, thorough lecture on the history of physics! I'm kind of surprised you didn't mention Niels Bohr though. He was one of the pioneers and chief architects of quantum theory and was the first to explain the stability of atoms as well as the spectrum of hydrogen. You also didn't mention the EPR paradox and quantum entanglement, or Bose-Einstein condensates. But I guess it's next too impossible to cover all the important developments in the history of physics! Good job!

Un gran saludo desde Argentina de un humilde aspirante a entrar al instituto balseiro, cuna de Maldacena. Mis felicitaciones por su increíble aporte a la ciencia

This is phenomenal stuff Stephen! It seems to me very very few people have your breadth of knowledge when it comes to physics and it’s history

Nice! Thank you!

Thank You

Very engaging and satisfying

Mr. Wolfram I used your brief summary of Stat Mech and Thermodynamics in my online lectures (after citing it).

It was great ! Tnx a lot

Pretty pretty interesting continue like that

haven't gotten this revved up about something in awhile. Has he done his theory explanation yet? Or released the video starting it?

This is gold.

thanks a lot :)

What a wonderful summary of the history of physics. However I think classical mechanics with Lagrange and Hamilton and maybe Fourier's development of Fourier analysis were overlooked

So interesting! All the people that somehow leaped beyond what was known in their time!

Total legend.

Love you!

That was pretty damn good.

Please do History of Computing

Hyped

Interesting. I've been also working on this the past 1-2 years. Will be following.

26:16 Thank god! I was fearing he tried some hipster version of the story without Newton. It was bugging to the point that I was considering stopping.

Will follow with interest. Thank you.

I liked this. Thank you. Very clear. Concise. You have a good mind sir.

I think Newton is turning in his grave - Robert Hooke got mentioned first !

Have you seen Laird Scranton's work on the Dogan?

Must say, I'm very impressed by humble Stephen Wolfram, much more than by Eric Weinstein who is acting out much more vanity being hurt by rejections of orthodox circles as by media and classical science. Think Wolfram is more driven by childlike interests than speculating to get a Nobel Prize some day, and he is also not interested in trademarks and authorship of some banal wordings as Eric is, hammering them penetrantly into minds so they keep on sticking and can be claimed as originated by a very special mind. Being interested in physics since a long time, started to see these emperors with no cloth like Eric. detecting an immense void inside the nothingness-loudspeakers of physics, not having achieved much I'd say for the last 50 years, Krauss, Tyson, Carroll etc. Whereas ordinary people get impressed by some equations and complexity-talk, putting these loudspeakers on high pedestals they don't deserve, I had my aha moments already. So we see lots of pretending blinders in public with their nothings, shallow thinkers wanting to appear as new Einsteins. I think Wolfram is different here, smart, humble, interest driven, and if someone I know has the substance to further Einsteins physics, its probably him and not the army of pea counters of orthodoxies.

I would appreciate and really learn a lot if this video had annotation in the time pane. I don't quite understand what it means for a neutrino to be only left handed.

Awesome talk but I feel Archimedes deserves more credit, wrote the first laws of physics: buoyancy and leverage/balance as well as basically did the first computations in calculus

Science is a pursuit that draws together so many different cultures across time, it really is the heritage of all humanity. A very beautiful thing. At the 2:02:00 minute mark ... "... there is no aether, but then there is an aether...". I have to remark that this is exactly what I've been suspecting about Michelson-Morley for quite some time. I don't know how ... but it seems as if somehow they may have asked "which-way" and somehow it is buried in the experiment and we're just not seeing it. That's my suspicion but I have absolutely no valuable reason to back that up. I actually do believe that the aether is not dead, quantum field theory is the strongest area of QM (or so I've heard) and it makes zero sense that waves can travel without a medium, and I'm not at all sold on the idea that pure information is a suitable medium for wave propagation.

Why is the Higgs Field valid when the ether was dismissed, surely the problem of relative movement through the field remains? Thanks for a great talk.

The freeway is Interestate 280; my contribution at a former SuperShuttle Driver...cheers.

Thanks my banna friend

you can see why things only decay so far in the multi-way graphs, it vaguely corresponds to the platonic solids

6 quarks for Marky Mark!

👍thanks

My Hero

when the brainiest dude is also the nicest dude you get the best lecture on the history of physics ever delivered on the internet. hey S W : best of success with the new project !

This is a great level of coverage versus depth for the keen armchair physicist like me

Dear Stephen, First thank you for the video. I am a great follower of your channel and I like your videos very much. I would like to make a small remark about the history of physics: you started with the Babylonian and Greek era and then suddenly you moved to the 16th century. I think it would have been more correct to give credit to the Arab-Persian and Indian civilization as well since their contributions are not less.

I love your rebuttal to the baconian tradition, "if the theory has enough aesthetic integrity, keep going."

Without notes! Impressive!

The Roman philosopher-poet Lucretius' scientific poem "On the Nature of Things" (c. 60 BC) has a remarkable description of the motion of dust particles in verses 113-140 from Book II. He uses this as a proof of the existence of atoms:(Brownian Motion to follow) Observe what happens when sunbeams are admitted into a building and shed light on its shadowy places. You will see a multitude of tiny particles mingling in a multitude of ways... their dancing is an actual indication of underlying movements of matter that are hidden from our sight... It originates with the atoms which move of themselves [i.e., spontaneously]. Then those small compound bodies that are least removed from the impetus of the atoms are set in motion by the impact of their invisible blows and in turn cannon against slightly larger bodies. So the movement mounts up from the atoms and gradually emerges to the level of our senses so that those bodies are in motion that we see in sunbeams, moved by blows that remain invisible.

My only comment is on Stephen's interpretation of what Copernicus did. Copernicus thought his theory was better because it was more elegant and beautiful than Ptolemy. He wasn't just trying to improve the technical details of Ptolemy (in fact his predications were worse). He was a neo platonist. I got this from reading Kuhn's The Copernican Revolution and Own Gingrich's Nicolas Copernicus Making the Earth A planet

From Oregon USA

In hindsight it is a bit odd that the connection between magnetism and electricity was discovered so late in the scientific trajectory. It might as well have been discovered by the Ancient Greek or even the Ancient Egyptians, 5000 years ago.

the hypothesis of the nodes of the ether is not silly at all, on the contrary.

I *think* I just learned that the "plum pudding" model was not J.J. Thomson's concept (though he accepted and approved of it) but rather *William* Thomson's, but was associated with J.J.'s electron discovery. Unrelated Thomsons.

Thank you!

Kepler said that the motion of the planets should be elliptical.... from the heliocentric point of view it could also be 'seen' like this, while the motion is imperfect spiral-shaped considering the center of the galaxy (which is not a hole!)

working without notes., as always...I nearly laughed at the part "Oh, I forgot something...There was that guy Newton" (paraphrased) lol. When you teach something all of the time, it is easy to work without notes btw but not so much with one-time lectures

I don't enough about about physics or maths, but I'm pretty good at spotting charlatans and cranks. This guy seems very genuine and excited about what he's potentially uncovering.

I got my masters in physics at 37 He got his PhD at 20 wow

Lol Stephen just grabbed a 4000 year old artifact and threw it on his table

35:00 dirac said that better go for a theory is beautiful even though experiments dont agree with it instead of a theory that is ugly but experimentally correct.

Just read your 'Finally ... Fundamental ... Beautiful' paper. Great stuff so far. I'll need to digest and go over it another few rounds, but I must say I, I'm very impressed. Blown away actually.

Snell's law! Boyle's law, Hooke's law! Wow!

While I appreciate wolfram, his beginning section on greek traditions in physics is missing the "source codes' from kemet. In kemet, you get closert to a theory of everything more than anything in the greeks, romans, enlightenment, all the way to quantum mathematics of the late 19th century. And only now are mathematicians and philosophers touching waht was long forgotten by egypt.

So you have groups of points, you have to connect all the points as only one point connecting to one other point and more than one point in a group linked to more than one in another group is forbidden. I call it the polygon problem of connecting sides

Fantastic video!! 1:08:40 I think you'd be very interested in some finer details on some historical points that are little known but a matter of record. This paper I've published will provide an enlightening perspective of the odd little misunderstandings around relativity but support your observations. You can find it on the Arxiv or google it as "History of the NeoClassical Interpretation of Quantum and Relativistic Physics" Additionally you'll be surprised to know interesting little tidbits I could explain beyond this paper such as the fact that the 1887 Michelson was not actually null and had the characteristic sine wave of readings one would only get from a unidirectional effect, but that's a very long story (about interferometry details) and one needs to survey much of Michelson's work and understand the context of his "1/40th" statement that led to confusion about the results. Regardless, from MacCullagh to Kelvin, up through Einstein, there is a unified view that wends its way up to the modern day that only a deep study of history reveals; which seems to be an interest you and I share. 1:12:39 Here you make a point I've been working almost daily for 15 years to establish more widely and promulgate. Your wording indicates you might have actually run into a few of my thousands of pages of publicly available work (high level explanations) or a derivative of it or perhaps someone else who has. I'm part of a discussion group of physicists, biologists, and computer scientists exploring how these sorts of topics (like networks) relate to neuroscience, fundamental cellular biomechanics, semiotics, and eventually AGI. (one of which is a notorious rebel among nobel laureates.) I think you'd really bring a lot to the discussion if you joined us. In fact your discussion about Ads/CFT corresponds with a discussion going on right now and makes me suspect we are probably only socially separated by a single degree.

Thanks proffesor, you must be pals with khutoryansky,kinertia,henry jacobowitz and brieske....🙂