Emmy Noether understood the relationships between mathematical constructs, and their general importance, apparently before anyone else. In so doing, she pioneered the foundations for what has become modern algebra and category theory. To a pure mathematician, this was the single most important development of the 20th century.
Why isn't this woman more famous? She rose against all odds and gave the world one of the most profound proofs we know, connecting the world of math to the world of physics. #emmynoether #cosmosseason2
zorin leroy You're right, I majored in chemistry but have always been interested in physics. I had probably heard of the theorem but didn't know about the person. I'm glad I know now!
12 YEARS LATER.... I've spent all day watching YT videos about Emily N, and your approach is the most illustrative and helpful I have seen.... I will be hunting for more of your presentations
Yes, any time you talk about Emmy Noether, the mathematicians are going to step up and say, Hey, Emmy's physics was just a thing she did early on; the majority of her lifes work was in her mathematics. I have a book of accounts of her and her mathematics; i would think it's pretty famous amongst Emmy Noether fans. I'm a proud owner also! There's just not enough space to say everything about Emmy Noether!
26:45 the time reversal discussion doesnt makes sense to me. The question is not whether we observe hair getting color, but whether the same mechanism (physical "law") can describe both the graying of hair and the reverse (coloring). No?
noncommutative phase as the 5th dimension that is nonlocal - Paul S. Wesson realized this, based on de Broglie's Law of Phase Harmony. Basil J. Hiley also realized this. Alain Connes did as well. So did Eddie Oshins. Ruth E. Kastner also and B.G. Sidharth too.
*heads up for anyone confused by this:* He keeps saying time translation when he means time reversal. Time translation does come up earlier with reference to energy conservation, but when he's talking about parity-time-charge, he means time reversal, not translation.
the speaker at 14:22 says "the universe is more or less isotropic" I think he meant homogeneous instead of isotropic. If there is translational symmetry the universe is homogeneous and due to that the momentum is conserved, if there is rotational symmetry the universe is isotropic thus the angular momentum is conserved.
Perhaps the problem is that multiple symmetries are interfering with each other. In the same way we see waves interfere with each other in the multiple slit experiment. This could probably cause the apparent observation of more matter vs antimatter in the universe. Two symmetries in relative rotation against each other should cause periodic changes in symmetry and broken symmetry. It would also give the universe a rhythm to it's evolutionary rate as it moves through all the permutations of both symmetries. I don't know... maybe.
The rest mass ? By the way, what is "rest" in a world where most speeds except c are relative ? Something is only "at rest" in its own reference frame.
As I understand it Emma was helping Einstein and Hilbert consider why spacetime, (because it contained energy), did not warp spacetime and then she realized that only the energy in what they called the stress energy tensor could cause the warping. Since it is a 4x4 matrix I assume it is actually the mapping of a vector space by an operator into another vector space, so you could use determinants to evaluate the now square vector space. Wish there were a few slides with matheatics that showed how from the matrix they came to the conclusion that momentum was conserved due to linear symmetry, not that your pep talk was not inspired but I am not convinced it is true. It could be true but just because you don't know of the mechanism that could break Newton's third. I know of one not that I am going to go into it here.
pretty sure he did mean isotropic - " (Physics / General Physics) having uniform physical properties in all directions" or "Identical in all directions; invariant with respect to direction."
So the rest mass in the E = mc squared is so small compared to the thermodynamic energy that is it can be equated to approximately zero? Well that might be ok if it helped to simplify an equation to predict a result but as part of an argument that says there was no mass until the symmetry broke during cooling it seems contradictory. But what do I know?
Dumm- Du Bump-a-Dumm Bump Bump! Now, this is a story all about how My quarks got flipped-turned upside down And I'd like to take a minute Just sit right there I'll tell you how I became the prince of Emmy Noether In a universe with broken symetery I was born and raised, Chilling out doing particle physics was how I spent my days, Chillin' out maxin' relaxin' all cool And accelerating particles outside of the school When a couple of forces That were up to no good Startin making trouble in my universe I got one little asymetery and my mom got scared And said 'You're movin' with your auntie Emmy Noether' Dumm- Du Bump-a-Dumm Bump Bump!
Well in his previous sentence and the next one, he is talking about translational symmetry, in that context no need of isotropic symm. That symmetry is not a requirement at all for momentum to be conserved. If you ask for an isotropic symmetry in your universe, according to Noether theorem's, then Angular momentum is conserved. My point was no need for isotropic symmetry if you are talking about momentum conservation and also there is no reference about that symmetry in that slides he is showin.
I've had the idea of how to study differential equations - study complex analyses, calculus of variations, integral equations, and find how those topics solved differential equations - also topology.
Doesn't Stephens seem to have a peculiar leaning to conflate second and third? 14.11. I'd say conservation of momentum follows from Newton's laws first and third, not first and second. 27:15, Not the third but the second law of thermodynamics makes entropy increase, or so I think.
I think the oe is probably pronounced the same as the German o with an umlaut (double dot) over it. It's not a sound used in English, and is often mispronounced "er" by English speakers (see also "Goethe" and "Godel" (with umlaut on the o), which are often mispronounced "Gerta" and "Gerdel" in English). The actual German pronunciation can't be transliterated exactly in English. In fact there's not really an r sound in those names at all.
+thrunsalmighty No, the first law explains the state of a particle in absence of anything else, the second law describes how the state will change in the presence of anything which could, totally in abstract, be considered a force.
+inteusproductions Newton describes them as axioms. Why? Assume the second law: F=ma, let F=0, then either m=0 or a=0 (or both) - this is all that would be implied, and doesn't imply the first law in any axiomatic sense. Physically, though, it does seem obvious because we'd all assume m > 0. Physical intuition is not mathematic rigor.
26.56 You thought that it was supposedly so obvious that energy conservation was tied to time symmetry and then say that time is not symmetrical, wherein lies the truth?
@seanmPWH I thought I'd further note how people would set up a king to keep the crops going and the sungods pleased; and every year, if a drought or bad weather ruined the communities fortunes, the King would get beheaded and supplanted. I think this is noted clearly in "The Golden Bough."
Brilliant talk, but strongly disagree with his remarks on Peter Higgs naming the Higgs particle after himself. Higgs did not do that and is in fact very modest about it. He certainly deserves credit though as he was the one who actually realized importance of Goldstones work. While it may be fair to have called it Higgs-Goldstone boson, its is harsh to say Higgs got more credit than he deserved. The coverage on Emmy Noether is very touching and also insightful. Very few physics students are aware of how important her work was although much of modern physics is guided by the laws of symmetry !!
Cool talk! Emmy was such a badass - one of those pure thinkers like Grigori Perelman who doesn't care about the politics/noise of academia because there are so many better, more interesting things to think about. On a completely unrelated, non hypocritical note, I wish someone would have asked the question...who names their kid Ransom??
Great fun, thank you for YouTubing this excellent talk. But if we want to crack time, and maybe gravity & other mysterious things, maybe let's see if we can represent it & talk about time without using a physical linear dimension. It is not travel in a distance sense. It's time. All these models are mental constructs. The model we're using for time is illusory. E.g. 'reversing time'. It doesn't have a direction does it? Nor are there 'places' you can go to in time. Bruce Thomson in New zealand.
And this is why you and your entire philosophy are going extinct. It's kinda beautiful in a way that soberingly reminds us of the harshness of nature and how some mentalities watch their end approaching and merely rail harder against changing to what is veritably and demonstrably less wrong than their current beliefs, when the only thing that can save them is adaptation. This is why the 'Master race' has become the most degenerate of all. Thankfully most of those of European descent have let go of your nonsense and chosen growth, survival and enlightenment over idiocy. We stand at the cusp of the new order of the ages, and relics of the old are passing.
It's not an impossibility, it's a logical outcome of field theory and a direct byproduct of the wave-partical duality. Please, don't come to the table with your sub-highschool education and try to debate with someone well versed in Quantum Field Theory. It just makes you look painfully bad. The only exception lies in the study of virtual particles, and the possible existence of a conceptual field, but even then conservation would be preserved, merely with the extension of informatic complexity as an additional component of the relationship.
Or, perhaps consider that all that exists has existed in some form, since the moment of the big bang... like all observations based on reality have told us for the entire history of modern physics.
24.56 Principle of least action example, Congress of the United States. Actually don't you think you should of linked principle of least action with entropy?
@tition1 admittedly it's a bold claim and there have certainly been other profound developments within pure maths :) I guess I just wanted to shed some light on how deep and far-reaching her influence has been, which wasn't really broached in the talk. I imagine she'd be very pleased to see how much fruit her direction of thought has borne...
I always come at these talks with a mixed degree of curiosity and skepticism. Curious about Emily Noether and skepticism of how it is being interpreted today especially when they start start talking about spacetime as the fabric of reality and not two concepts that we use to define reality, the universe. A universe they were at this time profoundly ignorant of due to they being limited to visible light perspective. They knew not the electromagnetic structures that populate space terrestrial and extraterrestrial. What relevancy is a law of thermodynamic rooted on "closed systems" in a universe of interconnected systems? When you look at the history of science without the jaundiced eye of belief in a paradigm, you see problems with assumptions being made due to a lack of awareness due to the times that they were. This was an important time for mathematics for it was the death of the natural philosopher and the rise of the science specialist and theoretical math as a science unto itself. The Higg's Field they hope to find mass in sounds a lot like the ether that was popular in the 1800s and I guarantee, does not exist. I consider the modern standard model to be a faith based model and its mathematical constants are the gods of modern science. The quality of the math is based proportionally on the quality of the observation.
The Church of Sweden is Protestant (Lutheran) and uses the term "mass". And I don´t think the Swedish church sees itself as a "sect". But I suppose that's a matter of opinion,
His pronounciation is actually not that far off... He pronounces the "th" softly, which is not done in German, and the "ö=oe"-sound is a bit short. But I've heard much worse...
I had an algebra major in grade school. I learned about Noetherian rings etcetera, but nothing about her work in physics as such. Mathematicians regard Noether's theorem as mathematically trivial. (laughs)
I know we want to promote this brilliant woman but to say that she did mathematical calculations for relativity alongside Einstein, there’s no evidence of that, a lot of what this guy said there’s no evidence none
Information is conserved at a point - and the point is, "it's always now", which is to say that the property of entanglement and uncertainty is duality of the connection now, ..specifically and distributed, according to the location of the most probable connection in certainty, ..of the infinitely eternal past, and the uncertain potential future. Information is conserved, but can adopt any possible shape in infinity according to the math. .dt is the infinite boundary of something and nothing, ..tangential to the apparent wave of change specifying the conservation laws from a temporal wave origin that is mass and momentum. In conjunction with the Therom of least action. (this is a comment/observation and not definitive, because the actual simplicity of the connection/origin has to be experienced; explanations are part of the uncertainty principle, defining reality)
I notice a trend in the scientific community that includes scoffing at people deemed as idiots or simply lesser. This is ridiculous. ANYONE can be an "intellectual." Grades don't dictate your intelligence, your political affiliations don't dictate your intelligence, nor does your color, religion, what you ate for lunch, what your uncle's name is, the last time you wet the bed, or any other silly thing you can imagine. I'm a 17 year old girl and I'm indirectly ridiculed a lot in these types of videos. I don't mind it so much for myself, but I feel bad for these "intellectuals" who can "grasp" the infinite universe but can't grasp the expanding diversity of their viewers. Isn't the point of videos like these to spread knowledge across the board and not to a select few? It's okay to be silly, it's just not always accurate.
College professors in the USA are a very liberal group, I have seen statistics that they are 95% democrat. They are also less religious than the general population. I saw a defense by some one in the educational community explain this phenomena once. He thought it was because they were in general more reasonable and thoughtful than the general public, (I don't think he claimed they were more intelligent). He used as his example that they very predominantly accepted Darwin's Theory of evolution and natural selection as the (answer as to how how people came about), that people like them were just natural selection in action. I suppose he meant that smart people would naturally be drawn to the democrats, the party more in line with rationality, Darwinism, and not into religious beliefs. The subject of human creation is a very complicated, unresolved and probably always will be. I think the arguments for creationism are more convincing to me but then I am not a academician.
The issue I am having with education is what can be considered advanced needs to be normalized. A lot of this advanced education can basic education even in elementary schools. Imagine how much more and how fast we would accelerate in knowledge.. We have to put knowledge over technology. Because technology has become harmful to people.
Public education makes sure there is plenty of repetition, some kids will pick up on ideas the first day they are introduced to it, others still be struggling with things like reading simple ideas for six months.
At 25:44, his talk goes off the rails. He suddenly brings in the Parity, Time and Charge Conjugation symmetries, treating them as if they are Continuous Symmetries, aka Noetherian Symmetries. They are not. Those three are Discrete Symmetries that have nothing to do with the Continuous Symmetries of Noether. Not that Ransom Stephens is the first to make this blunder. Many other physicists do the same thing. But the practice is just stupid and needs to stop. Up until 25:44, I thought I might be in the market to buy his book, The God Patent, but no thanks. I'm done with him and this video.
@dclnm ahahahah depends which area of pure mathematics :) However, Herman Weyl saying she was his superior is far more of a recommendation than any of the blah this dude was saying :)
For someone who writes so many books, he's really sloppy with his words. Besides several problems others have noted, at 46:13 he says "distributive" when he meant "commutative", even while talking about non-commutative algebra!
I think we're all pretty sick of pandering for female approval. An over-abundance of the speaker's personal interjections was unnecessary and distracting. If the guests on tech talks and are indication of the mindset of their employees, I'd hazard the assumption that the majority of them are first-class a**holes.
Great lecture; very informative for a non-physicist such as myself; excellent hooks into looking up her work. Also, his effort in elevating her from obscurity is appreciated. As a side note, I don't understand all the whinging/vitriol hurled at this speaker. If he mispronounces "Noether", injects a few jokes into his presentation, or makes a side comment about Republicans coming after intellectuals--so what?
The answer to your not understanding the vitriol is, I suggest, to ignore it as best you can. Such posts are only written to annoy others. They have no intellectual content.
Try to update Wikipedia with your own superior personal definition of socialism and see how well that works out. Chavez's fascist friends who own businesses love his socialism. Any thinking person knows that there is great overlap in the practice of socialism and fascism. Separation only exists in theory.
..maybe you could check with people who actually live in Venezuela, not only "doing business there", for a more balanced view of Chavez's politics, and its pros and cons.... Maybe you can verify also how the Gross PIB of the country has quadrupled during Chavez presidency...
Aaargggh. it was almost interesting but I couldn't watch to the end. Five minutes and that was all I could really stand. It's so distracting that he doesn't know how to say her name but he wants to givee the lecture anyway. It's like calling Warren Beatty, "Warren Bathe-y" the whole time. Since she's meant to be the whole point of the talk, getting her name right even once would have been a worthwhile effort.
The speaker's failed obsession with being witty, not only gets in his own way, but renders the lecture to the edge of unbearable. Only my interest in Emmy Noether, & having my hands full while making dinner kept me to the 37min mark. I feel like I was listening to someone's first shot at stand up comedy. Very disappointed. As noted below, he should pay more attention to getting his names, & facts straight long before attempting to tackle the fine art of being clever. It's just over the top, & too much.
Heather Wager I wanted to watch this,& I tried hard to watch this. What I wrote initially is why I could not watch it. That is the point of posting comments. I didn't mail a letter to his house, or create a webpage designed to discredit him. This is the comment section of youtube Heather. Unlike 99% of comments posted, mine pertains to the video & my personal thoughts about what it contains. The world's greatest novelist would attempt to understand differential topology if they decided to write about it. They would not rise to the stature of being the world's greatest novelist if they did not respect themselves, or their own work enough to do so. If the premise of the novel revolved around differential topology, you would in fact expect the writer to understand it enough to write about it correctly. Regarding the physicists as speakers, you need to expose yourself to more if that is your experience. You keep attending the wrong lectures based on your opinion. There is a huge difference between being a good or great speaker, vs unraveling your own presentation by the methods you chose to use. This guy is not better than most physicists at speaking. The flaws in this video range from incorrect information, misunderstood terminology, mispronunciation of the subject,& over saturation of forced humor. I challenge you to find even one physicist accomplishing this hat trick in a professional, & recorded presentation. Stop encouraging people to dilute the quality of our society by lowering standards. We don't need to redesign hamburgers to appeal to people who hate hamburgers. Nor must we accept horrible food at a restaurant because not everyone is a good cook. When someone chooses to do something on a professional level, they are expected to do a good job. This 'everyone wins' mentality does nothing for our species but breed slop.
Heather Wager I guess the best analogy in my head to express the difference would be... the baseball games you saw in person vs all the baseball games ever played. We need not contort our opinion of average/good/great players around the games we specifically attend. They are also all recorded by default, not merit. You qualified it correctly each time by saying, 'those you saw.' That said, just cuz the guy playing shortstop is the best our team could muster onto the field, does not in any way justify the horrid performance. This guy has a doctorate degree, he isn't some laymen, or amateur. I don't watch minor league sports, or high school plays for the same reason you faced in your viewed lectures. All professionals would appear to be gods compared to hours of mediocrity. Google should be capable of affording major leaguers, or directing proper performances onto tape. There are many wonderful speakers out there. Anyone deciding to give any presentation should've heard a few captivating speakers in their life somewhere. Since your comments suggest a lack of exposure, here are a few dolls worth listening to: Richard Feynman, Leonard Susskind, Christopher Hitchens, Terence McKenna, Daniel Dennett, Graham Hancock, Orson Welles, Art Bell, Bill Nye, David Bohm, Robert Anton Wilson, Wayne June, Bill Hicks, Richard Dawkins, George Carlin, etc. I didn't list them in any order. Such a list could really run 500 deep easily, but these are worthy of hearing. While these names range the gambit, they all know how to speak & present information in a captivating way. You may not enjoy all their views, but you will most likely enjoy listening to them speak. They respect the information enough to convey it properly. I wish this concept would be more ubiquitous. (Take care)
Heather Wager What I expect is for people to not have the, "awe look but he's trying," attitude or some useless, "everybody isn't good at everything," attitude for a doctorate degree holder who chooses to present information. That attitude belongs in daycare for children, not those teaching colleges. This is why I previously stated how lowering standards doesn't help our species in any way. Your argument does not even apply here. Presenting information is within his field of expertise as a doctorate,& within our expectations. We are not watching him attempt to contend within an opposing genre. I don't expect the best of the best presenters to do this lecture. I only listed them in response to your repeated exposure to lackluster speakers, especially since your comments border upon 'poor me' sobbing. My gesture was met with a snobbish snarl reflecting your insistence toward missing the point. I never proposed anything you tried to say, nor do I expect dead men to conduct this presentation. Your familiarity with those names instantly negates your previously suggested inability to comprehend my point. I expect the rest of our scholars to LEARN from their influential example. Captivation is key to inspiration,& inspiration is key to passion. These traits instill information into a student's psyche like nothing else, even when they don't fully understand what they remember. This concept is at the root of all scholastic progress! Teachers do not copyright or trademark their abilities to present information in a captivating manner, because it benefits us all to incorporate the best methods to achieve education. What I said about being a doctorate holder did not mean what you read. It means you should possess the mental acuity to be self aware while evaluating your own ability at presentation Heather. You missed the point of what I meant, whether due to my many analogies or your own insistence. Stop making excuses for a so called professional that is my primary point without any analogy.
I find her work to be delusional. And indeed, there is a VERY "broken symmetry". But it won't be found in the merely physical data or phenomena, but only a moral mind from OUTSIDE this physical universe has the faculties and data (as memory), and partly as VANTAGE, to interpret this fact. It is similar to the "grey hair" issue, but it is a far higher quality. Beings without this VANTAGE cannot possibly KNOW this, until it is too late for it to be of any advantage to them.
Emmy Noether understood the relationships between mathematical constructs, and their general importance, apparently before anyone else. In so doing, she pioneered the foundations for what has become modern algebra and category theory. To a pure mathematician, this was the single most important development of the 20th century.
To a pure mathematician, Grothendieck's re-shaping of algebraic geometry is the most important development of the 20th century.
Why isn't this woman more famous? She rose against all odds and gave the world one of the most profound proofs we know, connecting the world of math to the world of physics. #emmynoether #cosmosseason2
Bryan Lawlor shes VeRY well known in physics. i am guessing u r not a physics major aka layman .
zorin leroy You're right, I majored in chemistry but have always been interested in physics. I had probably heard of the theorem but didn't know about the person. I'm glad I know now!
+Bryan Lawlor She is pretty famous in math circles too (my own major) she practically invented ring theory.
She is very, very famous among physicists and, I would think, mathematicians as well.
I would say the reason she isn't more well known is because her stuff is too complicated to explain to the general public.
12 YEARS LATER.... I've spent all day watching YT videos about Emily N, and your approach is the most illustrative and helpful I have seen.... I will be hunting for more of your presentations
Yes, any time you talk about Emmy Noether, the mathematicians are going to step up and say, Hey, Emmy's physics was just a thing she did early on; the majority of her lifes work was in her mathematics. I have a book of accounts of her and her mathematics; i would think it's pretty famous amongst Emmy Noether fans. I'm a proud owner also! There's just not enough space to say everything about Emmy Noether!
Peter Higgs never named the particle after himself. Others did that for him :)
26:45 the time reversal discussion doesnt makes sense to me. The question is not whether we observe hair getting color, but whether the same mechanism (physical "law") can describe both the graying of hair and the reverse (coloring). No?
Could we have a process of symmetry forming and breaking unfolding continuously forming the broken symmetry of life?
No
noncommutative phase as the 5th dimension that is nonlocal - Paul S. Wesson realized this, based on de Broglie's Law of Phase Harmony. Basil J. Hiley also realized this. Alain Connes did as well. So did Eddie Oshins. Ruth E. Kastner also and B.G. Sidharth too.
Wow I learned more than I expected in this talk!
The questions asked at the end were extremely good questions as well!
This is really insightful.
Anyone interested in physics, watch this presentation, it is fantastic!
*heads up for anyone confused by this:* He keeps saying time translation when he means time reversal. Time translation does come up earlier with reference to energy conservation, but when he's talking about parity-time-charge, he means time reversal, not translation.
Emmy Noether brilliant person of all time !!!!!!!!
the speaker at 14:22 says "the universe is more or less isotropic" I think he meant homogeneous instead of isotropic. If there is translational symmetry the universe is homogeneous and due to that the momentum is conserved, if there is rotational symmetry the universe is isotropic thus the angular momentum is conserved.
He gets a number of his details wrong, but the gist of it is more or less on point I guess? Still, I found it interesting.
Perhaps the problem is that multiple symmetries are interfering with each other. In the same way we see waves interfere with each other in the multiple slit experiment. This could probably cause the apparent observation of more matter vs antimatter in the universe. Two symmetries in relative rotation against each other should cause periodic changes in symmetry and broken symmetry. It would also give the universe a rhythm to it's evolutionary rate as it moves through all the permutations of both symmetries. I don't know... maybe.
That part at 17,09 where you say that the conservation of energy is tied to time symmetry is very simple and comes right out is hopeful at best
The rest mass ? By the way, what is "rest" in a world where most speeds except c are relative ? Something is only "at rest" in its own reference frame.
As I understand it Emma was helping Einstein and Hilbert consider why spacetime, (because it contained energy), did not warp spacetime and then she realized that only the energy in what they called the stress energy tensor could cause the warping. Since it is a 4x4 matrix I assume it is actually the mapping of a vector space by an operator into another vector space, so you could use determinants to evaluate the now square vector space. Wish there were a few slides with matheatics that showed how from the matrix they came to the conclusion that momentum was conserved due to linear symmetry, not that your pep talk was not inspired but I am not convinced it is true. It could be true but just because you don't know of the mechanism that could break Newton's third. I know of one not that I am going to go into it here.
You can't end like that!
To the speaker: Did you figure out what the corresponding symmetry is for the law of conservation of information?
can you say what the "information" entails in, the law of conservation of information?
Great presentation! Informative, and fun to watch.
Contrary to what the speaker claims at 19:21, Felix Klein did not contribute to the Kaluza-Klein formulations, Oskar Klein did.
pretty sure he did mean isotropic - " (Physics / General Physics) having uniform physical properties in all directions" or "Identical in all directions; invariant with respect to direction."
So the rest mass in the E = mc squared is so small compared to the thermodynamic energy that is it can be equated to approximately zero? Well that might be ok if it helped to simplify an equation to predict a result but as part of an argument that says there was no mass until the symmetry broke during cooling it seems contradictory. But what do I know?
49:30 Noether's theorem only applies to classical field theory, quantum symmetries are different.
Dumm- Du Bump-a-Dumm Bump Bump!
Now, this is a story all about how
My quarks got flipped-turned upside down
And I'd like to take a minute
Just sit right there
I'll tell you how I became the prince of Emmy Noether
In a universe with broken symetery I was born and raised,
Chilling out doing particle physics was how I spent my days,
Chillin' out maxin' relaxin' all cool
And accelerating particles outside of the school
When a couple of forces
That were up to no good
Startin making trouble in my universe
I got one little asymetery and my mom got scared
And said 'You're movin' with your auntie Emmy Noether'
Dumm- Du Bump-a-Dumm Bump Bump!
Well in his previous sentence and the next one, he is talking about translational symmetry, in that context no need of isotropic symm. That symmetry is not a requirement at all for momentum to be conserved. If you ask for an isotropic symmetry in your universe, according to Noether theorem's, then Angular momentum is conserved. My point was no need for isotropic symmetry if you are talking about momentum conservation and also there is no reference about that symmetry in that slides he is showin.
Then how do you know it since you do not have that vantage point?
I've had the idea of how to study differential equations - study complex analyses, calculus of variations, integral equations, and find how those topics solved differential equations - also topology.
49.18 should be A symmetry not asymmetry, sounds trivial but remember you think energy is symmetrical in time which is asymmetrical in it self.
And what is the cause of the cause of that event? And the cause of the cause of the cause of that event?
And how do you know the big bang happened?
Doesn't Stephens seem to have a peculiar leaning to conflate second and third?
14.11. I'd say conservation of momentum follows from Newton's laws first and third, not first and second.
27:15, Not the third but the second law of thermodynamics makes entropy increase, or so I think.
I think the oe is probably pronounced the same as the German o with an umlaut (double dot) over it. It's not a sound used in English, and is often mispronounced "er" by English speakers (see also "Goethe" and "Godel" (with umlaut on the o), which are often mispronounced "Gerta" and "Gerdel" in English). The actual German pronunciation can't be transliterated exactly in English. In fact there's not really an r sound in those names at all.
Sounded like he pronounced it as "Netter" - how should it be?
Isn't Newton's first law of motion just a special case of his second law?
No.
Eliezer Pennywhistler Yes it is a corollary.
+thrunsalmighty No, the first law explains the state of a particle in absence of anything else, the second law describes how the state will change in the presence of anything which could, totally in abstract, be considered a force.
+inteusproductions Newton describes them as axioms. Why? Assume the second law: F=ma, let F=0, then either m=0 or a=0 (or both) - this is all that would be implied, and doesn't imply the first law in any axiomatic sense. Physically, though, it does seem obvious because we'd all assume m > 0. Physical intuition is not mathematic rigor.
+ thrunsalmighty
Yes, it is.
2nd Law: F⃗ = d ֿp/dt = m d ֿv/dt (for unchanging mass)
1st Law: d ֿv/dt = 0 iff F⃗ = 0
26.56 You thought that it was supposedly so obvious that energy conservation was tied to time symmetry and then say that time is not symmetrical, wherein lies the truth?
42.26 Did the experiment they say showed the existence of the Higgs give any clue about what guarks were?
"Born in 1982" um.... no lol
@seanmPWH
I thought I'd further note how people would set up a king to keep the crops going and the sungods pleased; and every year, if a drought or bad weather ruined the communities fortunes, the King would get beheaded and supplanted. I think this is noted clearly in "The Golden Bough."
This is another mind i would have loved to meet
Awesome talk, me encanta
Another mind i would have liked to attend a lecture of or invite to lunch
Brilliant talk, but strongly disagree with his remarks on Peter Higgs naming the Higgs particle after himself. Higgs did not do that and is in fact very modest about it. He certainly deserves credit though as he was the one who actually realized importance of Goldstones work. While it may be fair to have called it Higgs-Goldstone boson, its is harsh to say Higgs got more credit than he deserved.
The coverage on Emmy Noether is very touching and also insightful. Very few physics students are aware of how important her work was although much of modern physics is guided by the laws of symmetry !!
Cool talk! Emmy was such a badass - one of those pure thinkers like Grigori Perelman who doesn't care about the politics/noise of academia because there are so many better, more interesting things to think about. On a completely unrelated, non hypocritical note, I wish someone would have asked the question...who names their kid Ransom??
Great fun, thank you for YouTubing this excellent talk. But if we want to crack time, and maybe gravity & other mysterious things, maybe let's see if we can represent it & talk about time without using a physical linear dimension. It is not travel in a distance sense. It's time. All these models are mental constructs. The model we're using for time is illusory. E.g. 'reversing time'. It doesn't have a direction does it? Nor are there 'places' you can go to in time. Bruce Thomson in New zealand.
Well Bruce Thomson from New Zealand; you make an excellent point regarding vector velocity. Allow me to elaborate further on your point. [666]
I hoped to learn why Noether's Theorem holds.
A bit disappointed.
Your scathing sarcasm detector is broken.
GMBCATASTROPHE
No, it's the universal position in real physics.
And this is why you and your entire philosophy are going extinct. It's kinda beautiful in a way that soberingly reminds us of the harshness of nature and how some mentalities watch their end approaching and merely rail harder against changing to what is veritably and demonstrably less wrong than their current beliefs, when the only thing that can save them is adaptation.
This is why the 'Master race' has become the most degenerate of all. Thankfully most of those of European descent have let go of your nonsense and chosen growth, survival and enlightenment over idiocy. We stand at the cusp of the new order of the ages, and relics of the old are passing.
It's not an impossibility, it's a logical outcome of field theory and a direct byproduct of the wave-partical duality. Please, don't come to the table with your sub-highschool education and try to debate with someone well versed in Quantum Field Theory. It just makes you look painfully bad.
The only exception lies in the study of virtual particles, and the possible existence of a conceptual field, but even then conservation would be preserved, merely with the extension of informatic complexity as an additional component of the relationship.
Or, perhaps consider that all that exists has existed in some form, since the moment of the big bang... like all observations based on reality have told us for the entire history of modern physics.
24.56 Principle of least action example, Congress of the United States. Actually don't you think you should of linked principle of least action with entropy?
However you come up with these great videos keep them coming!
The Klein in Kaluza-Klein hypothesis is Oskar Klein, not Felix Klein
@tition1 admittedly it's a bold claim and there have certainly been other profound developments within pure maths :) I guess I just wanted to shed some light on how deep and far-reaching her influence has been, which wasn't really broached in the talk. I imagine she'd be very pleased to see how much fruit her direction of thought has borne...
I always come at these talks with a mixed degree of curiosity and skepticism. Curious about Emily Noether and skepticism of how it is being interpreted today especially when they start start talking about spacetime as the fabric of reality and not two concepts that we use to define reality, the universe. A universe they were at this time profoundly ignorant of due to they being limited to visible light perspective. They knew not the electromagnetic structures that populate space terrestrial and extraterrestrial. What relevancy is a law of thermodynamic rooted on "closed systems" in a universe of interconnected systems? When you look at the history of science without the jaundiced eye of belief in a paradigm, you see problems with assumptions being made due to a lack of awareness due to the times that they were.
This was an important time for mathematics for it was the death of the natural philosopher and the rise of the science specialist and theoretical math as a science unto itself.
The Higg's Field they hope to find mass in sounds a lot like the ether that was popular in the 1800s and I guarantee, does not exist. I consider the modern standard model to be a faith based model and its mathematical constants are the gods of modern science. The quality of the math is based proportionally on the quality of the observation.
The Church of Sweden is Protestant (Lutheran) and uses the term "mass". And I don´t think the Swedish church sees itself as a "sect". But I suppose that's a matter of opinion,
His pronounciation is actually not that far off... He pronounces the "th" softly, which is not done in German, and the "ö=oe"-sound is a bit short. But I've heard much worse...
@ 3.05 he said Emmy was born in 1982. Which reality does he live in? lol
Whoa! My bad. Thanks for pointing this out!
WTF! I was NEVER taught all this important stuff in my time in school! Great Lecture, but a bit spacey for me. Wonderful story and biography too.
#931 LIKE. 05/16/22.
I had an algebra major in grade school. I learned about Noetherian rings etcetera, but nothing about her work in physics as such. Mathematicians regard Noether's theorem as mathematically trivial. (laughs)
This talk's whole Noether thing.
Thanks it was interresting =)
guys the best.
Peter Higgs is an Englishman not a Scotsman.
He meant to say the Democrats come after the intellectuals first. Doubt they would bother him though.
I know we want to promote this brilliant woman but to say that she did mathematical calculations for relativity alongside Einstein, there’s no evidence of that, a lot of what this guy said there’s no evidence none
Information is conserved at a point - and the point is, "it's always now", which is to say that the property of entanglement and uncertainty is duality of the connection now, ..specifically and distributed, according to the location of the most probable connection in certainty, ..of the infinitely eternal past, and the uncertain potential future. Information is conserved, but can adopt any possible shape in infinity according to the math.
.dt is the infinite boundary of something and nothing, ..tangential to the apparent wave of change specifying the conservation laws from a temporal wave origin that is mass and momentum.
In conjunction with the Therom of least action. (this is a comment/observation and not definitive, because the actual simplicity of the connection/origin has to be experienced; explanations are part of the uncertainty principle, defining reality)
anyone who cannot keep politics out of science cannot be trusted.
@crosvenir sensitive to the thoughts of the Taliban, stalinism, Nazism, and Republicans?
I notice a trend in the scientific community that includes scoffing at people deemed as idiots or simply lesser. This is ridiculous. ANYONE can be an "intellectual." Grades don't dictate your intelligence, your political affiliations don't dictate your intelligence, nor does your color, religion, what you ate for lunch, what your uncle's name is, the last time you wet the bed, or any other silly thing you can imagine. I'm a 17 year old girl and I'm indirectly ridiculed a lot in these types of videos. I don't mind it so much for myself, but I feel bad for these "intellectuals" who can "grasp" the infinite universe but can't grasp the expanding diversity of their viewers. Isn't the point of videos like these to spread knowledge across the board and not to a select few? It's okay to be silly, it's just not always accurate.
College professors in the USA are a very liberal group, I have seen statistics that they are 95% democrat. They are also less religious than the general population. I saw a defense by some one in the educational community explain this phenomena once. He thought it was because they were in general more reasonable and thoughtful than the general public, (I don't think he claimed they were more intelligent). He used as his example that they very predominantly accepted Darwin's Theory of evolution and natural selection as the (answer as to how how people came about), that people like them were just natural selection in action. I suppose he meant that smart people would naturally be drawn to the democrats, the party more in line with rationality, Darwinism, and not into religious beliefs. The subject of human creation is a very complicated, unresolved and probably always will be. I think the arguments for creationism are more convincing to me but then I am not a academician.
The issue I am having with education is what can be considered advanced needs to be normalized. A lot of this advanced education can basic education even in elementary schools.
Imagine how much more and how fast we would accelerate in knowledge..
We have to put knowledge over technology. Because technology has become harmful to people.
Public education makes sure there is plenty of repetition, some kids will pick up on ideas the first day they are introduced to it, others still be struggling with things like reading simple ideas for six months.
Hilarious. I was "relating" time and energy using common sense and logic for about 20 years now. Didn't need Emmy Noether for that.
At 25:44, his talk goes off the rails. He suddenly brings in the Parity, Time and Charge Conjugation symmetries, treating them as if they are Continuous Symmetries, aka Noetherian Symmetries. They are not. Those three are Discrete Symmetries that have nothing to do with the Continuous Symmetries of Noether. Not that Ransom Stephens is the first to make this blunder. Many other physicists do the same thing. But the practice is just stupid and needs to stop. Up until 25:44, I thought I might be in the market to buy his book, The God Patent, but no thanks. I'm done with him and this video.
Distinti, look up his youtube channel. this guys an engineer whos proven most of these mathematicians wrong! and he can prove it!
+Deland Meadows Sounds like total bullshit my man
Not so, he's100% right when he talks about their math being flawed, and about why atoms are stable. They have to be stabilized by an external force.
+Deland Meadows That is not why atoms are stable. You don't know what youre talking about.
Who wants to learn CIG Theory?
We are spiritual and 'the mass' is illusionary, maybe?
@dclnm ahahahah depends which area of pure mathematics :) However, Herman Weyl saying she was his superior is far more of a recommendation than any of the blah this dude was saying :)
Yes, you are correct. They had more in common than that, but you sure have it nailed!
I like this guy, but I don't like his voice or mannerisms, so I'm not going to buy his book. Is that random?
+ApollonianKing no it's arbitrary ;-)
Thank you for clearing that up.
He makes too many verbal mixups for me to take him entirely seriously as a physics expert.
Of course his voice and manners must be totaly annoying, especialy from the pages of a book.
For someone who writes so many books, he's really sloppy with his words. Besides several problems others have noted, at 46:13 he says "distributive" when he meant "commutative", even while talking about non-commutative algebra!
I think we're all pretty sick of pandering for female approval. An over-abundance of the speaker's personal interjections was unnecessary and distracting. If the guests on tech talks and are indication of the mindset of their employees, I'd hazard the assumption that the majority of them are first-class a**holes.
Great lecture; very informative for a non-physicist such as myself; excellent hooks into looking up her work. Also, his effort in elevating her from obscurity is appreciated.
As a side note, I don't understand all the whinging/vitriol hurled at this speaker. If he mispronounces "Noether", injects a few jokes into his presentation, or makes a side comment about Republicans coming after intellectuals--so what?
The answer to your not understanding the vitriol is, I suggest, to ignore it as best you can. Such posts are only written to annoy others. They have no intellectual content.
She’s like the Tesla of Math⚡️
Try to update Wikipedia with your own superior personal definition of socialism and see how well that works out. Chavez's fascist friends who own businesses love his socialism. Any thinking person knows that there is great overlap in the practice of socialism and fascism. Separation only exists in theory.
Language,You're owed an explanation, no one can guaranty you an understanding (S Johnson).
Fur mat
Fair mah.
I do not feel I learned much of anything in this book advertisement. Thanks Google Tech Talks.
You think that you know whether or not I have that vantage point? What a laugh.
..and 3rd law of thermo "entropy increases...dyslexia
why, oh why do you reify ? don't. google "mermin bad habit" instead and read the article.
cool stuff
..maybe you could check with people who actually live in Venezuela, not only "doing business there", for a more balanced view of Chavez's politics, and its pros and cons....
Maybe you can verify also how the Gross PIB of the country has quadrupled during Chavez presidency...
Symmetries - That's where the Irish bury their dead.
Funny that after all this knowledge about Noether, he still mispronounces her name... the th is pronounced as a t in German.
Why the potty mouth comments ?
Lacking skills to pay the bills bro.
I appreciate the lecture.
Aaargggh. it was almost interesting but I couldn't watch to the end. Five minutes and that was all I could really stand.
It's so distracting that he doesn't know how to say her name but he wants to givee the lecture anyway. It's like calling Warren Beatty, "Warren Bathe-y" the whole time.
Since she's meant to be the whole point of the talk, getting her name right even once would have been a worthwhile effort.
The Taliban didn't go after the intellectuals, that's a dumb statement to make tbh
The speaker's failed obsession with being witty, not only gets in his own way, but renders the lecture to the edge of unbearable. Only my interest in Emmy Noether, & having my hands full while making dinner kept me to the 37min mark. I feel like I was listening to someone's first shot at stand up comedy. Very disappointed. As noted below, he should pay more attention to getting his names, & facts straight long before attempting to tackle the fine art of being clever. It's just over the top, & too much.
Samon Roladex Those aspects of the talk stood out for me as well.
Heather Wager I wanted to watch this,& I tried hard to watch this. What I wrote initially is why I could not watch it. That is the point of posting comments. I didn't mail a letter to his house, or create a webpage designed to discredit him. This is the comment section of youtube Heather. Unlike 99% of comments posted, mine pertains to the video & my personal thoughts about what it contains.
The world's greatest novelist would attempt to understand differential topology if they decided to write about it. They would not rise to the stature of being the world's greatest novelist if they did not respect themselves, or their own work enough to do so. If the premise of the novel revolved around differential topology, you would in fact expect the writer to understand it enough to write about it correctly.
Regarding the physicists as speakers, you need to expose yourself to more if that is your experience. You keep attending the wrong lectures based on your opinion. There is a huge difference between being a good or great speaker, vs unraveling your own presentation by the methods you chose to use. This guy is not better than most physicists at speaking. The flaws in this video range from incorrect information, misunderstood terminology, mispronunciation of the subject,& over saturation of forced humor. I challenge you to find even one physicist accomplishing this hat trick in a professional, & recorded presentation.
Stop encouraging people to dilute the quality of our society by lowering standards. We don't need to redesign hamburgers to appeal to people who hate hamburgers. Nor must we accept horrible food at a restaurant because not everyone is a good cook. When someone chooses to do something on a professional level, they are expected to do a good job. This 'everyone wins' mentality does nothing for our species but breed slop.
Heather Wager I guess the best analogy in my head to express the difference would be... the baseball games you saw in person vs all the baseball games ever played. We need not contort our opinion of average/good/great players around the games we specifically attend. They are also all recorded by default, not merit.
You qualified it correctly each time by saying, 'those you saw.' That said, just cuz the guy playing shortstop is the best our team could muster onto the field, does not in any way justify the horrid performance. This guy has a doctorate degree, he isn't some laymen, or amateur.
I don't watch minor league sports, or high school plays for the same reason you faced in your viewed lectures. All professionals would appear to be gods compared to hours of mediocrity. Google should be capable of affording major leaguers, or directing proper performances onto tape.
There are many wonderful speakers out there. Anyone deciding to give any presentation should've heard a few captivating speakers in their life somewhere. Since your comments suggest a lack of exposure, here are a few dolls worth listening to: Richard Feynman, Leonard Susskind, Christopher Hitchens, Terence McKenna, Daniel Dennett, Graham Hancock, Orson Welles, Art Bell, Bill Nye, David Bohm, Robert Anton Wilson, Wayne June, Bill Hicks, Richard Dawkins, George Carlin, etc.
I didn't list them in any order. Such a list could really run 500 deep easily, but these are worthy of hearing. While these names range the gambit, they all know how to speak & present information in a captivating way. You may not enjoy all their views, but you will most likely enjoy listening to them speak. They respect the information enough to convey it properly. I wish this concept would be more ubiquitous.
(Take care)
Heather Wager What I expect is for people to not have the, "awe look but he's trying," attitude or some useless, "everybody isn't good at everything," attitude for a doctorate degree holder who chooses to present information. That attitude belongs in daycare for children, not those teaching colleges. This is why I previously stated how lowering standards doesn't help our species in any way. Your argument does not even apply here. Presenting information is within his field of expertise as a doctorate,& within our expectations. We are not watching him attempt to contend within an opposing genre.
I don't expect the best of the best presenters to do this lecture. I only listed them in response to your repeated exposure to lackluster speakers, especially since your comments border upon 'poor me' sobbing. My gesture was met with a snobbish snarl reflecting your insistence toward missing the point. I never proposed anything you tried to say, nor do I expect dead men to conduct this presentation. Your familiarity with those names instantly negates your previously suggested inability to comprehend my point.
I expect the rest of our scholars to LEARN from their influential example. Captivation is key to inspiration,& inspiration is key to passion. These traits instill information into a student's psyche like nothing else, even when they don't fully understand what they remember. This concept is at the root of all scholastic progress! Teachers do not copyright or trademark their abilities to present information in a captivating manner, because it benefits us all to incorporate the best methods to achieve education.
What I said about being a doctorate holder did not mean what you read. It means you should possess the mental acuity to be self aware while evaluating your own ability at presentation Heather. You missed the point of what I meant, whether due to my many analogies or your own insistence.
Stop making excuses for a so called professional that is my primary point without any analogy.
yes, happy bday
I don't care what "iancmcintire" thinks.
I find her work to be delusional. And indeed, there is a VERY "broken symmetry". But it won't be found in the merely physical data or phenomena, but only a moral mind from OUTSIDE this physical universe has the faculties and data (as memory), and partly as VANTAGE, to interpret this fact. It is similar to the "grey hair" issue, but it is a far higher quality. Beings without this VANTAGE cannot possibly KNOW this, until it is too late for it to be of any advantage to them.
The BIG BANG??? NO.
GL trusting on google