Feynman: Big numbers Part Two FUN TO IMAGINE 10
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 лют 2025
- Now! High quality version at • The complete FUN TO IM...
Physicist Richard Feynman talks about the imagination needed to deal with some of things science has found out about the world and the universe... From the BBC TV series 'Fun to Imagine' (1983). You can now watch higher quality versions of some of these episodes at www.bbc.co.uk/archive/feynman/
I just want to sit and listen to this guy talk forever.
After those 7 years.. Are you still listening? :D
@@qaterius1433 it's 9 year now 🙂
I love the things he leaves as unknowns that I learned in my undergrad quantum physics class. He would no doubt be thrilled.
At 4:47 he mentions "QUASARs", and concludes by saying that we don't really understand what is the power-source of the jets of matter which come out of quasars ...
Well, one of Feynman's students at Cornell during the early 1950s was a gentleman named Dr. Ernest Sternglass, who later published a book [BEFORE THE BIG BANG (1997, 2001)] in which he explains this ... If you want to read some of Sternglass's published papers, start with "Relativistic Electron-Pair Systems and the Structure of Neutral Mesons", Physical Review, July 1, 1961 .....
What a remarkable mind he has, and what an even more incredible human being he was :)
Do you know what a theory is? Gravity is a theory! Plate tectonics is a theory, and we know damn well that both of those theories are demonstrably true, as well as any other theory. What needs skepticism is a hypothesis. The hypothesis is the idea, the theory is the results.
this man explain this thematic so but so well. fantastic!
+Marco L. Lucas is that an english sentence ?
this thematic so ? what ! ?
feynman would have lovvvved to live til today and see all the astronomical questions from his day answered, and even better, all the new exciting questions that have cropped up.
God !! Feynman Rules !!! he was the most original physicist of the 20th century as bethe described him . Wish he was a Contemporary of Hawking
Hi CuriousGeorjay. We dont know each other, but I was really liked this comment for this is exactly what I try to explain to people (especially here in India where you have robots named "students" who cram up the theory, memorize the equation, just plug in the numbers in the equation to get answers and forgets this load the moment the exam is over. And you have the memory chip named "Teachers" who are really memory devices used to transfer information to these robots)
The sad fact is like before you were born ,there is nothing once u come to that profound realisation u u start treating life differently, as well as shed a tear.
@Kitsua The axial jets of black holes have nothing to do with Hawking radiation, just so you know. Even our sun produced jets when it was forming. The jets are caused by the kinetic energy (heat) generated when sufficient matter falls in any gravitational field of sufficient strength.
@lytrigian Obviously there are two usual methods. The one is from theory to observation (deduction) and the other is the one you seem refer to (empirically).
Also the subatomic effects that come to my mind are the strong and weak nuclear forces. These could maybe be replaced by gravitation in some form. This at least seems to be a simpler solution. And afaik simple solutions tend to be correct. Also imho the subatomic scale is not very good understood and there is a lot of guessing going on.
after 26 years of being awe inspired by nature 1 of the many things that stil blows my mind is that an object 40km in diameter like a neutron star can spin 1 or 2 or even 30+times a SECOND!!! that is nuts
@snackajack117 the stong force is or more exactly the pauli exclusion principle is what keeps it from collapsing even more
@Kitsua I'm sure he was up to date with most of a brief history of time. He didn't need to read the finished book to know what had been discovered at the time.
Hello the centrifugal force... 30 times a second, that blows my mind.
I love his voice
@mip0larity not sure if it's to your liking. But he did a series of lectures and released a bunch of books on these lectures and even a notebook about the lectures. They contain more information than any of his videos released, well, all the ones I've found anyway... :)
@lytrigian I think you misinterpreted me. What you say in your first paragraph is in fact what I meant. The observations are that there is a great mass in the center and some immensely smaller masses swirling around it, with the whole system releasing energy.
Imagine a funnel, the amount of matter trying to fit through the hole at one time is limited to a much smaller size that actually goes through the funnel, that's why a funnel fills up faster than it drains. Now imagine a funnel with a hole the size of a pin, and a person trying to fill the funnel with a pressure washer.
Imagine this mind fed with modern day evidence. He was dazzling and is sorely missed.
@snackajack117 no, they're held together by gravity, not the strong force.
Well I just listened to this under the premise that quasars and atoms are alike, so that there might be a blackhole inside the atoms and I am astounded of how much sense this seems to make.
Thanks for this upload Chris, I can't find any torrent for the full series, I'd love more of this. Such an excellent scientific orator. If you've any tips, lemmie know. :)
If me could see precision cosmology these days he would be so excited.
That is a damn good question. Always wondered that myself.
@Midevilshadow Perhaps Feynman was such a genius that he was able to answer the deepest questions of life without perturbing his own neurochemistry. I wish I could say the same about myself. ;)
According to wikipedia, Feynman and a few of his friends experimented with LSD, cannabis and hashish in isolation chambers in an attempt to study consciousness. Im very curious as to how much those experiences influenced his studies.
For the quote 'Scientists are explorers. Philosophers are tourists,' may I have the original source information? Is it mentioned in any book, or has anyone heard Feynman say this, perhaps during a lecture or discussion with friends?
@Kitsua what hawking's discoveries?
Neutron stars are awesome. I would really want to see what actually happens on these stars, because their density is so enormous and they are so dense.
At 4:25, Feynman looks like he got 3 nostrils. His hair always look good.
@Kitsua wait what... i just watched more and feynman is talking about black holes, the main thing hawking discovered. do you have any clue?
@TheSleepaholic Except that if that were true then there are certain things we'd expect to see -- but we don't. For instance, there would be noticeable gravitational effects at the subatomic scale. But no one has ever seen that.
Which is to say, there have never been any observations that would lead anyone to form such a theory. In science, you *start* with observation, and then let your imagination work from there, not the other way around (usually).
That's just the point, it doesn't. The jet is in fact from the matter that is still around the black hole and in the process of falling in. As it does that, it reaches high enough speeds, that along the axis of the black hole the matter can in fact escape.
Gravity I feel is like a magnet were atoms are spinning aligned.. so when you get masses like clouds of atoms spinning diffrent to the centre spin causes like a electromanatism like gravity in stars and planets. And also if a planet is massive but rock then a smaller objects would be attracted to the bigger mass trying to become a even bigger mass compared to space. Both quite thinkable.. bearing in mind I'm not a scientist I'm just thinking.
P.s does a electron star spin??
About black holes...I saw many comments of people that route for Hawking's theory. Mind that, nowadays, a large community of physicists are for Susskind's theory based on conservation of the information and the holographic principle.
@mip0larity Agreed!! Christopher JSykes. I dont know who you are, but you are my new hero
yeah. That's true.
The model doesn't go 30 times a second though.
One teaspoon doesn't weigh more than the Earth (it weighs about as much as a mountain). It just is so dense and heavy that it would fall through the floor. And then the ground. And the mantle and finally plunge into the core.
@jimmyti9cer It can go a lot faster than 30 times a second... :) I think one of the fastest being around 716 times a second, google millisecond pulsar
This guy is the awesome. Also, press 4 for bup bup bup
wow.
could gravity reverse entropy?
Then yes, the Earth would accrete onto/into that object. The only objects that dense and small that exist or could exist under the laws of physics are neutron stars and black holes. If you put it a little further away, you could get the Earth to orbit it, along with the Moon. And, depending on its mass, the rest of the Solar System, including the Sun.
Similarly, there are black holes and neutron stars that orbit very close to other stars, and they accrete or "steal" matter from those stars.
@Kargoneth
remember, the earth is 99,999...++% empty space, as are all materials. the distance between electrons, protons and neutrons in difference to their size could be much like our solar system, where you can't even see all the planets with a human eye. It is the electromagnetic bindings between the atoms that makes molecyles, and thus solid matter.
But who cares? we are all made of stardust anyway :)
I fucking love that guy. Greatest vids ever
Have you ever poured, say milk into a glass too fast and some of it hits but doesn't stay in the glass but splashes out back at you? Not the best explanation, but something like that.
when he began to go into detail about neutron stars and pulsars I couldn't help but feel bad because at the time (1983) they did not have the understanding we do today about these phenomenon, for example a neutron star wouldn't be able to form from a star of mass equal to our sun, and we now know the quantum reasons why they emit the radio (in fact many electromagnetic) waves which he said in this video they did not have a firm grasp on yet, wish he was still alive to learn this exciting stuff.
have people now worked out why pulsars emmit radiation yet? i thought they had?
Do you know who he was?
stars as well as planets and galaxies might be powered from outside. not inside.
and gravity is a by-product of electromagnetic forces outthere
"big numbah"!
5:15 ... the Jets ...
i Figured it out ... what they are ... and how they work , almost Fully ...
(Clue : there not black holes )
anyone wanna take a guess ?
Funny how this came out the year i was born ....
+J-N-H-M There are already a number of theories for this that have become quite popular, in particular the Blandford-Znajek process is usually the one regarded as being most likely accurate.
The idea is that the black holes spin energy is converted into radio jets through shifting currents inside the magnetosphere of the black hole.
By the way we see these things directly at the center of galaxies, exactly where we find super massive black holes.
Zyle there not black holes at all really .... sorry buddy .. there Galaxian Lagrangian Points so to speak ... as explain in my video ...
inventor fabricator theorist JNHM ...
J-N-H-M
I would love to see the experimental data that confirms your hypothesis.
Zyle i think you know this already ... but ... David Lapoints theory ... The Primer Fields ...
then add in some of Distinti .... combined with Me !... Sorry i don't need others ..
inventor fabricator theorist JNHM ...
what help did i have with the Fibonacci and JNHM MATRIX ? doesn't matter i was right
if no one agrees WE don't care i'm correct ... so beyond that , you can try to disprove us , or you can just carry on sir
You can try to claim black holes dont exist all you like, as you do in your video. But that does not make it correct. I dont know what rock you must have been living under to have missed the discovery of gravitational waves. Which by the way were DIRECT observations of black holes, for the very first time.
If we can observe the effects of black holes directly, they must exist. Ergo, you are wrong. As you say, sorry buddy.
maybe you want to watch the video again.
Ok..now,after listening to this, I feel so small and dumb :D
Sometimes it's not always about physics...is it?? :)
He lived physics his entire life. I hope he turned into a Neutron star after leaving this Earth :)
The resemblance is *very* superficial, and valid only in the kind of oversimplification commonly foisted on schoolchildren.
@mnagmobile1 All you're really saying is that you don't know what "theory" means. A scientific theory is a well-documented explanation as to why things are the way they are. A theory is not a hypothesis. Hypothesis is a fancy word for "more or less educated guess". Nor is it a law. Scientific laws are observations (for instance, that each action has an opposite and equal reaction), not explanations. To get to the why, you have to have a theory; The ultimate goal of scientific research.
@dicker70 there is zero matter and or antimatter created at a BH event-horizon. none whatsoever, nor at any other place in the known cosmos.
@RichandAbi species*
"nothing is faster than light, and nothing could escape" oh, how he must be turning in his grave.
@Kitsua lol okay. shame so many people rated your drunkenness so highly.
@Kitsua > implying scientists publish new science in, and learn about new science from.... pop science books?
after see all this videos,see hows ur brain starting to hurt.......dont worry it wont hurt u!!!!
Bet you he didn’t lose his mind seeking knowledge.
Shit I feel like I would give anything to trade places with a 5 year olds mind right now
I really liked* (no was)
No, you never go from theory to observation, not in the sense you seem to mean. You can make predictions based on a theory -- but this is used to test the *theory*, not the observations.
And you're simply wrong about the nuclear forces. Those interactions cannot be explained by gravity. To simply wave your arms and say "quantum!" is no help. There's also a lot less guessing (in your examples anyway) than you seem to think.
Remember there are no separate things so remember ur part of everything and its part of you it is you
you're and you're
@mnagmobile1
he IS (well, was) a genius.
Scientific theories is not equal to guessing.
Big bang is a theory... why? Because there is no way of proving or disproving what really happened. But the level of understanding of physics that we have now points to the conclusion that we do really know there was some kind of "big bang", the beginning of our universe.
That "some sort of genius" you are talking about was a member of The Manhattan Project, and you still don't believe he was a genius?
@Kitsua Apart from black holes Stephen hawking has not made a serious contribution to the world of science and certain does not come close to the breadth and depth of the phenomenon that Dr. Feynman discusses in these videos.
209 to 0
you're
I think you're too serious... it was obvious that huntgiri didn't really think that Feynman could turned into a Neutron star... you are boring..
wow... seriously, everything is not science...
if you don't understand or accept that... you have a problem..
and what huntgiri said has nothing to do with spiritualism, it was a joke! do you remember what a joke is?
And right now you're talking to someone that love science but can understand when someone is joking around...
you're mixing things...