Feynman was the ultimate instrumentalist. (Bohr was the "OG".) If you're an old-school reductionist, you're going to hate him. It's just a question of where your own interests lie: focusing on applications of existing quantum theory ("STFU and calculate") or working on new TOEs ("What the hell IS the vacuum?").
You're misunderstanding Feynman. Of course the remarks in his lecture are oversimplified since he's speaking to a popular audience, but still he does a great job getting across the process of doing physics.
The speaker on the left is James Ellias, a self-described "Math, Physics, Philosophy and Writing Tutor," who in 2015 claimed (on LinkedIn) that his Inductica project would 1. Discover new principles of physics. 2. Use new theories and discoveries to produce new technologies for profit. But so far all this project seems to have produced is some videos, including this one dissing a well-known physicist who in fact discovered new principles of physics (for which he was awarded a Nobel Prize) and helped produce new technologies (nanotechnology, quantum computing).
@@ExistenceUniversity Ms. Maric took the Aether out in SR. Onestone was forced to put it back in for GR because Heaviside-Maxwell assumed an Aether. They rebranded it as Spacetime. And instead of formulizing it as Dynamic, they did so as a Dynamical Static. Bohr told Kramer to NOT publish his study on how frequency of Light diminishes with each interaction along the electron shell. Gravity is SPECIFIC but never Universal. I WIN YOU AUTISTIC TWITS! Intuiting > Reasoning and Logicing
Feynman excluded explanations from his model, just because he didn't get annoyed by people asking him about his subjective procedures to get those mathematical constructs ... Assertively, He believed that trying to explain them through Natural Language words would derail the mathematical framework established. Perhaps, with a few, who he felt trusted about not misinterpret his cognitive mechanism to arrive at those mathematical constructs, he was open to 'use analogical descriptions through natural language' with them ... but to stay quiet to the masses and prevent overthinking about the meaning of the diagrams and the equations, He denoised the implementation and consolidation of his theoretical paradigm ... ... just denoising the mathematical construct/relationships from human's subjective chaos ... ... What's wrong with that ?? ... ... 'Humans Natural Languages' are limited by Human Perception data incomes, those languages fall into unsolvable paradoxes when/where you are trying to deal with stuff out of the perceptual range of the species... If you are a philosopher, you should understand why Feynman took that stance about those mathematical discernments. The 'wise' Jedis don't have to kill the 'evil' Sith' ... Maybe, The 'wise Jedis' are working for the emperor.
Nifty. I always had a Feynman-esque attitude about philosophy in general too for roughly the 1st half of my life so far. But there is little Q that science & philosophy can both inspire each other, & pretty much always have, regardless of the "division" that occured in academia since the renaissance/enlightenment. David Albert recently said something interesting on Brian Keating's channel that I totally agree with, which was being a fan of division of labor. That is to say, Its fine for people to be interested in only one or the other or even both. What's NOT OK is having hostility towards your non-preference. Arguing over importance is silly. We need both, & that's all there is to it. EDIT: They also discussed Eisenstein/Maxwewell/Bore & the Popper take & all. "Foundations" ought to be the hot topic that it is IMO.
Much as I admire Feynman, his work is not beyond criticism or above reproach. I recommend watching the videos of physicist Alexander Unzicker, Phd ("Unzicker's Real Physics") on YT. Among other topics, he has an amusing series of videos titled "Overhyped Physicists" and I'm afraid he includes Feynman in that group (along with Neil de Grasse Tyson and Murray Gell-Mann) mainly criticizing his work on Quantum Electro-Dynamics ("QED"). Here's a link to his take on Feynman with a quote from the site: ua-cam.com/video/BnCDVrBSDFk/v-deo.html Overhyped Physicists: Richard Feynman "Feynman was a character you simply cannot dislike. Yet, the theory on which his fame is based, turns out to be bogus - a symptom of the superficiality with which he tackled fundamental questions of physics. I highly recommend Oliver Consa's papers on QED: arxiv.org/abs/2010.10345 vixra.org/abs/2002.0011 arxiv.org/abs/2109.03301 arxiv.org/abs/2110.02078 www.youtube.com/@TheMachian/videos"
@@economicfreedom8591 Alexander Unzicker is not a PhD in physics, but in neuroscience. This is a completely different field, and as such as far as physics is concerned, he's no different from a self-taught amateur. And it shows. I've watched several of his YT and he makes BASIC mistakes in the physics, like errors in dimension, or the notion that you can't resolve detail finer than the limits of your instrument. As far as I'm concerned, this makes him no different from any other woo woo peddler.
"The purpose of scientific knowledge is to understand cause and effect relationships." Hmm, who told you that, Ayn Rand? Considering how problematic causality is in quantum physics and relativistic physics, that puts you on the losing side of an argument that was settled a century ago. The mathematics that best describes the world at quantum scale is probabilistic. Beliefs that there's some hidden local causal reality beneath the probabilities (called "realism) have been shown to be false, and many of the paradoxical predictions of quantum theory have been experimentally observed. So, if your basic assumptions about cause and effect don't stand up, but the mathematics does, it's sensible to consider the mathematics the more correct description. This is deeply counter-intuitive, but show me the signed contract that was handed to us at birth promising that the world would conform to our intuitions.
>>> The mathematics that best describes the world at quantum scale is probabilistic. Agreed. Karl Popper referred to these inherent probabilities as "Propensities" (something analogous to a "habit" in living organisms). And the absurdity of trying to reduce all probabilities to strictly deterministic certainties he compellingly showed in an explanation of a thought-experiment by Czech quantum physicist Alfred Landé called "Landé's Blade." Briefly, Landé posited a tube suspended at an angle, down which we roll a heavy ivory billiard ball. When the ball exits the tube, it encounters a thin, metal blade (like the edge of a sword). It rolls along the blade for a bit until various random forces cause the ball to fall either to the left or to the right. On each side of the blade, there's a bucket that catches the balls as they roll onto the blade and fall. One billiard ball does not influence any other billiard ball so each roll thru the tube is an independent event. Simple probability tells us that over time, the number of balls in the right basket will be (approximately) equal to the number of balls in the left basket, which is just another way to say the odds of falling left or right is 1 chance out of 2 possibilities, or 1/2, or 50%. Landé then says that if we had a "super microscope" that allowed us to see what was occurring on a molecular level (i.e., the molecules of the ball, the tube, and the blade) so that we could detect the "nudging" that those molecules contributed to the ball's falling left or falling right, allowing us to predict with complete certainly which bucket it would fall into AFTER it was nudged by a particular molecule in a particular way, we still wouldn't be able to predict with certainty WHY a particular molecule nudged the ball to the left or to the right BEFORE the ball encounters that molecule. Again, according to Landé, if we had an even more powerful super-microscope allowing us to see atomic events that caused particular molecules to nudge left or right so that we could predict with 100% certainty which atom would nudge which molecule in a known way, it wouldn't answer the question of why the 50/50 propensity should inhere in atoms. So we would need yet an even more powerful microscope to look at subatomic events, which predictably nudge atomic events, which predictably nudge molecular events, which predictably nudge macro-sized events (such as rolling billiard balls); but that again brings up the mystery of why the 50%-left/50%-right propensity inheres in the subatomic events; and so on, ad infinitum. No matter how powerful our examining tools are, the 50%-left vs. 50%-right probability exists. We know that, of course, because in fact, the billiard balls roll down the tube and follow classical probability outcomes of about 50% falling into the left bucket, and 50% falling into the right bucket. I believe Alfred Landé was quite right about this (as was Popper in his explanation of this thought-experiment) since it illustrates a big problem with the assumptions of metaphysical materialism, physical reductionism, and strict causal determinism.
This is a misunderstanding and misrepresentiation of what Feynman is saying, f.i. at 5:35 he's not talking about quantum mechanics, he says that speculation about what is going on in a scattering process is speculative and as good as any other. He's teaching physics here, not philosophy.
What you are saying is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about: I think it is possible to know the actual physical cause and effect relationships in such interactions. Further, I think figuring those things out is part of physics, not philosophy. The word "philosophy" is you and Feynman's way of derogating it as arbitrary speculation, but we make inferences about the underlying, hidden truth of things all the time. Think of the atomic theory of matter, think of our understanding of light as a wave.
@@Inductica There is no evidence that we are smart or capable enough to really understand Reality. No matter how much you try a Chimp or Ape is not going to understand or grasp the quantum theory or Relativity. Similarly We Humans are just a little better class of primates. It is entirely possible that we are not just physiologically developed enough to grasp reality. Probably an AI can. Then it can teach humans with their own limited languages.
I agree that Inductica misunderstood what Feynman was saying about prejudice, but I disagree about how Inductica misunderstood him. Feynman was saying he had a hypothesis and because it was his hypothesis he was biased towards it, which is natural but not good science. He wasn't saying one shouldn't have an interpretation explaining the cause and effect, he was saying you can't take something as certain when it's not proven.
@@Inductica We must renounce the efforts to understand sub-atomic phenomena. -Niels Bohr Karl Popper despised this view as it challenged the very essence of scientific inquiry and the possibility of understanding the natural world through empirical means. Seems like Feynman was smoking whatever the Bohrians were! (He didn't understand Magnetism, he fudged his g factor.... the guy was more pop-sci than sci-sci)
@@Inductica Blah, blah, blah. All you have done is talk, while you have failed to "discover new principles of physics" or "use new theories and discoveries to produce new technologies" which you claimed 9 years ago that Inductia would do. Put up or shut up.
I'm not suggesting that you give up (or cry), but I think you should stop posturing and flapping your gums until you have something material to say. You think general relativity and quantum mechanics are all wrong? Then I think you should show the world something better, and in the meantime I think you should shut the f**k up. You claim that Feynman is "everything wrong with Modern Physics" based on some lectures he gave to a lay audience for entertainment? That is completely laughable. I think you don't have an inkling of Feynman's contributions to the field of physics, nor their significance, and I strongly suspect you don't have the wherewithal to understand those things. I would say, however, that people like you are not what is wrong with Modern Physics, but that is only because you have nothing to do with it.
I don't think he was. The whole theory was explained using non-Euclidean geometry later. His insight that lead to the equivalence principle pre-dated that. I'm not sure though. This is a good thing to think about once I study the history.
@@Inductica you are very incorrect, einstein learned directly from other mathematicians about geometry, and then figured he can apply it to physics. The math/geometry predated the physics, einstein took the math and applied it to physics
In general, classes and books on the history of physics will help you more than regular physics classes as a philosophy student. You can try my "Inductive Summary of Physics" series by going to my channel and looking at playlists. There is Issac Asimov's "History of Physics" which is good. For modern physics specifically, take a look at the youtube channel "Kathy Loves Physics."
15:54 “derive relativity from maxwells” - i don’t think so. i think maybe: special relativity must be deduced just from noticing that there is no absolute location or speed [galileo]. and that the speed of light is constant for all observers at an inertial frame of reference. [michaelson morely].
Yes. Though it's worth noting that this was just an off the cuff discussion with him. My point in this conversation is that this causal point of view is not obvious, even to an objectivist.
By some strange coincidence I just read Feynman's book this past weekend. Transcribed from his lectures at MIT it was described as an introductory course for non-science majors at MIT, which immediately struck me as an oxymoron. But I kept reading because I was a non-science major too and thought this would be way over my pay grade. In fact these lectures are on their face eminently understandable. I believe these lectures become the orthodox understanding of Physics at that time, late 1940's, early 1950's. The chemistry of nuclear physics required a mathematical model based on observed phenomenon. By the time I was in high school in the late 1960's this kind of thinking became axiomatic. Being intensely interested in science and bad at math, I went for the social sciences, which required mostly statistics, boring but doable, because I didn't think I could hack the math. This dance between observation and calculation appears to me as a completely rational AND emotionally satisfying resolution.
The famous "Feynman Lectures on Physics" are actually pretty advanced, as they were transcribed from lectures he gave to professional scientists at CalTech. The video excerpt featured above, I believe, is from a series of popular lectures Feynman gave at his undergraduate alma mater, Cornell University. There is also an interesting series of lectures Feynman gave at the Esalen Institute in Big Sur, California.
To me there is nothing wrong the way they drive physics today, it is like driving a car as long you know what are you doing. But if you want to understand how a car works you don't just drive it you have to go really deep into getting knowledge. That's what physicist are not looking for, they are just happily enjoying the ride.
In some sense I agree with you. But we have lost the ability to become "true mechanics." I'm here to explain how we can use philosophy to regain that power. If we do, then someday perhaps we will build "flying cars."
@@Inductica Philosophy is not tested so it cannot tell us jack about reality. Philophans have the odd idea that they can just make it all up based on nothing but their opinions. Learn some physics.
@@InducticaI know you have all kind of people telling you that they have "the real physics", so I hope you just read to the end. I am working with the hypothesis of a single substance with two properties. With this assumptions you can explain several features of the material universe. For example where the planets, the stars, the galaxies but also the atomic particles get the energy to rotate. You could explain why venus rotate opposite to the other planets. The list is long but I hope you could think about the possibility. I am not saying that I know everything I believe it is a complementary idea of what it is already known. If you are curious about it I will love to explain. Thank you for your time. Have a good day.
@@Inductica Philosophy does not do that. It is mostly navel gazing. For every idea that one philosopher has there is another that contradicts the idea. So it doesn't get anywhere.
1:13:39 no, man! Particles and waves are a dialectic! When a molecule of water is on the surface of a "wave," it literally "composes" the "phenomenon" of the "wave"! It's similar with photons! Photons are just energized spacetime itself! That's why they "cancel each other out"! They "cancel" each other into "spacetime"!
It's a fact that there are a lot of great physicists who've made significant contributions to the field that admire Feynman. Even Murry Gell-Mann who personally dislikes Feynman admires him as a physicist. I don't know of any exceptions. The only people I know of who diss Feynman (and Einstein, and other great physicists) have made no positive contributions to the field.
Personally, Feynman is one of my intellectual heroes. However, I think your comment is an unjustified attack on the person who posted this. Not to mention incredibly rude. I have some things I strongly disagree with here, but Feynman would be the first one to point out that criticism is invaluable. Alternate hypothesis are gifts, and we should never dismiss individuals for putting forth honest criticism, whether it’s right or wrong, and we should never put anyone so high on a pedestal that they are beyond criticism or use their words as authoritative without careful justification.
@@chriscurry2496 I adjusted my wording to be more neutral. However, in response to your reply I would point out there are no "alternative hypotheses" being put forth here to general relativity or to quantum mechanics, just claims they are "wrong" for specious reasons having nothing to do with physics. As for what Feynman would think of this so-called "criticism, " I don't think you know him very well - he would consider this video to be total bullsh*t.
In any discussion of Unified Theories, Gravity, Electromagnetism, and the Strong & Weak Nuclear Forces are taken as the four fundamental forces of nature; the first two are part of our everyday, macroscopic experiences. It's curious that Electromagnetism has been uniquely excluded from Cosmology. It makes sense to use all of the tools in the toolbox. "Magnetohydrodynamics & Plasma Physics" is discussed in Chapter 10 of Jackson's "Classical Electrodynamics" (2nd edition). Revisiting the concepts in "Cosmical Electrodynamics" by Alfvén & Fälthammar, and "Physics of the Plasma Universe" by Peratt deserves attention, especially in light of contemporary observations from JWST and other observatories, for example.
@@jaydenwilson9522 Indeed. I frolic in electromagnetic fields at a GHz+ during my day job where signal amplitudes are measured in dBm's because of the dynamic range. I don't get why Electrodynamics is excluded; I think the solution to "Dark Matter/Dark Energy" problem has been placed before us.
@douglasstrother6584 Blame the cultists of newton and the tards of onestone. If they don't gatekeep, then their paradigm dies. Also Faraday failed in formulating a torsion theory of electricity so I think they are waiting until they get it? (Till then, maybe they think onestone is good enough?)
1:21:50 This point is SUPER important. The physically (What are the components of [action] in the theory do we detect in the physical world, and which parts are theoretical probabilistic or statistical buffers that are not measured in the physical world). Good point.
12:28 You say Special Relativity obviously doesn't have a causal structure. That's not obvious because it's not even clear what you mean by "causal structure" and by "SR doesn't have causal structure".
They wrote Science Fiction with Mythomagicks and said "it work's" by abstracting data.... Maric-Lorentz-Poincare-Minkowski-Onestone's (Einstein) formulization of Machian Relationalism using Maxwell-Heaviside's Equations is not only incoherent, but illogical as well!
I'm saying that its effects are not explained by talking about entities acting. In contrast, the atomic theory of matter explains chemical reactions in terms of the joining and disjoining of atoms into molecules. That's the difference between a theory with a causal structure and one without.
@@InducticaI think this is probably the biggest gripe I have with your views presented in this video … You continually say “what exists are entities which act on (other entities)”. But why do you make that assumption? Wouldn’t you attribute it to “common sense” applied to physical reality, or the framework to reason about physical events? As far as I can tell, this “common sense” view is a cognitive behavior we evolved with, probably because that fits the physical world at our macroscopic scale well enough to help us survive and pass on genes and so on. But we already know so much about the physical world which ought to make us doubt this common sense perspective: the earth rotating around the sun, for example, or Quantum Mechanics for a more complicated one, where both views are much larger and much smaller than the scale our cognitive system evolved to handle, respectively. The most blatant example is the non-locality inherent in Quantum Mechanics. And remarkably, perhaps the most underrated great physicist and thinker of our time, John Bell, gave a method to test in the real world whether non-locality applied to our reality. And perhaps even more remarkable, this subsequently WAS experimentally verified (see the 2022 Noble Prize in Physics)! … seriously, after studying Quantum Mechanics entirely because of my personal obsession with this insane notion of non-locality (which has been near universally unknown, probably because or the “unconcern for the physical world” that you allege and which I agree with in physics classes So I think it’s a huge mistake to make this assumption that you do. I think there’s ample evidence to reject, or AT LEAST allow other possibilities on the table than assuming there are just entities that exist and act (with the implicit assumption that these actions are local, I suspect). I suspect you’re relying on a cognitive bias which has already shown to be standing on precarious legs.
Also, sorry if this seems like an insulting response. I certainly didn’t mean to be insulting, but people often mistake my tone for angry or acquisitive. But nothing can be further from the truth-I appreciate your point of view here (even though my gut instinct is to strongly disagree with much of what you say). It’s interesting to think about
I think this is all a bout of tall-poppy syndrome. One thought though: Thinking of post-quantum-revolution physics in terms of "entities acting on other entities" is definitely the wrong way to look at physics. Feynman knew as much. The quantum field is a seamless physical variable, not uniquely or unambiguously defined, which produces the potentialities of **events** happening. Causality being an attribute of pairs of events. In his heart of hearts Feynman was, I think, Newtonian in this sense: He created mathematical tools and put them to good use while contriving no **unnecessary** conceptual hypothesis.
@@Inductica No. That's what **you** are saying I said. I am saying that "The quantum field is a seamless physical variable, not uniquely or unambiguously defined, which produces the potentialities of *events* happening. Causality being an attribute of pairs of events."
@@Inductica >>>where nothing is doing the acting? Where nothing PHYSICAL is doing the acting. Rethink your metaphysical materialism. "Existence exists" does not mean "Only material entities and energy exist."
@@joigus >>>No. That's what *you* are saying LOL! Ellias is a "student of Objectivism." Objectivist metaphysics never got beyond garden-variety, naive materialism. A don't know if Ayn Rand actually believed nothing exists except material entities and energy, but that's how most of her followers interpret her maxim "Existence exists!"
Well done presentation. The theme of this video is to make sure you tie your mind/observations to reality at all steps of your thinking process, and not start/end your thinking exclusively by the whims of your imagination. Thank you.
"It's strange to observe how critics in the comment section are unable to question the problem itself and instead attack the person and his credibility. It's utterly strange to watch. Are they paid trolls? 'Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.' (Eleanor Roosevelt) It seems they are unable to focus on ideas instead of people. Very sad."
It's not difficult. Produce some useful work that demonstrates phsyics is wrong, gives us something we didn't have before and get it peer reviewed. I get the feeling Terryology is your area of experise.
"Shouldn't this method be used to test some mathematical physicists and theoreticians, who are considered correct despite lacking practical usefulness, as well? They even receive Nobel Prizes without any proof of usefulness."
@ChechenScienceAcademy0204 Who? What? Or is this just some sht you were told by someone on the internet that has no basis in reality? (Hint- yep, it's complete BS)
Causality is not confined to physicality. Causality is what confines everything else . Only part of reality consists of entities you can only see the smallest section of reality that is observable to humans and you're trying to impose that upon all of reality and you're trying to confine causality within itself
>>>Causality is not confined to physicality. True. Students of Objectivism and acolytes of Ayn Rand are, at root, old-fashioned, naive materialists. When they assert, "Existence exists!" what they really mean is that physical matter - discrete particles or perhaps "puffs of meta-energy" (as Leonard Peikoff once quipped in one of his lectures) - appeared in the universe first; and then somehow, they coalesced into biological organisms, and then, somehow, an end-result, or epiphenomenon called "mind" or "consciousness" formed from those discrete fundamental particles. The idea that consciousness is completely distinct from matter and must have come into existence at the same time as matter (indeed, mind and matter interpenetrate each other) is completely foreign to their materialist biases.
Maybe 'least action' and 'conservation of energy' has a reference frame maybe CMB, quantum foam or gravity field. There is something special about a spinning body that produce a perpendicular vector and a plane.
You can think of the potentials of numbers and spaces lesbian the effects of a Continuum becoming quantized or where order is imposing itself upon chaos and becoming probability
Exactly it's all about action, (transformations over time). Then when going deeper into the continuum, it's about taking the curvatures out of space and time, and describing them with smaller quantities and distributions of action that describe the resistances acting to dilate perceived space and time. The more we can find the (action) components, the more we will be able to describe. For instance, a gravity wave moves like a cascading action, observational evidence shows that not only does (energy convert to mass, and mass to energy, but as well as the medium that intermediates mass and energy) which means we need to account for smaller quantities and distributions of action that describe the resistances acting to dilate perceived space and time, because that is made of energy based action as well. These concepts of a warpable space, and a dilating time are not behaving like a space or a time, they behave more like fluid of resistances. For instance, black hole mergers convert solar masses worth of energy into these gravitational waves, and these gravitational wave impart action on instruments, which is a direct energy conversion for (this mediums energy conversion towards detectable change in resistance acting on a instruments behavior). Energy density, mass, and the medium, seems to have more to do with a continuous vector field and the arrangements of motion direction differences over a volume within this vector field.
So what's pushing the soda then after the atmosphere removes because I thought it was weightless then gravity would be holding it in the cup still. So what is I'm sucking the air into your mouth then if you expel all the air out of your lungs
String theory might be true at some level, but it represents only a small piece of a larger set of more fundamental processes at Planck scale. Quantized vortices that form open and closed tubes in a non-viscos fluid can explain the foundational basis of the more emergent oscillating string process. At the fundamental scale, ℎ represents the circumference, ℏ the radius, and 2ℏ the diameter of angular momentum quanta (quantized vortex). The ℏ value is the reduced Planck constant and serves as the relative reduced action-the linear radius reduction of ℎ-as part of an angular motion quanta that will resist another angular motion quanta. Essentially, half of the quanta is moving in the opposite direction of the other half. The diameter 2ℏ provides the linear spatial length, contrasting with the action length ℎ and the relative ℏ reduced action length. When angular motion vortices align, they can form open or closed tubes. The action-based oscillation travel time around the length of the tube is given by ℎ⋅𝑛/𝑐, where the circumference ℎ is the travel length of action, not the spatial length occupied by the angular motion quanta, which is 2ℏ. Therefore, the true length of the open or closed tube is 2ℏ⋅𝑛, while the oscillating action travel time around the loop is ℎ⋅𝑛/𝑐. The relative oscillation travel speed around the loop is inversely proportional to the travel speed of the tube. Hence, the correct action travel time considering this inverse proportionality is ℎ⋅𝑛/(𝑐−𝑠), where 𝑠 is the speed of the tube, and (c-s) is the speed of the oscillation, a relativistic trade off between speed of the loop in one direction effecting speed of a oscillation traversing the loop. Additionally, the tubes exhibit secondary properties: open tubes will orbit each other due to angular action, and closed tubes will move in and out of each other due to angular action. This dynamic interaction defines a specific set of kinetics and oscillations within the system, which are not fully understood yet. Fundamentally, we are not dealing with wave functions directly; instead, wave functions are secondary emergent processes resulting from continuous motion undergoing action. There are two types of energy to consider: -Continuous angular motion flux, where energy grows with circumference length in a quantized angular motion environment. -Kinetic oscillations, where energy grows with frequency in a quantized angular motion environment. Wave functions cannot exist without angular motion quanta. It is possible that they depend on each other to exist recursively. While there might be a smaller granular scale than 2ℏ diameter length, this is currently unknown. Therefore, from our current understanding, angular motion is more fundamental than wave functions. Continuous motion flow with directionality differential seems more fundamental based on the equations and observations.
Let me be more descriptive. The planck value = (h), it's a fundamental natural unit for quantized action in the universe (it's a circumference length of angular motion), while ℏ "h bar" is the radius of the h circumference length, and it is the reduced angular action (reduced for mass scaling purposes, and because half of the vortex is moving the opposite direction as the other half, therefore for another vortex, it feels the resistance of half of another vortex that it interacts with). The quantization at the smaller scale is a result of the big bang energy quantizing into a low resistance state within a superfluid (a bunch of vortices that equal the same size that permeates all of space, they are largely in potential energy state of low resistance angular flux, since the speed of motion transfer is so high (speed of light) and the vortices are so small, they trade off energy differentials very fast, therefore quantized equilibrium is found fast). For mass to grow it must have the equal and opposite angular action to occupy space (ℏ * integer). When the vortices align, they form these tubes, the tubes oscillation along their lengths. The tubes can be open or closed, a lot like when dolphin blow bubbles under water, but instead of bubbles in water, it's angular motion with continuous non-viscos superfluid at the Planck scale (orders of magnitude smaller than the scale that current understand of quantum physics operates).
@@Inductica Remember, this goes back to what you said (what is the actual action components, and what is the theory). Planck's constant is derived from measurements from multiple triangulating sources, individually. While the wave function is there to help explain what is measured, which incorporates hbar as well. So understanding this action component is key, how it's used, and how it relates to mass (it's a relative constant, relative to how mass forms and interacts) it's relative to the measurement frame of reference (mass), which is a profound point that goes over peoples heads.
For Feynman the idea is more important than the math and this comes out repeatedly, especially when he points out that there are different formalisms that can be proved to be equivalent but are "psychologically" different. Physicists, mathematically, are opportunists, not fanatics.
You can translate pragmatism into a material list not understanding the non-physical causes of physics yet including them in his calculations because they are there
25:45 Regarding the whole section on 3 ways to formulate gravity, once again I think you're both misunderstanding Feynman. Aviram says that Feynman is right that the formulations are equivalent but isn't right about the conclusion, and then Aviram misinterprets the conclusion. Feynman wasn't saying that you have to be completely unprincipled and pragmatic about the models. Feynman was saying that none of these make predictions the others don't. If 2 models make different predictions, you can determine which one differs from reality by doing an experiment. If they don't differ, you can't say one is right and another is wrong WITHOUT EVIDENCE that any are wrong. In other words, you can't say one is wrong and another is right simply on your favorite philosophy. Sure, some are unlikely to be a good narrative description of the cause and effect of what reality is doing at the granular level, but you CANNOT CLAIM you know the fundamental base level of reality, without evidence backing you up. The history of physics, shows that every time physicists think they've reached the fundamental level of reality, they've turned out to be wrong so you can't claim your mental model is an accurate description of the fundamental level of reality. That's what Feynman is saying. No one knows the fundamental level of reality, and all these models are predictively equivalent, so you cannot give preference to one over others, without departing science and entering the realm of human desire.
26:14 Having only just now seen one other video of yours, I can't be certain just what your favorite interpretation/philosophy is, but here you present a tautology and say 'I know my philosophy is right because I know my philosophy is right'. Paraphrasing: "I know that reality consists of entities ... because reality consists of entities." No you don't. You then immediately follow with an explanation showing that you don't know this. You say that for it to not be true, we'd all have to be in some computer simulation or something, and you don't have proof that we're not in a computer simulation. You're asserting things to be true with no evidence, just your preference, for them to stand on. That's bad science.
26:53 "Entities don't follow abstract laws ... entities have natures and they act according to their natures." Now you're just playing with words at best and contradicting yourself at worst. For an entity to have a nature and to act according to that nature is for an entity to follow an abstract law. (One can either associate the laws with the natures, or associate the law with your claim that 'entities act according to their natures'.) You've just said either "entities don't follow laws, they follow laws" or "there are no laws, here's a law". I thought you started the video with an interesting premise (issues with modern approaches to physics), but so far you're making a terrible argument for it, by misinterpreting Feynman through your premise, by making unsubstantiated and unscientific claims, and toying with semantics. And here's a tragedy in it, I suspect you and I see physics (and the relationship between math and physics) more similarly than we differ, but I'm having a very hard time getting through this video.
So you are saying that it is possible that entities are not actually acting on one another at specific times and that instead the underlying nature of these entities is that they follow a minimum principle? I think such a thing does contradict the evidence: we have never seen an entity simply act according to some general rule which stretches across time. Instead, we have only ever seen entities act according to their nature at the time they have that nature. My point is exactly that the claim that nature fundamentally acts according to a minimum principle contradicts evidence. What would it look like for entities to follow a minimum principle fundamentally (instead of acting according to the nature they have at any given time?) are you claiming that the particle somehow knows ahead of time what path to take in order to reduce its action in the long run? Like it is conscious?
I didn't speak super clearly during that part of this video, so I'll explain now by asking you this: We know entities exist, what is your evidence that something more fundamental than entities exist? If you entertain the idea that something more fundamental than entities exist without offering any observational evidence for such a thing, *that* is bad science.
I should make a separate video some time explaining why I reject the idea of natural laws. For now, I'll just say it like this: I don't think entities follow laws, I think they have natures and they act according to those natures. "Laws" are only valid to the extent the talk about those natures. You seem to be asking, "what the hell could a law be other than simply an entity acting in accordance with it's nature?" Good question; you can think of the law as a general rule that describes what kinds of things happen without talking about the entities causing this to happen. One example would be our field theory of electromagnetism: we talk about fields but not what carries the fields. This is perfectly fine, but if we want to take the next step, we need to think about what entity carries the fields.
Great discussion and clear points. Seems to me physics needs to remain physical if we want to apply it to new technology and techniques. It's so funny because i shied away from it due to the math intensity, but I'm fascinated by aerodynamics, electromagnetics, quantum mechanics and astrophysics. I just found that my teacher could never explain to me why i needed to learn certain equations and rules past the old "it'll be on the test..." Glad you two can shed some perspective on Feyman's errors without making him into a 'bad guy'. I want to hear more about what a vacuum is! The straw explanation blew my puny brain.
Math is absolutely indispensable for physics, but the way math is generally taught discourages a lot of people. Because it is not taught in a way which is connected to observation it causes a lot of people to think it is just meaningless abstractions (including the people who like it!) We'll talk about straws together later! :)
Gravity is not spreading out gravity is pushing in and it is the results of the acceleration of the expansion of the universe so you can think about it as being acceleration of mass as the expansion of the universe means you are expanding at the same time
The universe is a very simple place. By using the laws of parsimony or Occam’s razor, we can reduce the complexity of the universe. According to the law of parsimony, which is the problem-solving principle that the simplest solution tends to be the correct one when presented with competing hypotheses to solve a problem; one should select the solution with the fewest assumptions. Using this basic principle, we can start with the fewest number of particles that the universe can be made of. The answer to this must be, only one particle, because that is the smallest possible number that is available and it is a good starting point. Now, we need to give this particle a shape. What is the simplest possible shape that the universe has to offer? The answer being; - the sphere. Yes, the sphere is the simplest possible shape. Well, now that we have established a number and a shape of this particle, we will need to add some states or functions for this particle so that it can create a diverse universe of matter, space, gravity, energy and light. Well, that seems to be a pretty tall order for just one simple particle to perform, so how does this particle do such complex functions? Firstly, I’ll ask Nikola Tesla to see if he has any clues. “Nikola, how does the universe work?” Nikola says “the number 3 holds the secrets to how the universe works”. Thanks Nicola! I’ll take your advice and have a close look at nature to see how many times that the number 3 appears. Well, Nikola, it looks like you were right! The number 3 appears to be popping up everywhere when I look at fundamental elements and nature in general. Let’s make a list of what we can find - 1. The atom has an electron, proton and neutron - well that’s 3! That’s a good start! 2. The electric plug has 3 points - positive, negative and earth. Getting better! 3. In chemistry, there is acid, alkaline and neutral (3) Wonderful! 4. There are 3 states of matter - gas, liquid and solid. (Note - plasma is just a gas which is being pushed by aether flow) Phew!! That was a close one! 5. The human eye has 3 colour selection cones; red, blue and green. Perfect! 6. The brain sees the world in sections of 3 which is called the rule of thirds. It’s too good to be true, surely! 7. All sub-atomic particles come in groups of 3. Marvellous! That’s just the icing on the cake! 8. 3 dimensions of space - height, breadth and width. 9. 3 Fractal dimensions - atoms, solar systems and galaxies. 10. The Equation E=MC^ has 3 parts. Thus, we can plainly see that the universe uses the number three at a fundamental level for all basic things. Thus, we can interpret this as a consequence that the ultimate particle must have 3 states or functions. Now, we have established that a sphere has 3 states or functions. So what 3 actions can a sphere in frictionless space perform? Well, I can only think of 3 possible movements that a sphere in frictionless space can do which are left spin, right spin or no spin. Thus, we now have a complete picture of the least number of particles; the simplest shape and simplest functions. Thus, according to the laws of parsimony, the universe would make a fundamental particle in this manner, if it was a logical universe which didn’t have any wastage or superfluous activity.
>>>The universe is a very simple place. By using the laws of parsimony or Occam’s razor, we can reduce the complexity of the universe. No scientist ever claimed the universe, per se, was "simple." Occam's Razor refers to a method of selecting one predictive model (i.e., a "theory") over another: in general, that model or theory which uses the fewest assumptions to make predictions is preferred over models or theories that make use of "add-ons" or "ad-hoc" assumptions. That we prefer simpler models to more complex ones says something about the way our minds work; not about how the universe actually is.
Write out all the digits to the golden ratio now when you're done with that draw with a triangle you'll see the difference between a physical infinity and one represented with numbers now reverse that for a point because you could write the Infinity of a singularity as numbers but you cannot represent it because it's drawing a circle will not get it the reason you can do with the triangles because there's proportions a ratios involved a circle has a diameter but when you're talking about the singularity you're not talking about the parts of a circle because there is no parts it's a point so you cannot write it down as Pi or Phi represented geometrically the only way you can do it is with numbers and it's the opposite of the first example
The entire problem you discuss here lies in our inability to specify with certainty which particle (photon, lepton, quark or any other) exactly are the DIGITS, with which we make our calculations in our minds. Once this is certain there is a 100% certainty as to what LAWS OF MOTION rule all events in the universe: Neither the Newton's Laws nor Schrödinger's wave function, but THE 4 BASIC RULES OF ARITHMETIC OPERATIONS (+ - × ÷). Then not only all laws of physics but also those of all other sciences, including those of the so called SOCIAL SCIENCES, would follow in a practically verifiable manner through application in own immediate surrounding by any lay person. So the task of all knowledge seekers is to first specify "which particles are what we call DIGITS?". And is it the same for all? Whatever one assumes them to be, the final answer MUST be confirmed by PRACTICAL PREVENTION of one or more of the evils specified exhaustively above. This condition also solves the current dichotomy between DETERMINISM and PROBABILISM (or whatever other name some call it: RANDOMISM, CHAOISM or whatever) by demanding that the laws that serve to PREVENT EVIL be deterministic, while all others be probailistic, as positive surprises are even more enjoyable than positive certainties so long as one is confident all negative potentials are PREVENTED with certainty. This is DESTINISM, where we first design the laws nature SHOULD follow to sustain evil free life function eternally and analyze phenomena thereafter, only to find the means for their continuous practical implementation.
I agree with the principal gist of your philosophical rendering. In my opinion it's not that the various methods for explicating & teaching physics are necessarily wrong. It's that they intrinsically are geared to be efficaciously calculating from one individual local to the next. The way physics is taught, does not at all take into account the realization of a system, or a systematization, never mind a wholistic systematization. Everything I have ever been able to gleam from the physics world, simply gets you from point A to point B & so on. It's a connect the points as linearizations. Never mind why you are connecting the points. Just connect them & you get somewhere. This in my opinion, in great degree, is why as of yet, we haven't knocked the ball out of the park. We're still manifesting inadequate & inefficient contraptions. 😮
Excellent video and well-made points! The deification of mathematics has led physics down a rabbit hole of meaningless and speculative nonsense. I for one have never liked Feynman’s lectures, they always gave me the impression that he didn’t seem to care for physical explanations and only wanted to show off his mathematical prowess.
It's actually the complete disregard of mathematical rigor that led physics down the rabbit of hole of hand-wavy nonthing-is-for-sure-even-in-principle kind of speculative nonsense. The so-called "proofs" in physics textbooks and papers are just mumble-jumble that bring about only more confusion not clarity. This is the real problem with physics: not enough actual math. You can't fill in the logical gaps in your so-called proofs with mere "intuition" or post-hoc experimental results.
Feynman himself said he didn’t particularly like the lectures either. So what? They were 40 ? 50? years ago. Why are we even discussing lectures that are so old. Physics has continued developing since then. He was grappling with quantum mechanics because it wasn’t classical in terms of cause and effect. So some things can be rationalised in terms of cause and effect and other things can’t be. I say get over it. I’ve been brought up in a world with QM as a basic framework so it doesn’t bother me. End of the day QM works. It explains and makes testable predictions which continue to be verified. I don’t think Feynman was just showing off his mathematic skills though. You can’t do physics without maths and the maths does get more and more complicated. Take a look at Anthony Zee teaching quantum field theory and doing Gaussian integrals. In terms of this video, this guy is doing way too much talking and not enough maths. You need the maths to pin down exactly what you are talking about.
The physical universe is only one small part of existence it's not even really physical. It's not acting that each particular particular place on the path it is acting everywhere. You are not understanding because this is how it Continuum is becoming quantized
You not understanding that your causality is you're not thinking in terms of a continuum that's why you can't find one on gravity because it's not quantum it is coming from our whole universe I needed pushing not pulling.
Everything is abstract ultimately as it's all just information. You can reduce every single thing in existence down to information and then you can reduce the information down to nothingness and that's the only other thing there is and in reality they are the same thing because that's where nothingness comes from. The information describing what nothingness is which is what also makes it something
Where did the law of nature come from. How are the values that it represents determined and how did Paulo in all places? See a physicist cannot explain where their own rules come from. They say everything what was the laws of nature but what determines the laws of nature but what determines them and where do they come from and why are there any at all in the first place? come on genius
An absence of something is also in Duality with that's something so a vacuum is a something that is the gift of everything that's why I absolutely nothing this is impossible because of the information that describes what it is which leads to inhabit describe all the things it isn't as well when it becomes Infinity with nothingness is a negative term for each one of those things so it's actually bigger
I disagree modern physics is not following Feynman thinking,Feynman won a novel price in physics it says something,sure you can doubt anybody,but then who you trust,Feynman said if you theory don't agree with experiment you should abandon it,look at string theory,Feynman theory qcd is very accurate experimentally,and nobody is perfect, maybe we was wrong about somethings like everybody but value persons for their contributions not for the time the got something wrong because they all got something wrong at some point Einstein, Gauss, Newton, Euler, Galileo.
I do value Feynman's contributions, especially in education, but because he was so influential, I want to make people aware of a way we can conduct science more effectively.
Exactly. I don’t know why we are even discussing lectures that are 50 years old. Physics has moved on since then. Even Feynman said that he didn’t love the lectures. They weren’t intended to be written in stone.
I’m not sure where to begin here… And the issues would fill an encyclopedia (that no one would read)… So let me just try to start you down a fun path: Imagine that you could calculate what a particle, or set of particles would do in *every* physics experiment (or situation). Wouldn’t you then already know everything there is to know about the particle(s)? [I watched Feynman rake Boghosian over the coals about this very point, over lunch one day. And if you think about it for a few minutes, it’s kinda true, don’t you think?]
There is nothing physical. There's nothing solid material in existence it's all vibrating points of energy. Find me was just expressing the fact that some of these Concepts cannot even be explain in a physical fashion because they aren't physical they're beyond physical. And he was so influential because of he's working the electro thermal dynamics in his diagrams
@@ryam4632 >>>Feynman is an Objectivist compared with Eddigton. LOL! Objectivists are all members of the Ayn Rand Cult. Psychologically, they're no different from L. Ron Hubbard Scientologists.
Always funny when people miss all the subtlety of what I'm saying then think they appear smart while completely misrepresenting my position in front of thousands who do understand what I'm saying.
Thats exactly what youre doing to feynman...from your first critique about being prejudice. He means in science its not good to be too prejudice...but you know that and chose to misrepresent what he means. @Inductica
Where physics got off the path. A new rule to superposition allows gravity to be associated with quantum mechanics. The principle of duality is due to wave-to-wave collisions. Double Slit Debunked 5: ua-cam.com/video/LkGiP6x9tpg/v-deo.html
They're literally is nothing physical and they're literally is in infinite number of possibilities that each point in space literally there isn't any literal Infinities within space its potential infinities they're not the same thing
The universe is itself is an entity and the cause of relationship between it and the thing moving is between them the cause of the speed of light being what it is is the expansion of the universe being limited by causality are the inertia of nothingness
What worries me most is how much of physics is dogma, and how little is actually experimentally known. For example, although we know now neutral matter and antimatter fall in a gravitational field, we only now assume electromagnetism is not or is extremely weakly coupled to gravity and in GUT only at very high energy scales. But there is so much in between, and the forces are so astronomically of different magnitude, we don't currently even know if a simple charged particle like the electron falls down, up, or something different in a gravitational field. This is because it is assumed all neutrall matter gravitates, but accessing even a miniscule fraction of the potential charge of matter would vaporize our measuring apparatus or create high electrical discharges rendering a meaningful measurement impossible with most setups. There certainly are reasons something could be afoot, particularly with Sakharov derivation of gravity as a residual EM effect. Its troubling we assume a lot without having honestly looked, and spend billions on big particle accelelerators when a much less costly electron beam experiment could explore something much more fundamental. I would love to design or take a physics class where the parameter space of what is unknown is better explored. It might be embarrassing, and not fit in our current grant structure, but many important questions are left unanswered when we grandstand too much, and just assume progress is marching forward...instead of looking with a little humility a little back.
Dude, this is off topic, but I think you will be interested. I think I figured out a way to do supersonic travel, it might be hard to engineer, but it physically checks out. Example, Golf balls have angular motion pits that allow it to store angular motion air pockets. However a golf ball only moves at speed close to ~200mph. For super sonic speeds and differentials in acceleration, it is required for you to have multiple angular motion wells (energy states) to store the motion. Which means adaptive angular motion pits, to be able to accumulate that energy in low resistance angular motion wells, to allow for further acceleration. As you accelerate or have greater velocity, the pressure on the boundary changes, the previous dimples become a resistance factor, therefore dimples need to change shape to facilitate the next angular motion energy state. Not just based on velocity or acceleration, but the density of the gas and pressure as a result of these acceleration deltas, and velocities. The more of that energy you can effectively store into angular motion, the more you can decrease the resistance to acceleration. A air craft's surface would have to protrude and contract differentially facilitate the hierarchical nesting of low resistance energy states of angular motion. What you are doing is creating wheels in the atmosphere to roll along. The parts of the angular motion that interact with the ship is moving in the same direction as the ship, the part of the angular motion that is moving in the opposing direction of the ship interacts with the air passing over the ship.
Interesting, I am all about aerodynamics too, the concept of "area rule" Is very beneficial, it was discovered in Germany in 1944. I remember watching an episode of Mythbusters where they showed that the dimples on golf balls made them go faster
Everything is mathematics and you can't understand exactly what's going on through mathematics not numbers mathematics mathematics includes numbers but numbers aren't all of mathematics and just like you cannot count to Infinity you cannot represent everything with numbers. But you can mathematically in one way or the other because it's a language and what language you can describe anything that can be described I just think you failed to see the correlations
Feynman is not the problem. Quantum mechanics is remarkably effective. What isnt effective is "string theory". Whoever dragged a large percentage of theoretical physicists into string theory is the root of the problem
Part of that problem was caused by the hypothetico-deductive method we criticize here. If it makes correct predictions, it means we entertain it as a hypothesis, according to that method: that is why so much manpower was wasted on that guess.
I agree, for string theory to be correct there needs to be at least 11 geometric dimensions. Higher dimensions are interesting to think about but they are illogical. Nature is not illogical. If higher dimensions existed there would be evidence, there isn't
>>>Beyond maybe Newton Newton was not a philosophical materialist. And to miss Newton's theism as it relates to his physics, is to miss most of what's important about Newton.
>>>All of these Objectivist physics people are the same: Ellias, Pisaturo, Louis Little (remember him?); et al. At root, they're metaphysically old-fashioned naive materialists.
@@Inductica Her reaction to her lived experiences, starting with her father’s pharmacy being stolen by the Communists) under the dictator Stalin’s rule is understandable, but she went too far and threw the baby out with the bath water, and ironically her belief in supermen and drones could apply to Communism; especially under Stalin (man of steel). Rather than accepting this, I would invest in raising drones above their reduced abilities, primarily through supporting families and child development. We are all potential supermen, but we cripple almost everyone through poor parenting.
You are confusing literal facts of the matter with your materialistic point I love you at the literal facts of the matter lie outside of materialism and physical things. The the literal facts of the matter lie outside of objective reality as well as objective reality is just the sum total of all subjective reality averaged so it's never correct at all well every single subjective reality is 100% correct every time to itself only and then you have actual reality which neither one of those things describe and nothing else can
Dr Angela Collier has a video titled "physics crackpots" that this dude needs to watch. Sounds like she's talking about you lol. If you can't do the math, you're not doing real physics. The math is what makes it work as science.
Math IS completely indispensable for physics, I say that at several points during the video. My argument is against mathematics taking primacy over understanding physical entities, their properties, and relationships. It's not nice to me, nor productive for you to watch bits of my video and then indulge in trying to hurt my feelings.
@@misslayer999 you dont seem to understand what the role of math is in physics. All mathematical formulations of physics make assumptions and are not universal truths. A physics math formula is only valid in a limited regime and is not universal at all scales in all conditions under all assumptions.
This is an ingenious - critique of Feynman as incomplete. Moments later in the video Feynman illustrates the dangers of the 'shut-up & calculate regime' by comparing it to the ancient Mayans -- whose astronomy was based purely on calculation i.e. counti days with a ton of fudge factors built overtime. There was no science or discussion of what the moon was or of physical causal relations & results in a cul de sac of possibilities, advancement and impediment to new ways of thinking about the work. He also states in the same lecture that "mathematics is not physics & physics is not mathematics, they help each other." Not a good video. Just watch the Feynman lectures "On the Character of the Physical Law"
I'm confused af by your arguments. You're trying to argue that because the current most successful techniques of describing reality don't fit your Philosophy, Modern Physics is all wrong? If we had stuck to your Philosophy of strictly dealing with cause/effect, we would be stuck in the early 1900s. If I'm wrong, please show me an example of the "right" way to do physics. In my opinion Feynman was everything Physics teachers should be, because he tries his hardest to show you the fundamental cause/effect, he would use several classes to explain one concept that most teachers and books would just give you the equations. Your first clip Feynman says he doesn't really think theres infinite things, but he doesn't know so he doesn't want to be biased. Just because you're unable to comprehend infinity or other non-intuitive things doesn't mean it couldn't be. Use some imagination bro. And even if your philosophy is right, it doesn't mean we shouldn't use these techniques to describe reality until technology becomes advanced enough to see the cause/effect. The point is to not be biased, because we don't know. Seems like you have an unfounded and un-useful grudge. If I'm wrong, show me how to do Physics "right".
My argument is that we would be even further along than we are now if we had not been using Feynman's basic approach for the last 100 years. To understand why I think that, keep watching, for examples of the way science used to be done (in line with the inductive method, instead of the hypothetico-deductive method) watch my lecture series, "An Inductive Summary of Physics." This is an essentialized history of physics which will show you how different the inductive method which was used is different from the way we approach science today.
As best I understand what James is saying, he's not saying that modern physics doesn't make successful predictions. Clearly, it has done so. What is lacking today is a physical explanation of the phenomena of quantum and relativity in terms of entities which act on each other, and without this explanation, we can only get so far with technological progress. As a related example, if astronomers of earlier times had advanced their mathematical formalism to the point they were modelling the orbits of the planets as an infinite series of epicycles, sure, today we would have very accurate predictions of the positions of the planets, but without an understanding of gravity we would never have sent any rockets to them, because we would have no idea of what principle to use to aim those rockets.
@@ExistenceUniversity What have I said that is false? If anything I said in my prior comment is provably incorrect, I will issue a retraction, but I didn't deliberately say anything I know to be false.
@@ExistenceUniversity It's just a fact though. Science is about exploring new possibilities, not parroting existing models. We really need to explore new things to advance science. This is off topic but lets exercise this exploration. I think I figured out a way to do supersonic travel more effectively, it might be hard to engineer, but it physically checks out. Example, Golf balls have angular motion pits that allow it to store angular motion air pockets. However a golf ball only moves at speed close to ~200mph. For super sonic speeds and differentials in acceleration, it is required for you to have multiple angular motion wells (energy states) to store the motion. Which means adaptive angular motion pits, to be able to accumulate that energy in low resistance angular motion wells, to allow for further acceleration. As you accelerate or have greater velocity, the pressure on the boundary changes, the previous dimples become a resistance factor, therefore dimples need to change shape to facilitate the next angular motion energy state. Not just based on velocity or acceleration, but the density of the gas and pressure as a result of these acceleration deltas, and velocities. The more of that energy you can effectively store into angular motion, the more you can decrease the resistance to acceleration. A air craft's surface would have to protrude and contract differentially facilitate the hierarchical nesting of low resistance energy states of angular motion. What you are doing is creating wheels in the atmosphere to roll along. The parts of the angular motion that interact with the ship is moving in the same direction as the ship, the part of the angular motion that is moving in the opposing direction of the ship interacts with the air passing over the ship.
@@ExistenceUniversity Well I'm taking about doing science, and finding new possibilities of how to arrange action, not parroting things we already know. Because science is more fun than beating the dead horse, especially when you know it's already dead (or do we even know it's truly dead, like what happening at the Planck scale?), it doesn't make sense to parrot what's already known.
Why wouldn't like know the the shortest route to go what do you think you're smarter than light is question marks see the arrogance of physicist is just astounding as if you're somehow more intelligent than light which is Ageless and God
I agree: At the very least, modern physicists should not criticize astrology and homeopathy as pseudoscience. The one difference modern physics does have relative to astrology and homeopathy is that the predictions of modern physics are far, far more accurate, but the causal understandings have, after Einstein and QM, descended to comparable levels.
@@Inductica methods of prediction, yes. I am talking about understanding. It is because the predictions of QM are so accurate that they can be capitalized into technology with high ROI, with little understanding of the WHY. There is little funding these days for researching the WHY. I’m an electronics engineer myself and know how to build useful products that leverage QM although I don’t know how to explain the double slit experiment. I have been on Homeopathic medicines for diabetes for over 10 years after the standard drug for it, Metformin, played havoc on my guts. Homeopaths don’t even try to explain how their prescriptions work as the medicines are developed empirically. I don’t see the difference between the above.
I would further add, that physics has already become a sort of empirical science, where the math model has replaced what used to be physical understanding. If the experiments agree with the math model, pay obeisance to the equations and stop fretting about how it works. “Shut up and compute” as Feynman said.
@@Inductica >>>Modern physics is flawed, but its methods are far superior to astrology and homeopathy. What are the methods of modern physics, and what are the methods of astrology and homeopathy?
Feynman was the ultimate instrumentalist. (Bohr was the "OG".) If you're an old-school reductionist, you're going to hate him. It's just a question of where your own interests lie: focusing on applications of existing quantum theory ("STFU and calculate") or working on new TOEs ("What the hell IS the vacuum?").
You're misunderstanding Feynman. Of course the remarks in his lecture are oversimplified since he's speaking to a popular audience, but still he does a great job getting across the process of doing physics.
The speaker on the left is James Ellias, a self-described "Math, Physics, Philosophy and Writing Tutor," who in 2015 claimed (on LinkedIn) that his Inductica project would
1. Discover new principles of physics.
2. Use new theories and discoveries to produce new technologies for profit.
But so far all this project seems to have produced is some videos, including this one dissing a well-known physicist who in fact discovered new principles of physics (for which he was awarded a Nobel Prize) and helped produce new technologies (nanotechnology, quantum computing).
@@ExistenceUniversity What's that basic principle?
@@ExistenceUniversity Ms. Maric took the Aether out in SR.
Onestone was forced to put it back in for GR because Heaviside-Maxwell assumed an Aether.
They rebranded it as Spacetime. And instead of formulizing it as Dynamic, they did so as a Dynamical Static.
Bohr told Kramer to NOT publish his study on how frequency of Light diminishes with each interaction along the electron shell.
Gravity is SPECIFIC but never Universal.
I WIN YOU AUTISTIC TWITS!
Intuiting > Reasoning and Logicing
'Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.' (Eleanor Roosevelt). Hello, small mind!
@@ChechenScienceAcademy0204 I discuss the average ideas of people....
does that make me a averagely great small-minded man?
Feynman excluded explanations from his model, just because he didn't get annoyed by people asking him about his subjective procedures to get those mathematical constructs ... Assertively, He believed that trying to explain them through Natural Language words would derail the mathematical framework established.
Perhaps, with a few, who he felt trusted about not misinterpret his cognitive mechanism to arrive at those mathematical constructs, he was open to 'use analogical descriptions through natural language' with them ... but to stay quiet to the masses and prevent overthinking about the meaning of the diagrams and the equations, He denoised the implementation and consolidation of his theoretical paradigm ...
... just denoising the mathematical construct/relationships from human's subjective chaos ...
... What's wrong with that ?? ...
... 'Humans Natural Languages' are limited by Human Perception data incomes, those languages fall into unsolvable paradoxes when/where you are trying to deal with stuff out of the perceptual range of the species...
If you are a philosopher, you should understand why Feynman took that stance about those mathematical discernments.
The 'wise' Jedis don't have to kill the 'evil' Sith' ... Maybe, The 'wise Jedis' are working for the emperor.
Nifty. I always had a Feynman-esque attitude about philosophy in general too for roughly the 1st half of my life so far. But there is little Q that science & philosophy can both inspire each other, & pretty much always have, regardless of the "division" that occured in academia since the renaissance/enlightenment. David Albert recently said something interesting on Brian Keating's channel that I totally agree with, which was being a fan of division of labor. That is to say, Its fine for people to be interested in only one or the other or even both. What's NOT OK is having hostility towards your non-preference. Arguing over importance is silly. We need both, & that's all there is to it. EDIT: They also discussed Eisenstein/Maxwewell/Bore & the Popper take & all. "Foundations" ought to be the hot topic that it is IMO.
Much as I admire Feynman, his work is not beyond criticism or above reproach. I recommend watching the videos of physicist Alexander Unzicker, Phd ("Unzicker's Real Physics") on YT. Among other topics, he has an amusing series of videos titled "Overhyped Physicists" and I'm afraid he includes Feynman in that group (along with Neil de Grasse Tyson and Murray Gell-Mann) mainly criticizing his work on Quantum Electro-Dynamics ("QED"). Here's a link to his take on Feynman with a quote from the site:
ua-cam.com/video/BnCDVrBSDFk/v-deo.html
Overhyped Physicists: Richard Feynman
"Feynman was a character you simply cannot dislike. Yet, the theory on which his fame is based, turns out to be bogus - a symptom of the superficiality with which he tackled fundamental questions of physics.
I highly recommend Oliver Consa's papers on QED:
arxiv.org/abs/2010.10345
vixra.org/abs/2002.0011
arxiv.org/abs/2109.03301
arxiv.org/abs/2110.02078
www.youtube.com/@TheMachian/videos"
@@economicfreedom8591 Alexander Unzicker is not a PhD in physics, but in neuroscience. This is a completely different field, and as such as far as physics is concerned, he's no different from a self-taught amateur. And it shows. I've watched several of his YT and he makes BASIC mistakes in the physics, like errors in dimension, or the notion that you can't resolve detail finer than the limits of your instrument. As far as I'm concerned, this makes him no different from any other woo woo peddler.
"The purpose of scientific knowledge is to understand cause and effect relationships." Hmm, who told you that, Ayn Rand? Considering how problematic causality is in quantum physics and relativistic physics, that puts you on the losing side of an argument that was settled a century ago. The mathematics that best describes the world at quantum scale is probabilistic. Beliefs that there's some hidden local causal reality beneath the probabilities (called "realism) have been shown to be false, and many of the paradoxical predictions of quantum theory have been experimentally observed. So, if your basic assumptions about cause and effect don't stand up, but the mathematics does, it's sensible to consider the mathematics the more correct description. This is deeply counter-intuitive, but show me the signed contract that was handed to us at birth promising that the world would conform to our intuitions.
>>> The mathematics that best describes the world at quantum scale is probabilistic.
Agreed. Karl Popper referred to these inherent probabilities as "Propensities" (something analogous to a "habit" in living organisms). And the absurdity of trying to reduce all probabilities to strictly deterministic certainties he compellingly showed in an explanation of a thought-experiment by Czech quantum physicist Alfred Landé called "Landé's Blade." Briefly, Landé posited a tube suspended at an angle, down which we roll a heavy ivory billiard ball. When the ball exits the tube, it encounters a thin, metal blade (like the edge of a sword). It rolls along the blade for a bit until various random forces cause the ball to fall either to the left or to the right. On each side of the blade, there's a bucket that catches the balls as they roll onto the blade and fall. One billiard ball does not influence any other billiard ball so each roll thru the tube is an independent event. Simple probability tells us that over time, the number of balls in the right basket will be (approximately) equal to the number of balls in the left basket, which is just another way to say the odds of falling left or right is 1 chance out of 2 possibilities, or 1/2, or 50%. Landé then says that if we had a "super microscope" that allowed us to see what was occurring on a molecular level (i.e., the molecules of the ball, the tube, and the blade) so that we could detect the "nudging" that those molecules contributed to the ball's falling left or falling right, allowing us to predict with complete certainly which bucket it would fall into AFTER it was nudged by a particular molecule in a particular way, we still wouldn't be able to predict with certainty WHY a particular molecule nudged the ball to the left or to the right BEFORE the ball encounters that molecule. Again, according to Landé, if we had an even more powerful super-microscope allowing us to see atomic events that caused particular molecules to nudge left or right so that we could predict with 100% certainty which atom would nudge which molecule in a known way, it wouldn't answer the question of why the 50/50 propensity should inhere in atoms. So we would need yet an even more powerful microscope to look at subatomic events, which predictably nudge atomic events, which predictably nudge molecular events, which predictably nudge macro-sized events (such as rolling billiard balls); but that again brings up the mystery of why the 50%-left/50%-right propensity inheres in the subatomic events; and so on, ad infinitum. No matter how powerful our examining tools are, the 50%-left vs. 50%-right probability exists. We know that, of course, because in fact, the billiard balls roll down the tube and follow classical probability outcomes of about 50% falling into the left bucket, and 50% falling into the right bucket.
I believe Alfred Landé was quite right about this (as was Popper in his explanation of this thought-experiment) since it illustrates a big problem with the assumptions of metaphysical materialism, physical reductionism, and strict causal determinism.
The ceiling fan looks threatening. Apart from that, the video is fun
Haha, I should think about that. Thanks.
This is a misunderstanding and misrepresentiation of what Feynman is saying, f.i. at 5:35 he's not talking about quantum mechanics, he says that speculation about what is going on in a scattering process is speculative and as good as any other. He's teaching physics here, not philosophy.
What you are saying is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about: I think it is possible to know the actual physical cause and effect relationships in such interactions. Further, I think figuring those things out is part of physics, not philosophy. The word "philosophy" is you and Feynman's way of derogating it as arbitrary speculation, but we make inferences about the underlying, hidden truth of things all the time. Think of the atomic theory of matter, think of our understanding of light as a wave.
@@Inductica
There is no evidence that we are smart or capable enough to really understand Reality.
No matter how much you try a Chimp or Ape is not going to understand or grasp the quantum theory or Relativity. Similarly We Humans are just a little better class of primates.
It is entirely possible that we are not just physiologically developed enough to grasp reality.
Probably an AI can. Then it can teach humans with their own limited languages.
I agree that Inductica misunderstood what Feynman was saying about prejudice, but I disagree about how Inductica misunderstood him. Feynman was saying he had a hypothesis and because it was his hypothesis he was biased towards it, which is natural but not good science. He wasn't saying one shouldn't have an interpretation explaining the cause and effect, he was saying you can't take something as certain when it's not proven.
@@Inductica
We must renounce the efforts to understand sub-atomic phenomena.
-Niels Bohr
Karl Popper despised this view as it challenged the very essence of scientific inquiry and the possibility of understanding the natural world through empirical means.
Seems like Feynman was smoking whatever the Bohrians were! (He didn't understand Magnetism, he fudged his g factor.... the guy was more pop-sci than sci-sci)
@@Inductica So put your money where your mouth is and figure something out. Talk is cheap.
14:14 maxwells’ equations 2, 3 and 4 can be deduced from just equation 1 (the electric field) and special relativity
Haven't watch the video yet but comment section is fucking nuts.
I have very deliberately raised some controversial issues to get people thinking about them.
@@Inductica Blah, blah, blah. All you have done is talk, while you have failed to "discover new principles of physics" or "use new theories and discoveries to produce new technologies" which you claimed 9 years ago that Inductia would do. Put up or shut up.
@@THEcodelieb haha, you win, I guess I’ll just give up and cry. Is that what you want?
I'm not suggesting that you give up (or cry), but I think you should stop posturing and flapping your gums until you have something material to say. You think general relativity and quantum mechanics are all wrong? Then I think you should show the world something better, and in the meantime I think you should shut the f**k up. You claim that Feynman is "everything wrong with Modern Physics" based on some lectures he gave to a lay audience for entertainment? That is completely laughable. I think you don't have an inkling of Feynman's contributions to the field of physics, nor their significance, and I strongly suspect you don't have the wherewithal to understand those things. I would say, however, that people like you are not what is wrong with Modern Physics, but that is only because you have nothing to do with it.
Einstein was thinking about non-Euclidean geometry, having that in his toolbox was a pre-requisite for thinking about light bending.
I don't think he was. The whole theory was explained using non-Euclidean geometry later. His insight that lead to the equivalence principle pre-dated that. I'm not sure though. This is a good thing to think about once I study the history.
@@Inductica you are very incorrect, einstein learned directly from other mathematicians about geometry, and then figured he can apply it to physics. The math/geometry predated the physics, einstein took the math and applied it to physics
How should I go about learning about modern physics as a Philosophy student?
In general, classes and books on the history of physics will help you more than regular physics classes as a philosophy student. You can try my "Inductive Summary of Physics" series by going to my channel and looking at playlists. There is Issac Asimov's "History of Physics" which is good.
For modern physics specifically, take a look at the youtube channel "Kathy Loves Physics."
@@Inductica Thanks!
Károly Simonyi, A Cultural History of Physics
15:54 “derive relativity from maxwells” - i don’t think so. i think maybe: special relativity must be deduced just from noticing that there is no absolute location or speed [galileo]. and that the speed of light is constant for all observers at an inertial frame of reference. [michaelson morely].
Was that Keith who you spoke to who thought SR had a causal structure?
Yes. Though it's worth noting that this was just an off the cuff discussion with him. My point in this conversation is that this causal point of view is not obvious, even to an objectivist.
By some strange coincidence I just read Feynman's book this past weekend. Transcribed from his lectures at MIT it was described as an introductory course for non-science majors at MIT, which immediately struck me as an oxymoron. But I kept reading because I was a non-science major too and thought this would be way over my pay grade. In fact these lectures are on their face eminently understandable.
I believe these lectures become the orthodox understanding of Physics at that time, late 1940's, early 1950's. The chemistry of nuclear physics required a mathematical model based on observed phenomenon. By the time I was in high school in the late 1960's this kind of thinking became axiomatic. Being intensely interested in science and bad at math, I went for the social sciences, which required mostly statistics, boring but doable, because I didn't think I could hack the math. This dance between observation and calculation appears to me as a completely rational AND emotionally satisfying resolution.
The famous "Feynman Lectures on Physics" are actually pretty advanced, as they were transcribed from lectures he gave to professional scientists at CalTech. The video excerpt featured above, I believe, is from a series of popular lectures Feynman gave at his undergraduate alma mater, Cornell University. There is also an interesting series of lectures Feynman gave at the Esalen Institute in Big Sur, California.
Your guest's name is Aviram Rosochotsky. You haven't included it in either the title or in the description.
Thanks for pointing that out! I've made the correction.
To me there is nothing wrong the way they drive physics today, it is like driving a car as long you know what are you doing. But if you want to understand how a car works you don't just drive it you have to go really deep into getting knowledge. That's what physicist are not looking for, they are just happily enjoying the ride.
In some sense I agree with you. But we have lost the ability to become "true mechanics." I'm here to explain how we can use philosophy to regain that power. If we do, then someday perhaps we will build "flying cars."
@@Inductica
Philosophy is not tested so it cannot tell us jack about reality. Philophans have the odd idea that they can just make it all up based on nothing but their opinions. Learn some physics.
@@InducticaI know you have all kind of people telling you that they have "the real physics", so I hope you just read to the end. I am working with the hypothesis of a single substance with two properties. With this assumptions you can explain several features of the material universe. For example where the planets, the stars, the galaxies but also the atomic particles get the energy to rotate. You could explain why venus rotate opposite to the other planets. The list is long but I hope you could think about the possibility. I am not saying that I know everything I believe it is a complementary idea of what it is already known. If you are curious about it I will love to explain. Thank you for your time. Have a good day.
@@Inductica Philosophy does not do that. It is mostly navel gazing. For every idea that one philosopher has there is another that contradicts the idea. So it doesn't get anywhere.
@@EthelredHardrede-nz8yv Much like theoretical physics hasn't gotten anywhere for about the past 50 years.
1:13:39 no, man! Particles and waves are a dialectic! When a molecule of water is on the surface of a "wave," it literally "composes" the "phenomenon" of the "wave"! It's similar with photons! Photons are just energized spacetime itself! That's why they "cancel each other out"! They "cancel" each other into "spacetime"!
It's a fact that there are a lot of great physicists who've made significant contributions to the field that admire Feynman. Even Murry Gell-Mann who personally dislikes Feynman admires him as a physicist. I don't know of any exceptions. The only people I know of who diss Feynman (and Einstein, and other great physicists) have made no positive contributions to the field.
Personally, Feynman is one of my intellectual heroes. However, I think your comment is an unjustified attack on the person who posted this. Not to mention incredibly rude.
I have some things I strongly disagree with here, but Feynman would be the first one to point out that criticism is invaluable. Alternate hypothesis are gifts, and we should never dismiss individuals for putting forth honest criticism, whether it’s right or wrong, and we should never put anyone so high on a pedestal that they are beyond criticism or use their words as authoritative without careful justification.
@@chriscurry2496 I adjusted my wording to be more neutral. However, in response to your reply I would point out there are no "alternative hypotheses" being put forth here to general relativity or to quantum mechanics, just claims they are "wrong" for specious reasons having nothing to do with physics. As for what Feynman would think of this so-called "criticism, " I don't think you know him very well - he would consider this video to be total bullsh*t.
Bravo.
In any discussion of Unified Theories, Gravity, Electromagnetism, and the Strong & Weak Nuclear Forces are taken as the four fundamental forces of nature; the first two are part of our everyday, macroscopic experiences. It's curious that Electromagnetism has been uniquely excluded from Cosmology.
It makes sense to use all of the tools in the toolbox.
"Magnetohydrodynamics & Plasma Physics" is discussed in Chapter 10 of Jackson's "Classical Electrodynamics" (2nd edition). Revisiting the concepts in "Cosmical Electrodynamics" by Alfvén & Fälthammar, and "Physics of the Plasma Universe" by Peratt deserves attention, especially in light of contemporary observations from JWST and other observatories, for example.
How does this relate to what is discussed in my video?
@@Inductica Postulating the existence of Dark Matter & Dark Energy but ignoring Electromagnetism seems like a complete WAG.
@@douglasstrother6584 THANKS FOR SHARING!
I LOVE MAGNETOHYDRODYNAMICS!
(Crazy at how much its undermined isn't it!?)
@@jaydenwilson9522 Indeed. I frolic in electromagnetic fields at a GHz+ during my day job where signal amplitudes are measured in dBm's because of the dynamic range.
I don't get why Electrodynamics is excluded; I think the solution to "Dark Matter/Dark Energy" problem has been placed before us.
@douglasstrother6584
Blame the cultists of newton and the tards of onestone.
If they don't gatekeep, then their paradigm dies.
Also Faraday failed in formulating a torsion theory of electricity so I think they are waiting until they get it?
(Till then, maybe they think onestone is good enough?)
1:21:50 This point is SUPER important. The physically (What are the components of [action] in the theory do we detect in the physical world, and which parts are theoretical probabilistic or statistical buffers that are not measured in the physical world). Good point.
Thanks!
12:28 You say Special Relativity obviously doesn't have a causal structure. That's not obvious because it's not even clear what you mean by "causal structure" and by "SR doesn't have causal structure".
They wrote Science Fiction with Mythomagicks and said "it work's" by abstracting data....
Maric-Lorentz-Poincare-Minkowski-Onestone's (Einstein) formulization of Machian Relationalism using Maxwell-Heaviside's Equations is not only incoherent, but illogical as well!
I'm saying that its effects are not explained by talking about entities acting. In contrast, the atomic theory of matter explains chemical reactions in terms of the joining and disjoining of atoms into molecules. That's the difference between a theory with a causal structure and one without.
@@InducticaI think this is probably the biggest gripe I have with your views presented in this video …
You continually say “what exists are entities which act on (other entities)”. But why do you make that assumption? Wouldn’t you attribute it to “common sense” applied to physical reality, or the framework to reason about physical events?
As far as I can tell, this “common sense” view is a cognitive behavior we evolved with, probably because that fits the physical world at our macroscopic scale well enough to help us survive and pass on genes and so on.
But we already know so much about the physical world which ought to make us doubt this common sense perspective: the earth rotating around the sun, for example, or Quantum Mechanics for a more complicated one, where both views are much larger and much smaller than the scale our cognitive system evolved to handle, respectively.
The most blatant example is the non-locality inherent in Quantum Mechanics. And remarkably, perhaps the most underrated great physicist and thinker of our time, John Bell, gave a method to test in the real world whether non-locality applied to our reality. And perhaps even more remarkable, this subsequently WAS experimentally verified (see the 2022 Noble Prize in Physics)!
… seriously, after studying Quantum Mechanics entirely because of my personal obsession with this insane notion of non-locality (which has been near universally unknown, probably because or the “unconcern for the physical world” that you allege and which I agree with in physics classes
So I think it’s a huge mistake to
make this assumption that you do. I think there’s ample evidence to reject, or AT LEAST allow other possibilities on the table than assuming there are just entities that exist and act (with the implicit assumption that these actions are local, I suspect). I suspect you’re relying on a cognitive bias which has already shown to be standing on precarious legs.
Also, sorry if this seems like an insulting response. I certainly didn’t mean to be insulting, but people often mistake my tone for angry or acquisitive. But nothing can be further from the truth-I appreciate your point of view here (even though my gut instinct is to strongly disagree with much of what you say). It’s interesting to think about
@@jaydenwilson9522 Made me laugh out loud. Thanks!
I think this is all a bout of tall-poppy syndrome. One thought though: Thinking of post-quantum-revolution physics in terms of "entities acting on other entities" is definitely the wrong way to look at physics. Feynman knew as much. The quantum field is a seamless physical variable, not uniquely or unambiguously defined, which produces the potentialities of **events** happening. Causality being an attribute of pairs of events. In his heart of hearts Feynman was, I think, Newtonian in this sense: He created mathematical tools and put them to good use while contriving no **unnecessary** conceptual hypothesis.
So you are saying that physics reduces down to events that simply exist where nothing is doing the acting?
@@Inductica No. That's what **you** are saying I said. I am saying that "The quantum field is a seamless physical variable, not uniquely or unambiguously defined, which produces the potentialities of *events* happening. Causality being an attribute of pairs of events."
@@Inductica >>>where nothing is doing the acting?
Where nothing PHYSICAL is doing the acting. Rethink your metaphysical materialism. "Existence exists" does not mean "Only material entities and energy exist."
@@joigus >>>No. That's what *you* are saying
LOL! Ellias is a "student of Objectivism." Objectivist metaphysics never got beyond garden-variety, naive materialism. A don't know if Ayn Rand actually believed nothing exists except material entities and energy, but that's how most of her followers interpret her maxim "Existence exists!"
Well done presentation. The theme of this video is to make sure you tie your mind/observations to reality at all steps of your thinking process, and not start/end your thinking exclusively by the whims of your imagination.
Thank you.
Thanks Diego!
"It's strange to observe how critics in the comment section are unable to question the problem itself and instead attack the person and his credibility. It's utterly strange to watch. Are they paid trolls?
'Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.' (Eleanor Roosevelt)
It seems they are unable to focus on ideas instead of people. Very sad."
This back and forth sounds a lot like Turok.
Turok
How much of what you are talking about has to do with Feynman's working with Wheeler?
You talking about renormalization
It's not difficult. Produce some useful work that demonstrates phsyics is wrong, gives us something we didn't have before and get it peer reviewed. I get the feeling Terryology is your area of experise.
"Shouldn't this method be used to test some mathematical physicists and theoreticians, who are considered correct despite lacking practical usefulness, as well? They even receive Nobel Prizes without any proof of usefulness."
@ChechenScienceAcademy0204 Who? What? Or is this just some sht you were told by someone on the internet that has no basis in reality? (Hint- yep, it's complete BS)
@@cliveadams7629 1:0. Defeat is detected. Next time don't spread BS, I'll punish you again.
Causality is not confined to physicality. Causality is what confines everything else . Only part of reality consists of entities you can only see the smallest section of reality that is observable to humans and you're trying to impose that upon all of reality and you're trying to confine causality within itself
>>>Causality is not confined to physicality.
True. Students of Objectivism and acolytes of Ayn Rand are, at root, old-fashioned, naive materialists. When they assert, "Existence exists!" what they really mean is that physical matter - discrete particles or perhaps "puffs of meta-energy" (as Leonard Peikoff once quipped in one of his lectures) - appeared in the universe first; and then somehow, they coalesced into biological organisms, and then, somehow, an end-result, or epiphenomenon called "mind" or "consciousness" formed from those discrete fundamental particles. The idea that consciousness is completely distinct from matter and must have come into existence at the same time as matter (indeed, mind and matter interpenetrate each other) is completely foreign to their materialist biases.
Maybe 'least action' and 'conservation of energy' has a reference frame maybe CMB, quantum foam or gravity field. There is something special about a spinning body that produce a perpendicular vector and a plane.
You can think of the potentials of numbers and spaces lesbian the effects of a Continuum becoming quantized or where order is imposing itself upon chaos and becoming probability
Exactly it's all about action, (transformations over time). Then when going deeper into the continuum, it's about taking the curvatures out of space and time, and describing them with smaller quantities and distributions of action that describe the resistances acting to dilate perceived space and time. The more we can find the (action) components, the more we will be able to describe. For instance, a gravity wave moves like a cascading action, observational evidence shows that not only does (energy convert to mass, and mass to energy, but as well as the medium that intermediates mass and energy) which means we need to account for smaller quantities and distributions of action that describe the resistances acting to dilate perceived space and time, because that is made of energy based action as well. These concepts of a warpable space, and a dilating time are not behaving like a space or a time, they behave more like fluid of resistances. For instance, black hole mergers convert solar masses worth of energy into these gravitational waves, and these gravitational wave impart action on instruments, which is a direct energy conversion for (this mediums energy conversion towards detectable change in resistance acting on a instruments behavior). Energy density, mass, and the medium, seems to have more to do with a continuous vector field and the arrangements of motion direction differences over a volume within this vector field.
So what's pushing the soda then after the atmosphere removes because I thought it was weightless then gravity would be holding it in the cup still. So what is I'm sucking the air into your mouth then if you expel all the air out of your lungs
String theory might be true at some level, but it represents only a small piece of a larger set of more fundamental processes at Planck scale. Quantized vortices that form open and closed tubes in a non-viscos fluid can explain the foundational basis of the more emergent oscillating string process. At the fundamental scale, ℎ represents the circumference, ℏ the radius, and 2ℏ the diameter of angular momentum quanta (quantized vortex).
The ℏ value is the reduced Planck constant and serves as the relative reduced action-the linear radius reduction of ℎ-as part of an angular motion quanta that will resist another angular motion quanta. Essentially, half of the quanta is moving in the opposite direction of the other half. The diameter 2ℏ provides the linear spatial length, contrasting with the action length ℎ and the relative ℏ reduced action length. When angular motion vortices align, they can form open or closed tubes. The action-based oscillation travel time around the length of the tube is given by ℎ⋅𝑛/𝑐, where the circumference ℎ is the travel length of action, not the spatial length occupied by the angular motion quanta, which is 2ℏ. Therefore, the true length of the open or closed tube is 2ℏ⋅𝑛, while the oscillating action travel time around the loop is ℎ⋅𝑛/𝑐. The relative oscillation travel speed around the loop is inversely proportional to the travel speed of the tube. Hence, the correct action travel time considering this inverse proportionality is ℎ⋅𝑛/(𝑐−𝑠), where 𝑠 is the speed of the tube, and (c-s) is the speed of the oscillation, a relativistic trade off between speed of the loop in one direction effecting speed of a oscillation traversing the loop.
Additionally, the tubes exhibit secondary properties: open tubes will orbit each other due to angular action, and closed tubes will move in and out of each other due to angular action. This dynamic interaction defines a specific set of kinetics and oscillations within the system, which are not fully understood yet. Fundamentally, we are not dealing with wave functions directly; instead, wave functions are secondary emergent processes resulting from continuous motion undergoing action.
There are two types of energy to consider:
-Continuous angular motion flux, where energy grows with circumference length in a quantized angular motion environment.
-Kinetic oscillations, where energy grows with frequency in a quantized angular motion environment.
Wave functions cannot exist without angular motion quanta.
It is possible that they depend on each other to exist recursively. While there might be a smaller granular scale than 2ℏ diameter length, this is currently unknown. Therefore, from our current understanding, angular motion is more fundamental than wave functions. Continuous motion flow with directionality differential seems more fundamental based on the equations and observations.
Let me be more descriptive. The planck value = (h), it's a fundamental natural unit for quantized action in the universe (it's a circumference length of angular motion), while ℏ "h bar" is the radius of the h circumference length, and it is the reduced angular action (reduced for mass scaling purposes, and because half of the vortex is moving the opposite direction as the other half, therefore for another vortex, it feels the resistance of half of another vortex that it interacts with). The quantization at the smaller scale is a result of the big bang energy quantizing into a low resistance state within a superfluid (a bunch of vortices that equal the same size that permeates all of space, they are largely in potential energy state of low resistance angular flux, since the speed of motion transfer is so high (speed of light) and the vortices are so small, they trade off energy differentials very fast, therefore quantized equilibrium is found fast). For mass to grow it must have the equal and opposite angular action to occupy space (ℏ * integer). When the vortices align, they form these tubes, the tubes oscillation along their lengths. The tubes can be open or closed, a lot like when dolphin blow bubbles under water, but instead of bubbles in water, it's angular motion with continuous non-viscos superfluid at the Planck scale (orders of magnitude smaller than the scale that current understand of quantum physics operates).
How does this relate to what is discussed in my video?
@@Inductica This is just me exploring possible physical (action components) of the natural units. I could be wrong, who knows.
@@Inductica Remember, this goes back to what you said (what is the actual action components, and what is the theory). Planck's constant is derived from measurements from multiple triangulating sources, individually. While the wave function is there to help explain what is measured, which incorporates hbar as well. So understanding this action component is key, how it's used, and how it relates to mass (it's a relative constant, relative to how mass forms and interacts) it's relative to the measurement frame of reference (mass), which is a profound point that goes over peoples heads.
@@NicholasWilliams-uk9xu Ancient String Geometry > String Theory
I'd be interested on your thoughts on Nelson Goodman's grue paradox.
Maybe that's in one of your videos that I haven't seen.
Nelson Goodman is an interesting philosopher. See his book on aesthetics, "Languages of Art."
Reasonable and thought-provoking.
Thanks Ron!
For Feynman the idea is more important than the math and this comes out repeatedly, especially when he points out that there are different formalisms that can be proved to be equivalent but are "psychologically" different. Physicists, mathematically, are opportunists, not fanatics.
You can translate pragmatism into a material list not understanding the non-physical causes of physics yet including them in his calculations because they are there
25:45 Regarding the whole section on 3 ways to formulate gravity, once again I think you're both misunderstanding Feynman. Aviram says that Feynman is right that the formulations are equivalent but isn't right about the conclusion, and then Aviram misinterprets the conclusion. Feynman wasn't saying that you have to be completely unprincipled and pragmatic about the models. Feynman was saying that none of these make predictions the others don't. If 2 models make different predictions, you can determine which one differs from reality by doing an experiment. If they don't differ, you can't say one is right and another is wrong WITHOUT EVIDENCE that any are wrong. In other words, you can't say one is wrong and another is right simply on your favorite philosophy. Sure, some are unlikely to be a good narrative description of the cause and effect of what reality is doing at the granular level, but you CANNOT CLAIM you know the fundamental base level of reality, without evidence backing you up.
The history of physics, shows that every time physicists think they've reached the fundamental level of reality, they've turned out to be wrong so you can't claim your mental model is an accurate description of the fundamental level of reality. That's what Feynman is saying. No one knows the fundamental level of reality, and all these models are predictively equivalent, so you cannot give preference to one over others, without departing science and entering the realm of human desire.
26:14 Having only just now seen one other video of yours, I can't be certain just what your favorite interpretation/philosophy is, but here you present a tautology and say 'I know my philosophy is right because I know my philosophy is right'. Paraphrasing: "I know that reality consists of entities ... because reality consists of entities." No you don't. You then immediately follow with an explanation showing that you don't know this. You say that for it to not be true, we'd all have to be in some computer simulation or something, and you don't have proof that we're not in a computer simulation. You're asserting things to be true with no evidence, just your preference, for them to stand on. That's bad science.
26:53 "Entities don't follow abstract laws ... entities have natures and they act according to their natures." Now you're just playing with words at best and contradicting yourself at worst. For an entity to have a nature and to act according to that nature is for an entity to follow an abstract law. (One can either associate the laws with the natures, or associate the law with your claim that 'entities act according to their natures'.) You've just said either "entities don't follow laws, they follow laws" or "there are no laws, here's a law".
I thought you started the video with an interesting premise (issues with modern approaches to physics), but so far you're making a terrible argument for it, by misinterpreting Feynman through your premise, by making unsubstantiated and unscientific claims, and toying with semantics. And here's a tragedy in it, I suspect you and I see physics (and the relationship between math and physics) more similarly than we differ, but I'm having a very hard time getting through this video.
So you are saying that it is possible that entities are not actually acting on one another at specific times and that instead the underlying nature of these entities is that they follow a minimum principle? I think such a thing does contradict the evidence: we have never seen an entity simply act according to some general rule which stretches across time. Instead, we have only ever seen entities act according to their nature at the time they have that nature. My point is exactly that the claim that nature fundamentally acts according to a minimum principle contradicts evidence.
What would it look like for entities to follow a minimum principle fundamentally (instead of acting according to the nature they have at any given time?) are you claiming that the particle somehow knows ahead of time what path to take in order to reduce its action in the long run? Like it is conscious?
I didn't speak super clearly during that part of this video, so I'll explain now by asking you this: We know entities exist, what is your evidence that something more fundamental than entities exist? If you entertain the idea that something more fundamental than entities exist without offering any observational evidence for such a thing, *that* is bad science.
I should make a separate video some time explaining why I reject the idea of natural laws. For now, I'll just say it like this: I don't think entities follow laws, I think they have natures and they act according to those natures. "Laws" are only valid to the extent the talk about those natures. You seem to be asking, "what the hell could a law be other than simply an entity acting in accordance with it's nature?" Good question; you can think of the law as a general rule that describes what kinds of things happen without talking about the entities causing this to happen. One example would be our field theory of electromagnetism: we talk about fields but not what carries the fields. This is perfectly fine, but if we want to take the next step, we need to think about what entity carries the fields.
Great discussion and clear points. Seems to me physics needs to remain physical if we want to apply it to new technology and techniques. It's so funny because i shied away from it due to the math intensity, but I'm fascinated by aerodynamics, electromagnetics, quantum mechanics and astrophysics. I just found that my teacher could never explain to me why i needed to learn certain equations and rules past the old "it'll be on the test..."
Glad you two can shed some perspective on Feyman's errors without making him into a 'bad guy'. I want to hear more about what a vacuum is! The straw explanation blew my puny brain.
Math is absolutely indispensable for physics, but the way math is generally taught discourages a lot of people. Because it is not taught in a way which is connected to observation it causes a lot of people to think it is just meaningless abstractions (including the people who like it!)
We'll talk about straws together later! :)
Gravity is not spreading out gravity is pushing in and it is the results of the acceleration of the expansion of the universe so you can think about it as being acceleration of mass as the expansion of the universe means you are expanding at the same time
What is "knowing" or "understanding?" These guys are making a fools errand trying to reason with mechanisms that have no definition.
The universe is a very simple place. By using the laws of parsimony or Occam’s razor, we can reduce the complexity of the universe. According to the law of parsimony, which is the problem-solving principle that the simplest solution tends to be the correct one when presented with competing hypotheses to solve a problem; one should select the solution with the fewest assumptions.
Using this basic principle, we can start with the fewest number of particles that the universe can be made of. The answer to this must be, only one particle, because that is the smallest possible number that is available and it is a good starting point. Now, we need to give this particle a shape. What is the simplest possible shape that the universe has to offer? The answer being; - the sphere. Yes, the sphere is the simplest possible shape. Well, now that we have established a number and a shape of this particle, we will need to add some states or functions for this particle so that it can create a diverse universe of matter, space, gravity, energy and light. Well, that seems to be a pretty tall order for just one simple particle to perform, so how does this particle do such complex functions?
Firstly, I’ll ask Nikola Tesla to see if he has any clues. “Nikola, how does the universe work?” Nikola says “the number 3 holds the secrets to how the universe works”. Thanks Nicola! I’ll take your advice and have a close look at nature to see how many times that the number 3 appears. Well, Nikola, it looks like you were right! The number 3 appears to be popping up everywhere when I look at fundamental elements and nature in general.
Let’s make a list of what we can find -
1. The atom has an electron, proton and neutron - well that’s 3! That’s a good start!
2. The electric plug has 3 points - positive, negative and earth. Getting better!
3. In chemistry, there is acid, alkaline and neutral (3) Wonderful!
4. There are 3 states of matter - gas, liquid and solid. (Note - plasma is just a gas which is being pushed by aether flow) Phew!! That was a close one!
5. The human eye has 3 colour selection cones; red, blue and green. Perfect!
6. The brain sees the world in sections of 3 which is called the rule of thirds. It’s too good to be true, surely!
7. All sub-atomic particles come in groups of 3. Marvellous! That’s just the icing on the cake!
8. 3 dimensions of space - height, breadth and width.
9. 3 Fractal dimensions - atoms, solar systems and galaxies.
10. The Equation E=MC^ has 3 parts.
Thus, we can plainly see that the universe uses the number three at a fundamental level for all basic things. Thus, we can interpret this as a consequence that the ultimate particle must have 3 states or functions.
Now, we have established that a sphere has 3 states or functions. So what 3 actions can a sphere in frictionless space perform? Well, I can only think of 3 possible movements that a sphere in frictionless space can do which are left spin, right spin or no spin. Thus, we now have a complete picture of the least number of particles; the simplest shape and simplest functions. Thus, according to the laws of parsimony, the universe would make a fundamental particle in this manner, if it was a logical universe which didn’t have any wastage or superfluous activity.
This is terrific (though not in the way in which you intended it to be).
I agree, the more I studied physics/nature the more I realized 3 is a special number. 1, 2 and 137 are special too
@@ryam4632 I thank you but not in the normal way a person would be thanked. lol!
@@stephen7774 Fair enough!
>>>The universe is a very simple place. By using the laws of parsimony or Occam’s razor, we can reduce the complexity of the universe.
No scientist ever claimed the universe, per se, was "simple." Occam's Razor refers to a method of selecting one predictive model (i.e., a "theory") over another: in general, that model or theory which uses the fewest assumptions to make predictions is preferred over models or theories that make use of "add-ons" or "ad-hoc" assumptions. That we prefer simpler models to more complex ones says something about the way our minds work; not about how the universe actually is.
Write out all the digits to the golden ratio now when you're done with that draw with a triangle you'll see the difference between a physical infinity and one represented with numbers now reverse that for a point because you could write the Infinity of a singularity as numbers but you cannot represent it because it's drawing a circle will not get it the reason you can do with the triangles because there's proportions a ratios involved a circle has a diameter but when you're talking about the singularity you're not talking about the parts of a circle because there is no parts it's a point so you cannot write it down as Pi or Phi represented geometrically the only way you can do it is with numbers and it's the opposite of the first example
Well, this was fun.
Glad you liked it!
The entire problem you discuss here lies in our inability to specify with certainty which particle (photon, lepton, quark or any other) exactly are the DIGITS, with which we make our calculations in our minds.
Once this is certain there is a 100% certainty as to what LAWS OF MOTION rule all events in the universe: Neither the Newton's Laws nor Schrödinger's wave function, but THE 4 BASIC RULES OF ARITHMETIC OPERATIONS (+ - × ÷).
Then not only all laws of physics but also those of all other sciences, including those of the so called SOCIAL SCIENCES, would follow in a practically verifiable manner through application in own immediate surrounding by any lay person.
So the task of all knowledge seekers is to first specify "which particles are what we call DIGITS?".
And is it the same for all?
Whatever one assumes them to be, the final answer MUST be confirmed by PRACTICAL PREVENTION of one or more of the evils specified exhaustively above.
This condition also solves the current dichotomy between DETERMINISM and PROBABILISM (or whatever other name some call it: RANDOMISM, CHAOISM or whatever) by demanding that the laws that serve to PREVENT EVIL be deterministic, while all others be probailistic, as positive surprises are even more enjoyable than positive certainties so long as one is confident all negative potentials are PREVENTED with certainty.
This is DESTINISM, where we first design the laws nature SHOULD follow to sustain evil free life function eternally and analyze phenomena thereafter, only to find the means for their continuous practical implementation.
I agree with the principal gist of your philosophical rendering. In my opinion it's not that the various methods for explicating & teaching physics are necessarily wrong. It's that they intrinsically are geared to be efficaciously calculating from one individual local to the next. The way physics is taught, does not at all take into account the realization of a system, or a systematization, never mind a wholistic systematization. Everything I have ever been able to gleam from the physics world, simply gets you from point A to point B & so on. It's a connect the points as linearizations. Never mind why you are connecting the points. Just connect them & you get somewhere. This in my opinion, in great degree, is why as of yet, we haven't knocked the ball out of the park. We're still manifesting inadequate & inefficient contraptions. 😮
A photon is just energized "spacetime" itself! That's why it "cancels itself out"!
Excellent video and well-made points! The deification of mathematics has led physics down a rabbit hole of meaningless and speculative nonsense. I for one have never liked Feynman’s lectures, they always gave me the impression that he didn’t seem to care for physical explanations and only wanted to show off his mathematical prowess.
There is no physics without mathematics! There cannot be.
@@faustian3049 That's true, but math pre-supposes something that the mathematics describes!
@@faustian3049 There is no physics without the physical world first.
It's actually the complete disregard of mathematical rigor that led physics down the rabbit of hole of hand-wavy nonthing-is-for-sure-even-in-principle kind of speculative nonsense. The so-called "proofs" in physics textbooks and papers are just mumble-jumble that bring about only more confusion not clarity. This is the real problem with physics: not enough actual math. You can't fill in the logical gaps in your so-called proofs with mere "intuition" or post-hoc experimental results.
Feynman himself said he didn’t particularly like the lectures either. So what? They were 40 ? 50? years ago. Why are we even discussing lectures that are so old. Physics has continued developing since then.
He was grappling with quantum mechanics because it wasn’t classical in terms of cause and effect. So some things can be rationalised in terms of cause and effect and other things can’t be. I say get over it. I’ve been brought up in a world with QM as a basic framework so it doesn’t bother me. End of the day QM works. It explains and makes testable predictions which continue to be verified. I don’t think Feynman was just showing off his mathematic skills though. You can’t do physics without maths and the maths does get more and more complicated. Take a look at Anthony Zee teaching quantum field theory and doing Gaussian integrals.
In terms of this video, this guy is doing way too much talking and not enough maths. You need the maths to pin down exactly what you are talking about.
The physical universe is only one small part of existence it's not even really physical. It's not acting that each particular particular place on the path it is acting everywhere. You are not understanding because this is how it Continuum is becoming quantized
You not understanding that your causality is you're not thinking in terms of a continuum that's why you can't find one on gravity because it's not quantum it is coming from our whole universe I needed pushing not pulling.
You're absolutely correct. 👍👍
Everything is abstract ultimately as it's all just information. You can reduce every single thing in existence down to information and then you can reduce the information down to nothingness and that's the only other thing there is and in reality they are the same thing because that's where nothingness comes from. The information describing what nothingness is which is what also makes it something
You cannot have certainty unless you define the context within which the certainty is postulated.
@@markdagley4213 true!
he's taking the tractatus view
Where did the law of nature come from. How are the values that it represents determined and how did Paulo in all places? See a physicist cannot explain where their own rules come from. They say everything what was the laws of nature but what determines the laws of nature but what determines them and where do they come from and why are there any at all in the first place? come on genius
An absence of something is also in Duality with that's something so a vacuum is a something that is the gift of everything that's why I absolutely nothing this is impossible because of the information that describes what it is which leads to inhabit describe all the things it isn't as well when it becomes Infinity with nothingness is a negative term for each one of those things so it's actually bigger
I disagree modern physics is not following Feynman thinking,Feynman won a novel price in physics it says something,sure you can doubt anybody,but then who you trust,Feynman said if you theory don't agree with experiment you should abandon it,look at string theory,Feynman theory qcd is very accurate experimentally,and nobody is perfect, maybe we was wrong about somethings like everybody but value persons for their contributions not for the time the got something wrong because they all got something wrong at some point Einstein, Gauss, Newton, Euler, Galileo.
I do value Feynman's contributions, especially in education, but because he was so influential, I want to make people aware of a way we can conduct science more effectively.
Exactly. I don’t know why we are even discussing lectures that are 50 years old. Physics has moved on since then. Even Feynman said that he didn’t love the lectures. They weren’t intended to be written in stone.
I’m not sure where to begin here… And the issues would fill an encyclopedia (that no one would read)… So let me just try to start you down a fun path:
Imagine that you could calculate what a particle, or set of particles would do in *every* physics experiment (or situation). Wouldn’t you then already know everything there is to know about the particle(s)? [I watched Feynman rake Boghosian over the coals about this very point, over lunch one day. And if you think about it for a few minutes, it’s kinda true, don’t you think?]
There is nothing physical. There's nothing solid material in existence it's all vibrating points of energy. Find me was just expressing the fact that some of these Concepts cannot even be explain in a physical fashion because they aren't physical they're beyond physical. And he was so influential because of he's working the electro thermal dynamics in his diagrams
1:00:00 excellent. This is also what David deutsch says
upvoting Feynman. He was more understandable and fun.
Sir Arthur Eddington is an inspiration. Feynman is an exasperation.
Feynman is an Objectivist compared with Eddigton. The latter is the worst kind of mystic and Kantian.
>>>Feynman is an exasperation
Why?
@@ryam4632 >>>Feynman is an Objectivist compared with Eddigton.
LOL! Objectivists are all members of the Ayn Rand Cult. Psychologically, they're no different from L. Ron Hubbard Scientologists.
amazing video🥂🍨
Thanks!
Always funny when people use modern tech, an application of modern physics, to say modern physics is wrong.
Always funny when people miss all the subtlety of what I'm saying then think they appear smart while completely misrepresenting my position in front of thousands who do understand what I'm saying.
@@Inductica Yeah, that's funny too.
@@kevconn441Your NPC brain ran out of script on the reply 😂😂😂
@@Charlie-Em Roflmao 😂
Thats exactly what youre doing to feynman...from your first critique about being prejudice. He means in science its not good to be too prejudice...but you know that and chose to misrepresent what he means. @Inductica
Where physics got off the path.
A new rule to superposition allows gravity to be associated with quantum mechanics.
The principle of duality is due to wave-to-wave collisions.
Double Slit Debunked 5:
ua-cam.com/video/LkGiP6x9tpg/v-deo.html
I agree, gravity is far too astronomically weak to have any bearing on subatomic phenomenon
They're literally is nothing physical and they're literally is in infinite number of possibilities that each point in space literally there isn't any literal Infinities within space its potential infinities they're not the same thing
Don't pay attention to that kind of stuff in the I know what you mean and it's a fantastic adventure. You're doing well
The universe is itself is an entity and the cause of relationship between it and the thing moving is between them the cause of the speed of light being what it is is the expansion of the universe being limited by causality are the inertia of nothingness
What worries me most is how much of physics is dogma, and how little is actually experimentally known. For example, although we know now neutral matter and antimatter fall in a gravitational field, we only now assume electromagnetism is not or is extremely weakly coupled to gravity and in GUT only at very high energy scales. But there is so much in between, and the forces are so astronomically of different magnitude, we don't currently even know if a simple charged particle like the electron falls down, up, or something different in a gravitational field. This is because it is assumed all neutrall matter gravitates, but accessing even a miniscule fraction of the potential charge of matter would vaporize our measuring apparatus or create high electrical discharges rendering a meaningful measurement impossible with most setups. There certainly are reasons something could be afoot, particularly with Sakharov derivation of gravity as a residual EM effect. Its troubling we assume a lot without having honestly looked, and spend billions on big particle accelelerators when a much less costly electron beam experiment could explore something much more fundamental. I would love to design or take a physics class where the parameter space of what is unknown is better explored. It might be embarrassing, and not fit in our current grant structure, but many important questions are left unanswered when we grandstand too much, and just assume progress is marching forward...instead of looking with a little humility a little back.
Light does not experience time
Dude, this is off topic, but I think you will be interested. I think I figured out a way to do supersonic travel, it might be hard to engineer, but it physically checks out. Example, Golf balls have angular motion pits that allow it to store angular motion air pockets. However a golf ball only moves at speed close to ~200mph. For super sonic speeds and differentials in acceleration, it is required for you to have multiple angular motion wells (energy states) to store the motion. Which means adaptive angular motion pits, to be able to accumulate that energy in low resistance angular motion wells, to allow for further acceleration. As you accelerate or have greater velocity, the pressure on the boundary changes, the previous dimples become a resistance factor, therefore dimples need to change shape to facilitate the next angular motion energy state. Not just based on velocity or acceleration, but the density of the gas and pressure as a result of these acceleration deltas, and velocities. The more of that energy you can effectively store into angular motion, the more you can decrease the resistance to acceleration. A air craft's surface would have to protrude and contract differentially facilitate the hierarchical nesting of low resistance energy states of angular motion. What you are doing is creating wheels in the atmosphere to roll along. The parts of the angular motion that interact with the ship is moving in the same direction as the ship, the part of the angular motion that is moving in the opposing direction of the ship interacts with the air passing over the ship.
Interesting, I am all about aerodynamics too, the concept of "area rule" Is very beneficial, it was discovered in Germany in 1944. I remember watching an episode of Mythbusters where they showed that the dimples on golf balls made them go faster
Everything is mathematics and you can't understand exactly what's going on through mathematics not numbers mathematics mathematics includes numbers but numbers aren't all of mathematics and just like you cannot count to Infinity you cannot represent everything with numbers. But you can mathematically in one way or the other because it's a language and what language you can describe anything that can be described I just think you failed to see the correlations
Feynman is not the problem. Quantum mechanics is remarkably effective. What isnt effective is "string theory". Whoever dragged a large percentage of theoretical physicists into string theory is the root of the problem
Part of that problem was caused by the hypothetico-deductive method we criticize here. If it makes correct predictions, it means we entertain it as a hypothesis, according to that method: that is why so much manpower was wasted on that guess.
I agree, for string theory to be correct there needs to be at least 11 geometric dimensions. Higher dimensions are interesting to think about but they are illogical. Nature is not illogical. If higher dimensions existed there would be evidence, there isn't
56:33 Feynman is using zero sum true/false logic here! Not positive sum Hegelian logic! Oops!
I don't know any materialist that's been successful at physics ever Beyond maybe Newton who himself was very religious so
>>>Beyond maybe Newton
Newton was not a philosophical materialist. And to miss Newton's theism as it relates to his physics, is to miss most of what's important about Newton.
@@economicfreedom8591 good point
>>>All of these Objectivist physics people are the same: Ellias, Pisaturo, Louis Little (remember him?); et al. At root, they're metaphysically old-fashioned naive materialists.
You guys should go to 15th century and settle there.
You lose points for being an Ayn Rand fan @ 12:50.
Wtf?
Why?
@@Inductica
Her reaction to her lived experiences, starting with her father’s pharmacy being stolen by the Communists) under the dictator Stalin’s rule is understandable, but she went too far and threw the baby out with the bath water, and ironically her belief in supermen and drones could apply to Communism; especially under Stalin (man of steel).
Rather than accepting this, I would invest in raising drones above their reduced abilities, primarily through supporting families and child development.
We are all potential supermen, but we cripple almost everyone through poor parenting.
@@brianjones3191 You have a poor understanding of her philosophy, I recommend you read her works.
You are confusing literal facts of the matter with your materialistic point I love you at the literal facts of the matter lie outside of materialism and physical things. The the literal facts of the matter lie outside of objective reality as well as objective reality is just the sum total of all subjective reality averaged so it's never correct at all well every single subjective reality is 100% correct every time to itself only and then you have actual reality which neither one of those things describe and nothing else can
🤦♂️
Oh look ... it's yet another nobody who is trying to be a somebody, and will not succeed.
There is no physical reality that's why I laughed at people like you
Dr Angela Collier has a video titled "physics crackpots" that this dude needs to watch. Sounds like she's talking about you lol. If you can't do the math, you're not doing real physics. The math is what makes it work as science.
Math IS completely indispensable for physics, I say that at several points during the video. My argument is against mathematics taking primacy over understanding physical entities, their properties, and relationships. It's not nice to me, nor productive for you to watch bits of my video and then indulge in trying to hurt my feelings.
@@Inductica dude I just looked at your website, that video is so meant for you lol.
@@misslayer999 you dont seem to understand what the role of math is in physics. All mathematical formulations of physics make assumptions and are not universal truths. A physics math formula is only valid in a limited regime and is not universal at all scales in all conditions under all assumptions.
Everything is philosophy
There is nothing physically happening anywhere that's your problem
This is an ingenious - critique of Feynman as incomplete. Moments later in the video Feynman illustrates the dangers of the 'shut-up & calculate regime' by comparing it to the ancient Mayans -- whose astronomy was based purely on calculation i.e. counti days with a ton of fudge factors built overtime. There was no science or discussion of what the moon was or of physical causal relations & results in a cul de sac of possibilities, advancement and impediment to new ways of thinking about the work. He also states in the same lecture that "mathematics is not physics & physics is not mathematics, they help each other." Not a good video. Just watch the Feynman lectures "On the Character of the Physical Law"
I'm confused af by your arguments. You're trying to argue that because the current most successful techniques of describing reality don't fit your Philosophy, Modern Physics is all wrong? If we had stuck to your Philosophy of strictly dealing with cause/effect, we would be stuck in the early 1900s. If I'm wrong, please show me an example of the "right" way to do physics.
In my opinion Feynman was everything Physics teachers should be, because he tries his hardest to show you the fundamental cause/effect, he would use several classes to explain one concept that most teachers and books would just give you the equations.
Your first clip Feynman says he doesn't really think theres infinite things, but he doesn't know so he doesn't want to be biased.
Just because you're unable to comprehend infinity or other non-intuitive things doesn't mean it couldn't be. Use some imagination bro. And even if your philosophy is right, it doesn't mean we shouldn't use these techniques to describe reality until technology becomes advanced enough to see the cause/effect. The point is to not be biased, because we don't know. Seems like you have an unfounded and un-useful grudge. If I'm wrong, show me how to do Physics "right".
My argument is that we would be even further along than we are now if we had not been using Feynman's basic approach for the last 100 years. To understand why I think that, keep watching, for examples of the way science used to be done (in line with the inductive method, instead of the hypothetico-deductive method) watch my lecture series, "An Inductive Summary of Physics." This is an essentialized history of physics which will show you how different the inductive method which was used is different from the way we approach science today.
As best I understand what James is saying, he's not saying that modern physics doesn't make successful predictions. Clearly, it has done so. What is lacking today is a physical explanation of the phenomena of quantum and relativity in terms of entities which act on each other, and without this explanation, we can only get so far with technological progress. As a related example, if astronomers of earlier times had advanced their mathematical formalism to the point they were modelling the orbits of the planets as an infinite series of epicycles, sure, today we would have very accurate predictions of the positions of the planets, but without an understanding of gravity we would never have sent any rockets to them, because we would have no idea of what principle to use to aim those rockets.
@@ExistenceUniversity What have I said that is false? If anything I said in my prior comment is provably incorrect, I will issue a retraction, but I didn't deliberately say anything I know to be false.
@@ExistenceUniversity It's just a fact though. Science is about exploring new possibilities, not parroting existing models. We really need to explore new things to advance science. This is off topic but lets exercise this exploration. I think I figured out a way to do supersonic travel more effectively, it might be hard to engineer, but it physically checks out. Example, Golf balls have angular motion pits that allow it to store angular motion air pockets. However a golf ball only moves at speed close to ~200mph. For super sonic speeds and differentials in acceleration, it is required for you to have multiple angular motion wells (energy states) to store the motion. Which means adaptive angular motion pits, to be able to accumulate that energy in low resistance angular motion wells, to allow for further acceleration. As you accelerate or have greater velocity, the pressure on the boundary changes, the previous dimples become a resistance factor, therefore dimples need to change shape to facilitate the next angular motion energy state. Not just based on velocity or acceleration, but the density of the gas and pressure as a result of these acceleration deltas, and velocities. The more of that energy you can effectively store into angular motion, the more you can decrease the resistance to acceleration. A air craft's surface would have to protrude and contract differentially facilitate the hierarchical nesting of low resistance energy states of angular motion. What you are doing is creating wheels in the atmosphere to roll along. The parts of the angular motion that interact with the ship is moving in the same direction as the ship, the part of the angular motion that is moving in the opposing direction of the ship interacts with the air passing over the ship.
@@ExistenceUniversity Well I'm taking about doing science, and finding new possibilities of how to arrange action, not parroting things we already know. Because science is more fun than beating the dead horse, especially when you know it's already dead (or do we even know it's truly dead, like what happening at the Planck scale?), it doesn't make sense to parrot what's already known.
Why wouldn't like know the the shortest route to go what do you think you're smarter than light is question marks see the arrogance of physicist is just astounding as if you're somehow more intelligent than light which is Ageless and God
I agree: At the very least, modern physicists should not criticize astrology and homeopathy as pseudoscience. The one difference modern physics does have relative to astrology and homeopathy is that the predictions of modern physics are far, far more accurate, but the causal understandings have, after Einstein and QM, descended to comparable levels.
Modern physics is flawed, but its methods are far superior to astrology and homeopathy.
@@Inductica methods of prediction, yes. I am talking about understanding. It is because the predictions of QM are so accurate that they can be capitalized into technology with high ROI, with little understanding of the WHY. There is little funding these days for researching the WHY. I’m an electronics engineer myself and know how to build useful products that leverage QM although I don’t know how to explain the double slit experiment. I have been on Homeopathic medicines for diabetes for over 10 years after the standard drug for it, Metformin, played havoc on my guts. Homeopaths don’t even try to explain how their prescriptions work as the medicines are developed empirically. I don’t see the difference between the above.
I would further add, that physics has already become a sort of empirical science, where the math model has replaced what used to be physical understanding. If the experiments agree with the math model, pay obeisance to the equations and stop fretting about how it works. “Shut up and compute” as Feynman said.
@@Inducticawell at least thank you for saying this
when i first read about your Channel i was like you are one of those
@@Inductica >>>Modern physics is flawed, but its methods are far superior to astrology and homeopathy.
What are the methods of modern physics, and what are the methods of astrology and homeopathy?
Baloney. Copenhagen. Shut up and measure. Once you understand the measurement, you can formulate an event chain.