Feynman: Magnets (and Why?) FUN TO IMAGINE 4/ higher quality version!
Вставка
- Опубліковано 3 вер 2018
- NEW upload of classic 1983 Feynman piece on how magnets work. Original upload (1.4m+ views) and all Comments (3000+) is at tinyurl.com/b47hvys
"Water, fire, air and dirt/
F*cking magnets, how do they work?/
And I don't wanna talk to a scientist/
Y'all motherf*ckers lying, and getting me pissed"
- Insane Clown Posse, Miracles (2009)
Here, physicist and Nobel laureate Richard Feynman explains to a non-scientist just how difficult it is to answer certain questions in lay terms! A classic example of Feynman's clarity of thought, powers of explanation and intellectual honesty - and his refusal to 'cheat' with misleading analogies... From the BBC TV series 'Fun to Imagine'(1983). You can watch higher quality versions of these
FUN TO IMAGINE episodes on the BBC website at www.bbc.co.uk/archive/feynman/ Also the 1981 'Horizon' and 'Nova' Feynman documentary THE PLEASURE OF FINDING THINGS OUT
SOME PERSPECTIVE: For those of you who think that the main purpose of this video is to hear an explanation about magnetism; you are mistaken. You have been misled by the current title (February 2022) which is "Feynman: Magnets (and Why?) FUN TO IMAGINE 4/ higher quality version!". A better title would be "Feynman describes the difficulties in explaining things".
The entire point of this video is to help us understand the difficulties in explaining ANYTHING. Feynman uses the question about magnetism merely as a vehicle to help us understand the difficulties encountered when trying to provide explanations. The main impediment is that the student has one level of understanding and the teacher has a different (and much higher) level of understanding.
I watch this video at least once per day to remind me how a "why" question can be modeled. And I'm not a physicist at all.
Most of the comments have yet to address the preceding questions asked to Feynman. I think those questions and how the questions were developed and asked have a huge implication on how Feynman answered the question.
1. Feynman asked about TWO stuff: magnets pushing each other away and magnets pulling each other together. What is the feeling?
2. Clarification. What are these 'feelings'? the pull, the push, the force, what's going on? Answer: They repel each other.
3. The question got further: "Well, then, what is that they're doing or why they're doing? or how they're doing it?
The fact that the interviewer asked further and further questions on "why" made Feynman feel the need to explain first, how "why" question works, how to satisfy the question, and how to answer it. In short: "it has to be some framework that you allow something to be true" otherwise you'll perpetually asking "why" and this is exactly what happened at the beginning of the video.
Now, I assume Feynman could've answered "its magnetic force" for question no. 3 but I think Feynman then imagine the possibility of the interviewer asking a further question, based on his short experience, "what is a magnetic force, how does that it happens?" So instead, he interrupted the flow and explain the characteristic of "why" question and goes with some examples. Here, he ended the session of explaining how "why" question works by saying "I'm not answering your question, but I'm telling you how difficult a 'why' question is:". He explained a "why" question has (at least) two condition to satisfy: 1) you have to know what it is that you permitted (allowed) to understand, understood, or known 2) you have to know what it is that you NOT allowed to understood or known.
After this explanation, to satisfy the question based on the conditions to satisfy a "why" question, he answered for "somebody that doesn't know anything about [magnetic force]": its a magnetic force that repels each other at 4:11
Feynman then further weighing in on why they attract each other when they turned by saying it has some kind of similarity with electrical or magnetic attraction.
At this point, the interviewer's questions should be satisfied. Around 4:30
After that Feynman tried to guess and explain on why at all he disturbed about why magnet attracts and repels while ignoring the fact that chair, for example, repels his body as well. Which was turns out, in a microscopic level, works similarly (not exactly the same) as electrical or magnetic forces.
So while Feynman was answering the question, he also tried to explain, with examples, on: 1) the characteristic of a why question; 2) how a "why" question can develop endlessly without a proper framework.
Now what I want to know is, how is that many people with native English ability in the comment section, failed to understand this flow? You don't need to understand what it is, you just need to LISTEN and pay attention.
I keep returning to this video as if it were a favorite song.
Me too, but WHY is that?
The funniest comments are from the people who accuse the father of quantum electrodynamics of not knowing what he is talking about.
No, the funniest comments are the people worshiping this saint of scientism... Who in all actuality was nothing but a fool ‼️
Religious people salivate trying to make science a religion
@@drakeeblis He definitely wasn’t fool (far from it), but he is not as fantastic as many people might think.
@@fredthechamp3475 he absolutely was a fool if you understand field theory and the true nature of the universe and it's conjugate geometry...
@@drakeeblis What do you mean by "conjugate geometry"?
Cop: Sir, please stop for a moment. Why did you speed?
Feynman: *Why?* (In 30 minutes)
Cop: please leave me alone.
LoL
Stolen verbatim from anther video of this.
In the comment section, people are offering various insights. While I was pondering this, I stumbled upon a fresh perspective when considering why my 3-year-old niece repeatedly asks 'why' to every answer I provide. It got me thinking about the explanation framework necessary to grasp that a young child's comprehension of life's aspects is still developing. This realization struck me differently. Offering a concise response like 'because it is' might suffice to quiet a child's curiosity, but pondering the imaginative argument, much like Feynman's example, illuminated for me a new understanding of how I might be shaping her growing mental capacity.
Never forget that, my dear human. We need free, critical thinkers in this world if we want any chances of saving it.
There's another lesson there: there are some questions no one presently knows the answer to, and there are some questions whose answers may never be known.
@@AlanCanon2222 In this case Feynman knew the answer. But his answer would involve talking about Lorentz Forces, Maxwell's equations, spin (which he touched on a bit), maybe quantum field theory, maybe Lagrangians and the principle of least action, and all sorts of other things. But he can't do that because the interviewer doesn't understand any of those things. Any other answer will be circular, or will involve analogies that break down if pushed. That's the point of his "Aunt Mini is in the hospital" example. How do you answer that question to someone who doesn't know what a hospital is, or why slipping happens, or what ice is (or even what an Aunt is)? To fully answer the question you have to explain all those other things.
For Feynman to explain why magnets to the interviewer he'd first have to take the interviewer through a few years of university-level physics courses. So instead his answer is "because it just is" - but he doesn't want to give just that answer because it is unsatisfying and unhelpful. So he has to spend 6 minutes explaining why that is the only answer he can give.
@@TheGrumbleduke BS. He could have just said I don't know from the start.
@@redeyewarrior But that wouldn't be true; he does know. But as I said above, explaining it would require taking the interviewer through a few years of university-level maths and physics courses, and he cannot do that in an interview. Not all questions have simple, one-line answers.
I kept revisiting the old video that linked to this one, and I REALLY appreciate, that after all these TEN years, you uploaded a new better version, and linked us peeps from the old one to the new one. The old one served its purpose, but now we have a better one because you cared enough to post an "update". Thank you!
You're welcome!
Kinda reminds of the Carl Sagan's comment (paraphrasing) that to make an apple pie from scratch, one first has to invent the Universe.
It is apparent from the comments that many people fail to understand what Feynman is saying, suggesting instead that he doesn’t know what he is talking about, or that he is just trying to sound clever.
In fact, he is attempting to answer a question to which there is no simple answer, and the depth of which the asker doesn’t really recognize.
Feynman, in order to give any answer at all, breaks the question down into different parts.
First, he deals with the difficulty of answering “Why?” when our normal experience provides no framework for understanding the reasons. People understand why Aunt Minnie is in hospital, because we have a framework for understanding what led to that outcome. We have no comparable framework for understanding magnetism.
What then lies between two magnets? Well, what could Feynman say that the interviewer might understand? After all, there isn’t anything else quite like it in most people’s life experience that might be used as a reference. As such, most of us will just have to accept magnetic force as a fact, just as we accept the reality of gravity, or of the reflection of light.
A well written summary of Feynmans points.
The best comment that I read thank you
He is basically saying the interviewer doesn't have the requisite knowledge, that he is not in a requisite framework to understand how electro-magnetism works. The ice analogy was to showcase that there is no end to "why questions", if the person asking the question don't have some basic understanding of the very thing he is asking. The part towards the end is the crux of what he was basically trying to say. Without the interviewer having basic understanding of elecro-magnetism, Feynman cannot do a good job of explaining why magets repeal each other since making him understand in layman's terms would be cheating as the very tools (like rubber band pulling back) which he would use to make him understand about electrical repulsion are governed by the same very forces!
One does not simply call people stupid, but calmly explains to them fundamentally, in details, WHY.
The real answer is we don't know "why" electrically charged particles repel each other, we can only observe that they do.
So it seems like half of the comments in the comments section are parroting the fancy-word garble of some guy who thinks Tesla was super amazing, Einstein not, and that magnets are easy to explain...which he does with jargonony words meant to give the impression of education through confusion, conveying a "trust me, I know what I am talking about" veneer that lacks actual substance.
Anyway, y'all missed the point. The point was not explaining how magnets work. Try explaining an iPhone to Socrates. It's going to take a while to establish common grounds of understanding. That's the point Feynman's making about the feeling felt when holding magnets in your hands.
people in the comments missing the point, do you think Feynman doesnt know the physics of it, the question of why as he said is a never ending question like babies when they keep asking why? why? why? ...etc, he can answer him if he said how? or what's going on ? but as he said why something happens never ends.
he knows the person is a journalist and he doesnt know the details of physics, no one can explain natural phenomena without physics, that's the whole point of physics.
he didnt want to cheat the journalist. so he must be satisfied with the simple explanation of a beginner or go master physics and comeback to know the deeper levels.
People are much dumber today than in his day.
Seriously, how can people complain? It's an amazing explanation, and his style is so fun. He's one of the last great thinkers, a Nobel laureate, a theoretical physicist - yet he can speak at a level everyone can understand. It's not his fault the reported asked an inherently stupid question (physics is not about "why", it's about "how").
I've seen this many moons ago. It didn't help me understand how magnets work but it did help me understand how difficult, if not impossible, is to define something without a framework of basic truths that you accept as true.
I am surprised that there are people who believes Feynman is stupid or avoiding questions. Did you even understand the stuff he says in the video?
Like honestly, do you think a nobel prize winner in physics wouldn't know how magnets work?
I am also surprised by the sheer amount of idiots in these comments. They didn't even understand his basic idea. Incredible.
Especially given that his Nobel was for his work in quantum electrodynamics (QED), the fine details of how electric and magnetic forces *truly* arise between particles!
I'm hoping that this video for some reason attracts more than its fair share of views and comments from people who want to feel superior to scientists in general, or any other reason that the comments don't represent an average of humanity.
Going off on an interesting tangent about a deeper question / philosophy of science seems like Feynman's style, rather than just giving a "one level deeper" answer about permanent magnets holding their magnetization, or any number of possible different approaches to directly answering in a way that's still understandable.
Knowing the subject so deeply maybe made him feel more strongly than most physicists that the real answer was so far removed from the level the question was at asked at.
I have always had Feynman's lectures on my bookshelf all my life but never realized how interesting it would be to sit in his class in person
One reason Feynman asked for more clarification at the very start is because there's an important difference between our first-person perception of a feeling - "the feeling between those two magnets", and our third-person observations of magnetism - seeing them repel or attract without feeling it.
Just as "the feeling of touching a hot stove" is very different to "the temperature of a hot stove", despite the fact that the latter can cause the former.
Explaining first person experiences would require an explanation of consciousness of which far less is known, while far more is known about our third person observations of scientific phenomena.
“It depends on whether you’re a student of physics or an ordinary person who doesn’t know anything”.. Lmao I love his honesty
he said "doesnt know anything about that"
he just says it quickly and is not so easy to understand that part.
ua-cam.com/video/IIDLcaQVMqw/v-deo.html
The point here is: to explain "why" something is true you gotta accept something else (what the explanation is based on) as fundamentally true (a base truth) or else you end up in infinite recursion (an endless chain of whys).
it’s so great seeing this videos in such a great quality, thanks a lot♥️
@Reshi Stamiris That video is shameful, you should stop spamming it everywhere. 🤣
@@primonomeultimonome all over the flat earth?
@@johncampbell6165 A pity that such a pancake fantasy doesn't exist.
The interviewer wants him to explain the magnetic force in terms of everyday experience like "the force that stops your hand going through the chair". Feynman is saying that he has it backwards. It is the magnetic force that is the underlying thing which you can use the explain why your hand doesn't go through the chair. You can't explain the deeper reason in terms of a derived phenomenon.
Not exactly: nowadays, magnetism is considered to be an effect of the electric field and special relativity (length contraction of the moving charge carriers with respect to the point that feels the "magnetic" force). In turn, Feynman himself was able to dispense with the electric field and explain electromagnetic forces as direct interaction between charged particles, mediated by the exchange of virtual photons. So in fact, the entire concept of the electromagnetic field, though an incredibly useful approximation in making 19th-20th century tech, is itself now seen as a intermediate-level concept which can be derived from still more elementary processes.
Yes, but @niccc101's point still holds. Science doesn't explain scientific concepts in terms of everyday experiences, it explains everyday experiences in terms of scientific concepts. And then maybe those concepts in terms of still other concepts. Science provides an explanation by reconstructing a substructure which is cannot be directly experienced, and its justification for that reconstruction is that a smaller number of concepts can tie many different everyday experiences together.
Came for magnets, stayed for slippery ice.
And the angry husband :))
Physics isn't about explaining the 'why' questions of the universe. It's about making models in theory that _describe what we actually see in real life with the best accuracy._ The person asking about magnets wasn't asking about what models best explained the mechanism of magnetism. He was asking Feynman not to give a scientific explanation, which is a theory based on hypothesis that has not been disproven (yet), but to give an absolute answer like some kind of God. Feynman knew this, and didn't take the bait. No one can give an answer with the omniscient truth like the reporter wanted, so it's technically a cop-out answer to a cop-out question. Asking a question meant for a god to a human is a cop-out.
I love this man.
Richie woke up that day and chose violence.
Listening to this guy makes me laugh and cry... at precisely the same time! Absolutely Brilliant!
XY ZW - I do not know of these grim reapers, of which you speak... I just wish they’d passed this guy by for a little while longer, because we have no one to replace his outstanding intellect, in this pitifully sad world of ours! - where grim individuals like you totally misunderstand the words that people type.
That's vastly improved! Makes me feel even more challenged and stimulated by this amazing intellect. Thank you!
The critics of Feynman in this comments section (which in itself is remarkable) are the same people that are absolutely fascinated with Neil Tyson and Bill Nye and of all their “rubber band” explanations. Because Feynman won’t go down to their level of convincing the world that everything in science has an easy explanation, people are upset. As an analogy, take gravity. If you asked a physicist how gravity “works”, what answer would satisfy a non-technical person? To understand the answer, one needs to understand General Relativity, which is rooted in topology and differential geometry. If I said, you can’t fully understand gravity without learning these things, and gave you some Tyson/Nye type fake explanation, would you really be satisfied with that?
Understand completely but Feynman didn't have to be an ass here. His initial response has always bothered me. All he had to do was smile and say that the question was too difficult to answer because it depends on the physics background of the person asking the question. To me he just comes off as arrogant here but tried to play it cool as the minutes went by because he realized how much of an ass he was being. You can clear see it in his inflections.
Facts
@@wirito He was trying to say something bigger than just explain "how magnets work".
We are living in days similar to the ones before Alexandria was burned to the ground. The people here would happily trade a direct answer that gives them value, for no answer that instead praise them for the super-awesome question they made.
Feynman attempt to give an "Explain Like I am 5" answer here clearly doesn't work today when the audience mental capacity has dropped to that of a 2 year old crying baby.
Sad
@@wiritoso it is 'how' you say vs 'what' you say. Feelings override everything. Maybe That is what feynman think whenever he talk to 'normal' person like you. Who knows?
please do all of these Feynman videos in higher quality :) ! thank you ... its amazing
This makes me think of Gautama Buddha's insight that all things lack intrinsic nature because they arise inter-dependently. The Buddhist philosopher Nagarjuna says that all phenomena are inter-dependent and are empty of intrinsic nature. The "why" question is a simple and powerful device to gain insight into emptiness. Feynman does this beautifully albeit from a non-Buddhist perspective.
well... in fact feynman just told you that magnetism has an intrinsic nature.
A lot of ppl in the comments saying "he doesn't know", as if that makes him some kind of a fake. That's part of the point! - there is no fundamental reason "why" the forces of nature are what they are. But we can choose to explain why in terms of other things which seem to be more 'fundamental' in the sense that they can explain even more things, if you assume them to be true. But then there is no answer to why those are true. No matter what you have to posit a set of 'laws' that are assumed to be true, and then build a logical system from there. modern physics is the search for the simplest, most unifying way to see the universe
Catch Ten One Ten I don’t know if you watched the entire video but he ends up explaining the attraction and repulsion between magnets it’s just that magnetism is a very vast field of physics so explaining it in a couple of simple sentences would be completely bias to the reporter and ppl who watch the show and then think they know what magnetism is all about
this comment section is super disappointing
yep :S
lot of stupid ppl
Yeah
Low iqs. It’s actually insane lol.
I think people who don't know physics are blaming him. Those who understand him can see how great his explanation is.
At the end he said he doesn’t know
@@jacbug-7349 he says he doesn't know how to explain it in terms of anything the interviewer would be familiar with. But ultimately his point holds no matter what level of physics you understand-at some point, all theories start from assumptions. The speed of light is constant, quantum mechanics contains fundamental randomness, electrons and quarks are fundamental particles not composed of anything else, etc. Feynman could have explained magnets starting from the fundamental postulates of the Standard Model, but it would have taken graduate physics and advanced math to comprehend.
@@jacbug-7349 he literally won a physics nobel prize because of his work in quantum electrodynamics
"The real problem in speech is not precise language. The problem is clear language. The desire is to have the idea clearly communicated to the other person. It is only necessary to be precise when there is some doubt as to the meaning of a phrase, and then the precision should be put in the place where the doubt exists. It is really quite impossible to say anything with absolute precision, unless that thing is so abstracted from the real world as to not represent any real thing. Pure mathematics is just an abstraction from the real world, and pure mathematics does have a special precise language for dealing with its own special and technical subjects. But this precise language is not precise in any sense if you deal with real objects of the world, and it is only pedantic and quite confusing to use it unless there are some special subtleties which have to be carefully distinguished." Richard Feynman
1, an abstraction. 1, exact only within a very narrow frame of reference and not actually measurable.
amazing, reading the comments. instead of listening and trying to understand what he is trying to convey, connecting physics with philosophy, people point out a feeling of being offended and of course the word "condescending" soon makes its appearance.... oh, sign of the times! :)
I wish people shared his enthusiasm, truly. I’m glad I do though. I’m glad I’m one of the few people who at least wants to be as curious as him.
It was fun reading the comments. Some people express their frustrations about feynmans statements. Some even defend that feynman actually explained the question. Discussions to some people even went to personal extent where they would curse that the discussion was stupid. Well what I think about the video is that feynman may forgot that it would be best to answer 'analogically', maybe that would satisfy some of the viewers who viewed it as a waste of time. Personally what feynman answered is that we can actually answer to why if we ask for more whys. This video taught me how to think, if I were a student of his it would be a great thing coz I could think more than to actually settle to an answer that could have more. In reality we just dont know the truth, we just model and assume things and utilize what we actually have and put logic in everything. I must admit what Ive stated is actually confusing to some. Im stating stuffs generally which would need more specifics but overall I must say that Ive had my fun in the comments and learned a lot about the views of others and come to realized that...oh so this is how they viewed this person(feynman)...
Finally, someone who gets it. I'm losing faith in humanity looking at these dumbasses who probably never attended a physics lecture in college. totally agree with ya bro.
At 6:00 Feynman specifically addresses your suggestion of explaining magnets by analogy to, say, a rubber band, and why that is a worse answer. As he explains, some things in physics are fundamental properties of the observable universe, and have no useful analogies.
Honesty! Honesty lived. Honesty expressed brilliantly! Breathtaking,... at least for me
The point of the video is rather that asking "why" is a lot like taking a house of cards and asking "what is this card A resting on?" You can answer the immediate, that it is resting on another card B. But then that card B is resting on another card C, so card A is really resting on card C. But then it's really resting on...
The point is not that this is some unanswerable, infinite regress, but that there are various different levels of answer which you may or may not be satisfied with, and it's important to not ask with the expectation that there is one clear answer
Brilliant post. You clarified what many others are trying (but failing) to explain.
The ultimate point with the question posed is that the card (what causes / what is magnetic attraction) is not resting on anything else other than the ground, the most fundamental thing - at least, so far as we are currently aware. Feynman is merely having to explain this, that magnetic attraction is an axiom of current physics, because the asker is not immediately satisfied with the straight-forward answer, "magnets repel each other", because the asker believes that there is something more fundamental at play when in fact there is not.
I don't know that I'll ever get tired of this video. So many different pieces of footage of science and speeches and flybys of planets and explosions and microscopic odysseys and whatnot... and yet my favourite science video ever remains 7 minutes of a cranky old geezer in an armchair refusing to answer somebody's question. Brilliant.
@Thomas Hood Yeah... I will definitely do that...
His answer is actually perfect and the way he replied to your question was amazing and mesmerizing.
Such great quality, thank you for uploading a better quality one.
@Reshi Stamiris Feynman is wrong because a clueless guy babbling nonsense about aether says so. 🤣
Thanks for sharing the video, I have just realised where all the ex flatearthers went after getting flat earth destroyed. 🤣
@Reshi Stamiris Why wait? 🤣
@Reshi Stamiris I appreciate the effort you put in the answer, not sure what was the point though!
@Reshi Stamiris Well, that spoils it a little, doesn't it?
@Reshi Stamiris But it does for me...
The interviewer probably retired after this one. Went to drive a zamboni on the ICE.
Thanks boss great quality
Great lecture with high quality
God DAMN this quality is great! Beautiful restoration, I gotta buy this
Amazing! Please upload more HQ clips, if you can. Thanks!
@Reshi Stamiris That's really spamming! For anybody curious about it, just beware you are going to waste twenty minutes of your precious life!
We ask ourselves "how do magnets work" when we pick something up using a magnet... Wow it feels like magic doesn't it? But electricity and magnetism (and the weak and the strong nuclear forces) are the *reason* why every atom in our body is held together with every other atom... We don't ask "how does my hand stick to my body" because somehow that's obvious to us... But it isn't... Atoms stay together using magnetism... We didn't know that some centuries ago...
congratulations Richard Feynman successfully closed your mind.
@@moonrock5324 so what is your proposal?
I hear your question about magnets and I have an answer for you: ICE!
7:35 "Ok, but why?"
Did you watch the whole video? He explains it starting from 5:29.
What's he's basically saying here is that "Why?" questions always lead back to statements we have to accept as self-evidently true - what mathematicians call axioms. Many of us feel content to draw the line at a level of explanation far less deep than the likes of Feynman.
Naw. He was just beating around the bush because he didn't want to say that he doesn't know.
@@FreedomTalkMedia Feynman, being a physicist, does know and did mention it (it has to do with spin). But how satisfied would you be with one saying it is because of spin. What would that tell you to enhance your understanding? That is Feynman's point.
Not quite - he's saying "why" questions require answers that use concepts the questioner is familiar with (which can be similar to but isn't quite the same as "statements we accept as self-evidently true").
@@FreedomTalkMedia You realise this man had a nobel prize in physics. I'm pretty sure he knew how the mechanics of magnetism work as well as anyone.
His point is that it's impossible to draw comparison and impossible to explain the feeling.
@@lindocalrissian0926 have you heard of Russell’s logic paradox?
Water, fire, air and dirt,
FxxKING MAGNETS, HOW DO THEY WORK ?!
Thanks a lot:)
Wow ! A gem from 20th century
Brilhante.
The inconceivable nature of magnetism
A+
So much pseudo intellectual bullshit going around in this comment section
A reflection of the video.
I was thinking also about another related thing. What do we need to UNDERSTAND something. When I started learning genetics I was reading many articles and they had tons of terms but they were not clear for me. Definitions from Wikipedia didn't help too as they explain something unknown using other unknown and you cannot get the idea, FEEL it, understand it. I even couldn't understand the role of genes and what they mean physically. Is it just abstract notion or something physical. I couldn't understand what proteins are and my poor chemistry knowledge didn't help. Only when I installed program which allowed fold proteins, only after passing several courses about biology and genetics, only after ordering my full genome sequence I started understand something.
So the question is "How one person could pass their knowledge, their understanding of something to another one?" What does it mean at all "understand or know something?" Not a separate fact but like understand what are tensors or quantum computing are. I have some ideas about it. I think that to understand any complex notion you need to attach it to something already known, imagine a picture or analogy. Going deeper and deeper you will come to your feelings from the very childhood, to all images you have seen, all senses and feelings like fear, cold, warm, hunger, happiness. They may come from you first days. Anyway our neural network only have senses (external and probably internal) as input.
But what is the best way to learn something? I wish to learn and understand many things. Is there a most effective way to transfer knowledge from one person to another?
I had always found this to be about the most beautiful answer I had ever heard, aside from the mild slight to the interviewer. What he really answered was, "What does it mean to know?" In the most thorough manner conceivable.
This reminds me of the 9th track on The Richardz debut!
feynman
Well some necessity definitely did, now if it's an agent or not that's different, although the agent hypothesis is much more plausible.
@@SunlightSentinel the agent "hypothesis" (hypotheses need to be testable, hence the quotes) still begs the question of where the agent came from - if you use something like "he/she/it is eternal" then you're adding an unnecessary complication - the universe could just be the eternal thing and cut out the need for a creator.
genius
I wish the full version had this quality.
ua-cam.com/video/P1ww1IXRfTA/v-deo.html
@@primus4cameron That's the full version that I wish had this quality - it's not this quality. This is uploaded in HD and clearly higher resolution.
@@maulcs Yeah... you're right - my bad. Do me a favour by sending me the better version if you manage to find it please, and I'll keep looking as well. Cheers.
maulCS have you thought of asking Christopher Sykes? - christopher.sykes@gmail.com
@@primus4cameron
The uploader, Christopher Sykes, was also the director of this believe it or not. So I guess we just have to wait and hope that one day he'll upload it, unless it's somewhere else I haven't seen.
The question is like the guy asking him why 2+2=4 and without accepting the fact as is would be difficult to explain. Like you could use that continuous why of why logic.
From time to time when he says something in a certain way he reminds me of Robert Deniro.
I was thinking Alan Alda / Capt. Benjamin Franklin `Hawkeye' Pierce. - but in the end it's a New York thing. They are all three from NY.
shit this is epic
Dipole and associated repulsion are a necessity for existence. If particles were to constantly rub against each other, the particles would not have a lifetime of 10 to the power of 31 to 10 to the power of 36 years. Magnetism is therefore a basic requirement for ensuring the longest possible lifespan of physically stable particles. In any case, I see it that way, because at some point the currently best solution prevails in nature.
The correct question is "what necessitates the phenomenon that we call magnetism? i.e. magnetic attraction and repulsion
I came here from ted talk about procastation.
Take some English lessons first. Prior to TED talks. 🤡
Put the "why" in the title since the video is about "why" and not magnets. Makes it easy to find this video instead of the lower resolution one that pops up on top.
Could you upload the complete VIDEO in 1080 p?? PLEASEEE!
I'm afraid this is the best I can do...
@@ChristopherSykesDocumentaries How about 8K?
Showed this video to my wife when she asked me "Why did you change your car again?"
Every aspect of energy production in the world is about moving pressures from one place to another, nuclear reactor to move steam pressure, wind pressure for a generator, dielectric pressures from light in solar cells; all electromagnetic and gravitational motions are ether pressures.
"Uncovering the missing secrets of magnetism" is a must read for any intelligent mind.
Then the interviewer would ask, "What's pressure?"
@@carywalker7662 what is what, or better yet what is is?
Oh how I miss Ricky
Would his answer have been different if he was asked "how" instead of "why?"
Yes.
Not really. The whole point of the answer was to explain that electromagnetism is a fundamental force. There's no other theory (currently available, check back in 500 years) that can be used to explain it. The fields that mediate the force attract and repel, and that's just what it is for now. There will always be errors to correct and a deeper theory to create/discover, but as of now, that's it. But even when we have that deeper theory, someone could ask why or how that is. I think people expect this answer to be something like: the force particles reach out and somehow grab each other and pull themselves in, or push each other way, but when talking about fundamental fields like this, that just isn't how it works. That explanation, as he said, would be using concepts that only emerge at much higher levels of these fundamentals. As of now, it's just a brute fact, until we have deeper fundamentals to emerge a higher level explanation like that.
Its interesting reading all of the comments on here, which I think kind of miss the point. 2 years ago I went through suicidal depression and my psychiatrist told me to watch this. I didnt get it until I watched it and then I realised it was a genius thing to get me to do. His point, and Feynman's point, is that you can lose yourself down a rabbit hole of why questions. It can be why magnets repel or why I'm facing depression. There are some things we're simply not able to understand at our current level of knowledge and there should be an acceptance of that. I'd literally go so far as to say that this video helped save my life so it's a bit depressing to say the least to here people say hes, dumb, ignorant etc. Hes not, hes telling you take things on trust in the world.
This guy physics...
For people not understand what Feynman is trying to get across....You ask about the mystery of magnets but not about the mystery of not being able to put a hand through a chair, all I can tell you is they are caused by the relationship between the interactions of the magnetic and the electrical forces.
Hmmmmm
He politely explained his mental superiority
Exactly, and he is right XD He is just alot more trained mind than most of us
@@PluetoeInc. he’s insane
He truely is the God oh Physics🔥🔥
Brilliant.. After hearing all his answers, I thought he was great.
Brilliant answer.
Man.. Bill Hader is looking a bit rough.
Feynman's look at 0:43 when he realizes that he's going to school the interviewer is the best. What a legend!
He answered the question the reporter meant to ask, while also subtly chastising him for not phrasing his question well. Reading the comments implying any of you know more about physics than him gave me cancer.
I wouldn't be surprised if he knew all along that he were in trouble (as soon as this question started - regardless of how the question was phrased. After all the man was nothing short of genius) but I suppose that was his thing - to make the listener (the reporter in this case) discover the problem along, rather than being "the man who just knows things". After all, it's way more fun to feel that you are discovering stuff rather than being told about it. I've also thought of a similar example which could simulate a similar problem. Let's imagine that the reporter is asking "What is a bottle". Well - it's an object made of glass. Ok, what is glass? Well, it's a substance made of heated crystals of sand. Ok, what is crystal? Well, it's a form of matter where the atoms are all lined up in an orderly manner. Ok, what is an atom? Well, it's a thing which has a nucleus made of protons, some neutrons and electrons. Ok, what is an electron? And then we hit a wall. We cannot explain the electron in terms of bouncing balls, or droplets of water or anything else. We either choose to accept that the electrons.. well they just are out there or we choose to say "Hey, mr. Feynman - it seems that despite you being all that smart you cannot really explain what a bottle is in the end!". Of course the irony is that he hit a wall on the very first iteration of the explanation and now people think that he was trying to avoid the answer ;-)
@XY ZW Oh dear friend, I hope it at least makes you feel better to claim such a preposterous thing. A simple trip to his wikipedia page will show how wrong you are. But I already know you have no interest in doing so, and even if you did, you would claim someone had falsely edited his page. A real shame.
Here is Feynman's in-depth explanation of magnetism from his time as a professor at Caltech, whose physics program he revolutionized. www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_34.html
Feyman's point in the video was that he would need to explain several courses worth of foundational physics to the interviewer to really get to the heart of the matter. I personally find myself out of depth reading just several pages into Feyman's lecture in that link and would also need additional prior knowledge to fully understand the math behind his explanations. So no, he is not unable to explain magnetism. He is unable to do so within the span of an interview to the layman.
Insane Clown Posse wrote a song about this exact topic
Fuckin magnets, how do they work? 🤷♀️
Look at him squirm hahahahahaha
Fucking magnets, how do they work?
How am I supposed to know
Don't worry about it
So magnets are basically the electrical equivalent of lasers--it is a coherent electrical field and thus points in ONE direction!
👍🏻👍🏻❤
Here's the Answer: 4:00
nope, he answered at 00:33 already :)
His argument is that the 'answers' at different levels may start at different timestamps. 'Because of electrical forces' prob. does not sound like an 'answer' for physics undergrads
This is the essence of mystery.
The deeper you study, the more interesting it gets.
However, at the topical level, we can say to the student only "it exists."
Feynman was an avowed atheist, but an excellent theologian.
Why questions beg and ask for ultimate start or end of something, science deals with how questions,and usefulness rather than why questions and Complete ultimate knowledge
Uh sir, this is a Wendy's
*Eom Jun-sik*
왜 한국인이 여깄음ㅋㅋㅋㅋ
Based on the comments here, I would say this video does a good job of sorting the wheat from the chaff in terms of higher level thought. Any literalist complaining that Feynman doesn’t know what he is talking about is free to out him- or herself (but mostly him-, judging from the comments) as a fundamentally unhappy person who is missing out on the transcendent beauty of life.
I pulled my car over once and asked Richard for directions . . . . Never again.
🤡
Apparently he was wrong about ice, though...
How so?
Nope.
@@fonus_yt Yes. ua-cam.com/video/yjSf7Yh9UZc/v-deo.html
@@10HW That's really surprising. Notice however that Feynman openly admitted it was hearsay when he mentioned that explanation, and this result only strengthens the point he was making.
You can't say he's completely wrong, applying pressure contributes to dislocating the molecules from the structured form of ice, into separate water molecules, into a state similar to a liquid.
This is the shit right here
This is higher quality than the recent full version, yet uploaded earlier - I wonder why. It'd be great to have the full version in this quality.