Відео

So im totally new to this and the only reason im diving into this, is because of the freak wave documentary. Now i had the absolutely freakish idea to simulate freak waves and for that I need to understand this schrödinger nonsense xD I much prefer the cat cause I like fat cats but hey, maybe I can get my mind around this

Thanks!

Sailing along quite nicely with this. One small niggle at about 6.59 the trig Acos part gets discarded without apparent reason, can’t find any obscure trig identity. Other texts I have searched have done similar. Other than that its a very well presented and comprehensive work that has filled in some of the many gaps in my knowledge.

His science proved the cat was a dog the whole time

E/m=c²

Bro I have a doubt Doubt: according to the borh model of atom electrons at lowest energy level has greater velocity ,but according to the Einstein de brogli relation that is momentum is inversely proportion to the wavelength(p=h/lamda).Then how could electrons at higher velocity has wavelength .don't u think some think is wrong bro

Planck is a top lad

THAT'S AWESOME!❤

If nothing travels faster than the speed of light how can c be squared. Would that not mean the speed of light times the speed of light or infinity. I will tell you why, because we do not know the speed light from the source to the observer. We only know the reflected speed. Einstein knew this and he postulated that the speed of light from the source to the observer could be instantaneous. That’s why this equation works.

As a former engineering student I must ask what are the units of measure?

At 23:13 why exactly should that expression be the total energy?

guys, Square root of E = mc. Do this work?

Hey, the unit for the energy density equation at 38:01 is J/m^(4). I believe unit for energy density is J/m^(3). I'm I wrong?

Fantastic! It is impossible to ague against logic. This is the philosophical part of physics.

Thank you for your explanation but where's the box and the cat???

It’s not einsteins formula, it’s Olinto De Pretto’s formula

Lots of nay sayers out there. Pure genius is unstoppable. People are jealous of geniuses. The very laws of physics are what I believe in.

I respect mathematics but do use it. Like listening to music I cannot create myself I enjoy the experience of you doing it. I love the history of science that Carl Sagan introduced me to in Cosmos 1980.

I made a 30 page notes watching this entire video to delve into the world of quantum mechanics! Believe me, my thinking frame has changed a lot in QM upon completion this video. Thank you for this knowledge!

You lost me at furthermore..

I have to say I have figured out how to see these particles with the human eye. You can do it! You keed sunlight and you relax and keep your eyes mostly shut but ever slightly open-it allows you to see like a microscope! I have always been able to see electrons and neutrons hitting each other and it’s volatile. I’m sure others have experienced it but didn’t realize what they’re seeing.

If understanding Creation was easy with the use of Quantum theories , the Creator also will be in our reach ...All scientists have tried to unravel this secret of a Creator. Their only aim is to learn every trick that the Creator has up His sleeves.. Thankfully all signs that this earth is as old The Creator Itself is slowly uncovering... May be by the turn of this century the Hindu yuga or the Christian eon might come to an end because the volcano eruption in Icelands is not a phenomenon to ignore...

We add consciousness to math everyday... we just do math on paper which is not the whole picture.

Math is a roadway for our consciousness to make reality. Math is a doorway to reality but doesn't show it.. you need to add consciousness to math in order to have a complete reality complex mathematical system

Math Insinuates that we live in a non consciousness simulation... I walk the same pace as my friend and we look at each other... simulation math says we are both at rest compared to one another. But math doesn't show how we still feel like we are walking/moving. Hence why math and consciousness has to work together to make reality not a simulation

Fun fact : only a simulation can be at rest... the universe is never at rest....ever... but we can't wrap our heads around something so simple 😅

Energy at rest = Mc2. Fun fact.. everything in the universe is never at rest.

Can a maximum mass/energy be calculated for the Planck volume? Is that number meaningful? Infinities/divisions by zero abound? I contemplated over the weekend...

I took Quantum Mechanics many years ago. I learned more from this video than I did back in college. But my experience in life tells me that reality trumps math. The imaginary number i only exists because it is useful in solving real world problems. Math is a set of tools and i is just one of them. But in all cases, the solution in i is rendered to reality. It seems with the SWE, it could not shake off i so it patched it up with probability. This is nothing more than a patch on a patch. All to show that particles have wave properties. Too much of a reach.

Fabulous explanation throughout and inspiring final quote.

Movement. Who is moving? and how does movement arise?. I will give a little reflection on the question of movement: What is movement? How is movement created??? Who - what is moving? Cosmology says that space-time has been expanding since the Big Bang..., and that means "what"?: "stretching" dimensions?? (i.e. are there more points in the selected interval-unit?). I would improve it to the statement that space-time dimensions expand, not that they stretch, not expand. Unpacking curvature of dimensions at a) global level = large-scale level of the entire universe. (At this level, the curvature of the gravitational interaction prevails, it is a parabola). And then b) at the micro level (on Planck scales) the curvatures of the dimensions collapse into packages, balls and further into massive conglomerates such as molecules. That's my new hypothesis. These packed-wrapped formations are directly entities = elementary particles of matter. There are 25 kinds www.hypothesis-of-universe.com/index.php?nav=ea , the most important are quarks, leptons and bosons. www.hypothesis-of-universe.com/docs/ea/ea_002.pdf ; www.hypothesis-of-universe.com/docs/ea/ea_004.pdf . These are elementary particles of matter for interactions. (chemistry, biology, to DNA). And also, necessarily, there is between a) and b) behind c) also a mixing of curvature changes during the aging of the universe (in localities, once more once less www.hypothesis-of-universe.com/docs/c/c_362.jpg ... , and the world of microscale (QM) interactions. Now into this state of the universe, the system, into dynamic space-time, pour objects. When you sprinkle = sprinkle "objects" (they can be stars or planets, or even just "intangible cursors"), then the question will be : Who is moving? A) point-matter, or B) space-time by warping its dimensions?? (Which came first: the egg or the chicken?). I think that the Universe first (!) started the warping of dimensions (after the big-bang)  and even the unpacking and collapsing of dimensions of space-time simultaneously and thus produced matter on the Planck scale, in the microworld and also galaxies and large material objects = stars and planetary systems, black holes on the global-scale. Then, of course, the movement of material objects is not a "primordial act" ; movement (point-cursors, stars and galaxies + planets) is a result dimensional curvature changes. www.hypothesis-of-universe.com/docs/c/c_433.jpg (!) Physicists once said that the points (galaxies) on the envelope of the cosmic sphere do not move, see the entire lecture by Vavryčuk ua-cam.com/video/wyvGaFeAudw/v-deo.html , that (mutual) movement is performed by the expanding space-time and...and other times they say that space-time is a net-yarn, i.e. the stationary environment in which = on which the points move and it by uniform motion m . v , (in places where there are no force fields) or by accelerated movement m . a . Is it really like that? Do you really not have the will or courage to doubt? that it is different (?), that space-time, not matter, determines and causes movement.(!!) Physicists have a school lesson here: Space-time tells matter, how it should move and matter tells spacetime how it should curve. [39]  cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obecn%C3%A1_teorie_relativity . But that's not good, think about it. Matter cannot tell space-time how it should curve = until, until, until it is not itself moved by an external contribution=, i.e. by changes in the curvature of space-time. Those changes are commanded by curvature, they are primordial. Hundreds of billions of points-cursors + material spheres in the universe (at first) stand passively (!) and the rodeo of movement-movements by those objects = them is performed by space-time itself, as He changes the curvatures of "his dimensions".

Given the star is made of hydrogen the assumption of electrons being half the number of nucleons isn’t reasonable to me. For Helium up, ya. Also, a star being electrically neutral seems suspect based on the above and in general. Love all your videos! Where did you go!

suspiciously close to the Feynman Lectures chapter on SR... surely just a coincidence 😉

WHAT

if I need even more basic explanation is there any point in applying for physics studies?

I love physics but where I’m from we learn physics with calculus so derivatives and integrals. I’m a matrice mind, it just makes so much sense to me. I wish here physics could be taught in algebra and matrices ways😭

Except, it ISN'T background radiation, it's foreground radiation! If it were background, then every galaxy, including our milky way, would be represented upon it.

YOU ARE AMAZING!!! this is much better intro than any of the physics textbooks could offer me...

It's been fascinating to watch the mathematical derivations of some formulas which we now just accept. One small point at 34.01 we have when m =0 and taking only the positive square root E=pc would there be any significance in E = -pc? Excellent tutorial!

i was thinking often about this topic. When i had to explain people how insulation works, this thoughts came to my mind. Even without all this difficult equations i new instinctivily how it works, But now i am ensured. Crazy Video melted almost my brain.

Am I crazy or is there a minus error at 20:49, regardless its a great video thanks

You know you are watching too many physics explained videos when you can slightly predict how he is going to calculate the radiation pressure.

The rainbow is proof of the dome shaped Firmament that as the Bible describes encloses the flat earth . The arc of the Rainbow is simply the réfection of sunlight off the glass like dome shaped Firmament

The genius of Einstein was his patience for his math friends. He's was building a house and they keep bringing sticks (math) as tools (formulas). Then he explained why each stick is best for each task/step and how to use it! I don't think AGI will have the same patience. I know I don't.

Thanks for the quick explanation , I was watching Oppenheimer and the point came up of a dying star which lead me to this . It was very tragic that Chandrashekhar had to go through this .

Brilliant

Nice video and presentation. Ty and Jean gave us a curve fitting solution is mathematics but science. On the other hand Planck offer a final curve fitting solution is also mathematics but science. The catastrophe came out of our ignorance, selective learning and inability of connecting dots so to speak. Essentially, at the time the instrument’s sensor was sealed inside a glass container and we all know that glass attenuates infrared and ultraviolet that masked off real response, in the end we saw a distorted view on page 38:46. That means we still don’t know the real characteristics is until we have found a new material but glass to preserve the real information in the signal, light. We have PhD everywhere today but they offer us D and not Ph. Without philosophy science is soulless.

Excellent explanation on the quantum tunneling. Just one question, the quantum tunneling probablity was estimated with the assumption that Gap ''a'' is a very wide gap, I understand the assumption as it allows for easy calculation. But when we divided the gap into infinitesimally small gaps, would the assumption of wide gap not break down? But even then the alpha decay seems to correspond incredibly well with the experimentally determined values. Why ? Can you also explain, how this quantum tunneling was used to create a microscope that can give you atomic scale visualizations?

Very interesting content! Continue in the same spirit!

This vid is criminally underrated.