Francesco Zeno Ceccarini the internet is full of these resources, in fact it’s what it was created for. Humans connecting human-built networks of information to other humans. It was only once sizable interests in entertainment and communication became involved that these things became harder to find. The algorithms you most commonly encounter cater (unsurprisingly) to the most common user of the internet. If you follow your recommendations and UKposts’s trending tab, you probably won’t encounter too many new creators or content. Go back to the roots of the internet and build a network of people. I only found this video because another physics enthusiast on UKposts linked it in a comment on a video I searched for.

m

M.

M.

M.

Now we all know you have underwear. God, where the world is rolling to?...

You can sit through a complete MIT course in your underpants. I agree it is wonderful. My favourite professor has a course on acoustics. Dr. Amar Bose (Yes, that Bose).. He has unfortunately passed away but his brilliant teachings are I believe still online.

@@martinda7446 really ? If you need 47minutes to get the point across, that you might lose information (since not a closed loop), imo the complete lesson is an utter waste of time., and should have been done in way less time. then again ... this is just stanford ...

Physics Videos by Eugene Khutoryansky thanks for your video on your channel...I get more intuition from yours...

This lecturer proves that it is actually eminently possible to describe concepts of reality which has been used by classical notions of reality which can loosely be called the Newtonian way of understanding the real world in a manner which can be logically understood without falling into using an advanced code or shorthand ways of describing things. Frequently physicists constantly use the evolved tools which speeds up the complications or descriptions of this way of describing reality which is impenetrable if one doesn’t know the all of the specific terminologies or short hand language which advanced physicists normally fall into using when practitioners are communications to each other. This lecturer doesn’t assume that the people watching this lecture has acquired the shortcut methodologies which have been developed for practioners to communicate to each other. On the contrary this lecturer doesn’t assume that the viewer knows such ways of communicating and as such describes the subject matter using basic logic which is utterly understandable to the non expert individual. This is an excellent example of a lecturer who doesn’t dis-include non specialists from comprehending the principles being discussed. An extraordinary accessible manner of giving non specialists a much richer comprehension of the subject matter being explained. Absolute perfect example of a lecturer who doesn’t simply fall into talking to themselves due to assuming the enquirer has a vast comprehension of the language physicist have evolved to talk to each other. Brilliant! This lecturer really takes the time to ensure ordinary language is used to explain things respectfully and informatively to people who are otherwise excluded from having any chance of comprehending what is being discussed due to using a language which is not familiar to the majority. Excellent!!

Well, and thanks for your videos, they're very helpful for people that aren't well versed in mathematics

@@ramunasgrabauskas1227 gi88😥🥶😥🥶😥😥🇰🇷😰

Quantum physics is the truth of universe and lie of human consciousness saying that it does not need any observer or audience it knows its nature and truth it is just we were not present at the origin we just explaining things in middle of something Specially in quantum entanglement universe is constant it knows what is up or down so where ever the particles go their nature is pre determined its just us making it complicated by knowing it after so many years of evolution Ther is no need of observation or observer

Agree

Instablaster.

@@LifeIsWonder786 கோரேஆஏநகஙஹஷ ற

@@terabyte3763 girl... wtf are you talking about?

@@justin01144 I have no clue. O.o I must have fell asleep on my phone and predictive text kicked in. I don't even remember watching this video.

+remymartinxo999 He is but I am NOT! I am not good with words or physics! I tried to read a book called Exploring The Earth an Moon by Patrick Moore ( 1923 - 2012 ) but I forgot the information I had read immediately after I had read it! When the moon explodes and becomes a black hole will the Earth get stuck to it like a tennis ball in the plughole of a bath when the water is drained away? The Patrick Moore book had lovely juicy pictures in it! My favourite Beatles' album is Please, Please Me from 1963. I understand Aristotle's ( 384bc - 322bc ) that heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones, in a vacuum they do anyway!

Suskind was plumber apprentice before brain-e-ack. Was called Suskind the Plumber.. He is common man but he beat Hawking in battle about black holes and conservation of information, a basic law of thermal dynamics.

I must admit I got lost at that point. When he switches to the die, surely number of states switches to log in base 6, I don’t get how he stayed in base 2 there?!

@@tonybarry787 Hi, I might be late to the party, but to answer your question in case you are curious, we are using base 2 to represent the "amount" of information that a die roll has. In this case, the unit that Susskind is using is "bits" (in the classical sense, of course). Think about it this way: all 6 possible states that the die might roll on can be "encoded"/"represented" in just "log 6 base 2" bits, minimally. Of course, since it's practically not possible for us to have a "fraction" of bits, we usually just round it up to the next whole number/integer. In this particular example, we can hence use 3 bits to capture all the possible states of said die. Of course, we are assuming that all 6 states are "equally likely" in this case (since the "amount" of information might change if they are not). Think about in the case whereby the die can only roll on the number "1" 100% of the time, you can imagine that the amount of information that such a system would have/contain would be "less" than if all 6 numbers are equally likely. In an intuitive handwavy way, there are less variations and so it's less interesting, hence it contains less information for us. Hope this makes it clearer. :D

more importantly his understanding wisdom and experience.

greivor HAHAHA can you give a time stamp??

@@jasonbennett2194 1:31:12

@@daemon7777 7 years later, I did also laugh... a gem ...

@@daemon7777 thanku

== The Conglomerate - Universe Creation Theory == combining GOD/Nature, ancient religions, astronomy, cosmology, laws of physics, general relativity, quantum mechanics, chaos theory/fractals, laws of biology & chemistry, linguistics, mysticism, and philosophy “Energy can’t be created or destroyed, only transformed/transferred in an isolated system.” General relativity allows black holes, white holes and Big Bang. ‘The BIG Bang-Bit Bang’ inflation/expansion of energy and information into the void 13.8 billion years ago was a supermassive white hole spawned by a supermassive black hole at the heart of a galaxy in our ‘parent universe’. This duality combines general relativity’s singularities of infinite density breaking through spacetime in ‘Cosmic Egg hatchings’ of all created universes within ‘The Conglomerate’: multiverse with no random quantum fluctuation bubble universes, no parallel worlds and no universes with different physical laws. Our Universe is 1-in-2 trillion ‘self-similar offspring’ each with the same inherited ‘DNA’. “In the beginning”, the Planck density of the core of a SBH is a birth canal. ‘Quantum bounce SBH-SWH seed transitions’ are ‘quantum tunneling umbilical wormholes’ with energy-matter and data transformed/transferred, albeit scrambled and encoded. The ubiquitous cause-and-effect ‘circle of life cycle’: birth-life-death-transformation-rebirth explains infinite space and eternity - a necessity. Reproduction is GOD/Nature’s simple plan for greatly spreading life for everything from cells to universes. Why does this Universe exist? It’s our playground (god + run = ground). - Seal #1a of the 7seals.blogspot.com . Only the returned Christ & Albert Einstein reincarnated could produce this. It's triggered The Apocalypse/Revelation which is NOT the 'end of the world'. COVID-19 is part of Seal #4: S=19 (18.6) Theory.

Praise the Internet for making self-education possible in countries with bad education ^^.

this is the video you chose to learn english from? go watch family guy or something

Where are you from ?

***** So he should watch Beavis and Butthead. A lot of that is set in a school.

Rodrigo Alejandro Cardona Quinterolmao

In my experience, someone who really understands what he's talking about finds it easy to explain it and comes across as a good speaker. The reverse often holds true; if I have trouble understanding someone, it's often that the speaker only understands what they are talking about superficially.

Lucky Stanford students !

Great? Oh Yes! However, it might be said that part of his endearing (non-quarklike) charm is that on one or two occasions he can tie himself in knots (not allied to string theory of course)!

One of the few who belongs in the same sentence with Feynman.

The only thing that stops you from learning is death.

well. They pay for their grade to be entered into a system and a nice diploma for their parents wall :)

They also pay to do the work to make them a good computer scientist or physicist

you realize these lectures aren't taught in degree courses right? these are special lectures for anyone willing to learn about it, it's not actually a course, with exams etc. A real course on QIT and such a topic is much more rigorous and intense. In general, these are for the average enthusiast.

@Lovely Douche yes I understand that perspective, but there was a comparison being made between the paid degree courses and this one, perhaps unintentionally. I agree it's fantastic, Susskind provides great insight since he is not focusing on the rigor but rather the ideas, therefore anyone no matter what level will benefit from them. And I was replying to the initial comment made by Robin. He assumed this is the course a postgraduate or undergraduate would take, he is clearly mistaken.

Carlin was a very intelligent man. And funny!

Eugene Song Than*

Why would you think he doesn't after his famous quote: "a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed"

@@pegatrisedmice VERY CLEVER sorry about the caps

Eugene Song this guy is Awesome. I learned all my physics stuff from him. Free education

Only the ignorant haha

@@brookefossum8634 that’s true also Brooke

I use these to go to sleep.

@@BeardedDragonMan1997 I regret to inform you... that you are indeed retar- haha totally kidding, I fall asleep to physics documentaries too sometimes, I'll pray for you if you have insomnia or anxiety which is making it difficult, let me know if you want that. Maybe then we can prove to you through an answered prayer that Christians are real. Random sorry haha. The offer stands.

@@BeardedDragonMan1997 He does ramble a lot and has trouble staying on point for any length of time

It is a coffee cup, yes; but I think it contains only four dimensional matrices or inner products of such entities..

damnt...

Ketu Wonder the atoms in the coffee are vibrating and jiggling very fast partially because that's atoms like and partially because the coffee is hot. Inside the atom,electrons and protons are jiggling and so are the quarks and eventually the strings are vibrating. Their energy is higher than ususal because the coffee is hot. When susskind sips his cup of coffee,he exerts a kind of vaccuum force on the strings and they try to escape into other dimension. But thwy actually go in his stomach. So what if other dimensions exist inside his stomach lol...

so if the coffee was made 15 minutes prior to the video, what would the approximate temperature (above absolute zero) be upon first sip, in 35 places to base 2 be?

That was killing me to watch him pick it up and put it down so many times without drinking it.

ΣΚΡΟΥΤΖ ΜΑΚ ΝΤΑΚ of course! He is the theoretical physicist who dares to defy Stephen hawking

Stephen Hawking might be the most popular theoretical (astro)physicist. But I personally respect more Ed Witten for building bridges between abstract maths and theoretical physics. What you said simply gave me the feeling that you think of Stephen as the Feynman of his generation...

...yyuuup!...

can you give notes of these lectures? Quantum Entanglement part 1!

Hi, I would like to have notes on this lecture series.

Hey ,if you watching this can u tell me how to follow his series step by step which things to do first.

What's so wierd about it

believe it reality is much more bend than what we are taught

I think he is making the distinction between actually losing the information versus not having a tool to retrieve the information. I think what he is saying is that the information is there to be retrieved? I don't understand enough to have an opinion one way or the other but that's what it sounded like to me.

But they did have mammoth fat to rub it with.

Selvik Music are you learning or feeling the teaching?

+lsbrother No, there are multiple 10 hour long videos on the site that usually are meant to be watched ironically.

+Marcus Godiali "watched ironically" ?! Not sure what you mean - are these videos all continuously of the same person? - could you give a link to an example.

@@lsbrother he means looped stuff like "10 hours of Star Wars Cantina music"

yes, this is evidence for the Unified Field Theory.

Chase Gielda suppose i am going to have a measurement for polarization of photon emitted from sun. and i changed it little bit.does it mean that all the photons will get changed out side and inside the sun? and what will be the effects on whole system i.e sun.

Anil chauhan No. Unless for what ever reason the observer observed the Universe in that way. There are no simple answers and I sure as hell don't claim to have any of them. haha ;P

Chase Gielda but how can it be evidence of the unified theory if the fact that the universe originated from one point is itself a theory, a theory can be evidence for another theory?

Sure. Our present model of physics is multi-faceted and incomplete, filled with theories that compliment each other, maybe some laws... we still know so little about the the true nature of the Universe compared to the infinite possibilities that lay in the quantum.

MDW Because we're here to listen to Leonard Susskind is give a lecture, and not some school children fiddle fumble around with whatever the hell they're curious about.

RickGuyver but those school children hwo study quantum entanglement might ask the same questions we would think of to ask. Thats the nice thing about Q & A part

Constantin Eugen Cozma very true, plus they might ask even better questions- which are the right ones, but even so, you are still ignoring a fundamental principle to the problem, which is: The video is titled "Lecture", and nowhere in the title does it say anything about q&a with the kiddos. Perhaps you can search along those lines, or you might also request that Stanford issue a separate video(s). Btw, if you are able to allocate those specific video clips, please send me the link or title description as I would be very interested in viewing them as well.

RickGuyver actually it's because the sound quality is too low since the askers are too far away from the mic.

+RickGuyver Since we listen to the replies of Leonard to the kids' questions, it'd be good to know the original question as well. And mind you, we're talking about Stanford physics students' questions. Not about any mindless kid in some shitty college.

I wonder if that is a myth.

yessss xd

BRO I thought the same thing and was gonna comment but started scrolling instead and ..........

Anime always leads one to the answers of the universe.

Yes, I'd heard it was good. I at least expected a couple of car chases and a gunfight or two, and what about the gadgets? ; )

I was wondering who the villain was. Is it the character with the beard or is he the good guy?

lol wut ?

Yes! I thought I misunderstood what he is trying to explain but that was such an obvious error. I know it has nothing to do with this lecture, but how could a physics professor at a prestigious university make such a terrible mistake??

Or was he talking about how many bits do you need to represent all the possible states of a dice? In that case the calculation is correct.

Sinisa Marovic No, its still totally wrong. The number of bits can't be an irrational number. It must be natural

www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=base+2+log+6&x=0&y=0

@rightwraith No, it is not a mistake. He is talking about the bits as the units of information (Entropy). Entropy is the measure of information any source is emitting (dice in the example).

That's because he is not talking to a general audience. He is talking to highly intelligent students here. :-)