Video

Thanks a lot, sir for such a nice lecture. I am a PhD math student with a research interest in cosmology. I would like to know what software you use to record both the screen and your video because my friend and I also make lecture videos on topics like Topology, Riemannian geometry, Measure theory, etc.

if symplectic geometry is not great for noisy systems, what approach should I use instead.

Excellent lecture content.....your students might "hate" your bias for using the subtle historical concepts but it complete and thought provoking. Might be useful after going through the normal lectures with bells and whistles BUT still find them lacking on BASICS and Overview. Its a struggle to look up the basics concepts. Same genre as this lecturer : Universität Wien Physik by Prof Dr.Ing : Paul Wagner (I learnt much from him and his style of teaching without and hand waving ; i was amused when he loses his "cool" when students do not get his messages but he recollects himself and re-explains using another approach ). BRAVO Herr Osborne

Very very profound statement at 3.0 : Hypothesis has not been rejected......probably influenced due to your stay In Deutshland..Ja

Best lectures on Quantum Field Theory on the internet for mathematically minded people. Love from Pakistan

Hello Prof. Osborne, thanks for the lectures! Could you please give me the reference to the paper you mention at 49:53 in the lecture?

Thank you so much for these lectures! Very well chosen topics, the explanations were clear and the pacing was perfect.

Thank you for the great lecture! The 2 step drying chalkboard is very refreshing aswell, also the sunlight is very thematic 🙂

من فضلكم كيف اترجم الفيديو الئ العربية؟

I have neutrino flavor theories in my profile. Last four uploads. Last two are hand drawings to explain gist of it, but other two I use perplexity ai to express mathematically. Im messaging all mathematicians to get everyone involved in this kind of approach

Thank you for this reading seminar, it is very helpfull! Why it is ok to assume that the Black Hole doesn't ruin the entanglement beetween Alice's and Charlie´s states (from the induced decoherence perspective)?

Wish it were in English.

i am a highschooler that chose Einsteins field equation as a subject in my math-physics assignment, not quite knowing what it was. know i am here. it's a steap learning curve, but very interesting.

If he is English, why does he keep speaking and writing German? And why do they insist on using the metric system ?

Thank you professor for the Wonderful course Can I get the basic book on symmetries and quantum mechanics

the toy model about Schur's lemma and entanglement is very amazing! Could you please give me some literature about this? Thanks very much!

Using all the following can have the advantage of non-reproduction and multiplication in matter as well as communication among the general public F=E^2/hc=c^4/G Thank you.

Thanks a lot for this high-quality, public set of lectures :) One tiny question: at 1:12:40 I don't get why that integral is infinite. The delta seems well-behaved to me.

Prof. Tobias, where is the next lecture video😭😭I cannot live without it😭😭

Just before the expression (L_g)_¥ast X=X, X should be corrected to be a member of the set of tangent vector fields of Lie group G rather than M. Here, G is considered as a differentiable manifold.

Splendid! Intuitively clear.

At 29.30, at the equation r(jk} ≡ < e{j)| ρ(s) | e(k)>, it is stated that, if you don't have a Hilbert space (so no inner product), you can still define matrices. But how then?? (without Hilbert space, you don't even have symmetry transformations). This really confuses me. Can you give some further explanation/clarification? Many thanks in advance.

Why is the position eigenbasis not really a proper basis at all?

For the external anti fermions, you seem to draw two incoming fermions around 1:16:00. Is there a mistake?

At 26:30, you mention some regularisation schemes, ie introducing a cutoff, which don’t give rise to a Hilbert space. What regularisation scheme do you mean and why is there no Hilbert space?

At 19:00 when talking about shifting the ground state you mentioned something called “derivations”. What do you mean by these can be used to shift the ground state?

Around 32:25, you say we can make a list of all possible disconnected Feynman diagrammes - up to planar isotopy - (or combinatorial equivalence). What does planar isotope or combinatorial equivalence mean here?

What do you mean when you say around 10:05 that scattering theory hints at the fact that there are infinite quantities?

I’m a bit confused by what you mean when you say “every single time we write down a Hamiltonian, we really are writing down a family of hamiltonians parametrised by the cutoff Λ”? I get why we should associate a cutoff to each Hamiltonian, but why is there a family of hamiltonians?

Around 29:00, you mention gapless vs gapped particles in the context of SUSY. What is meant by a gapless particle or gapped particles?

Hallo, tolle Vorlesungen! Würden sie auch die Übungsserien/aufgaben dazu hochladen, das wäre doppelt toll!

Do you have any resources for what you mention around 1:05:30 with showing that KG is causal using algebraic qft

Thanks for sharing your lectures!

I'm here just cuz I'm curious, and I dont understand all the math in here 😭, this is not for me i guess

What a spectacular lecture 😮

Nerds.

The second definition of a tangent vector is a set of curves (which are equivalent because their derivatives at 0 are equal). In the third definition, a tangent vector is a linear combo of differential operators. These look loke wildly different things and I'm trying to reconcile in what sense they can be made the same. I appreciate that in definition 2, once you introduce a chart and start manipulating the equivalence condition C1'(0)=C2'(0), then the formulas you work with start to look the same. But the answer to "what is a tangent vector?" seems to be "it depends strongly on how you define a tangent vector!" and the different definitions only coincide once you choose a chart and start calculating. Is this correct or have I gone mad?

This dude has some serious blackboard game. The philosophical prelude is interesting so far.

RENORMALIZATION is only needed when your theory about nature makes no sense at all. That's why QFT's are no theories. They can't predict anything. Only when you put nature into them they start making some sense. Studying QFT's is a test of your mathematical intelligence. Nothing else.

15:27 Orga überspringen

I am extremely confused as to why these people know about lie groups but not Noether's theorem or the Euler Lagrange equation

shouldnt the most important quantum system be the Universe?

It was at this point (and some quantum mechanics lectures) that I realised I'd never be a great physicist. Good luck to everyone continuing in the field. I wish you the best.

at 46:31 is d the dim of H or H (tensored) N ? cause the dim of H will be that of the single fermion! ?

Maybe one comment on why the Fourier transform: because the analogy of 'diagonalizing the matrix' in the function space case is the 'spectral theorem', which states that you can conjugate the operator (self-adjoint, let's say, for simplicity) by a unitary operator to make it as a multiplication operator under the spectral measure. In a lot lot of specific cases (and indeed, here), this unitary operator is the Fourier transform.

Why do we must have a theory of everything? Why it is not sufficient a theory for each big thing?

Stack of razor blades is not someone putting you on. The idea is that the light bounces around between the sharp edges until absorbed. If you look at microscopic pictures of ultra-black materials, you'l get the impression of a stack of razor blades or a forest of spikes.

Welche Uni wurde leider nicht gesagt, das wäre interessant. Ich schaue die ganze Playlist, obwohl ich das meiste schon kenne. Das sagt doch etwas.

I think quantum field theory, chromodynamics, and quantum electrodynamics is best place to start when learning about computers. You need a solid fundamentals

Around 32:29 it looks like that the l_n´s generate the transformation z + epsilon. But i do not understand the logic there since exponentiatiing l_n should deliver us a global conformal transformation but in the equation ( on the left hand side), denotes that exponentiating l_n delivers z + epsilon which was an infinitesimal conformal transofrmation.