Overhyped Physicists: Richard Feynman
Vložit
- čas přidán 13. 05. 2024
- 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
Diagram 0:35: Time ans space are reversed, sorry!
For those unaware that he was depicted as a genius: www.amazon.com/Genius-Life-Sc...
Some poeple commented that the O-ring problem was discovered by some whistleblowers and Feynman just made it public.
Follow also my backup channel: odysee.com/@TheMachian:c
My books: www.amazon.com/Alexander-Unzicker/e/B00DQCRYYY/ - Věda a technologie
Feynman would probably agree with you that he is overhyped and that is what makes Feynman great
Well, the problem is that the very basis of his work, QED, is flawed. See Consa's work.
Could Feynman be humble enough to expose himself as a fraud?
@@TheMachian so Consa, is to be believed without any scepticism but Feynman apparently conspired with experimental physicist to tweak with the experimental data, in order to proove his theory correct. Mate, let me get this straight. You are speaking a whole lot of garbage just to gain views and comments and you can't probably write Newton's Law of gravity correctly, forget about Quantum field theory or Quantum electrodynamics.
@Arun Pirta Great comment! This channel is insane!
@@guesswho-og2wv I agree two papers doesnt justify it. Like the book rare earth from brownlee and ward doesnt justify the anthrophic principle as a scientific fact
I can't recall Unzicker publishing any original research work that made anyone in physics excited
You can't recall it because it has never happened... and never will.
Experimental physicist here... and i can say in my field of study nobody is trying to tweak their results or shit because everybody is looking at the publications of other groups and trying to reuse their ideas... and i am in quantum optics, where we are right at the edge to this whole quantum field stuff, where sometimes we need to put in terms from it as an correction. and they work. and if they wouldn't we would publish the shit out of it because it would be super exciting to find an inconsistency like that.
And i want to emphasize here we use calculations from these "wrong" theories to build real machines in the real world that do what these "wrong" theories predict.
just wanted to leave this here because i got some misinformation vibes from this video.
Theres is no the misinformation narrative in science. There are ideias that can be true or false depending on the result of a scientific debate
i guess even Ptolemy introduced correction (epicycles) and gave the mathematical correctness to a geocentric model which stood for more than TEN centuries .... until Copernicus came along and the rest we know is History
Do you really use theoretically calculated values to build those machines, or you just use values measured experimentally by you and other groups?
@dulli41 I do believe that tehre are healthier fields of physics, such as quantum optics. For example, Hänsch's group is certainly extraordinary, and my impression from him is the highest integrity. Regarding the corrections, it would be good to know which experiment of QO contretely nees such a QED correction and to what amount. Some depend on the fine structure constant, and it would be worthwhile to have a look if there is a discrepancy. Thus, be specific, please.
@@katalyst4stem and that geocentric model is not wrong coz it is mathematically correct.... there's no centre we can specify accordingly.... although the usefulness is what we are looking at while using our models.... and it just seems to happen that that geocentric model isnt useful.... but again it does not make it wrong..... it is correct
Feynman outspoken? No, he was just a New Yorker.
Old York >> New York
Anyone with a background in Feild Theory would recognize that you have left out the point that Condensed matter has helped to make sense of renormalization. Hence, QED remains valid with a better understanding of the scales at which the theory holds. The so-called effective field theories.
Also, Feynman is the last name one should take when mentioning who honored their predecessor or took away the elegance of physics. Path Integral formalism was inspired by Fenman's reading of Dirac's lecture notes.
Please do a better job at gathering facts
QED does not explain anything. It's just kicking the can down the road. All fields are non materialistic, yet QED intruduces particles everywhere. It's literally Clown World!
@@MacLuckyPTP Sorry I cannot see how that addresses my point in any way
At least someone commented these points. This is the essence of why QFT along with renormalization do a great job actually PREDICTING fundamental phenomena when compared to actually MEASURABLE physical quantities.
Ulrich i suggest you to follow a course in QFT, and after talk about renormalization.
In modern theoretical physics Is part of the definition of a QFT, togheter with the action and the partition function.
QED is not "bogus" in the least. I'm glad you're a skeptic, but the renormalization technique was proven to be mathematically consistent by Kenneth Wilson in the 1970's. You're right that he was arrogant but he was Richard Feynman. He figured out the path integral of QM. Enough with the ad hominem.
Chess & Poker are "mathematically consistent", as are countless other mathematically related fields, all of which have diddly squat to do about the fundamental nature of reality or even just physics. I should have taken Mark Twain's advice about arguing with fools, and yes, that's an ad hominem because you deserve it.
@@xxxYYZxxx chess & pocker being mathematically consistent have nothing to do with discussion. Mathematical consistency is at least a prerequisite that a method coming from it is legit. QED is built upon renormalization technique so the consistency of it is relevant.
@@ilyasfarhan1802 All you're saying it that QED can't be categorically excluded on grounds of mathematical inconsistency alone, but not why its even relevant to begin with. Citing mathematical consistency alone is like saying something made of steel, must be Superman (man of steel) himself.
well, every whale has its louse. Feynman is the whale & unzicker is an opportunistic parasite, in medical terminology. grin.
We have no interests in evaluating Feynman's ingenuity, personality or being overhyped or not. No one can be 100% correct in his scientific pursuit. We only need to enjoy the intellectual benefits he brought to us. It's even more beneficial if we can find out why there's incorrectness in his theory and improve on it. I believe this is exactly the scientific spirit and logic analytical skills that Feynman would encourage us to possess.
Unzicker is about as knowledgeable as a historian of physics with no understanding of mathematical physics.Listen.to.his elementary knowledge betray him.Unzicker failed mathematics in college.
By your standards, calculus would have been bogus too when Newton and Leibniz invented it as it was also not rigorous took almost 100 years. Same is true for Fourier series (finally made rigorous by Lebesgue integral) and delta function and countless other examples. In all these cases, including Renormalization, these were useful first so people paid attention, few cared to make them rigorous but ultimately they did succeed. For rigorous understanding of infinities in QFTs, you need to look into Wilson's work and asymptotic series.
exactly
When I saw some dates on those papers he cited I thought: "wow, hasn't been this solved since the times of Freeman Dyson?" I get that physics has some problems with mathematical self consistency (one of those problems is a Millenium Prize problem after all) but as long as it gives us good predictions I don't really see a problem with that.
He won’t respond to this because he knows it’s true
agreed, non rigorous ideas come first, then everything gets reverse engineered back into set theory. nobody thinks rigorously/logically when tackling an open problem, human mind doesn't work like that.
EXACTLY I can appreciate Newton. Didn't he say we stand on the shoulders of giants. Every major scientific advancement is an example of a theory the wasn't completely correct ... like "Newton's gravity". And Calculus existed before it was considered Heresy in western medieval culture as non rigorous. Newton wasted most of his time on alchemy Astonomt and the occult.
Hype is hard to quantify, but listen to Feynman's lectures and it will become very clear that he was a genius.
Why is so attention and praise lavished on Feynman's Lectures. What I remember of them, they were just books for physics undergraduates. In fact, they were far too verbose for my liking.
Smart people are not necessarily wise or selfless. But he enjoyed speaking and teaching and had a naturally confiding and engaging manner.
The practice of telling you that you are being scammed is a particularly 'smart' way to charmingly disarm a natural inclination to challenge it.
This is the way post-truth manipulations operate now.
Who has eyes to see, let them see.
The word "genius" is defined as someone with an IQ over 140. Even Feynman admitted to only scoring 125 on a school IQ test.
Everything is relative so he was a relative genius that didn't believe in washing his teeth as Einstein didn't believe in a medical act and this goes on with everyone
Yes: criticism is relatively easy when compared & contrasted with the art.
Feynman was my introduction to enthuastic physics as a kid.
He was accessible, fun and nonpretentious.
The author of this video seems very pretentious. No just that, gets to the point many miles later.
@Science Revolution Seek help
Unlike this guy.
Me too, but I think Unzicker is quite correct. Watch a few Feynman videos and see what happens when hard questions are asked.
@Science Revolution what are you saying ?
Every great mind can be overhyped, but that says nothing about the genius of that scientist (or artist, etcetera). By dissecting Feynman's work you try to explain the hype but that is foolish because the hype originates in the minds of media, journals, colleagues and the general public. It is not brought forward by the scientist himself
Unless he was joking on you, Feynman was anything but superficial. For me, Feynman's greatest contribution was the way he thought, and the analytical tools he developed, and he did this across disciplines. Most of his contemporaries were in awe of his intellect, his legacy will live on past any mediocre criticism.
and also the way he taught
Which analytic tools ?
@@MrBeen992 Feynman diagrams, among others. He developed this graphical method to quickly analyze terms in the perturbation expansion of quantum electrodynamics that could make calculations in minutes what before took physicists weeks or more to do. This made him instantly famous in the world physics community, and is considered one of the most original contributions to the methods of theoretical physics of the 20th century (read what other physicists like Hans Bethe, Freeman Dyson, or many of the other big shots thought of it). This incredibly useful technique has since been applied to other fields where perturbative and asymptotic analysis is employed, and it's long since been a standard textbook subject. It's a very big deal, and a large part of why Feynman got the Nobel.
@@kdub1242 ok thanks
this is the best description of him
It is always fascinating to read how the people like to “cut to size” individuals achieving outstanding results.
Yes - Douglas Adams put it very succinctly. "Nobody likes a smart-arse". Where "nobody" is your typical pleb making up 99.9999% of the population, and the "smart-arse" is someone like Feynman.
So you quote a Dr. Oliver Consa, an "independent researcher", who publishes articles on vixra instead of an actual conference and you want us to simply "trust" your video? You need a reality check man.
Did you read the articles?
Oliver Consa is no "independent researcher". But you are a strange man. Consa's paper can be read on Arxiv.org arxiv.org/abs/2010.10345
@Robert Hunt Nonsense, dear. He do NOT deny special and general relativity, he is sceptical to SOME INTERPRETATIONS of quantum mechanics. And try to find any serious physicist who believe the standard model is 100% correct or complete -- you will not find that person. Nonsense skeptics like you are just haters and trolls, you usually destroy the scientific dialogue instead of improve it.
Hyped or appreciated for their contribution to physics?
I would suggest that there are other lesser well known physicists that are massively under appreciated, not that the issue is RF is hyped.
I think this is just a bad take on things.
@Pol Pot 2024 I am sure that Sabine would not agree with Unzicker. Sabine doesn't tear down ANY accepted physics, she criticizes the direction in which people are looking for new physics. It's a lot of work to verify a theory, and she disagrees with the aesthetic judgements that have gotten people looking and never finding any verification for a few decades.
a new phenomenon has occurred on youtube ,, sensationalising something by using a name who is regarded as some sort of celebrity ,, not even feynamn gets away with it
@@joshuascholar3220 Is there something wrong with criticizing "accepted physics"? Can you clarify what you mean by accepted?
So if Einstein really did plagiarize Special Relativity from Poincaré’s derivation while at the Patent Office, does he make the list as well?
Pot shots evaluating the relative rank of historical scientists no longer alive to defend themselves is more a function of the mediocrity of the ranker rather than the ranked, and is a monumental waste of time when there’s real work to be done in Physics today.
Steve K.
Thank you! Someone finally said it. And there are hundreds, if not thousands of physicists working on QM, and you're saying none of them noticed the so-called flaw with feynman's approach. Sounds like a load of bullshit to me.
Einstein not only plagiarized Poincare but also many many others. The list is long. Most educared people before 1920 knew Einstein simply re-interpreted Lorentz while sprinkling Poincare's interpretations and many people were not aware of Poincare's ingenious ideas. Then he took Grossman equations as his own and finished it after much help from Hilbert, copying the trace term without ever showing how he obtained it. In both cases Einstein submitted papers to both special and general relativity only weeks after Poincare and Hilbert. People like Feeeman Dyson read Einstein's papers after 1920 and found them nonsensical. He was constantly rejected for foolish ideas, mocked by Heisenberg and Schrodinger. Flip flopped on gravitational waves and did not believe in black holes.
Einstein fooled everyone by making what others found or proved and stating them as postulates. This is the basis of the myth that he solved problems through thought experiment alone. He did this for the photoelectric effect when he just took Poincare's interpretation of Planck's experiments. But his interpretation was worse because it was a conservative approach to maintain Newtonian particle view and reject the wave theory. He even flip flopped on its "provisional character" in 1911. Furthermore he probably did not work on any of the 1905 papers alone, this has been heavily implied by letters between him and his wife, as well as the "Einstein-Marity" named by Joffe when he gave the name of the author of the three Annus Mirabilis Papers
Yes. But again my real point-this argument over “ranking” is a monumental waste of time. I did enjoy reading Poincaré’s work in French as a kid though-ordered to do so by my French mother.
😆
@@s.l5787 Re-interpreted Lorentz while 'sprinkling Poincare'. Science builds on science. Einstein was just a brilliant empiricist deriving a new way to look at the world. Einstein did not plagiarize anyone - he utilized knowledge. There is a huge difference.
My theory is: this video is clickbait.
My theory is: Much of this channel is clickbait.
I thought this was a serious critique. I'm glad you brought up Dirac because much of his work on Quantum Mechanics was not very rigorous either. He certainly didn't give it a rigorous operator-based formulation. The Dirac delta function didn't even make sense until Schwartz's distribution theory. Schrodinger didn't even initially understand the importance of complex numbers in quantum mechanics and his initial wave equation was wrong. Quantum mechanics didn't get cleaned up until the work of Von Neumann and others in his Mathematical foundations of Quantum Mechanics. Calculus - the mathematics on which Newton's theories are built - didn't get cleaned up until the work of Cauchy and Weierstrass and others. The history of physics has taught that the formalism need not be totally mathematically consistent as long as it can be used to make consistent predictions.
I read somewhere that Newton is the inventor of calculus so no wonder it was a bit of hand waving initially then.
Yeah, and Billy the Kid wasn’t all that fast neither.
Feynman's great strength was his ability to explain physics. I like the Feynman lectures, especially the section on electromagnetism. His Quantum mechanics is great if you can understand matrix algebra. Freeman Dyson said that Feynman's great strength was his imagination. Prof Dyson worked at Cornell. He described Hans Bethe as the greatest problem solver of the 20th Century, but lacked Feynman's imagination. Murray Gellman clearly disliked Feynman near the end because of his ego.
Feynman's explanation of natural lightning phenomenon is superficial and partially flawed in the Lectures. Better to skip over it than to learn incorrectly
@@imeprezime1285 ooooo any other tid bits about FLP? have you read the hughes lectures?
@@samvenker3137 I haven't. But have you read Martin Uman''s textbooks on lightning?
Many chapters in Feynman Lectures are great. Many are outright boring. Only volume 3 is something that has no equivalent elsewhere, although selected chapters from Merzbacher + Resnick Halliday + Kittel + Reif collectively can explain the same content in a better way.
@@rohitjha8978 I never thought Resnick or Young and Freedman went into great enough depth. They did not really use calculus for the mechanics bit. The EM bits are okay in both books, but again do not really use vector calculus to a great depth.
Watching you criticise Feynman is like watching me criticise Roger Federer when he misses a ball. Practitioners know something that observers don't, that all success is the "art of the possible". It was the physics community and the supporting media who feted QED and decided to award a Noble prize. It was actually extremely brave of Feynman to point out the holes in the fabric, but these were highly technical issues which junior students, the mass media and the general public would not appreciate, while many gravy trains stood to be spilled if QED came off the rails. If we are to talk about philosophy then it is clear that no theory can possibly be perfect, because theories are representations of reality, 'models', simplifications that capture only certain aspects of reality we judge to be of interest. The search for a perfect theory will always fail.
I find nothing wrong with the idea that you, e.g. as a referee, determine when Federer's ball was out. And maybe a roaring mob would complain that the hit was too beautiful to be wrong...
Bangra Fan,it's an insult to us who are working to unify the theories.A theory can be perfect dimensionally,but not magnitudely; have you thought about it?
@@taibanganbakonjengbam6902 My point is philosophical, no theory (which has past countless experimental tests) is perfect, no theory gives an exact prediction to an unlimited number of figures. Many physicists today do not have a correct understanding of the relationship between maths and physics. They have a mystical faith that physics is embodied in mathematics. I strongly oppose this, maths is simply a human language, which like English can be used to construct a description of something but in a quantitatively precise way. In a sense what makes a theory useful is what it leaves out. It captures only those features or dimensions we consider important or interesting in the context we are working. To believe that a physical theory in someway embodies reality is like confusing a cartoon of a dog with a dog. Any verbal description, or artistic representation of a dog will only capture certain aspects of the animal we think important in the context it is being discussed by us. There will always be other aspects or dimensions we choose to neglect because they do not seem important in our current context, but they exist in reality, and have consequences in other contexts. I argue it is the same with any mathematical representation of physical phenomena. Maths and physics are totally separate and different things, but a culture has arisen which blurs the distinction.
@@TheMachian This is not the point. The point is the "art of the possible", that not any shot can be made in a particular circumstance. In the context of physics the current generation of physicists must work with the legacy and the tools they have inherited and this shapes what they can achieve to some extent. Conceptual leaps into completely new theoretical frameworks are rare because they have to be motivated by something. Often the something will be anomalous observations which cannot be explained by current theories. So motivating QM there was the UV catastrophe and the photoelectric effect and so on. More often theorist have to build on the framework that currently exists. Feynman hinted at this sort of thing when, as you quote, he said OCD looks a lot like QED because that's how we know to do the maths (or something like that).
@@bhangrafan4480 Yeah that is why we have "Hypothesis Testing".
(Like I said,variable magnitude is infinite in reality or finite in partial reality.And dimensionally it's finite always).
When I was a physics undergrad the blowup over ownership of the Feynman Lectures films had not locked them sway yet and we were able to order them through the college library and showed them once a week in a small Physics Dept. seminar room. Fantastically good stuff! They inspired a generation.
Genius enough to get a Nobel Prize:
"For his contributions to the development of quantum electrodynamics, Feynman received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1965" [Wiki]
He also was a major contributor to Quantum Computing, a great communicator and his lectures to undergrads was embodied in a three tomb publication for which generations of students follow. As well as his famous _Feynman Diagrams_ . So maybe some are just jealous of his achievements. 🤔
nobel prize doesn't mean anything. you sound like a mid wit that says "i have a PH.D" therefor im smarter.
The quote you use from him regarding quarks was him quoting soneone else. The Photo electric effect is nonsense?
Feynman is respected because he got results. They might not be mathematically consistent or perfect. But he didn't shy away from the imperfection. It's possible there could be no perfection at all, see Kurt Godel's incompleteness theorem. Feynman just produced something of value that other people could use at the time. At least temporarily, until a better theory comes forth. He took his skin to the market and let the world criticize his theories, he even started with the criticism himself. The world chose to idolize him instead of picking up the work where he left off. It's not his fault. And I don't think he was happy about it either, he hated authority worship. You come off as slightly bitter about him, yet I suspect he would be happy if you came up with a better theory.
". The world chose to idolize him instead of picking up the work where he left off. " is the exact hype that made Einstein a star, even if they don't get a thing of what he did.
yes he was brilliant on a lot of stuff but really without Poincaré, Dirac and many others he would remain in a copyright office in Bern.
@@Diamond_Tiara I don't even disagree. Feynman was just a guy who tried to make himself useful while also having fun. He wasn't a hero. What I was trying to say with that sentence can be recursively seen in this discussion. We are both judging some guy's character, when what we should really be doing is some useful physics.
We cannot expect those who are exceptional in their field to also have the quality of being exceptional in every other way. We are human and thus subject to all the limitations of group think, confirmation bias, cognitive dissonance, etc.
Thus we cannot fault newton for his theories, given there are better versions today, he was nonetheless brilliant and far ahead of his time.
Same with Einstein, nobody could ever doubt his genius but it's hard to let go of the narrow focus one develops after decades entrenched into a particular field. This is a flaw in human nature that doesn't take away from their brilliance, only highlights they are indeed human.
Now we've reached the late stages of particle theories and generally realize we need new ideas beyond what been established which is exciting as it means new physics are inevitable.
Hopefully, a new generation of theoretical physicists can stand upon many great shoulders, especially those of Feynman's, and improve upon their approach to formulate more encompassing (and simplistic) theories of everything.
I love your channel and contrarian mindset which is a welcome change to most physicists I meet, we will need more of that to let go of failed aspects of existing theories but that may require a considerable amount of time (science moves forward one death at a time as they say).
I would like to be a scientist too, for the better.
Here's my best analysis based on Unzicker's videos and Consa's paper: Unzicker is certainly qualified as a physicist, but he shares a minority opinion that is simply not supported by all we now know. Consa, in his paper, claims that all validity for QED comes from the single electron anomalous magnetic dipole moment calculation. I am sure that these calculations were flawed in the early days, partly due to the complexity of the calculation. Today, with computers, the calculation is no problem up to five orders, and it agrees way too well with our experimental data to simply throw out QED. Furthermore, there are many experiments done to a great amount of accuracy that also support QED:
-Independent, precise predictions of the fine structure constant (via many methods)
-Prediction of the Lamb Shift
-Observed Vacuum Polarization
...to name a couple.
QED never claims to be perfect, but it gets results. Until we come out with a better theory, QED is still one of the best models we have for the quantum world. I mean, this is how science works. There indeed are many problems with modern physics, but it does not mean we should throw everything out. Truth is, people are trying to make progress, but the more fundamental you get, the harder it is to make progress. Last thought: While Einstein and Dirac came up with very beautiful theories, nothing about nature stipulates that these theories be beautiful. I like Sabine Hossenfelder's take on this: that many modern physicists idolize Einstein and Dirac (rightfully so), and they are looking for mathematical beauty, but this may just be bias that leads nowhere.
In principle, one can discover the flaws in the modern publications, too, but it is much harder. If you deal with history, you will realize that it is indeed important to scrutinize the very first `evidence' that helped to `establish' a theory, because there is no really independent testing afterwards. There are other alpha measurements such as from spectroscopy or the quantum hall effect, but they do not confirm QED. Vacuum polarization as such is not quantitative.
Regarding QED being the "best we have"... well if a pilot flies across the Rocky Mountains with a map of the Andes saying "the best map I have", would you board the plane?
Einstein and Dirac should not be idealized, even less for "beauty", but *simplicity* is indeed a quality criterion for theoreis backed by historic evidence.
That is pretty much how it goes. People want to remember the outliers: the extroverted (Feynman), the cripples (Hawking), or the minority identities (Ramanujan, Einstein, Turing).
Because (1) if it were someone relatable they would feel inferior instead of curious, (2) if someone feels inferior or out-grouped already, they would be able to use a role-model to work into important positions. This is in contrast to the conclusion from Bayesian reasoning, that success would be low, because outlier groups end up failing long before then if they ever tried.
The infinities and renormalization were big headaches for generations of physicists. Everybody was aware of the issues. There were big debates about them. It is absolutely silly to present this to the non-expert audience, as personal incorrectness of a single person. Nowadays we are beyond this.
I never thought renormalization was Feynman's exclusive personal fault. Rather, it is remarkable how this collective insanity has conquered physics, with no other justification than people calling themselves "experts".
@@TheMachian Do you also consider Wilsonian renormalization semi-group applied to statistical field theory as nonsense or is your critique towards QFT and regularisation issues?
@@fabienpaillusson7390 thank you. I was under the impression that there has already been some mathematical work on formalizing renormalization, but I'm not an expert to know what it's called or how successful it has been. This whole picking fights with the past and ignoring the overall context of how these ideas are used every day in the present feels totally invalid.
@@joshuascholar3220 There definitely is. This person is just ignoring a whole body of work in mathematics in order to drive a personal distaste for the lack of rigour in a famous scientists work. They can't actually get it past those who understand the field, so up on CZcams it goes.
Yep Kenneth Wilson made renormalization mathematical rigerous.
He was such a charming and interesting man and most physicist are not. So naturally people were and are drawn to him.
That's the problem. People confuse expertise with confidence
It's possible for a person to be both intelligent and charming. It's possible for a person to be both stupid and boring.
Interesting video, I would like to hear or see a video on your thoughts about David Bohm as a physicists. Some say Bohm's equations were instrumental in the development of nuclear physics and his work incorporated some philosophic elements as well.
Bohmian mechanics is also a good interpretation of QM.
There was no bigger genius in explaining physics, and the way it works, in an understandable manner (at least to me) in 20th century, than him. And nobody is able to overhype Mr. Feynman as good and as entertaining as he himself.
QED can't be "just" nonsense. It's the basis of all non-trivial chemistry, and it works stupidly well. Mathematically flawed? Tough. It'd be nice if you guys gave us mathematically perfect theory, that actually worked. It's just that we simply can't afford to let this one go and wait for the miracle to happen.
And no, it's not just "epicycles". We've *seen* the molecules having shapes merely predicted by a theory I was taught in middle school. There are actual pictures of those. We've also seen the Solar System and it *does not* look like epicycles, not at all.
You should do a video on the most underrated physicists of all time. Top of that list is James Clerk Maxwell. His equations of electromagnetism and discovering that light was electromagnetic waves was simply stunning. Its glossed over in University education and popular physics books. The amazing thing is that Maxwell did all this in the 1860's. If he did this work in the 1960's he'd have won a Nobel prize for it immediately.
I do not think max, after whom are named teh equations, should be called "underrated" (Ther was no nobel at the time :-). Keep in mind however that he referred very often to Weber. Andre Torre de Assis has done excellent historical work on the development of electrodynamics.
Well those equations given in his famous 1860 paper on electromagnetism are in total of 20. Thanks there were others so called maxwellians and wrote those equations in vector algebra. We should thank to hertz and heaviside for their insight for compactifying them.
How about a video of John Bardeen, two time Nobel Physics laureate, yet unheard of outside Physics.
Maxwell is an amazing example of a physicist with insights a century and a half ago make him a giant whose shoulders are difficult to stand on by engineers today.
@@infiniteloops1879 Totally agree that Maxwell is undeserving of the modern equations, but deserves great credit for finding the ideas to derive them. I wish Heaveside got more credit for his work, in particular.
Are there articles on Feynman's position on the quantization of space? This is all the new rage about town. My sense is that space cannot be quantized, because in order for a thing to be identifiable as an individual quanta, it must reside within a differentiated medium within 3 dimensional space as a fundamental starting point. Which begs the question what is the differentiated medium if not space? Some are saying one dimensional mediums are probably at play, but how is a one dimensional medium physically measured even though one can draw up mathematical models on a white board which seem elegant?
I would assess QED higher than others might. The coefficients in the expansion for g-2 have been calculated using symbolic math up to third order in alpha, then numerically for the fourth-fifth+. The prediction depends on the experimental value for alpha. It is a remarkably accurate prediction. See “Revised and improved value of the QED tenth-order electron anomalous magnetic moment”, Aoyama, et al. on arxiv. This numerical calculation includes the”infamous” IIc diagram in Consa’s paper, which I read today, as you use it as some sort of lynchpin against QED. So what is his issue? He finds historically there were errors between authors for the set of contributions to the second order. Does he expect the latest prediction by Aoyama which agrees with experiment to better than 10^-11 to improve for what is an asymptotic series (does not converge, has zero radius of convergence, which doesn’t make it useless, in fact Stirling’s formula for N! is an asymptotic series). If Consa is so concerned about IIc why doesn’t he calculate it himself and then compare his result with what Aoyama et al. obtain?
Thanks for being specific. If you compare carefully, Aoyama 2012 is barely consistent with his own 2007 paper (arxiv.org/pdf/0706.3496.pdf). Even earlier, an error had gone unnoticed for 7 years: arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0210322. The problem is that these flaws are more thoroughly washed out in later publications which are not really checked by anyone due to their complexity. Consa's merit is to have identified this tinkering in from the very first papers, which sheds a devastating light on the whole field - any diligent researcher should have stumbled over these inconsistencies. And no, it is not Consa's business to dive into shaky math that is not even well-defined. Rather, you should cite a reference for the "symbolic math" computation up to third order.
@@TheMachian I disagree. Consa should provide a calculation of the “missing” contribution and compare it with what Aoyama find. This is scientific collaboration. Additionally if he finds QED insufficient to over 11 orders, then he should develop an alternative. I do not see the discrepancies between 2012 and 2017 work from the numerical group to be an issue. They made improvements to their code of some 6354 diagram contributions, finding a shift in -1.25 to the fifth order set, a the level of 10^-11. They explain quite clearly the source of the algorithmic error. They cite the third order calculations by another group in ref [29], also on arxiv. Some of the fifth order contributions were independently checked with those from another group [26]. Consa can sit at his computer and write baseless papers criticizing the work over decades, or he can provide independent checks or reasonable alternatives. I would say the same for you, Alexander. How about suggesting an alternative instead of shoddy criticisms? Now granted, I’ve watched a few of your other videos and I agree with Wolfgang Kundt and appreciated your interview with him. I left a detailed comment there with suggestions some weeks ago. There are merits to his approach, but also unanswered questions. This is healthy debate that should happen.
@@PhysicsNative that's not how science work. Consa observed and described a phenomena - inconsistencies and adjustment in calculations that claim to be very precise. He doesn't need to be one of those doing the calculations to observe the phenomena. In the same way you don't need to be an electron to do physical measurements on electrons.
Nice video. Wouldn't you say that Feynman's QED could have a status similar to Newton's interaction at a distance which was heavily criticised by Leibnitz and most tenants of the principle of locality?
I am clearly intrigued by the papers you mentioned. I will certainly have a look at them.
I don't think this is a proper comparison. However, newton's assumptions about space and time could be a key to the long-term failure of our physical theories. See my book "The mathematical reality".
So-called "force at a distance" has NEVER been explained by scientists. It turns out the proper, formal explanation is systemic-level "reflexive self processing" via the parallel processing of temporally-adjacent states, per the conspansion diagram/matrix of the CTMU. As per Heliocentrism or any other valid model, these terms aren't debatable. "By putting temporally remote events in extended descriptive contact with each other, the Extended Superposition Principle enables coherent cross-temporal telic feedback and thus plays a necessary role in cosmic self-configuration." CTMU
I haven't read a more nonsensical title or argument than this, probably ever. I mean is it even a debate ? Being genius or not, is absolutely subjective. This is not something to persuade people about. Just to cite an example, Osama-Bin-Laden might be a genius for some extremists. I mean, the man literally played around with the might of an entire nation for several years. So the matter is completely subjective. There is no scale or metric to determine the genius of someone. What a load of nonsense this is!
lol, Bin-Laden "played around"? The guy even said he wasn't responsible...
Also, there's very little subjectivity to it too, as no one with the most basic of physics comprehension believes those towers could have gone down like that because of some "terrorists cave dwellers flying airplanes into them". Near free fall speed, through all that mass, through all that steal and concrete... build to carry its own weight and all.. yeah right.
Or was Newton taking his Laws to the beach that day?
Point in case being, at least use a proper comparison when you're not really addressing the arguments made but just pose your opinion.
Wolfowitz and the bushes are the geniuses for making most believe 911 was done by Bin Laden.
A tank of turbosine is not enough to burn steel to ashes and powder.
😂I feel like conspiracy theorists have some social media group, where they discuss a whole bunch of nonsense. You guys came immediately for the rescue of your "conspiracy theory partner" who runs this stupid channel. Deluded clowns 😂
In science (for other matters the comment section is not intended) the definition is pretty clear: someone who has developed an intellectually demanding theory... he has not.
@@TheMachian oh I guess I missed a massive news in which you have been appointed, as global authority to decide what is intellectually demanding and what's not. Who is genius and who is not? Stop this nonsense. I think most sensible people won't stand a "good for nothing" youtuber and a conspiracy theorists to keep trashing globally recognized and respected scientists. Your way of criticism is totally devoid of concrete facts and utterly disrespectful. And the fact of the matter is you are talking so much trash, just to gain views and comments.
Hello, Dr. I'm a Physics undergrad, with minor in Astronomy (graduating by the end of the year).
My mathematical understanding isn't that strong yet. There are so many new branches of mathematics. It seems like to understand a specific sub branch of Physics, there's use of a new kind of mathematics. You just mentioned of studying physics from a historical point of view. It seems quite intriguing to me.
I've a question to you. To be a good theoretical physicist, is it necessary to understand these mathematics for every branches? In another way, is it necessary to learn about all fields of Physics to really understand the bigger picture?
Even after studying Physics as my Major, I still can't relate to one branch of Physics to the other. Everything seems very disorganized and like the missing pieces of a bigger puzzle.
I really enjoyed your video. Have a beautiful year ahead ❤️
Me too
I graduated and I feel it is a mess, it is partly ok since undergrad programs are not expected to give us much, but still I feel i need my own time to study some aspects again
Perhaps Feynman has done more for the field of pedagogy that for the field of quantum physics, but nonetheless I believe he has done a major contribution to humanity in his own right. What I love about Feynman is his whole attitude towards learning and people. A lot of people doubt their ability to learn new things, Feynman believed it was only a matter of effort.
It should also be mentioned that Feynman is regarded as one of the originators of the idea of the quantum computer, which will have major implications on society in a few decades. Currently it's causing a panic within the cryptographic community as it effectively renders a whole class of cryptographic primitives completely broken, and we're hurrying to come up with replacements that can withstand quantum computers. Though just last week one of those replacements (SIDH) was proven completely broken on a classical computer
Quantum computers are overhyped nonsense.
@@Boobeinstein Patently false. Quantum computers poses a real threat to modern cryptography. We have quantum algorithms that break modern cryptographic schemes on a quantum computer in polynomial time. All that remains is building a sufficiently powerful quantum computer.
@@deidara_8598 I wasn't talking about quantum algorithms, I was talking about the computers themselves.
@@Boobeinstein Yeah well the technology is still in its infancy, of course it will take a few decades before it catches up. Same as with the classical computer. But if you study the physics and how a quantum computer works, you realize that it's only a question of time before they become powerful enough to break modern cryptography
@@deidara_8598 Quantum computers will be available commercially in "30 years time" - just like fusion energy.
Chan Rasjid Kah Chew
Genius comes in many varieties even in physics. In his lifetime Feynman was surrounded by many "geniuses" and outperformed most of them, while having a lot of fun. He is renown for having many female friends, picking locks, playing the bongo drums, telling stories and other pleasant past times.
When one cannot see the top of a tree, it is hard to guess how tall it is. Feynman could easily be the supreme genius, beyond your capacity to estimate, you are not in a position to know.
I hope you enjoyed reading those popular science books.
Exactly right! What is Unzicker renowned for in the World of Physics? How many groundbreaking peer-reviewed papers does he have to his name? Unzicker is singularly unqualified to pass any sort of judgement on Feyman.
@@newforestobservatory9322 hehehe
My appreciation of Feynman, and I do appreciate him, is less for his, significant, scientific contribution, than it is, for his teaching. He was certainly one of history’s greatest explainers of Nature. He had a few insights along the way, vulnerable ones perhaps. In the interludes he brought great understanding to a huge audience.
In this video, Feynman has been proven to have committed a fraud. He is a dishonest human being
@@junacebedo888 yet the implication of these videos, that these quantum field theories do not work and are not accurate is entirely wrong.
He was extraordinarily gifted but most importantly he was very insightful with an abundance in common sense. He said it best.. I'm nothing special...I just worked hard at something I was crazy about so it came naturally.
Feynman is probably a typical example of the overhyped scientist, of which we are now talking about two generations. The overriding characteristic of these physicists is the need for status, and hence a strong reason for choosing physics which has 'commanded' other sciences for centuries. Physics is an example of a 'Royal' science which is typified by the production of hypothetico-deductive models, where it's easier to leave the data behind and look clever. Other sciences, for example chemistry, are more driven by data, where anomalies appear faster than HDMs. It also doesn't help that large organisations tend to reinforce power structures which includes intellectual hierarchies, just as much as hierarchies of political power and wealth. It's a pity that we have lost so much because of this - and these losses never appear on the balance sheet, until we are reminded of them.
Have Mr.Unzicker actually studied any quantum field theory? There is a good course on CZcams by Tobias Osborne, which actually resolves many seeming inconsistencies (diverging series is not that big of a problem as one may think)
Hello, thank you for making this video. A healthy skepticism is always the right attitude in science, so I applaud you for your critical treatment of QED. However, I think you may wish to look into a few things. I should preface this by admitting that I am as far as one could be from an expert in these matters. I’m just an interested observer who has done some reading in search of something mathematically solid in quantum field theory. However, if I may offer some thoughts. First, the problem of infinities in Feynman loop integrals and the like was solved by Bogoliubov, Epstein, Glaser, and others in the mid-70s, when they showed how time-ordered products of free quantum fields could be defined rigorously by a recursive scheme. Their form of renormalization is necessary in order to split operator-valued distributions into advanced and retarded parts without multiplying any distributions by discontinuous step functions in the usual manner for time-ordering. This is where power-counting asymptotics of distributions comes in, and there is a rigorous mathematical theory of it, to the best of my understanding. The likely failure of convergence of the Dyson series for the S-matrix was not proved by Dyson in the critical paper you cited, but merely argued for informally (and very cleverly) by means of a thought experiment that posited an alternate reality in which like charges attract rather than repel. However, the likely failure of convergence isn’t necessarily the end of the story. There are situations in which the first few terms of an asymptotic series give accurate estimates while including further terms reduces the accuracy (the overall series being divergent). Essentially this happens when contributions from far away singularities are strongly exponentially damped up to a certain order in the summation. Is this what accounts for the first few terms of the Dyson series giving accurate experimental predictions in QED? As far as I’m aware, no one really knows. But it is certainly possible. Standard textbook QED with its subtraction of infinities and ad hoc ultraviolet cutoffs is certainly open to sharp criticism. But let’s not forget that a random hodgepodge of nonsense wouldn’t give ANY good experimental predictions, with probability ~ 1. Certainly nothing like the 12 decimal places of accuracy in the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron, or whatever. That has to be coming from somewhere close to what physicists are doing. I agree that there’s a lot of nonsense that physicists tolerate. And many embarrassing problems have yet to be solved (for instance, though free quantum fields can be understood as operator-valued distributions on dense subspaces of Fock space, no one really knows what interacting quantum fields are supposed to be mathematically, other than some kind of formal power series in the free fields - note however that the S-matrix as a formal power series still makes sense if smeared with a test function that can be sent to 1 identically at the end in the calculation of observable quantities). Anyway, thanks again for the interesting and amusing video! Cheers.
If you read the paper he mentions (by O. Conza) it states that the highly accurate preduction of anomalous magnetic resonance is based on calulation which is wrong. Now I am far from a physicst, so I cannot verify that claim. But can you provide calculation from the Bogoliubov et al of the peturbation? Maybe it can help people like me with more physics knowledge. Thanks before.
This is quite important how greats are viewed from a different perspective, helps in better understanding.
Have you looked at emergent gravity by Eric Verlinde in your series?
I like him because he knows exactly what good science is and he thought that in human sciences they are too easily satisfied. I admit that the human scientists themselves know any weak points. The critical reader notices often the honest: "this suggests that" , but the public overlooks that, swallows it all like sweet cake and thinks it's proven hard science.
Thanks for the interesting perspective. One must certainly be careful with someone like Feynman not to confound the size and quality of the ideas with those of the personality, but ironically your argument feels akin to exactly this in that it is a bit ad-hominish. Furthermore there seems to be a flawed element in your premise, and that is that math IS physics, which it is not. Feynman was keenly aware of this, and therefore not duplicitous when simultaneously acknowledging the mathematical difficulties of QED while promoting it as the great physical model of his day.
Are the ignored infinities any different from the divisions by zero that calculus descends to?
And while saying that some technique is problematic, alternatives please.
Unzicker going for those controversy clicks lol. Like when Sabine made a video saying there is no free will.
Even if this video might seem controversial, that is not the goal. Unfortunately, if you dig into the deep questions, you inevitably realize that a big part of modern physics is bogus not backed by solid evidence. But as a scientist, you should not be afraid to call out also the big names.
@@TheMachian I’m with you my man. I also have a physics PhD and got it working on neutrino experiments. I love the fact that you do not revere celebrity and I also got hit by group think when I questioned things like dark matter. Anyway, I really like this channel, and watch your videos whenever they come out!
Glad you like it. Feel free to contact me via ChannelInfo-> Email. Would be interesting to have an exchange with sb inside in the neutrino business :-)
@@TheMachian two fake physicists 69ing on youtube
@@mamourizd, and the master suppression technician chimes in on the action. 🤣👍
I've always been puzzled about claims of accuracy when the measurements are dependent on the same theory in question.
That's Consa's merit, to have scrutinized all these claims.
Coming soon in this series: Why Newton was a loser, why Maxwell was a dope, and why air is way overrated as a breathable gas.
Given that you have taken the effort to write >20 comments in a channel you consider nonsense, it would be interesting to know your identity and motif.
@@TheMachian can we make free energy i read a paper recently from a scientist where he published teslas free energy model(Testastika) aswell as showed how Maxwell's original equation is different from what is mentioned. He said the fundamentals of EM are all wrong and definition of energy is wrong. He said CEM uses model based on material ether although Michelson Morley experiment destroyed the material ether assumption.
@@TheMachian "Classic EM theory is seriously flawed riddled with errors and should be redone" the present model solidly blocks free energy antigravity unified physical field theory and unified theory of mind and matter
@@TheMachian Your cv at alexander-unzicker.com/cv.html lists your physics education as:
1993 Diploma in physics, state examination in law
2000 Highschool lecturer state examination (math/physics)
but no PhD in physics.
I also see no peer review physics research publications (eg. Physical Review, JETP, etc.).
Have I missed something?
I also replied to the email you sent me. Kindly respond and tell me what I got wrong and I'll heppily correct it.
@@godara2op566 Where did you read this? Can you post a link?
What achivements do you have in physics field ? Apart from having 29k subscriber on CZcams?
Could someone please explain the point made about the electron charge at 8:44? Thanks
There are a few equivalent ways of looking at it.
For instance, the potential of a point charge is proportional to 1/r, where r is the distance from the center of the charge, and this just fine as long as r > 0, otherwise you get an infinite blowup, which is physically nonsense. Well, you might say there's no real problem, because an actual electron must not be a point, but just a really small ball of charge. And we know from basic electromagnetism that for a small of a ball of charge, the potential inside will decrease to zero at the center of the ball. No inifinity.
The problem is, we have so far not been able to experimentally measure any finite size of an electron, so our hope of viewing an electron as a little ball of charge that avoids the infinity has not been realized. Since of course there are no infinities in real life (not that we know of!), we conclude that our theory of the electron is incomplete. There are other more sophisticated ways of looking at it, but this simple way is good enough to get the flavor.
Is he overhyped? Yes, probably. But your premise, along with the video itself, is in very poor taste.
I enjoyed Feynman growing up, along with kaku and the like. When I got into particle physics, it became clear ( but heretical) that everything starts to come apart at the seams with quarks. Casual fans of the topic don't quite realize how odd the situation is. How do strings relate to quarks? String theory only exists because the standard model is so obviously contrived that other proposals will be entertained.
There's an obvious direction to tie up the particle zoo, and kelvin had proposed the basic concept only too early. Now either people are looking in goofy places or locked into dogmatic repetition of useless snipe hunt ideas. Such is life! Lol
Hi Unzicker, thanks for the video! I really do enjoy physics, but do you think you have to have a certain iq to do well in this field or is it more about application?
Great minds like Feynman change the world in extraordinary ways and the rest are left to vlog while engulfed by his shadow.
Welcome to the QED church.
🤣Just replace "Feynman" with "Ophrah" and "Whoopie" for a truer sense of Ron Arkom's mindset.
@@TheMachian Who/what'd be the God?
I'm not sure if Feyman "change the world in extraordinary ways", but I'm sure he need to live by bread.
Chan Rasjid Kah Chew
@@TheMachian Mic drop.
I think it is hard to overrate Feynman. His attitude to physics - especially renormalization - was “Shut up and calculate.” What is missing in this assessment of Feynman is his perpetual fascination with chequerboard analogies and models. The only obvious way to justify the truncation of calculation to avoid infinities is a model which is discrete, and the way to avoid the conceptual problem which worried Feynman - that a point electron has no space or structure to calculate its trajectory as laboriously as Feynman diagrams - is to allow the discrete space itself to be the computer. WVO Quine made an observation to that effect (particles as states of locations), and Konrad Zuse’s Rechnender Raum is a development of Feynman’s chequerboard. (JH Conway… S Wolfram…)
I’m not so keen on this series, especially this episode. It’s nice to learn about what their work involved and about some of the flaws in their research, but to say that Feynman was overhyped is a bit clickbaity in my opinion. What good does it do to point out that one of the beacons of inspiration in physics was ‘not all that’.
If you are going to quantify a scientist’s contribution to scientific knowledge like you are here, you should evaluate every aspect. Feynman had such a charisma and a beautifully exciting way of communicating ideas that inspired thousands of brilliant minds to reach their potential, that his scientific contribution extends far beyond just his own research of QED. In a way, you could say that his hype is a part of his genius..
I’m much more interested in your series celebrating the great physicists than this one that tears down some of the more popular ones.
Sometimes contrast makes us see things clearer.
@@TheMachian Right
@@TheMachian That’s true. But too much contrast only enhances the extremes and the finer detail is lost.
To be fair to Feynman, he said he was just an ordinary person who worked very hard. He always denied being a genius.
I think Feynman was willing to live with answers that seemed to work as a holding place until a better theory came along. I don't think his scientific integrity was an act. By the way, I predict at some point you'll be disappointed in some of Dirac's scientific reasoning.
In fact, I am not denying his integrity. The only alternative is however that he was fooling himself, too. Regarding Dirac, it is his Large Numer Hypothsis what I appreciate the most.
@@TheMachian But he wasn't fooling himself. He is totally open about the misgivings he has. He found a way to resolve the infinities in order to make predictions. As your own video shows when he talks about String Theory he cared about the predictive power of a theory. Einstein's theory is inconsistent with QM so we know one or the other or possibly both are incorrect, but we don't go on about this. Newton was wrong about gravity. Your argument at the end boiled down to 'he wasn't a sophisticated philosopher', which comes across as quite pretentious. As for 'overhyped', surely this is a subjective view. For me he was able to explain QM in a way no other was. He had a philosophy that was grounded - even if he would never call it such. He didn't like the accolades - although we know its not true because of how often he mentioned the award.
@@cheetah100 I think he was proud of the accolades at least some of them but he felt he should only be interested in digging into the physics and that the knowledge from that was a much better reward.
@@cheetah100 I like Feynman a lot but David Bohm was a better teacher of quantum mechanics I thought and he was from that era as well.
@@TheMachian The LNH is arguably the least scientific thing Dirac ever did as a physicist. It's just an observation of ratios, and a "feeling" that they must not be a coincidence. No theory with falsifiable predictions. Nothing scientific about that. But consider his Lorentz covariant equation for the electron, giving electron spin, and fitting (pre QED) the hydrogen spectrum. That is pretty remarkable science right there.
I am a young man who is 18 going into collage to study physics. I have self taught myself physics and math on my own, soon I’m going to teach myself undergraduate quantum mechanics. Do you have any advise for going down physics?
Study the hell out of physics, but don’t plan on becoming a physicist. The job market is terrible. I am much happier working in tech after my PhD, and so are all my friends that did the same. Even people we were sure would become professors one day are now working in tech.
I have a PhD, theoretical physics, many years ago. Go for it, get your degrees and keep up your own study program. This is quite typical, mentors and good teachers in physics are very rare. Read, read, read, calculate, calculate. Be critical. Very critical. Ask lots of questions. Don’t have confirmation bias, even the most well established theories, experiments and concepts deserve scrutiny over time. I did two post docs, one in physics one in astrophysics (experimental, where I used statistical analysis for detectors to determine systematic error, I helped the collaboration but didn’t stay in astrophysics). Then went into device physics, modeling, engineering, a research professor for some time. So your degree may take you down a traditional path or non-traditional or both. In any case, the world will be better with people like you. Good luck, you’re on the right track.
@@PhysicsNative
I thank you both for your advice, I have wanted to be a physicist since I was 14 and because of my situation, I had to teach myself everything I know. From basic math to statistical mechanics, hell even how to read. No matter what I do no matter how every time I give up I always come back to physics as if there was a transcendental force acting me in this direction. The graphs, math, logic, trial and error, the problems, and the history all feed my soul. So all and any advice is welcome for my situation, but for now, I am going down the path and ride it all the way throw. If I can ask for more questions that would be lovely
There have been already reasonable answers. Don't worry studying undergraduate physics, it is a wonderful experience. Shift to good books as early as you can, and think for yourself, be critical. There is hardly another faculty that prepares you better for thinking and finding a good job. However, I cannot really recommend so-called "fundamental physics" in academia, since most of it has become either pointless tinkering of models or mathematical fantasies.
@@TheMachian I am greatful for your answer, if I can have a list of books to either work throw or read that would be lovly
I remember being lost in Feynman's Lecture Series in the library here in Canada. I much admired his work, but you make some good points about him not studying the Masters.
"you might consider this tangetial to physics" -- that's my favorite line.
Interesting, but the two linked papers are not convincing, especially the second on from viXra.
If you are more specific in your critique, I shall be happy to discuss.
He’s not famous for being a “genius”
He's famous for being American at the time US thirsted for being a big player in physics.
Actually, yes he is. Putting aside any of his other accomplishments, his spacetime approach to perturbation theory, with his diagrammatic method of calculating the terms in the series - that alone made him famous throughout the world's physics community, and his technique is still taught in all the textbooks and used in particle physics, condensed matter physics, and anywhere else where perturbative and asymptotic methods are employed. In other words, you have no idea what you are talking about (and neither does Unzicker).
What does it mean to be a genius. Is it the chance alignment of the heavens in one's midst?
Me, a graduate physics student fancying QED : 😢
Question, it has been proven to work though (in astrophysics, high energy astrophysics I've noticed works quite well in describing certain phenomena related to accretion Physics.. and magnetized relativist jet propagations in certain AGNs etc) how then could it be wrong despite giving desirable/fair results in such fields? Again I'm practically a noob at this, a tadpole, please help me understand?
I highly recommend Consa's papers listed in my video about QED, czcams.com/video/wvz4MRpq6xs/video.html
Can you do a video on underrated physicists?
He predicted the magnetic moment of the electron to 8 decimal points, and was proven correct 10 years later. Your theory is a joke, not a strange circumstance for you I imagine.
Read the papers by Consa, and you realize the value of those "predictions".
@@TheMachian this video was an absolute waste of time. Literally just jealous that Feynman accomplished 1000x what you will, and using 2 junk papers to validate it
@@TheMachian too many butthurt fanboys who can't accept
That they had fallen to the celebrity syndrome
@@godara2op566 Celebrity for a well earned reason.
@@graystone2802 Sir, going into personal attacking is not a proof of being right. The tweaking in the derivation of the fucking electron g-2 ratio is a fact. They cheated either at physical AND at mathematical level, by artifacts in removing infinites. If this has been not pointed out clearly before, is just a measure of how the burocratic and servile mentality of some academicians downgraded the level of Physics.
Well, that is not what I expected from the thumbnail description. The video should have shown two things:
1. That Feynman actually thought he is a Genius.
2. That he was is in fact not and was/is over-hyped.
Very few people think of them self as Genius in my experience. They are just too aware about the many errors they made until the found something to publish.
Further, I have studied mathematics and physics, and it never appeared relevant to me, to considered the social standing or self-perceptions of researchers when evaluating theories. On the other hand I agree, there is a lot of unfinished stuff in theoretical physics, that needs to be sorted out and solved. With respect to handling the infinities the field of "nonstandard analysis" might be able to construct solutions. The lack of rigor might by far not be as fatal as Unzicker thinks.
He surely was depicted as: www.amazon.com/Genius-Life-Science-Richard-Feynman/dp/B008YFC52O/ The question whether he was a genius, wholly subjective, is however of secondary importance; what the video should convey is that the theory Feynman is famous for is unfounded.
@@TheMachian If we are to accept the word genius I would attribute to him before most.
However genius to me is like the word "magic".
It is dismissive on a persons ability to be wrong and "retarded" which I think we should not get so hung up about as a term.
Everyone is "retarded" in differentiating and alike ways.
Feyman may or may not have tested high in IQ but it is clear that he benefits from a number of cognitive edges that is in line with other figures and exceeding for others.
->Intellectual Humility
->Curiosity
->Work Ethic
->Large Working Memory
These characteristics are what made him successful, and I think success/usefulness should be separated for correctness/truth.
The search for scientific revolution would seem to me to be required to be 'unfounded'.
As otherwise it would be scientific iteration.
I think if we are to take the historical perspective, we have to see that shitting on previous historical precedents foundations and formulas IS part of the history.
Scientific Revolution requires this.
But I think this is one of the distinguishable feature sets that makes Feynman Underrated. As he his contributions are infact different that the convinced and what I consider lesser practices.
czcams.com/video/Y5kLMVgv0Xg/video.html
I think this is one of the big mistakes that smart well read scientists make more often that the smart less well read scientists make.
It should stand to reason that each time you read something for someone who consider to be an authority that it is cognitively easy to accept their practices and ideas.
It is easier to accept mathematics preconceptions that exist purely by the 'fiat' declarations of axioms.
The quality to be miserable in the face of the cognitive difficulties of being on the 'outside' tribe. This is the quality found in revolutionary scientists. The kind I admire, model myself on and build myself around.
For example as a modern scientist (and one who reads) you may be equipped with greater knowledge and therefore the ability to make deductions that Feynman could not.
Even if we were to put you into an over lapping time period with Feynman and you could add a never before seen discoveries. If you excited as a famous history figure you would be more well known than Feynman.
But the scientist is the man or rather the method and execution of that man the system. The black box.
NOT the discoveries.
In this sense Feynman is my favorite scientist, Not number 1 or number 2.
Your ability to perform modern physics, chemistry predictions and understand more robustly tested frameworks.
My ability to make predictions and understandings in Computer /engineering/*Not-a-science.
is lesser to the intellectual honestly, working memory, work ethic and curiosity to that of Feynman. For his greatness in science is not his findings, but his reputation as the great explainer.
To me what his true contributions is the simplification of stuff more important than the greater discoveries around him.
His descriptions of what differs science an engineer and math, are more consistent and concise than anything else I have seen.
To me his fame is the rejection of the misconception of what science is considered to be by the people who call themselves scientists.
Computer Programing, Construction, Development and Research is not science.
The declaration of what is true, what is and isn't is NOT science.
This is why to me if the word "genius" is valid I'd give it to him.
He and I both reject it because to think yourself as such would be to weakened by it. (Also is pretty poorly defined in any-case).
You and I have a similar weakness/bias in that we recognise a pattern of "arrogance and pride" often found in the tribe we can label as "Americans".
It is in this we must tap into the true quality for Feynman fame, His ability to be miserable with ourselves and not feel good about being greater than those with pride.
For ironically enough it is our perception of ourselves as more humble than men people like 'Feynman' or for some people figures like "Al Gore" that give our mind a bias to selecting a label such as "genius", "magic", "unfounded"; for the sake of cognitive ease.
Scientific revolution doesn't redefine science, it overthrows and rejections the perceptions and tools that were used in the last.
Science is a rather simple model of rejecting the old for what is shown to work better.
It's not the complicated thing people pretend or add on it.
It's not the MATH that is a moving and changing language tool.
When math changes science does not.
It's not the facts or what is considered to be true.
Science's place is simply to reject predictions from ideas/models/hypothesis given a test which is made on which it's soundness is determined to be acceptable in a given revolution.
When that revolution fails to describe something that another set of principles can introduced. That's the next revolution.
To conclude:
Mathematics by it's own conclusions cannot be wholly descriptive of reality and therefore the best practices of scientific endeavor, due to it's incompleteness.
A great disappointment for scientists but a liberation to mathematicians
An argument for mathematical practice to overrule scientific endeavor is not a sound argument. The soundness is tested by reality.
If the scientists is closed to the idea of reality taking the realm he has failed as a scientist, but if it is the mathematics in which he created that is bogus that does not => a scientific failure. That's actually out of scope.
His critiques of string theorists is that they lead by the mathematical endeavor and tradition with disregard to the scientific one.
They are building up, which is a engineering and mathematical practice. From principles to make things NEAT.
Science:
Science breaks things down to smaller pieces. In x => y we know y. The measurement. and we want to know what the useful x is. (it may or may not be true but it will need to be useful).
Scientists do not have a tool for completeness they never have. So you can't show that x is completely useful.
But you can figure out which x's are useless.
Supposing certain contemporaneous acceptable language practices pan out. (This is the flaw in science, if you confine yourself only to these practices you cannot be revolutionary)
We make the predictions on those language practices, to see if the different y's they make pan out.
If you run out of candidates that is possible x's to test. You'd be a retard not to experiment (see science).
with other practices.
This is what makes revolutionary scientists, the mistake most smart people make is that it's arrogance.
The real arrogance is that you believe the practices to be sacred infallible things. "Unfounded".
If it worked perfectly you would have hailed Feynman as the ideal scientific revolutionary. Like so many other examples in history.
This outcome orientated view to what is a procedural practice is what itself is "anti-scientific".
His thoughts of possibility of renomalization being bogas is testament to the scientific process.
It’s one thing to dismiss theories, its an other to have a replacement. I think it would be interesting to have a “free thinking” discussion on alternatives.
For my part I put forward the static and dynamic energy emulsion model which offers an explanation of the Big Bang, Inflation, Expansion, Unifies the “forces”, Resolves gravity, and eliminates the magic of a force of attraction (in this model all actions are those of energy sharing and energy pressure). All models, of course, have to fit observation, but sink or swim there is inspiration in the exploration of alternative models..
Appreciate your insights. 👍❤️
None of the coments here deals with the arguments given everybody says "oh but Feynman this or Feynman that" I think everybody recalls how Feynman made people fall in love with physics (incluiding me) but the claims in this video are spot on and just because someone criticizes some very important aspects of his contributions doesnt mean that person is anti feynman we should not be fanboys for any famous phycicist we should acknowledge and critique their work to advance physics knowledge.
Feynman got a hint from Sally Ride that the O-rings do not work at low temperatures, so he made his well known experiment with the clamp and the ice water. So he showed that the O-rings were faulty but for me it is more important that he showed how easily they could have been tested before the start.
A second point: He was the first who found the real reason for the accident of the Columbia! Parts of the insulation felt off on previous flights, but because nothing serious happened the problem was not fixed. THAT was the real reason!
Please read the second paragraph of appendix F to the final report of the Rogers commission.
We have also found that certification criteria used in Flight Readiness Reviews often develop a gradually decreasing strictness. The argument that the same risk was flown before without failure is often accepted as an argument for the safety of accepting it again. Because of this, obvious weaknesses are accepted again and again, sometimes without a sufficiently serious attempt to remedy them, or to delay a f light because of their continued presence.
Feynman wrote this 17 years before Columbia crashed
Thanks for sharing this detailed information.
QED is an applied theory that not only calculate a certain quantities to the highest accuracy known to mankind, it’s practically used in our daily used technologies that demonstrated its reliability. Should we call that as testability and pay some respect?
"the most important calculation in the history of modern physics cannot be independently verified.
" - Consa
Come on
Excellent series. Many thanks! I was wondering if you could comment on the work of these 4 scientists:
1. Halton Arp (astronomer who doubted the Big Bang);
2. Fred Hoyle (astrophysicist who also doubted the Big Bang);
3. Percy Bridgeman (Nobel laureate who, I believe, had doubts about the constant speed of light);
4. David Bohm (who had doubts about QM being an ultimate explanation, and believed in [or hoped for)] "hidden variables");
4. Alfred Landé (mainly interested in your thoughts on his gedanken experiment promoted by Karl Popper, called "Landé's Blade", which purports to demonstrate that causality -- if carried back far enough in any causal chain -- cannot be strictly deterministic).
Many thanks in advance!
Thanks; valid suggestions, yet it will take a long thime if I arrive there... I met Arp in 2008, impressive personality. Yet if I was forced to chose, I think I would start with Hoyle.
I think David Bohm has a great start in his Bohmian interpretation of Quantum mechanics, which is not really based on the exact hidden variables that Einstein's EPR shows, but what De Broglie and Erwin Schrodinger advocated, but was then convinced by the Copenhagen interpretation, but never saw it's relevance.
QED and renormalization make perfect sense and are very predictive. Its a subject that has been worked on by a huge scientific community for more than 60 years. There are millions of papers and textbooks on this. Do you seriously think it will be "debunked" by a 5 pages paper ?
If you study the history of physics, the size of a community says literally nothing about the validity of their shared beliefs.
@@TheMachian Indeed, but scientific consensus on experimental validation does. Please learn about QED and QFT before advertising fraudulent claims. One wonky history (and not scientific) paper is not enough.
They do ANY sense and are NOT predictive without tweaking and changing rules along the road. The ONLY reason such theoretical delirium exists is that some thousands of absolutely mediocres "theoreticians" need to justify their wage and their titles by producing trendy garbage with some arbitrary formulas their masters believed to be promising, and it turned out to be just crap. But this disgusting show will come to an end, some day, and the posterity will look at them with compassion, for sure.
Wish I knew all the maths and physics you do to take a swing at discoveringsome cool fundamental immutables
Feyman said that he was used as a pawn and didn't actually determine the cause of the Challenger explosion. The cause was well known when it happened by the engineers. Morton Thiokol executives overruled their opposition to launching in those conditions.
First reaction is to come to argue... but, if he was not a genius, he had a good attitude toward exploration, analysis, and knowledge (give his dad due credit)...
Why did CZcams remove the dislike count!?
There seems to be quite some confusion about the historical term "renormalization". When using this term today, one actually means thinking about how parameters in a theory correspond to measurable quantities.
Here is an easy example: If you write down Coulomb's law for the electrostatic field of an electron, who tells you that what you call the charge in your theory is the actual charge of the electron and how would you measure it? Renormalization deals exclusively with this question and has a priori nothing to do with infinities!
Historically, renormalization featured artificial infinities that can be handled by what is called "regularization". So when you use the term "renormalization" associated with infinities, you actually mean "regularization".
You always mention mathematical rigor. But there is absolutely no need for regularization in a mathematically rigorous treatment of QED (see for example the books by Günter Scharf or Rudolf Haag, etc.)!
However, regularization provides a useful tool for practical calculations that are in fact equivalent to a more rigorous approach without it. It is just a mathematical tool that is easy to handle, nothing more.
Also, I do not understand why there should be anything fishy with the concept of regularization in general. Do you accept the existence of the Euler-Mascheroni constant 0.5772? It is the regularized value of the difference between the infinite sum of 1/n and the infinite integral of 1/x. Both expressions are by themselves infinite but the difference is finite when the limit is taken in the end. Taking a limit does not commute with summing, which is a well-known mathematical result! Regularization therefore works and can be mathematically justified! Saying that infinities are not dealt with properly in QED comes hand in hand with not accepting the existence of the Euler-Mascheroni constant. So where do you draw the line?
I wholeheartedly agree with this very eloquent comment that carefully distinguishes regularization and renormalization. Furthermore, I want to emphasize that there is nothing fishy about the concept of renormalization. At the latest since the works of Kadanoff and Wilson we actually understand this. The basic idea is that UV degrees of freedom do not influence the physics at very large length scales or small energies. This profound insight does not only apply to high energy physics but also to solid state and statistical physics. It is used routinely in the studies of phase transitions and critical exponents.
The Euler-Mascheroni constant 0.5772 is well defined. It makes no sense to write it as a difference of infinities. On the other hand, there is no way to assign a reasonable value to the integral over the energy density of the field of a single electron. You don't solve that by commuting the sum with taking a limit. Thus you are beating around the bush here. To conclude with Dirac: This is just not sensible mathematics.
There are three equivalent formulations of Quantum Mechanics. There is Heisenberg's Matrix Mechanics, Schrodinger's Wave Equation, and there is Feynman's Path Integral approach. All three approaches are equivalent, and they represent fundamental ground-breaking work in theoretical physics. I don't see anything remotely similar having been produced by Unzicker - and therefore he is simply not qualified to pass any sort of judgement on the likes of Feynman.
Its very apt that your channel is called Unzicker's Real Physics because what you talk about here has nothing in common with the (All people-Unzicker)'s real physics
As much as I appreciate Feynman, I think you got this right. He had to have been conflicted later in life, expecting someone to make a few tweaks to qed to resolve the issues and having to watch for decades as no one fixed it but instead layered on top of it.
I thought Ken Wilson showed why you didn't have to fix it, giving us a better appreciation of what the calculational tricks were doing and why they worked?
QED makes sense as EFT. Condensed matter physics also has renormalization and infinities, and it makes sense, because we know exactly what it approximates. Maybe the universe is a lattice.
Hi there realy like Sabine Hossenfelder, what your opinion about, she work?
She is courageous and her critique is very to the point. I think we agree on most issues of the contemporariy ailing of physics. I do research on basics physics myself however, and that led me to digging a bit deeper into history, leading to the conclusion that physics went off the rails around 1930. She is hesitant to go back as far, but maybe her point of view will evolve.
@@TheMachian Thanks, im Just a curiouse, if im correct, she like superdeterminism, to many theorys on the table, my problem is that, we cant spend money and time whit what dont make sence, Just one more question, loop quantum gravity, make sence to you?
Please don't stop. Keep the great stuff coming.
Feynman was very creative in developing his diagrams. I have used the bubble diagram for plasmons in semiconductors, it "works" but the whole theory seemed a bit shaky when I first read about them, however I think creativity is very important in making scientific breakthroughs.
He was a great teacher, he was great at explaining things. I.e. the Feynman technique
No doubt about that.
they told us to calculate all the structure of molecules proteines etc, one needs qed to be precise ?
I think they told bs. There are other problems, protein folding is a difficult business of its own...
@@TheMachian always wondered if the process of emission of quanta of energy /photons by electrons is mechanically understood well enough - recoil and such. what caused the electron to emit in the first place ?
@@kasel1979krettnach Was the photon in the electron before it was emitted? :P
Why is Michio Kaku not on your list of overhyped physicists?
I do not agree with you however. You must know that Feynman was one of the best in his field and even though you might not like his work he was a GREAT teacher and his ability to connect with students along with his attractive personality which made him far greater than any other physicist of his time. His work too was brilliant but i think you'll disagree so I don't want to argue the fact with someone who chooses to deny it.
@@eurotrash5610 well clickbaiting the thumbnail wasn't the best thing to do was it ?
What's your opinion on Freeman Dyson?
9:16 He saw some tools and used them to their furthest. And separately from that he openly questioned the legitimacy of those tools. I think that's ok. Do what you can with what you have, and point out the issues as you go.
Really interesting video. And before people criticize it, you really should read the papers. They're not that difficult. The links are in the description.
So very well explained, thanks so much.
I really enjoy the sheer candor you deliver in all your videos, but this one in particular. Even admitting your recent shock regarding QED. Also the way you get into the inconsistencies in the head of Feynman, and the lingering questions you bring up. Now back to my day job of trolling the Closer to the Truth channel.
That's fine. I am not doing science for being liked by everybody.