My dad told me a joke and I thought of this vid. There's a Mathematician, a Physicist, and an Engineer. All are tasked with finding out how tall a tower is. The Mathematician gets straight to work. He waits until 12:00 and measures the length of the towers shadow and angle of the sun, then uses trig to find the opposite length. The physicist realized he doesnt need a clear sunny sky and he climbs to the top of the tower with an apple and a stop watch. He measures how long it takes the apple to hit the floor and derives how far the apple travelled. The Engineer looks at his two friends going about their business bemusedly. He picks up his phone and asks the Architect how tall his tower is!
Engineers make fun of physicists, too. True story: On Halloween my Digital Signal Processing prof walked in wearing a hunchback costume, along with his wife and two kids. They galloped around the room and passed out candy, then mom and kids left. Dad then proceeds to take off his hunchback costume because it's uncomfy and he's left wearing a t-shirt. He asks "so what character am I now?" Silence "A PHYSICS PROFESSOR!" ba dum Ching See, engineering faculty tended to dress pretty well. Some wore suits every day, most just settled on slacks and a nice shirt, maybe a sport coat at most. Math and Physics faculty were more likely to show up in shorts, sandals with socks, and a 25-year-old tshirt with 6 holes in it. I worked for years in the Math+Physics building doing computer stuff and had a lot of Physics faculty friends. IRL they didn't really make fun of engineers and, in fact, often asked for help on stuff too far outside their bailiwick. A lot of "hey, you're an electrical engineer, would it be possible to build something that would...".
As an engineer that had some introductory physics courses later, I realized engineers often use a simplified view on physics because they’re constantly under pressure to get something actually working. Very often managers don’t care if engineers truly understand what they’re doing in a scientific way, as long as they produce results. Personally I came to the conclusion that everything is about physics, even chemistry.
Yes physics make You understand why your stuff works. But You use that for build something. I wonder if a physic can make something using his knowledge. For example an industrial machine for make something. You need to know mecánic, electrónics, some sort of electromecánic. Not for study all the components separately but to know how to make it works.
I got friendly and hung out a lot with a new Visiting Asst Professor of Physics because I did computer stuff and he used super computer computer stuff and we were in the same building, separated by two floors. He was woefully underpaid. But what I determined is newly minted just-past post-doc single physicists eat absolutely anything as long as it is on sale and can be eaten without any preparation. His favorite: the $4.99 all-you-can-eat spaghetti at the little restaurant a block off campus. Like... 5 nights a week. I'd give in and go with him (too) often, but it was really awful. Not sure how you screw up spaghetti that badly, but they did it.
Physics was traditionally a subcategory of philosophy, which took advantage of mathematical principles to prove its theories. Before the 20th Century physics was referred to as natural philosophy. If you're looking for purity, philosophy and math would be the place to go, not just math.
@no u trash I can understand why you think that, a lot of people do, and a lot of academics in most fields are draconian in the sense that they just teach the 'old stuff', but you need a foundation in order to have a full appreciation of the 'new stuff'. Trying to understand Einstein, without Newton, without Galileo is possible but your understanding will be more difficult and less deep. Same with Philosophy, trying to understand Frege or Russell, without Kant, and further back Aristotle, or Plato is superficial. That being said, critical thought is timeless, in a sense it doesn't matter when it was written as long as it is correct, in another sense it does matter because certain trains of thought are more or less likely to arise given the changing nature of circumstance.
Also, even the newer authors I just spoke of, like Einstein and Russell have a new generation of academics responding to their philosophy and math, so in a sense they are becoming 'old', too.
That thumbnail answers the question. Physicists make fun of engineers because engineers make more money than physicists. Envy 😪 Yours truly, An engineer
@Necro Fell aye chill twas a joke. Just clapping back at physicists for making fun of us. In reality I'm the one projecting my envy bc I wish I was a physicist ☹️
@Necro Fell so just because an engineer is proud that they make more money they arent what an engineer is supposed to be? That makes no sense, no matter what you say, they still are a engineer
@Necro Fell they pride themselves for both not just the money youre just mad & jealous of um & you cant say "most" of them lmao you dont know most of um
@Necro Fell engineering is not necessarily easier. Physicist do harder physics and math, which is a given. However, physicist have much less variable to deal with. Engineers need to account for social. environmental and economic factors, and all the uncertainties in the real world. also the big brother and little brother analogy is just awful, yes your right physicist gives engineers knowledge to build things, but engineers then build things for physicist to continue their studies. It is much more of a feedback loop.
Physics and engineering and male dominated because the most introverted people are generally the ones that find them more appealing. Both are focused more on the world than on people. Males on average are slightly more introverted than females. Selecting for the extreme ends of the spectrum greatly exaggerates that tendency. Imagine two overlapping bell curve distributions of people based on how introverted they are. One for males and one for females. Introversion is increasing as you move to the right. The female one is shifted slightly to the left of the male one. If you chop off the right side of this diagram (the people who become physicist and engineers), you get overwhelmingly males.
How about you analysing popye the sailor man,Scooby Doo,power Puff girls , dexter's laboratory,Been ten, Pokemon,beyblade and dragon Ball z ( I really loved these during my childhood)I hope u consider some of these recommendations and yeah congratulations for touching 8k subscribers 😊
I’d like to add in my two cents on one of those questions: “Do physicists go crazy?” The answer is yes, all physicists go crazy Then they come back With answers (Sometimes)
Some physicists do use little bit of chemistry. E.g, those working on experimental condensed matter physics often have to fabricate micro/nano devices which involves using chemical processes.
Nah, that's just Schrodinger's scientist. You see... when you're in the world of quantum field theory and have to utilize chemistry, you're in an entanglement between being a physicist and a chemist.
"Why do physicists use models" (or any scientist really) is a bit of a difficult question to answer directly because it implies a lack of understanding about what a model is. Its kind of like asking "why do cars have wheels?" A bit of a patronizing first answer might be "because it wouldn't be a car without them!", and to a first approximation that kind of is the same thing. "Why does science use models?" "Because it wouldn't be science without them!" We could be a little less patronizing with something like "they're a tool to describe the world mathematically". That's a bit better but its still pretty vague and still only really answers "what" more than "why." But everyone seems to understand money, so let's try to build an extremely simplified example model by way of money, and hopefully through example show why the model is a useful tool. I'm sure I'll make a mess of this but why not :D! Lets say you have a bank account with $100 in it. Well right off the bat, "$100" is a model. That's not a physical object, its just 4 characters that we all generally agree represents some amount of (real) wealth. OK good. We know what a model is! But wait.. that model is pretty weak. If you withdraw $30, your model is now completely broken. It only encompasses your bank account having $100 in it. So we need to make it more complicated: our bank account can now be represented by "a member of the set {$70,$100}". But that's not very useful really. We really need to know that the $70 comes after the $100 so a concept of linear time should be introduced: "$100 first then $70". Better, but that's still pretty limiting. We might want to make a further withdrawal tomorrow and the next day and so on. We're getting pretty cumbersome. So lets introduce some notation: "B(t)=x where (t,x) are members of the set {(1,$100), (2,$70)}" In fact, notation is so helpful that I've already introduced some that you may not have even realized: I used set notation briefly above before introducing time. But that one might have been a bit obvious, especially if you aren't familiar with set theory. But how about "100"? That's also a notation. We could have represented your bank account by 100 individual tick marks or "0x64" (hexadecimal) or "C" (Roman numeral) or any other system of humanity has ever come up with. But the decimal number system is such a convenient and widely-recognized notation that we've been making use of the concept without even realizing. But back to your bank account. Our model is now at the point where we've got a very simple equation B(t)=x, along with a table of possible values for t and x to take on. This is actually already sufficient to model one very basic function of banking: Your monthly balance. If you ignore the rest of your bank statements and only focus on the month number and the total, our "model" is sufficient for you. You of course keep having to manually add entries to the table every month, but it does the job. We're still missing something pretty important though: dynamics. We can see that our bank account dropped from $100 to $70 in our model, and we know that its because we withdrew $30, but the model currently has no concept of what a "withdrawal" is - it just shows two points in time with two different dollar amounts. So how do we model a withdrawal? Well for that, we use operators. You're familiar with some very basic operators already - addition, subtraction, multiplication, etc. The operators used in physics are absurdly more complicated than those, but the underlying principle is the same: its something that can be applied to a set of values to produce a new value. So what might our withdrawal operator look like? Possibly something like: "W(B)=B-$30". Wait.. that seems a little weird. We're passing B into W? More notation there - typically if a function is passed to another function without its parameters, it means "do the same thing no matter what the parameters are". So in this case W(B(1))=W($100)=$70. But wait again.. that would also mean W(B(2))=W($70)=$40. That's not right. We never said we withdrew another $30. Luckily we're so far only using this operator to calculate withdrawals and haven't updated our bank's table, but its still pretty unsatisfying. We can do better: "W(t,B)=B(t)-w if (t,w) is a member of the set {(1,$-30)} and W(t,B)=B(t) otherwise". Now we can do something really fancy: we can redefine "B(t)=$100 if t=1 and B(t)=W(t-1,B(t-1)) if t>1". Suddenly our bank account table is automatically "updated" any time we add an entry to our withdrawal table. B(t) is now incorporates some (trivial) dynamics! And of course we can keep extending our model to incorporate deposits, interest, bank fees, etc, etc. When we notice a "symmetry" we can simplify our model (for example, deposits are "symmetric" to withdrawals, and in fact the way I've defined the W function already handles both just by using positive or negative numbers in the table). We can extend it to use arbitrary timesteps - right now it only works in fixed-interval discrete steps. You could choose any step size - an hour or a month or a year - but you can't have one entry be an hour and the next one be a year in the same model. Of course what you _could_ do is choose a really small step size - say a microsecond - beyond which you don't expect any operations to be able to occur, and just have a really really big table.. and then if you take the limit of smaller and smaller timesteps until you hit a step size of zero, you get continuous time which adds a whole new layer of complexity and often weird infinities and so on). But this is already long so I'll stop with that. Hopefully anyone still reading comments on a year-and-a-half-old video will get at least a basic idea of what a model is from it :D, and in turn get a better understanding of why scientists use them. Edit: One thing I always like to clarify and didn't here: A model only _describes_ the world. It doesn't tell the world what to do. We can use some types of models to _predict_ what the world will do, but the world (and the universe more generally) is perfectly free to do something completely different, and its up to us to fix the model. But that doesn't mean the model was "wrong". It just means it was incomplete. This is a misunderstanding we see a lot in terms of climate change modeling - people think that if a model isn't 100% right that it might be 100% wrong. Now certainly a good deal of that is simply propaganda but the mindset is pretty prevalent nonetheless, and its simply not true. Barring a complete and total meltdown of the scientific method, a model that isn't 100% right is often 90-99% right and just needs tweaking rather than a complete rebuild. (Of course complete failures _have_ occurred in the past - for example the theory of the luminiferous ether that was disproven by the Michelson-Morley experiment and caused a relatively large upset in the physics community of the time. But such massive failures are extremely rare in the age of the modern scientific method. Won't say another can't happen - looking at you, String Theory - but its not the conclusion you should jump to when you see a climate model being off by 15 knots predicting a hurricane's force or something.)
If you could explain the physics behind iron man’s suit, that’d be great. I’m working on a project that works around aircrafts. I need to know about how the thrust actually takes place and in what conditions. Thanks Also, would love to meet you in Cambridge sometime. Thumbs up for the videos!!
Hello simal linjara don't that I am intervening this conversation between you and the man who made the video I think you have not watched what he has told their family actually the problem of smoothness function of navier Stokes equations has to be proved by mathematician's in order that physicist or any engineer could take care and use it so please wait still the mathematician prove the theorem so that is what physicist make fun of engineers and mathematician's make fun of physicist and even philosophers make fun of mathematician and I make fun of you all guys simply kidding yaar don't be angry at meyes please go and watch the millennium problem now you'll understand why turbulent flow around any floating or flying body is so difficult ok aur please read the below statement I made Physicist think they are limitless that is the basic problem that physicist think there are so mighty ok for some reading this comment maybe maybe not comfortable because physicist is trying to fit the model by observationok please explain us can somebody ask here are the three examples I can give you 1.) So physics has this quantum mechanics as there more powerful tool to understand the world now you have this .atoms and subatomic particles and still in search of some atomic particles they think it could explain everything about the world and even it could explain consciousness because they consider atom as and indivisible aur cannot break in normal sense so what happens is the try to fit the model of chemistry biology and and everything but still mathematician's even have this "atoms in the subject Mathematics that's crazy "how mathematician's can have atoms in mathematics yes atoms of mathematics are prime numbers and mathematics have their acceptance of human failure to acquire the whole concept of primes because you cannot factor number beyond primes and every man greedy starts from here to mathematician century give the framework for the subject infusions used to use it ok now what's the point the point is logic has this atoms called axioms and axioms are unacceptedbut believed to be truth and some theorems are being proved by it But mathematician's also have this limitations that has godel suggested that no axiomatic system could explain the concept of or could explained every part of the mathematics so Godel give the limitations of mathematics in his proof on incompleteness theorem and physician things still there mighty and these kind of proofs build by mathematician's instill physics Gets every framework from mathematics and think they have no limits and even the subject has no limit such as mathematics but physicist think there is a chance there just waiting for a chance to somebody give the frameworkso that the problem starts there is also this so called of logical way of proving in physics but it is only to those who require higher knowledge on this physics the missing parts that as in our discussion world is made made up of atoms and atoms govern every law in the universe and frames are the basic to mathematics and still mathematician's find very difficult to say how many primes are there within n numbers but still physicist are very convinced that there will be some mathematical framework that is going to help them resolve this quantum gravity show the basic idea is that has to have a component of basic structure which is indivisible and it has to form the whole part is so logic atoms are not well defined that is the framework of axioms if we go higher than logic there is philosophy nobody can tell that philosophy has atoms inside going above will be consciousness I don't think every part of our thoughts is made by some indivisible small part this theory could not be explained in mathematics because "apart is never greater than the whole" so this is my concept if somebody could answer me please answer me because I have searching for this answer for a lot time I Ho Mr part g gives good answer to this and don't please make mistake of thisbecause between the layer of philosophy and consciousness I have missed the most important part foursome it maybe ideology or religionso sorry for that so even you have this God concept in religion which makes up everything show the concept of making something indivisible or an individual part cannot be explained by this and and and theory has to have its limitations which should be proposed by the knowledgeable that's why most of the theories in physics don't come in to use because it is not that it is under research because some fieles their limitations as this concept of galios proof on symbolism breakdown in polynomial root calculations where it doesn't have any routes that can be framed by its coeeficients and the whole concept of symbolism is like that and still these people are relying on the other framework of deep learningand other neural networks still have not been till proved to be symbolic in nature and they think they need just an turnacation point p on this value but the symbolic nature is very different it could only say the limitations and even it has its own limitations so just figure out the limits of your subject then please tell your mightyness I hope the man who made this video will answer thisand I still hope somebody good answer my question if I am wrong I really bow and accept comments but please don't brainwash Me if you think my facts are very little and I have this krunger effect please flood me with factsare just you people think I am feeling you with facts give proofs anyhow you can just open by reading the comment and open my third eye of knowledge so that everybody will be benefited
I didn't have the time or patience to read all 277 (just now) comments so maybe this has already been contributed, but this riddle was popular at MIT many years ago. Q. How do you tell a mathematician from a physicist from an engineer? A. Ask them to prove that all odd numbers are prime. The mathematician says “1 is prime, 3 is prime, 5 is prime, 7 is prime, and the rest follows by induction.” The physicist says, “1, 3, 5, and 7 are prime, 9 is experimental error, 11 and 13 are prime, and the rest follows by induction.” The engineer says, “1 is prime, 3 is prime, 5 is prime, 7 is prime, 9 is prime, and the rest follows by induction.”
I have been here since the channel had 2k subscribers and I am honestly too happy for you bro...You're the most inspirational and original College and Science Vlogger on RUclips right now...You're gonna be great Bro😊
please put the video on explanation how the international student can enter Cambridge university for higher studies in physics after bachelors in physics
The intro given to us in the "first" class of undergraduate physics included that Physics is the study of models of reality with predictive capabilities that can be verified independently.
Don't forget that engineering is from physics not physics from engineering.that's all. and a scientist can easily turn into an engineer but the vice versa is not true.
A moving rod placed in a stationary U-shaped frame. When a conductor (the moving rod in this case) moves perpendicular to a magnetic field, an electromotive force (EMF) is induced according to Faraday's law of electromagnetic induction. The rate of change of magnetic flux through the loop formed by the moving rod and the stationary U-shaped rods is given by = B⋅L⋅V where B is the magnetic field strength,L is the length of the rod, and v is its velocity. Now, the negative of rate of change of magnetic flux = work done by electromagnetic force throughout the loop, which is BLV+IR, i=current , r=resistance But this leads to that,BLV=BLV+I--->>IR=0 , means electric current through loop is 0, So, Just Please Clarify My Confusion
8000 .... today 209 000 ! thirst for knowledge !!! Well I am engeneer and we apply nothing else than tons of formulas that we find in Laws, references books etc... physiscist are using laws and formulas always with doubts... always using the references of experiences...
@Abhinav even if our eyes can see at 60fps, those frames need to be in sync. If the video is in 90fps there are more chances the frames are in sync, so we see difference
yes , many old physicists use Fortran, C,C++ , and now use Python the most in data anaylsis and programming,but I hate Python😅。 So, physicist should be good in pure mathematic 🎉.....
Love how he pretends he doesn't know that physicists are smart. Nice recovery, but for a second there you could see the wheels turning to answer the question...
If it would be possible to spin liquid mercury to the point it vibrated to 1.6 gigahertz then encapsulated the spinning mass into a layered dome of cross-sectioned tungsten and meta-material, what would happen?
If we can see the universe 13.7 billion years ago with the webb telescope, why cant we see our planet 4.5 billion years ago, is this possible? just asking for a friend.
I think physicists make fun of engineers because engineers study physics, but have a broad, yet shallow, understanding of it. I've also yet to meet an engineer who doesn't chegg every homework question :p
I know nuclear forces are attractive at short range, but repulse as range increases. Could a similar effect happen with gravity? The "dark matter" arguments are based on stars at the edge of the galaxy not spinning off into the void. The claim is: there must be extra mass in the galaxy, holding planets in place. But - what if, on large scales, space simply repels mass? That is, the void between galaxies is pushing stars back toward the middle?
Do the Wile E. Coyote and Roadrunner universe. Especially the one where he straps a boat engine to himself and a bathtub to move forward. That ought to be fun. Here's the link: ruclips.net/video/x9V8rrXpxi0/видео.html
Hey- nice vid. A question for you- I'm a student aspiring to apply to Oxbridge but I am torn between physics and medicine and so struggling with my A level options (not helpful when I'm starting this week). Would you recommend doing bio, chem, physics, maths OR chem, physics, maths, further maths? Bio is very helpful but not required for med and I'm guessing it's similar with further maths and physics, so I'm having some difficulties making the choice. Thanks!
@@ParthGChannel Thank you so much for your reply! Unfortunately I don't think that approach would work for me, but the headteacher of my sixth form has said he'd be willing to let me start with all 5- would you advise against this? Thank you again!
Well now, what is Einsteins "stationary" system (from special relativity) stationary to? Also, what is the light-constant c constant to? "Stationary" is equal to rest, hm...
@@twopie6911 1) In Einsteins relativity he wrote (postulate 2): "Light moves in the "stationary" system with the determined velocity c". 2) So, light constant c is constant to the "stationary" system! 3) Einstein also wrote: "The quantity c is to be a universal constant - the velocity in empty space". 4) Well now - what is c constant to, the "stationary" system 1) or the empty space 3). To Maxwell electromagnetism 1) is very good, but is for 3) meaningless - you can't refer a velocity to "empty space". So we accept the "stationary" system for c, and this "stationary" system is contrary to "all perspectives".
Oi Romzan ali khan hey, if you go to a site called senecalearning you can learn it at Level 2 and 3, then when you’ve finished those use another site :)
Hi Parth, great videos, always a pleasure to listen in and take the time as the consumer of content that i am, however, i wonder, could you watch 'undone' on amazon prime and analyze the 8 episodes they've just released in your own interpretation as a physicist? :)
math > physics > chem > bio ... I wasn't the only physics guy who had this in my mind. And yeah.....I do mock them when my wife is beside me LOL sry ppl, ur studies are all wonderful studies. But........I just can't..... can't.... LOL
Hello, I’m considering being a physicist. I struggled with physics the first half of high school but got a lot better and I love physics. Would you recommend it?
Why are physicist wo weird? Good question, many people think that I'm weird because I learn physics. Well I'm not smart or anything (trust me, I got terrible results in quantum mechanics), I just love it.
how much have you achieved in physics in your life? I agree that physics is interesting, maybe they taught me poorly at school. I am an artist and I like physics but more chemistry (from exact sciences) In your opinion, which science is better, art, physics or chemistry? Why?
Explain why every physicist in the world seem to think monopoles like electrons, protons, and neutrons, will ever cluster to make a nucleus. They won't, but they wanna hear it anyway!
Physicists are intensely envious of engineers - engineers are in touch with reality whereas physicists are out-to-lunch. Therefore, engineers make more money and have better wives.
I am an engineer ... I do stuff that physicist cannot do ... But I am using their observations of nature , to impart into my code , say , geopy library , basian models ... Etc. We can say , engineers are the writers , physicists are the grammerly.. funny .... But I think like your videos .
My dad told me a joke and I thought of this vid.
There's a Mathematician, a Physicist, and an Engineer. All are tasked with finding out how tall a tower is. The Mathematician gets straight to work. He waits until 12:00 and measures the length of the towers shadow and angle of the sun, then uses trig to find the opposite length.
The physicist realized he doesnt need a clear sunny sky and he climbs to the top of the tower with an apple and a stop watch. He measures how long it takes the apple to hit the floor and derives how far the apple travelled. The Engineer looks at his two friends going about their business bemusedly. He picks up his phone and asks the Architect how tall his tower is!
That's s cool story
The Warfield of WWIII looks like this...
@@atharvabhagwat2082 then what's the correct one..?
@@atharvabhagwat2082 bruh, based on what assumptions and parameters did you prove the joke to be incorrect?
@@atharvabhagwat2082 you use modern technology and then mock engineers. Great job buddy 👍
why do physicists make fun of engineers
*cough* *cough* sheldon cooper
hahaha XD
Engineers make fun of physicists, too.
True story: On Halloween my Digital Signal Processing prof walked in wearing a hunchback costume, along with his wife and two kids. They galloped around the room and passed out candy, then mom and kids left. Dad then proceeds to take off his hunchback costume because it's uncomfy and he's left wearing a t-shirt. He asks "so what character am I now?" Silence "A PHYSICS PROFESSOR!" ba dum Ching
See, engineering faculty tended to dress pretty well. Some wore suits every day, most just settled on slacks and a nice shirt, maybe a sport coat at most. Math and Physics faculty were more likely to show up in shorts, sandals with socks, and a 25-year-old tshirt with 6 holes in it.
I worked for years in the Math+Physics building doing computer stuff and had a lot of Physics faculty friends. IRL they didn't really make fun of engineers and, in fact, often asked for help on stuff too far outside their bailiwick. A lot of "hey, you're an electrical engineer, would it be possible to build something that would...".
@@frotoe9289 lol
Physics is the king of all science ...
I'm ok to be an engineer...we are The trench doctors of science
As an engineer that had some introductory physics courses later, I realized engineers often use a simplified view on physics because they’re constantly under pressure to get something actually working. Very often managers don’t care if engineers truly understand what they’re doing in a scientific way, as long as they produce results. Personally I came to the conclusion that everything is about physics, even chemistry.
Yes physics make You understand why your stuff works. But You use that for build something. I wonder if a physic can make something using his knowledge. For example an industrial machine for make something. You need to know mecánic, electrónics, some sort of electromecánic. Not for study all the components separately but to know how to make it works.
How
Even chemistry 🧪 🤔🤔
Quantum mechanics and classical mechanics describe the motion of molecules, atoms, electrons, etc
Do physicists eat?
G: some do...
Why did you get that doubt
Wow see this question. This question deserve Nobel prize😂
I got friendly and hung out a lot with a new Visiting Asst Professor of Physics because I did computer stuff and he used super computer computer stuff and we were in the same building, separated by two floors. He was woefully underpaid. But what I determined is newly minted just-past post-doc single physicists eat absolutely anything as long as it is on sale and can be eaten without any preparation. His favorite: the $4.99 all-you-can-eat spaghetti at the little restaurant a block off campus. Like... 5 nights a week. I'd give in and go with him (too) often, but it was really awful. Not sure how you screw up spaghetti that badly, but they did it.
Physics was traditionally a subcategory of philosophy, which took advantage of mathematical principles to prove its theories. Before the 20th Century physics was referred to as natural philosophy. If you're looking for purity, philosophy and math would be the place to go, not just math.
@no u trash I can understand why you think that, a lot of people do, and a lot of academics in most fields are draconian in the sense that they just teach the 'old stuff', but you need a foundation in order to have a full appreciation of the 'new stuff'. Trying to understand Einstein, without Newton, without Galileo is possible but your understanding will be more difficult and less deep. Same with Philosophy, trying to understand Frege or Russell, without Kant, and further back Aristotle, or Plato is superficial. That being said, critical thought is timeless, in a sense it doesn't matter when it was written as long as it is correct, in another sense it does matter because certain trains of thought are more or less likely to arise given the changing nature of circumstance.
Also, even the newer authors I just spoke of, like Einstein and Russell have a new generation of academics responding to their philosophy and math, so in a sense they are becoming 'old', too.
Thanks for the shoutout for philosophy. Currently I'm going to school for engineering, but I really have a soft spot for philosophy and mathematics.
@Aspiring Physicist Well physics is just *observed* truth ... Not the complete truth .
@@Elrog3 philosophy is the useless version of physics
Wanted to actually hear a proper answer to do physicists need real analysis 🤣
Parth G Do it!
@@ParthGChannel I'm a math and physics double major and would love to see a whole video on real analysis and physics!
That thumbnail answers the question. Physicists make fun of engineers because engineers make more money than physicists. Envy 😪
Yours truly,
An engineer
@Necro Fell aye chill twas a joke. Just clapping back at physicists for making fun of us. In reality I'm the one projecting my envy bc I wish I was a physicist ☹️
@Necro Fell so just because an engineer is proud that they make more money they arent what an engineer is supposed to be? That makes no sense, no matter what you say, they still are a engineer
@@coldblaze100 why lmao. Then become one
@Necro Fell they pride themselves for both not just the money youre just mad & jealous of um & you cant say "most" of them lmao you dont know most of um
@Necro Fell engineering is not necessarily easier. Physicist do harder physics and math, which is a given. However, physicist have much less variable to deal with. Engineers need to account for social. environmental and economic factors, and all the uncertainties in the real world. also the big brother and little brother analogy is just awful, yes your right physicist gives engineers knowledge to build things, but engineers then build things for physicist to continue their studies. It is much more of a feedback loop.
A year later: almost 80,000...
And very well deserved, I must say.
and now over 100k
Now 175k
Now 192K
Soon 1M
Physics and engineering and male dominated because the most introverted people are generally the ones that find them more appealing. Both are focused more on the world than on people. Males on average are slightly more introverted than females. Selecting for the extreme ends of the spectrum greatly exaggerates that tendency. Imagine two overlapping bell curve distributions of people based on how introverted they are. One for males and one for females. Introversion is increasing as you move to the right. The female one is shifted slightly to the left of the male one. If you chop off the right side of this diagram (the people who become physicist and engineers), you get overwhelmingly males.
May I know the source from which you are making these assumptions or are they your personal observations/opinion.
Parth G: I'm a Physicist...
Me:*getting answers correct to A levels Physics questions* I'm also a Physicist
hey brother can you
do a video on "DUAL NATURE OF LIGHT"
How about you analysing popye the sailor man,Scooby Doo,power Puff girls , dexter's laboratory,Been ten, Pokemon,beyblade and dragon Ball z ( I really loved these during my childhood)I hope u consider some of these recommendations and yeah congratulations for touching 8k subscribers 😊
I also didn't knew about fizzlers, haha!😂
I’d like to add in my two cents on one of those questions:
“Do physicists go crazy?”
The answer is yes, all physicists go crazy
Then they come back
With answers
(Sometimes)
😂why I smell Truth?
Some physicists do use little bit of chemistry. E.g, those working on experimental condensed matter physics often have to fabricate micro/nano devices which involves using chemical processes.
Nah, that's just Schrodinger's scientist. You see... when you're in the world of quantum field theory and have to utilize chemistry, you're in an entanglement between being a physicist and a chemist.
"Why do physicists use models" (or any scientist really) is a bit of a difficult question to answer directly because it implies a lack of understanding about what a model is. Its kind of like asking "why do cars have wheels?" A bit of a patronizing first answer might be "because it wouldn't be a car without them!", and to a first approximation that kind of is the same thing. "Why does science use models?" "Because it wouldn't be science without them!" We could be a little less patronizing with something like "they're a tool to describe the world mathematically". That's a bit better but its still pretty vague and still only really answers "what" more than "why."
But everyone seems to understand money, so let's try to build an extremely simplified example model by way of money, and hopefully through example show why the model is a useful tool. I'm sure I'll make a mess of this but why not :D!
Lets say you have a bank account with $100 in it. Well right off the bat, "$100" is a model. That's not a physical object, its just 4 characters that we all generally agree represents some amount of (real) wealth. OK good. We know what a model is!
But wait.. that model is pretty weak. If you withdraw $30, your model is now completely broken. It only encompasses your bank account having $100 in it. So we need to make it more complicated: our bank account can now be represented by "a member of the set {$70,$100}". But that's not very useful really. We really need to know that the $70 comes after the $100 so a concept of linear time should be introduced: "$100 first then $70".
Better, but that's still pretty limiting. We might want to make a further withdrawal tomorrow and the next day and so on. We're getting pretty cumbersome. So lets introduce some notation: "B(t)=x where (t,x) are members of the set {(1,$100), (2,$70)}" In fact, notation is so helpful that I've already introduced some that you may not have even realized: I used set notation briefly above before introducing time. But that one might have been a bit obvious, especially if you aren't familiar with set theory. But how about "100"? That's also a notation. We could have represented your bank account by 100 individual tick marks or "0x64" (hexadecimal) or "C" (Roman numeral) or any other system of humanity has ever come up with. But the decimal number system is such a convenient and widely-recognized notation that we've been making use of the concept without even realizing.
But back to your bank account. Our model is now at the point where we've got a very simple equation B(t)=x, along with a table of possible values for t and x to take on. This is actually already sufficient to model one very basic function of banking: Your monthly balance. If you ignore the rest of your bank statements and only focus on the month number and the total, our "model" is sufficient for you. You of course keep having to manually add entries to the table every month, but it does the job.
We're still missing something pretty important though: dynamics. We can see that our bank account dropped from $100 to $70 in our model, and we know that its because we withdrew $30, but the model currently has no concept of what a "withdrawal" is - it just shows two points in time with two different dollar amounts. So how do we model a withdrawal? Well for that, we use operators. You're familiar with some very basic operators already - addition, subtraction, multiplication, etc. The operators used in physics are absurdly more complicated than those, but the underlying principle is the same: its something that can be applied to a set of values to produce a new value. So what might our withdrawal operator look like? Possibly something like: "W(B)=B-$30".
Wait.. that seems a little weird. We're passing B into W? More notation there - typically if a function is passed to another function without its parameters, it means "do the same thing no matter what the parameters are". So in this case W(B(1))=W($100)=$70. But wait again.. that would also mean W(B(2))=W($70)=$40. That's not right. We never said we withdrew another $30. Luckily we're so far only using this operator to calculate withdrawals and haven't updated our bank's table, but its still pretty unsatisfying. We can do better: "W(t,B)=B(t)-w if (t,w) is a member of the set {(1,$-30)} and W(t,B)=B(t) otherwise". Now we can do something really fancy: we can redefine "B(t)=$100 if t=1 and B(t)=W(t-1,B(t-1)) if t>1". Suddenly our bank account table is automatically "updated" any time we add an entry to our withdrawal table. B(t) is now incorporates some (trivial) dynamics!
And of course we can keep extending our model to incorporate deposits, interest, bank fees, etc, etc. When we notice a "symmetry" we can simplify our model (for example, deposits are "symmetric" to withdrawals, and in fact the way I've defined the W function already handles both just by using positive or negative numbers in the table). We can extend it to use arbitrary timesteps - right now it only works in fixed-interval discrete steps. You could choose any step size - an hour or a month or a year - but you can't have one entry be an hour and the next one be a year in the same model. Of course what you _could_ do is choose a really small step size - say a microsecond - beyond which you don't expect any operations to be able to occur, and just have a really really big table.. and then if you take the limit of smaller and smaller timesteps until you hit a step size of zero, you get continuous time which adds a whole new layer of complexity and often weird infinities and so on).
But this is already long so I'll stop with that. Hopefully anyone still reading comments on a year-and-a-half-old video will get at least a basic idea of what a model is from it :D, and in turn get a better understanding of why scientists use them.
Edit: One thing I always like to clarify and didn't here: A model only _describes_ the world. It doesn't tell the world what to do. We can use some types of models to _predict_ what the world will do, but the world (and the universe more generally) is perfectly free to do something completely different, and its up to us to fix the model. But that doesn't mean the model was "wrong". It just means it was incomplete. This is a misunderstanding we see a lot in terms of climate change modeling - people think that if a model isn't 100% right that it might be 100% wrong. Now certainly a good deal of that is simply propaganda but the mindset is pretty prevalent nonetheless, and its simply not true. Barring a complete and total meltdown of the scientific method, a model that isn't 100% right is often 90-99% right and just needs tweaking rather than a complete rebuild. (Of course complete failures _have_ occurred in the past - for example the theory of the luminiferous ether that was disproven by the Michelson-Morley experiment and caused a relatively large upset in the physics community of the time. But such massive failures are extremely rare in the age of the modern scientific method. Won't say another can't happen - looking at you, String Theory - but its not the conclusion you should jump to when you see a climate model being off by 15 knots predicting a hurricane's force or something.)
HOLY HORUS !!!! FAACK U !!!! THIS GAVE ME COMMENTOPHOBIA !!!!!
hey i have a video suggestion for you: reacting on the big bang theory physics scene
If you could explain the physics behind iron man’s suit, that’d be great. I’m working on a project that works around aircrafts. I need to know about how the thrust actually takes place and in what conditions. Thanks
Also, would love to meet you in Cambridge sometime. Thumbs up for the videos!!
Hello simal linjara don't that I am intervening this conversation between you and the man who made the video I think you have not watched what he has told their family actually the problem of smoothness function of navier Stokes equations has to be proved by mathematician's in order that physicist or any engineer could take care and use it so please wait still the mathematician prove the theorem so that is what physicist make fun of engineers and mathematician's make fun of physicist and even philosophers make fun of mathematician and I make fun of you all guys simply kidding yaar don't be angry at meyes please go and watch the millennium problem now you'll understand why turbulent flow around any floating or flying body is so difficult ok aur please read the below statement I made
Physicist think they are limitless that is the basic problem that physicist think there are so mighty ok for some reading this comment maybe maybe not comfortable because physicist is trying to fit the model by observationok please explain us can somebody ask here are the three examples I can give you
1.) So physics has this quantum mechanics as there more powerful tool to understand the world now you have this .atoms and subatomic particles and still in search of some atomic particles they think it could explain everything about the world and even it could explain consciousness because they consider atom as and indivisible aur cannot break in normal sense so what happens is the try to fit the model of chemistry biology and and everything but still mathematician's even have this "atoms in the subject Mathematics that's crazy "how mathematician's can have atoms in mathematics yes atoms of mathematics are prime numbers and mathematics have their acceptance of human failure to acquire the whole concept of primes because you cannot factor number beyond primes and every man greedy starts from here to mathematician century give the framework for the subject infusions used to use it ok now what's the point the point is logic has this atoms called axioms and axioms are unacceptedbut believed to be truth and some theorems are being proved by it
But mathematician's also have this limitations that has godel suggested that no axiomatic system could explain the concept of or could explained every part of the mathematics so Godel give the limitations of mathematics in his proof on incompleteness theorem and physician things still there mighty and these kind of proofs build by mathematician's instill physics Gets every framework from mathematics and think they have no limits and even the subject has no limit such as mathematics but physicist think there is a chance there just waiting for a chance to somebody give the frameworkso that the problem starts there is also this so called of logical way of proving in physics but it is only to those who require higher knowledge on this physics the missing parts that as in our discussion world is made made up of atoms and atoms govern every law in the universe and frames are the basic to mathematics and still mathematician's find very difficult to say how many primes are there within n numbers but still physicist are very convinced that there will be some mathematical framework that is going to help them resolve this quantum gravity show the basic idea is that has to have a component of basic structure which is indivisible and it has to form the whole part is so logic atoms are not well defined that is the framework of axioms if we go higher than logic there is philosophy nobody can tell that philosophy has atoms inside going above will be consciousness I don't think every part of our thoughts is made by some indivisible small part this theory could not be explained in mathematics because "apart is never greater than the whole" so this is my concept if somebody could answer me please answer me because I have searching for this answer for a lot time I Ho Mr part g gives good answer to this and don't please make mistake of thisbecause between the layer of philosophy and consciousness I have missed the most important part foursome it maybe ideology or religionso sorry for that so even you have this God concept in religion which makes up everything show the concept of making something indivisible or an individual part cannot be explained by this and and and theory has to have its limitations which should be proposed by the knowledgeable that's why most of the theories in physics don't come in to use because it is not that it is under research because some fieles their limitations as this concept of galios proof on symbolism breakdown in polynomial root calculations where it doesn't have any routes that can be framed by its coeeficients and the whole concept of symbolism is like that and still these people are relying on the other framework of deep learningand other neural networks still have not been till proved to be symbolic in nature and they think they need just an turnacation point p on this value but the symbolic nature is very different it could only say the limitations and even it has its own limitations so just figure out the limits of your subject then please tell your mightyness I hope the man who made this video will answer thisand I still hope somebody good answer my question if I am wrong I really bow and accept comments but please don't brainwash Me if you think my facts are very little and I have this krunger effect please flood me with factsare just you people think I am feeling you with facts give proofs anyhow you can just open by reading the comment and open my third eye of knowledge so that everybody will be benefited
Parth G let me know when you do come to visit. Would love to ask some questions!!!
I didn't have the time or patience to read all 277 (just now) comments so maybe this has already been contributed, but this riddle was popular at MIT many years ago. Q. How do you tell a mathematician from a physicist from an engineer? A. Ask them to prove that all odd numbers are prime. The mathematician says “1 is prime, 3 is prime, 5 is prime, 7 is prime, and the rest follows by induction.” The physicist says, “1, 3, 5, and 7 are prime, 9 is experimental error, 11 and 13 are prime, and the rest follows by induction.” The engineer says, “1 is prime, 3 is prime, 5 is prime, 7 is prime, 9 is prime, and the rest follows by induction.”
I have been here since the channel had 2k subscribers and I am honestly too happy for you bro...You're the most inspirational and original College and Science Vlogger on RUclips right now...You're gonna be great Bro😊
Wow man congrats!! 100K subs in a year 🙌🏻🙌🏻 keep up the good work
Where do we come from (Human ORIGIN)????
Where are we going (Human DESTINY)????
please put the video on explanation how the international student can enter Cambridge university for higher studies in physics after bachelors in physics
Physicist are great than mathematicians and engineer .
Petition to change the name of quantum physics to wiggly fizzles
The intro given to us in the "first" class of undergraduate physics included that Physics is the study of models of reality with predictive capabilities that can be verified independently.
Dear, we engineers do as much jokes on physicists than you do on engineers. But none is as funny as jokes you do on engineers! True that.
engineers are just money makers nothing else
@@squidly1369 Lmao don't care
@@sreeshsundar3357 wdym ?
Don't forget that engineering is from physics not physics from engineering.that's all.
and a scientist can easily turn into an engineer but the vice versa is not true.
Very true.
A moving rod placed in a stationary U-shaped frame.
When a conductor (the moving rod in this case) moves perpendicular to a magnetic field, an electromotive force (EMF) is induced according to Faraday's law of electromagnetic induction. The rate of change of magnetic flux through the loop formed by the moving rod and the stationary U-shaped rods is given by = B⋅L⋅V where B is the magnetic field strength,L is the length of the rod, and v is its velocity.
Now, the negative of rate of change of magnetic flux = work done by electromagnetic force throughout the loop, which is BLV+IR, i=current , r=resistance
But this leads to that,BLV=BLV+I--->>IR=0 , means electric current through loop is 0, So, Just Please Clarify My Confusion
How you became a physicist what did yo do after 10th ?
What courses you did which are the exams
8000 .... today 209 000 ! thirst for knowledge !!! Well I am engeneer and we apply nothing else than tons of formulas that we find in Laws, references books etc... physiscist are using laws and formulas always with doubts... always using the references of experiences...
Why do the spokes of a wheel appear to move backward when a spinning wheel reaches a certain speed and then move forward again as the speed increases?
BTW, eyes work at 60 frames per second and we perceive see a continuous stream of pictures only when the picture is running at 24fps or faster
@@tarangpatil6952 Human eyes capture roughly 60 frames per second.
@@Elrog3 thanks, edited
Although human eye works between 30-60 fps
@Abhinav even if our eyes can see at 60fps, those frames need to be in sync. If the video is in 90fps there are more chances the frames are in sync, so we see difference
yes , many old physicists use Fortran, C,C++ , and now use Python the most in data anaylsis and programming,but I hate Python😅。 So, physicist should be good in pure mathematic 🎉.....
7:05 "Why are physicists bad in bed" 😂
Answer: Quantum tunneling.
Answer: when they find the position they can't find the momentum (Heisenberg uncertainty principle )
I am not agree with that statement... I think physicist always best in bed... Nobody can give best orgasm to lady better than physicist..
@@prashantbhalkar689 true af !!!
Wtf what is vibration used for?
Love how he pretends he doesn't know that physicists are smart. Nice recovery, but for a second there you could see the wheels turning to answer the question...
If it would be possible to spin liquid mercury to the point it vibrated to 1.6 gigahertz then encapsulated the spinning mass into a layered dome of cross-sectioned tungsten and meta-material, what would happen?
If we can see the universe 13.7 billion years ago with the webb telescope, why cant we see our planet 4.5 billion years ago, is this possible? just asking for a friend.
I think physicists make fun of engineers because engineers study physics, but have a broad, yet shallow, understanding of it. I've also yet to meet an engineer who doesn't chegg every homework question :p
Please don't analyse hindu mythology 🔱 it's get weird but it explain something.
I know nuclear forces are attractive at short range, but repulse as range increases. Could a similar effect happen with gravity?
The "dark matter" arguments are based on stars at the edge of the galaxy not spinning off into the void. The claim is: there must be extra mass in the galaxy, holding planets in place.
But - what if, on large scales, space simply repels mass? That is, the void between galaxies is pushing stars back toward the middle?
I want to be Physicist in research but not Lecturer or Teacher. Is it possible, will I survive? Will they pay for research?
But i genuinely want to know do physicists make money?!?!(being an aspirant myself...)
Do the Wile E. Coyote and Roadrunner universe. Especially the one where he straps a boat engine to himself and a bathtub to move forward. That ought to be fun. Here's the link:
ruclips.net/video/x9V8rrXpxi0/видео.html
Hey- nice vid. A question for you- I'm a student aspiring to apply to Oxbridge but I am torn between physics and medicine and so struggling with my A level options (not helpful when I'm starting this week). Would you recommend doing bio, chem, physics, maths OR chem, physics, maths, further maths? Bio is very helpful but not required for med and I'm guessing it's similar with further maths and physics, so I'm having some difficulties making the choice. Thanks!
@@ParthGChannel Thank you so much for your reply! Unfortunately I don't think that approach would work for me, but the headteacher of my sixth form has said he'd be willing to let me start with all 5- would you advise against this? Thank you again!
Mustellidae berry please don’t do five
Physicists are lazier than the principle of least action.
Might that go back to Einstein-Tesla who is smarter controversy?
Why the moon rotates round the earth instead of falling on it?
Why the astroids fall on the earth
Try doing it for DRAGON BALL Z.
its her choice if she dont want to study physics , we cannot do anything
You are glad you have 8k subscribers while you explain stuff better than channels with millions of them
he didn't answer the question "why are physicists bad in bed??"😂😂😂
happy September to all 🌈😌
well done on 8,000 Parth
Analyse th universe of the film inception
the law of physics in tokyo revengers
Well now, what is Einsteins "stationary" system (from special relativity) stationary to?
Also, what is the light-constant c constant to?
"Stationary" is equal to rest, hm...
@@twopie6911 1) In Einsteins relativity he wrote (postulate 2): "Light moves in the "stationary" system with the determined velocity c".
2) So, light constant c is constant to the "stationary" system!
3) Einstein also wrote: "The quantity c is to be a universal constant - the velocity in empty space".
4) Well now - what is c constant to, the "stationary" system 1) or the empty space 3).
To Maxwell electromagnetism 1) is very good, but is for 3) meaningless - you can't refer a velocity to "empty space". So we accept the "stationary" system for c, and this "stationary" system is contrary to "all perspectives".
hey where did the harry potter physics go? would love to see that.
What is computational physics ( bsc)
Do physicist like art and abstract art ?
0:43. The face of disappointment
Hey bro...i am from Bangladesh....please tall me how can i Learn physics in online????
@@ParthGChannel i'm 3rd year student in our National University
Oi Romzan ali khan hey, if you go to a site called senecalearning you can learn it at Level 2 and 3, then when you’ve finished those use another site :)
Do physicists bath? Some do.
what is a physicist doing on youtube
I love your communication skills... Flawless 🙏🙏🙏
Hi Parth, great videos, always a pleasure to listen in and take the time as the consumer of content that i am, however, i wonder, could you watch 'undone' on amazon prime and analyze the 8 episodes they've just released in your own interpretation as a physicist? :)
what the HECK is a FIZZLER
math > physics > chem > bio ... I wasn't the only physics guy who had this in my mind.
And yeah.....I do mock them when my wife is beside me LOL sry ppl, ur studies are all wonderful studies. But........I just can't..... can't.... LOL
Comment after 9 months!!
Physicists make fun of Engineers because we're smarter than you are.
Engineers make fun of Physicists because we make more money than you do.
Hello,
I’m considering being a physicist. I struggled with physics the first half of high school but got a lot better and I love physics. Would you recommend it?
Do what you love and you'll love what you do!
@@ryanfisher5376 thanks man
Why are physicist wo weird?
Good question, many people think that I'm weird because I learn physics. Well I'm not smart or anything (trust me, I got terrible results in quantum mechanics), I just love it.
I am studying physics and we are often making fun of mathematicians, they are often making fun of physicists. The same goes for biology and chemistry
A wise man once said: pi=e=3
Will a semi/full automatic weapon work properly in zero G?
Properly? No
Miraculous ladybug
how much have you achieved in physics in your life? I agree that physics is interesting, maybe they taught me poorly at school. I am an artist and I like physics but more chemistry (from exact sciences) In your opinion, which science is better, art, physics or chemistry? Why?
Love ur channel
Explain why every physicist in the world seem to think monopoles like electrons, protons, and neutrons, will ever cluster to make a nucleus. They won't, but they wanna hear it anyway!
Can you do a video how to become theoretical physicist without any degree
I'm professional software Engineer without degree I'm really interested in physics so I'm asking
@@Rajesh_Stark I don't think it is possible. You can do it as a hobby.
Physics guy : only physics
engineering guy : physics + engineering
I also physics guy though ...now I regrett 😭
I want to clear this question in my mind. As a Civil Engineering student, Do physicist use calculator?
Physicists are intensely envious of engineers - engineers are in touch with reality whereas physicists are out-to-lunch. Therefore, engineers make more money and have better wives.
This is one of my favourite fizzler youtube channels
Thought for the day:
If the only tool you have is a hammer then every problem looks like a nail.
Now, what were you saying about maths?
My question is how did this one escape the scam boiler room in India?
Now almost 200k
anyone else trying to decide between physic and engineering? Im in y12 (11th grade) and need to decide what I wanna do soon but its so confusing ughhh
your accent dont fit in yoursled
I am an engineer ... I do stuff that physicist cannot do ... But I am using their observations of nature , to impart into my code , say , geopy library , basian models ... Etc. We can say , engineers are the writers , physicists are the grammerly.. funny .... But I think like your videos .
In short, physicists are purer and more fundamental.
If I were a physicist, I’d be interested in studying Europa too. I mean come on, it’s a weird planet with red stripes
To some it up: "What do you consider statistically significant?"
Try Naruto/any other popular anime
Some do
The day in not far when I will give u the equation for everything.
thank you so much parth g, you make me love quantum physics
- 10 % speaking velocity would be better.
Does the mass of energy equal time
Or does field included as the same time
Or not at all big and small ?
Why Physicists make fun of…hahahaha nice one! XD
is the word "theory" in science the same as "belief"?