It is a pity that the audience did not behave as in a Russian seminar-when the speaker is not allowed to say unclear or vague things, but must make it clear. P has a million ideas, but this talk is hard to follow.
@@pandiatonizm , Your comment is partly right, but when you go to molecular level in fluid dynamics then fluid dynamics' rules are not applicable anymore. it is quantum theory, atomic and sub-atomic physics
The reason is that particle physics is described by quantum fields, which have an action function which describes how to 'average' the fields. The fluid is statistical, and you have a probability distribution over velocities which is analogous to the action function over the quantum fields. The analogy isn't perfect, because the statistics of fluids isn't known, and isn't likely to be described by a local action, i.e. the probability distribution for the velocity in a tiny region in turbulence isn't determined by the velocity at neighboring points only, but by the velocity in a much larger region. The analogy is strong enough to produce mathematical relations between the correlation averages of fluids which resemble the correlation functions from quantum field theory that describes particles. The other answers on this comment thread are both glib and wrong. This has nothing to do with the particles that make up the flow.
There is this Boltzman's atomic equation (opposed by religious Mach and explained beautifully by Einstein in his work on brownian motion) and there is this mystical Liuoville equation that Lord Kelvin believed in. Atomic theory of individualism won (exemplified by that quitessential individualist Richard Feynman). Polyakov is mumbling and bungling between the two, trying to walk on two legs. What else one can do? Even Feynman's lecture on Fluid Mechanics was immature. He called Euler flows dry water! Polyakov isn't that stupid, but he speaks English in Russian and QED.
Omg. Is everyone serious about his accent? 90% of folks in the tech world speak with a heavy accent! Take a look at yours! Keep looking at the formulas on his board
don't blame on the lecturer, blame it on the proper lack of schooling before you attend or listen to a lecture, I didn't have a problem to follow his lecture
The professor of Princeton could have worked on improving his English...and making his talk in a more confident voice...not using....ummm, ahhh, ehhhh, errrrrhhh...NO EXCUSE! NO MATTER HOW FAMOUS HE IS. THERE ARE CERTAIN LITERACY STANDARDS.
You'd be better off listening to every word he says and trying your best to understand it. This is one of the greatest giants of science who are still alive today.
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
are people joking about his accent this makes perfect sense..?
It is a pity that the audience did not behave as in a Russian seminar-when the speaker is not allowed to say unclear or vague things, but must make it clear. P has a million ideas, but this talk is hard to follow.
How is it that a continuum theory such as fluid flow can be analogous to particle physics? Even in a statistical sense!
Easy, because every flow is made out of particles who make the flow
@@pandiatonizm , Your comment is partly right, but when you go to molecular level in fluid dynamics then fluid dynamics' rules are not applicable anymore. it is quantum theory, atomic and sub-atomic physics
The reason is that particle physics is described by quantum fields, which have an action function which describes how to 'average' the fields. The fluid is statistical, and you have a probability distribution over velocities which is analogous to the action function over the quantum fields. The analogy isn't perfect, because the statistics of fluids isn't known, and isn't likely to be described by a local action, i.e. the probability distribution for the velocity in a tiny region in turbulence isn't determined by the velocity at neighboring points only, but by the velocity in a much larger region. The analogy is strong enough to produce mathematical relations between the correlation averages of fluids which resemble the correlation functions from quantum field theory that describes particles. The other answers on this comment thread are both glib and wrong. This has nothing to do with the particles that make up the flow.
@@annaclarafenyo8185 appreciate your elaborate answer.
There is this Boltzman's atomic equation (opposed by religious Mach and explained beautifully by Einstein in his work on brownian motion) and there is this mystical Liuoville equation that Lord Kelvin believed in. Atomic theory of individualism won (exemplified by that quitessential individualist Richard Feynman). Polyakov is mumbling and bungling between the two, trying to walk on two legs. What else one can do? Even Feynman's lecture on Fluid Mechanics was immature. He called Euler flows dry water! Polyakov isn't that stupid, but he speaks English in Russian and QED.
Omg. Is everyone serious about his accent? 90% of folks in the tech world speak with a heavy accent! Take a look at yours! Keep looking at the formulas on his board
People: (complaining about accent)
Me: (watches in 2x speed)
it is impossible to listen to
incomprehensible, between his accent and the way this man is talking it's just a pain to watch.
don't blame on the lecturer, blame it on the proper lack of schooling before you attend or listen to a lecture, I didn't have a problem to follow his lecture
Waste of time... Mumbling and bleating... He does not have general idea of his lecture...
Unfortunately incoherent…
The professor of Princeton could have worked on improving his English...and making his talk in a more confident voice...not using....ummm, ahhh, ehhhh, errrrrhhh...NO EXCUSE! NO MATTER HOW FAMOUS HE IS. THERE ARE CERTAIN LITERACY STANDARDS.
You'd be better off listening to every word he says and trying your best to understand it. This is one of the greatest giants of science who are still alive today.
@@annaclarafenyo8185 yes better off.... there are no giants. No idols...better off.