@@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.
@@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
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!
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.
@Science Revolution Your prediction is so much non sense that “cheating” is a reason to be sued, regardless of all the great mathematicians and physicists that put on the work there
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.
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.
@@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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
@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
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.
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).
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?
@@Rahul016-d6k 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).
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.
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 RUclips it goes.
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
@@Squidlark 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.
@@Squidlark 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
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. 🤔
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@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.
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.
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.
@@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.
Bethe and many other top physicists had the greatest respect for F. Bethe said he was like Fermi. You understood the results, but could never have produced them. Like the F. Diagrams. He was also a great explainer without dumbing down the subject.
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
Maybe i didnt understood correctly, but author of this video looks like he doesnt understand anything in physics and making his assumptions. Flawed things in physics doesn't stay for long. However QED proved its reliability many times and its widely used. By calling QED flawed you look like flatearther
@@TheMachian try to read other papers, which shows how qed is applicable. I can see how things that were derived from it used in every day life. And if you try to sound like physicist don't say "flawed" say "have boundaries".
@Ozymandias There are really some terms in the equations you have to kick out to get a finize result, but (at least in my mind) this doesn't mean the theory is a piece of crap. It just means that we've got some of it right (after all, when we remove those unwanted terms, we actually get the correct results), but something in that theory needs to be corrected so that these infinite terms don't appear in the results.
@@TheMachian Hyped?. What a ridiculous concept is that?. By whom? ,aficionados?. What an absolutely nonsensical video, trying to create the tabloid-critique-style field,. Zero intellectual value. If you have nothing intelligent to say, don't expect anything but contempt (real, and physics are the furthest from what you are doing)
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 ?
@@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.
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.
I just read Consa's paper as you recommended and I disagree with you. QED is not irredeemably flawed because it relies on using finite values where infinities would otherwise appear. In a mathematically legitimate sense, the sum of the natural numbers is -1/12. Without reference to any physics-data-fitting, that value falls out from analytic continuation and the Riemann Zeta function. If that independently determined value gets used in QED to yield very precise predictions, isn't that just more evidence that the -1/12 value is legitimately useful? Also, I'm skeptical that the experimental validation of QED is just completely fraudulent outside of this issue. If it's all a sham like you say, why hasn't there been published papers which falsify QED? Clearly that would accelerate some careers.
Yup, divergent asymptotic series are fruitfully used in physics and engineering all the time. Physics is not mathematics after all. And you're right, any _real_ physicist who could legitimately demonstrate that "QED is nonsense" would become famous.
You have to be careful. As with Mathologer's video, the sum of the natural numbers is not -1/12. It is from an entirely different definition of a sum. And so me must question wether this machinery is truly useful to represent nature. If anything, wrong models are also able to give useful predictions.
@@Ottmar555 I agree it involves a redefinition. To that I would say, the redefinition gives precisely one value and that value happens to give QED very precise predictions. Either that is an absolutely extraordinary coincidence or there is indeed legitimacy to this new definition. Doesn't the latter seem more plausible?
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. ruclips.net/video/Y5kLMVgv0Xg/видео.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.
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
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.
@@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
@@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.
This video just made me sad. The son of a world class chess player studied physics, law, and neuroscience ended up teaching in a secondary school. I can understand his pain that he never achieved anything a middle grade student couldn't. This adult man try to belittle the greatest scientists, and thinks just because has an ironed shirt, and calm voice nobody will recognize the the lost child, who can't accept the fact that he will never reach the level of achievement his father ever did, and has to feel himself a failure. I am also sad about the commenters, who think this hollow man some kind of scientist. A quick look on his resume shows the lack of any meaningful achievement. Every second clown has a phd. The title is so inflated that it is just a this-guy-is-not-totally-analphabet id. I feel real sorry for his students. This character of unrecognized nobody is the worst teacher. As he quoted, Feynman was capable to realize his limits even after a milestone discovery. Somebody in the teachers room just can't.
FTR During the Challenger hearings Feynman was quietly handed the ORing data by then Maj Gen Kutyna. He didn’t want to get in trouble. He still wanted a promotion in the Air Force. Kutyna was handed the data from Sally Ride. She didn’t want to burn her sources in NASA by personally revealing the data on temperature dependence of the ORing elasticity. Feynman was the perfect “whistleblower”. And he was quite effective in his demo.
Yes, and Kutyna described this himself, on camera, while standing in his garage, in one of Sykes' excellent documentaries, perhaps the one released with the title "Last Adventure of a Genius." I don't think he revealed Sally Ride by name, but the point is this fact not a secret (in retrospect). And in that same documentary, Feynman has a good laugh at himself, on camera, about how in retrospect he realized he was being steered in the right direction while thinking at the time he was discovering stuff himself. He was absolutely transparent, humble, and self-deprecating about the whole o-ring thing.
Friendly advice, If you don't even understand renormalization group and and its profound implications, maybe theoretical physics is not really for you.
Friendly response, as long as you prefer parroting things without even having reflected on the fundamentals of physics, this comment section is not for you.
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.
I think you can dislike him, or at least dislike the cult that has built up around him where some people hang onto his every utterance about a subject as though it were the last word on that subject. I saw a program about Feynman on TV some years ago when I was at college and studying applied psychology. In that program, Feynman made a dismissive remark about social science in which he said that his years as a physicist had taught him how hard it was to know something and that social science didn't reach that same level of rigour. My tutor, when I told him of this, said; "Yes, that's why we have confidence limits (0.05%, 0.01% etc.) in psychology". He was right.
Couldn’t agree with you more Sir . If People like Brian Green or Alan Guth etc evaluated Richard Feynman as a overhyped physicist , I would agree . Because they are true scientists backed up by recognized achievements . When it comes to this dude , who is he ? Does any one know him ?
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
Unzicker should better learn how Quantum Field Theory works, and what renormalization means, e.g. from the book by Peskin and Schroeder, instead of making inappropriate comments.
Unzicker wouldn't be able to understand such a book, as his physics education ended at the undergraduate level. Probably couldn't even understand how to do the basic non-relativistic Lamb shift calculation, let alone how to quantize the Dirac field. But I'm sure he'd be happy to point at that stuff and claim it's overrated.
Due to negligence, inability to translate or even deliberately, you are spreading false information about my CV. Please edit your comments, otherwise I reserve the right to take legal action.
@@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 happily correct it.
His humor is the last thing to like about him. He takes too much pleasure in talking about people who are dumber than him. There's a predatory look in his eyes that's always looking for weaknesses to exploit or share "hilarious" anecdotes about. Such predatory and confident people shouldn't be indulged with laughter when they make so-called jokes.
Clickbait misses the point - Feynman isn't important because of his Physics contributions. A thousand others have lived and died like him in that regard since.
Of course you're right. He is just the tip of the iceberg. The main problem with quantum mechanics is, that it's not actually physics. It's a merge of math, linguistically distortion and less logic.
@@musopaul5407 Is the Nobel prize really that important? Dave's point is spot on! The genius of Feynman come from him being a great teacher, observer and scientist. I know a scientist and a mathematician (important people in their fields here) who think art is useless. Feynman, when dealing with the question, decided to learn more about art and even practiced it. He was a great teacher - by request of the State Dept., spent one or two years in Brazil teaching. He liked to play percussion with the Mangueira Samba School and wrote about the problems or our educational system (how bad it was) - and with that, revolutionized how science and engineering are taught here. I'm not a physicist - I studied electric engineering and that was enough for me to know how complicated modern physics is - so I can't say much about his work as a physicist. I know one thing: if a "thousand have lived and died like him in that regard since" is largely due to Feynman's example of how to be a good teacher - example teachers carry in their hearts to this day and all over the world. Oh ... he also proposed quantum computing and helped create massive parallel computers. Gamers of the world, unite and hail the great Richard Feynman for nVidia would not exist without him! (no an entirely correct statement since someone was bound to do what he did - and he only did it because his son was a partner at Thinking Machines and Computer Programmers are not known for being good with Calculus and Differential Equations)
I find it hard to buy a lecture on feynman being illegitimate which at least half consists of his own takes on his own theories limitations and questions. ...and communicated extremely well! Which is exaclty what a great physicist would behave like, as well as a great communicator which he was.
Just a question here. Why are you calling yourself a theoretical physicists? Do you have a Ph.D. in physics? Have you published physics articles in any known journal?
No he has not. He is in fact a fraud. He has a only a bachelor's in physics (and a PhD in "neuroscience"), and is not and never has been an actual physicist.
@@kdub1242 Yea I knew, I did a bit of research on him before posting that, so it was more of a rethorical question. I have a PhD in math and I don't even call myself a mathematician anymore since my job is in AI. Shame on him.
@@francoislaniel868 Yep, same here. My PhD is in physics, but then I washed out and went into engineering. I certainly don't consider myself to be a physicist, but Unzie is pretending to be one and mostly getting away with it.
@K Dub Due to negligence, inability to translate or even deliberately, you are spreading false information about my CV. Please edit your comments, otherwise I reserve the right to take legal action.
@@TheMachian So please inform us, what are your credentials as a theoritical physicist than? Don't get me wrong here, I encourage everybody who's curious about science to read about it and kudos to you for doing so. You don't have to have a PhD to read books and make your own "research". However, I have a problem when somebody claims to be a "theoritical physicist" without the credential to support it. Could somebody who read about law claim to be a lawyer? No, he would have to do the bachelor degree and pass the bar exam. Since there's no physicist order, you can legaly claim what you want without facing consequences, but it doesn't mean that you should. Hence, if you indeed have not done a PhD in theoritical physic, please remove your theoritical physicist claim in your bio, because it would be missleading and straight up false. Would somebody write that in an attempt to gain credibility towards people who don't question the claim and only focus on the doctor title next to the name? Most probably.
As a retired professor, I am jealously aware of the genius of the world's best-educated bongo player. I remember a movie starring Rock Hudson and Doris Day that mirrowed his personna. His use of metaphors to simplify complex matters earned him a Nobel Prize when he created a system for illustrating nuclear decay.
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 If you're so smart please make a video explaining his PhD thesis on Principle of Least Action using simple language that anyone can understand. I'm not being sarcastic.
@@liquidbraino anyone takes highway to reach faster its target instead of following the shortest path. Or take the shortest path, or simply small roads if the goal is to enjoy the beauty, calm and charm of country side. So what is being minimized in different situation depends on the goal, and is called the « Action ». It can be the time, or the « length » (euclidian or else), the energy, the charm, etc. All GPS provides at least a few choice for such « Action ». Such principle is known implicitely since…ever…by « cave mans », but was gradually enrich of new examples, and mathematically formulated since the XVIII th century, by Maupertuis, Euler, Lagrange, etc. Rational Mechanics that is based on, was widely taught in 1800. It was used by Poincaré in 1895 to build The theory of Relativity and establish the famous E=mc^2. By Planck in 1900. By Grossman in 1912 and Hilbert in 1915 to built GR of gravitation. Feynman didn’t invented it at all.
As I understand it, QED is used in solid state physics, among other things to build the computer I'm watching this on. Since the computer works, that would seem to indicate that QED is a decent approximation.
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.
Feynman is better known for his diagrams (Feynman Diagrams). However, these diagrams represent an ingenious way of describing a calculation: they do NOT describe the physics underlying the process. Quantum Electrodynamics describes the repulsion between the electrons in terms of the exchange of an infinite number of ‘virtual photons’. A Feynman diagram summarises the way the exchange of a single ‘virtual photon’. However, bear in mind that in all those seminal early papers of Quantum Mechanics (1920's) there was NO mention of exchange particles. Such as the photons that are said to mediate the linear and rotational electromagnetic forces between the electron and the proton in the hydrogen atom. Or the rotational electromagnetic force that makes an electron go round and round in circles in a uniform magnetic field. Or makes the moving electron take a curved path near the current in the wire, but does not affect the stationary electron, The exchange-particle idea began to work its way into Quantum Electrodynamics from the mid-to-late 1930s. And that Heisenberg’s importation of exchange forces into nuclear physics depended essentially on a model of the neutron that was later RETRACTED. The idea now taken as definitional of the concept of force for quantum field theory, the all-important idea of particle exchange was not in fact there from the start, but rather worked its way in from somewhere outside.
@@TheMachian Thank you. The main problem with mainstream physics is that it assumes an empty, inert space, since the abolition of the all-pervading aether in 1905 “it is superfluous.” This is the reason of the major shortcomings of general relativity and the standard model. In fact, there is a list of the biggest unsolved mysteries in physics. On the other hand, fringe physicists contend that all forces must be transmitted point-to-point through the vacuum of space through the zero-point field (ZPF) a sort of aether. It is the energetic vacuum fluctuations that inhabit all of space. ZPF is the only thing that is found everywhere in space, the only thing that could be the medium for all force transmission. No need to invent the exchange particle gimmick. What is real is the ZPF. It is known from the existence of the Casimir effect that quantum fluctuations behave like quantum dipoles that are capable of interacting through van der Waals forces. These forces between quantum fluctuations also cause bodies of matter to move such as in the case of the original two-plate Casimir effect. ZPF vacuum energy fluctuations work to create fundamental forces and gravity, without the mess and shortcomings of the standard model. A little known branch of physics, Stochastic Electrodynamics (SED) is working on it.
If you sum graphic arts, bongos, lockpicking and physics, Feynman is clearly the GOAT. He could outdraw Einstein, outdrum Bohr, outpick Heisenberg and outphysic virtually all of us, that makes him the greatest ever!
In every trade, you need people that are great at different disciplines within said trade. Feynman could visualize things that others could not understand. He could describe said visualizations to the likes of Freeman Dyson, who could then make sense of it mathematically. To put it in overly simplistic terms: The coach of a team dreams up a play that he thinks will work because of his imagination and past experiences. He knows the star players that would best execute it, explains his theory, and lets them run with it - all the while having moved on to the next 10 plays in his head. However, the coach doesn't ever touch the ball. A perfect example is Dyson's: The Radiation Theories of Tomonaga, Schwinger and Feynman. He realized that they all came up with completely different ways of solving the same problem. None had any detectable correlation with another's theory, but Dyson figured it out. To call Feynman 'bogus' is nothing more than a form of projection from one that likely has no imagination and should stay away from the teaching and/or theoretical end of the trade.
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.
Unfortunately, it was actually Bohr and Heisenberg who killed philosophy in Physics, not Feynman. They actually dragged the preexisting, nearly 100-years old "end of philosophy" concept to Physics. They were the "original revolutionaries" and did it, because they had to severe connections to classical thinking and some classical concepts to make their new quantum theory possible.
This same person claimed in another video that Minkowski harmed physics by inventing spacetime. Without Minkowski, there would not have been possible for Einstein and Hilbert to develop General Relativity, and it would not have been possible for Dirac to develop the relativistic equation of the electron. So I would not take his view about Feynman seriously.
If you listen carefully, that is not the point. Everyone can make mistakes, and Einstein was eager to admit his own. The problem is that QED, on which Feynman's glory is based, turns out to be a mass self-deception of physicists.
@@TheMachian ..and what's your glory based on? You're basically spreading misconceptions and harsh critiques against theories and theorists, except you lack the credibility and authority in the field to even start talking about Physics, let alone people like Feynman.
@@TheMachian Feynman made up models which allowed people to do work in high energy physics such as QED and Feynman diagrams he never claimed them to be a solid theoretical construct just a tool to allow further research.
@@vincenzo7597 What does authority have to do with science? Absolutely nothing, which is the entire problem with the pseudoscientific methodologies of "modern science."
Unzicker isn't making sense. QED makes it possible to predict things that we couldn't predict otherwise _and_ _the_ _predictions_ _bear_ _out!_ It even makes fundamental predictions that bear out! Just because we can't yet make sense out of every ingredient of our recipes doesn't mean we should starve. We can't understand how we go from quantum states to measurements either, but if we treat THAT hole the way Unzicker treats renormalization, we wouldn't have any quantum physics either.
I was somewhat unprepared for my forthcoming PhD oral candidacy exams as I hadn't had a great start as an undergraduate. So I took the summer off the read the Feynman Lectures prior to the interviews. One of my inquisitors was Felix Bloch (famous Nobel Laureate). I passed easily.
@@TheMachian Actually in the "web of stories" interviews with Murray Gell-Mann he says that Feynman did himself say that he regretted not having contributed anything to fundamental physics. Gell-Mann said that he told Feynman that his path-integral idea may yet be shown to be a contribution to fundamental physics. (This does not refer to Feynman's propagator theory or diagrams; rather those were inspired by his path-integral idea which is difficult to implement.)
"Shut up and calculate" ... Feynman gave up on creating a coherent theory. He was willing to accept (for the time being) an algorithm that could predict / reproduce experimental results. This is an engineer's empirical method - It might not be a good theory, but if it makes good-enough predictions, it is better than nothing and better than a theory which makes none.
I disagree. The big merit of Consa's paper is to have shown that these "predictions" were rather post-dictions, often tinkered. Besides that, there is a philosophical issue here how to approach physics: either you aim for true understanding (which goes along with real results, such as Maxwell/Weber's eps0 mu0= 1/c2) or you are content yourself with muddying the waters with newparameters, geocentric-astronomy style.
@@TheMachian this is NUTS. Ok a few early calculation by hand weren't to enough precision to be meaningful and people stopped adding terms when they got the answer they were expecting - did I guess right? I couldn't stand to watch you drip contempt while missing the bigger picture so I made an educated guess. Let me throw some of the obvious bigger picture at you. No one is calculating a small number of terms by hand anymore. In 2021, a $10 toy computer has exactly the computing power of a Cray 1 from 1978. Hell, the graphics card in my game computer has the computing power of what was IBM's new supercomputer at Laurence Livermore Lab in 2000 - that took up a gymnasium sized room to do nuclear calculations. They're not calculating a few diagrams and stopping when they get tired. We've come a _long_ _way._ And if there were mistakes 75 years ago, there have been trillions of calculations since then, and they weren't failures!
@@TheMachian Oh we're down the the international scientist conspiracy where every scientist, every professor, every student, every researcher, every software developer is lying except you? Get help!
@@TheMachian I don't know if Feynman himself would disagree with Consa here. See his talk "Knowing versus Understanding" where he argues against or at least satirizes "geocentric-astronomy."
I don't see any merit in Unzicker's personalizations of physics. They don't tell us anything we do not already know, and they serve only to deny merit that is deserved by outstanding physicists of the past. The Germany of the NAZI period, well before both Unzicker and Feynman, was infamously contemptuous of "Jewish physics". Richard Feynman was of Jewish descent. Unzicker's remarks may be a demonstration that the NAZI era has passed and that Germans are now free again arbitrarily to diminish the role of a physicist of Jewish descent. Another physicist with a frequent presence on youtube is also a frequent critic of contemporary physics, but she does not personalize her criticisms as does Unzicker.
I 100% agree with this unpopular take; and solely because of the fact that "[Feynman] tried to strip physics from its philosophical roots". There is such an arrogant attitude towards empiricism amongst contemporary physicists, and although this mentality is great for further developing theories, and incredible for engineering systems, it is not the mentality of scientific revolution. It is at the point where students and faculty in Universities are mocked if they agree with the Scientific Philosophy of Einstein or Dirac or Maxwell (This Feynman view of science is actually very new). Of course Prof. Feynman was a mind orders upon orders of magnitude greater than mine; and his contributions to science and mankind are almost immeasurable; but I do think his philosophy and approach to science has had a profoundly negative impact on Physicists and Physics Faculties everywhere.
It is absurd to criticise pioneer work this way. It is like saying that Newton and Euler were overhyped because they used infinitesimals instead of topological spaces.
Quote from Feynnman: People say to me, “Are you looking for the ultimate laws of physics?” No I am not. I am just looking to find out more about the world. And if it turns out there is a simple ultimate law that explains everything so be it. That would be very nice discovery. If it turns out it’s like an onion with millions of layers and we just sick and tired of looking at the layers then that’s the way it is! But whatever way it comes out it’s nature, it’s there, and she’s going to come out the way she is. And therefore when we go to investigate we shouldn’t pre-decide what it is we are trying to do except to find out more about it. If you said…but..the problem is why we do you find out more about it, if you thought that you are trying to find out more about it because you are going to get an answer to some deep philosophical question you may be wrong and may be that you can’t get an answer to that particular question by finding out more about the character of the nature.
There is now a huge body of work in mathematics regarding the so called ,,regularity structures'' which is a tool for making sense of apparently ill-defined equations involving multiplying distributions. This is the same kind of problem one is dealing in QFT: and guess what-the methods used in this theory looks very much the same as renormalization. This whole theory is mainly due to Martin Hairer. There is also a tremendous rich algebraic structure hidden within renormalization. Dirk Kreimer was the first to notice the hidden Hopf algebra structure behind renormalization (the Hopf algebra of Feynman graphs). After him Alain Connes and Matilde Marcolli went further and discovered some sort of universal universal Hopf algebra appearing beneath the process of renormalization. Finally, there is huge body of work regarding the so called constructive quantum field theory: up to this day, no one succeed in constructing rigorously nontrivial QFT in 4D but there are some partial results in lower dimensions. What is interesting, that there are results about triviality of some models (which very apparently expected to be nontrivial) in 4D, see e.g. Hudo Duminil Copin's work. Renormalization is a monster and we are just starting to understand it. It's foolish to dismiss something from the start just because at the beginning it is not well defined mathematically. It works so perfectly fine that there must be something in it and we are just making first steps in understanding this. As somebody mentioned in the comments, ordinary calculus vas very vague at the beginning. What is maybe less known: that the formulation of calculus using infinitesimals CAN be made rigorous but it had to wait until 1960 for the birth of the so called nonstandard analysis (due to Abraham Robinson)
It's not Einstein's E=mc2, it belongs to an Italian called Olinto De Pretto as he published it three years prior to Einstein and a friend of the De Pretto family also was a friend and work colleague of Einstein when he worked in the patent office. Einstein even thanked this friend in his publications but never said what he contributed. I would say this guy steered Einstein towards De Pretto's publication of E=mc2
Feynman took most of the ideas named for him from existing work, and improved them for application to (statistical) quantum field theory. He was a great teacher and I recommend his many books. It is tough to be pedagogical in physics but he did a fine job. As for over-hyped physicists, imho he wasn’t one of them. There are presently alive quite a few though, in particle physics, string theory, relativity, astrophysics, cosmology. Plenty of what is considered “settled science” in these areas is far from it, black hole physics being a prime example. Feynman supposedly had “Unruh radiation” written on his blackboard when he died, I wish he had taken a look at that and weighed in as has been the case with several Russian theorists that have established its non-existence.
@@TheMachian I just gave a reasoned assessment in the comments above. Physicists make mistakes and just because historically (1950,1957) there were discrepancies between hand calculations of the second order contributions doesn’t make QED a “scandal” or “rotten”. You’d be better off questioning more egregious speculations that have become more or less accepted and settled physics, I mentioned a few in my first comment. Those have attracted way more money and power in the community at the expense of far better and correct concepts/theories, which may not sell as many books or movie screenplays, and are actually HARD physics problems (requiring physics that has been essentially ignored or thrown out since those involved can’t do that level of dynamical modeling based on correct ideas).
Needless to say, I agree with you in criticising strings, particle physics, astrophysics, cosmology. Also in those fields, however, it is worthwhile to closely look at the history, which, in my opinion, tells a lot about the soundness of teh concepts.
@@timeformegaman well that isn't a very good argument in general. New ideas are being created and tested daily, most competent physicists today with a BS will know more than Wilhelm Röntgen, the first Nobel Physics prize winner
I think Feynman wasn't the kind of guy who used to invent new physics . But he was the kind of guy who used to think about old discovered physics and understand them in a new way , often very interesting and in a more fundamental way ! So I disagree with your last remark on Feynman that he did not think about fundamental physics . Although he used shortcuts , but he did think in fundamental ways !
Maybe in a year Mr. Unzicker will say that Einstein and Dirac are also overhyped. And this from a german high-school teacher 😂😂😂😂. Most ridiculous thing I've ever seen. But I admire the level of self-assurance. 🙈
If you happen to know Weierstrass or Balmer, there is nothing wrong with being a teacher. In case you consider yourself a professional scientist, you will surely enjoy this : ruclips.net/video/_NZiCRqhFIg/видео.html
Einstein and Dirac are overhyped! As is Feynman... They are all wrong at whatever they thought they were right about, and they have to be, how else are we going to know what's right if we don't really know what's wrong!
@TheMachian: Feynman became famous not for his work on QED. He became famous because of DOING physics (and not just talking about it (talk the talk but not walk the walk)). Many colleagues and students turned to him to get help with very difficult and long calculations (mainly calculus). No one else was able to do this on paper like him.
I'm not sure about his premise. I'm an engineer by education, but read a couple books about Feynman. He is definitely a national treasure. The story about him going to Los Alamos with his young bride ill with TB left in a sanitorium where he would visit and her death was a touching story. The USA was lucky to have had Feynman on that space shuttle disaster committee. He probably listened to the engineers in the report and his genius was presenting the issue with a demonstration of placing one of those rings in ice water and demonstrating what happened that fateful morning. If it is any physicist that is a manufactured fraud, that would be Einstein. Much of his alleged work is derived from earlier ideas published by those less well known before him.
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.
@@u.v.s.5583 His contribution to the Manhattan Project involved chatting with 'monster minds' as he called them. To say he made anything significant towards the development of the atomic bomb is nonsense.
I mean to paraphrase feynman, its all well and good to say that some theory might be wrong - anyone can do that. But what do you substitute the theory with? That is the important question. Once you try to replace a theory that you think may be wrong with something else, you will realise that it is no easy task, and with all the acknowledged flaws in the accepted theory, this is the best we've got right now, until something better is found
"Debunking" QED because of conceptual issues with renormalization is overhyped. I think everyone agrees renormalization is far from pretty and tidy. Just like everyone agrees that perturbation theory in QED becomes problematical at high orders. I have never encountered anyone who has actually been working in QFT who would deny this, or who would think these are problems that "debunk" a theory. The consensus has really always been that these renormalization & high-order perturbation theory issues are just a reflection of the fact that at the smallest scales quantum field theory simply breaks down as a proper description of nature. But dumping on QED because of that would be like suggesting architects and civil engineers shouldn't be using Newtonian physics because we know it breaks down on atomic scales🙄 All theories in physics have a domain of validity and typically at some point they get "replaced" with a better theory at the fringes. No artillery unit would use quantum mechanics or relativistic classical mechanics to figure out where their shells are landing ... Newtonian mechanics is just fine there. And while the limit from special relativistic mechanics to Newtonian mechanics is straightforward and well-understood, the limit from non-relativistic quantum mechanics to Newtonian physics is much more involved and still partly obscure. The notion of "theory replacement" is a very narrow and idealized view of the scientific process that is very detached from the reality of Science. Theories don't get replaced (with very few exceptions) but rather 'new' theories that extend our human thinking into hitherto indescribable domains are constructed to provide a more or less satisfying "bridge" of those new domains to the previously held theoretical beliefs. Newton's mechanics wasn't "debunked" but it was shown to display different degrees of inaccuracy in describing different domains of nature, such as the very small, the very fast, or the very large. Of course QED will, in due time, suffer the same fate. It too will not be "debunked" but in the matters where it seems inaccurate it will be augmented by something more accurate. Science doesn't aim for "truth" ... it aims for *accuracy*.
A great video. Feynman was a really good and committed teacher. Unlike all of the other snotty professors of physics, he volunteered to teach undergrads.
@@xxxYYZxxx That is a mean-spirited comment. Over 90% of his classes were men. The primary reason he stated for wishing to teach undergrad physics was so that he could inspire more students into the field. He was a very good teacher, and i know at least one person who loved his classes and it was the highlight of his undergrad time at CalTech, which is a very small and fun school
May be, may be not. In any case, my envy would be much stronger for Einstein, Bohr, Dirac, Schrödinger, Heisenberg, Pauli, Mach ... who have really advanced physics. :-)
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
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.
Anyone with an undergraduate degree in physics can tell right away this guy is a clueless assclown.
Feynman was my introduction to enthuastic physics as a kid.
He was accessible, fun and nonpretentious.
@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 ?
@Science Revolution Your prediction is so much non sense that “cheating” is a reason to be sued, regardless of all the great mathematicians and physicists that put on the work there
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.
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
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.
The quote you use from him regarding quarks was him quoting soneone else. The Photo electric effect is nonsense?
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
@@Rahul016-d6k 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).
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.
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 RUclips it goes.
Yep Kenneth Wilson made renormalization mathematical rigerous.
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.
@@Squidlark 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.
@@Squidlark 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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Bethe and many other top physicists had the greatest respect for F. Bethe said he was like Fermi. You understood the results, but could never have produced them. Like the F. Diagrams. He was also a great explainer without dumbing down the subject.
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
My theory is: this video is clickbait.
My theory is: Much of this channel is clickbait.
My theory: you’re incapable of critical reasoning, and are wildly insecure in the presence of actual intelligence, and hence must resort to parroting
Maybe i didnt understood correctly, but author of this video looks like he doesnt understand anything in physics and making his assumptions. Flawed things in physics doesn't stay for long. However QED proved its reliability many times and its widely used.
By calling QED flawed you look like flatearther
"looks", "looks"... try to read (Consa's papers), not only to look.
@@TheMachian try to read other papers, which shows how qed is applicable. I can see how things that were derived from it used in every day life. And if you try to sound like physicist don't say "flawed" say "have boundaries".
@Ozymandias
There are really some terms in the equations you have to kick out to get a finize result, but (at least in my mind) this doesn't mean the theory is a piece of crap. It just means that we've got some of it right (after all, when we remove those unwanted terms, we actually get the correct results), but something in that theory needs to be corrected so that these infinite terms don't appear in the results.
@@TheMachian "consa's papers" "consa's papers!"
I hope you don't spend your life doing this. Hopefully you do what you're supposed to be doing
@@TheMachian Hyped?. What a ridiculous concept is that?. By whom? ,aficionados?. What an absolutely nonsensical video, trying to create the tabloid-critique-style field,. Zero intellectual value.
If you have nothing intelligent to say, don't expect anything but contempt (real, and physics are the furthest from what you are doing)
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.
Feynman was the best kind of scientist. He started from a place of curiosity.
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.
I just read Consa's paper as you recommended and I disagree with you. QED is not irredeemably flawed because it relies on using finite values where infinities would otherwise appear. In a mathematically legitimate sense, the sum of the natural numbers is -1/12. Without reference to any physics-data-fitting, that value falls out from analytic continuation and the Riemann Zeta function. If that independently determined value gets used in QED to yield very precise predictions, isn't that just more evidence that the -1/12 value is legitimately useful? Also, I'm skeptical that the experimental validation of QED is just completely fraudulent outside of this issue. If it's all a sham like you say, why hasn't there been published papers which falsify QED? Clearly that would accelerate some careers.
Yup, divergent asymptotic series are fruitfully used in physics and engineering all the time. Physics is not mathematics after all. And you're right, any _real_ physicist who could legitimately demonstrate that "QED is nonsense" would become famous.
You have to be careful. As with Mathologer's video, the sum of the natural numbers is not -1/12. It is from an entirely different definition of a sum. And so me must question wether this machinery is truly useful to represent nature. If anything, wrong models are also able to give useful predictions.
@@Ottmar555 I agree it involves a redefinition. To that I would say, the redefinition gives precisely one value and that value happens to give QED very precise predictions. Either that is an absolutely extraordinary coincidence or there is indeed legitimacy to this new definition. Doesn't the latter seem more plausible?
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.
ruclips.net/video/Y5kLMVgv0Xg/видео.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.
Why is Michio Kaku not on your list of overhyped physicists?
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.
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.
This video just made me sad. The son of a world class chess player studied physics, law, and neuroscience ended up teaching in a secondary school. I can understand his pain that he never achieved anything a middle grade student couldn't. This adult man try to belittle the greatest scientists, and thinks just because has an ironed shirt, and calm voice nobody will recognize the the lost child, who can't accept the fact that he will never reach the level of achievement his father ever did, and has to feel himself a failure. I am also sad about the commenters, who think this hollow man some kind of scientist. A quick look on his resume shows the lack of any meaningful achievement. Every second clown has a phd. The title is so inflated that it is just a this-guy-is-not-totally-analphabet id. I feel real sorry for his students. This character of unrecognized nobody is the worst teacher. As he quoted, Feynman was capable to realize his limits even after a milestone discovery. Somebody in the teachers room just can't.
You took a lot of effort to discredit me based on my surname. Probably for good reason, you prefer to go unnamed.
So...
Your argument against him is...
*AMG, HE IS JUST SO SUPPER JEALOUS OF HIM!?*
You are pathetic.
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.
FTR During the Challenger hearings Feynman was quietly handed the ORing data by then Maj Gen Kutyna. He didn’t want to get in trouble. He still wanted a promotion in the Air Force. Kutyna was handed the data from Sally Ride. She didn’t want to burn her sources in NASA by personally revealing the data on temperature dependence of the ORing elasticity.
Feynman was the perfect “whistleblower”. And he was quite effective in his demo.
Thanks for sharing this interesting information.
Yes, and Kutyna described this himself, on camera, while standing in his garage, in one of Sykes' excellent documentaries, perhaps the one released with the title "Last Adventure of a Genius." I don't think he revealed Sally Ride by name, but the point is this fact not a secret (in retrospect). And in that same documentary, Feynman has a good laugh at himself, on camera, about how in retrospect he realized he was being steered in the right direction while thinking at the time he was discovering stuff himself. He was absolutely transparent, humble, and self-deprecating about the whole o-ring thing.
Friendly advice, If you don't even understand renormalization group and and its profound implications, maybe theoretical physics is not really for you.
Friendly response, as long as you prefer parroting things without even having reflected on the fundamentals of physics, this comment section is not for you.
Theoretical physics is definitely for Dr Unzicker.
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.
I think you can dislike him, or at least dislike the cult that has built up around him where some people hang onto his every utterance about a subject as though it were the last word on that subject.
I saw a program about Feynman on TV some years ago when I was at college and studying applied psychology. In that program, Feynman made a dismissive remark about social science in which he said that his years as a physicist had taught him how hard it was to know something and that social science didn't reach that same level of rigour. My tutor, when I told him of this, said; "Yes, that's why we have confidence limits (0.05%, 0.01% etc.) in psychology". He was right.
This guy is aiming to be the most overhyped junk scientist on RUclips.
Couldn’t agree with you more Sir . If People like Brian Green or Alan Guth etc evaluated Richard Feynman as a overhyped physicist , I would agree . Because they are true scientists backed up by recognized achievements . When it comes to this dude , who is he ? Does any one know him ?
You should definitely ‘avoid’ Oliver Consa’s papers, it might shatter your fantasy world.
Shortly before Feynman's death, he exposed NASA's blunder and liability that caused the death of seven astronauts.
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
Unzicker should better learn how Quantum Field Theory works, and what renormalization means, e.g. from the book by Peskin and Schroeder, instead of making inappropriate comments.
Unzicker wouldn't be able to understand such a book, as his physics education ended at the undergraduate level. Probably couldn't even understand how to do the basic non-relativistic Lamb shift calculation, let alone how to quantize the Dirac field. But I'm sure he'd be happy to point at that stuff and claim it's overrated.
Due to negligence, inability to translate or even deliberately, you are spreading false information about my CV. Please edit your comments, otherwise I reserve the right to take legal action.
@@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 happily correct it.
@@kdub1242 You so salty
His humor is the last thing to like about him. He takes too much pleasure in talking about people who are dumber than him. There's a predatory look in his eyes that's always looking for weaknesses to exploit or share "hilarious" anecdotes about. Such predatory and confident people shouldn't be indulged with laughter when they make so-called jokes.
Clickbait misses the point - Feynman isn't important because of his Physics contributions. A thousand others have lived and died like him in that regard since.
Of course you're right. He is just the tip of the iceberg. The main problem with quantum mechanics is, that it's not actually physics. It's a merge of math, linguistically distortion and less logic.
@@bene1443 What is "actually" physics? May be you need to read "The Character of Physical Law". LOL!
@@musopaul5407 Is the Nobel prize really that important? Dave's point is spot on! The genius of Feynman come from him being a great teacher, observer and scientist. I know a scientist and a mathematician (important people in their fields here) who think art is useless. Feynman, when dealing with the question, decided to learn more about art and even practiced it. He was a great teacher - by request of the State Dept., spent one or two years in Brazil teaching. He liked to play percussion with the Mangueira Samba School and wrote about the problems or our educational system (how bad it was) - and with that, revolutionized how science and engineering are taught here.
I'm not a physicist - I studied electric engineering and that was enough for me to know how complicated modern physics is - so I can't say much about his work as a physicist. I know one thing: if a "thousand have lived and died like him in that regard since" is largely due to Feynman's example of how to be a good teacher - example teachers carry in their hearts to this day and all over the world.
Oh ... he also proposed quantum computing and helped create massive parallel computers. Gamers of the world, unite and hail the great Richard Feynman for nVidia would not exist without him! (no an entirely correct statement since someone was bound to do what he did - and he only did it because his son was a partner at Thinking Machines and Computer Programmers are not known for being good with Calculus and Differential Equations)
Simply wrong. Feynman is indeed important because of his physics contribution.
Then better not call him a physicist. Call him an inspirational speaker, an influencer. If that is the case, then this guy is correct.
I find it hard to buy a lecture on feynman being illegitimate which at least half consists of his own takes on his own theories limitations and questions.
...and communicated extremely well!
Which is exaclty what a great physicist would behave like, as well as a great communicator which he was.
Just a question here. Why are you calling yourself a theoretical physicists? Do you have a Ph.D. in physics? Have you published physics articles in any known journal?
No he has not. He is in fact a fraud. He has a only a bachelor's in physics (and a PhD in "neuroscience"), and is not and never has been an actual physicist.
@@kdub1242 Yea I knew, I did a bit of research on him before posting that, so it was more of a rethorical question. I have a PhD in math and I don't even call myself a mathematician anymore since my job is in AI. Shame on him.
@@francoislaniel868 Yep, same here. My PhD is in physics, but then I washed out and went into engineering. I certainly don't consider myself to be a physicist, but Unzie is pretending to be one and mostly getting away with it.
@K Dub Due to negligence, inability to translate or even deliberately, you are spreading false information about my CV. Please edit your comments, otherwise I reserve the right to take legal action.
@@TheMachian So please inform us, what are your credentials as a theoritical physicist than? Don't get me wrong here, I encourage everybody who's curious about science to read about it and kudos to you for doing so. You don't have to have a PhD to read books and make your own "research". However, I have a problem when somebody claims to be a "theoritical physicist" without the credential to support it. Could somebody who read about law claim to be a lawyer? No, he would have to do the bachelor degree and pass the bar exam. Since there's no physicist order, you can legaly claim what you want without facing consequences, but it doesn't mean that you should. Hence, if you indeed have not done a PhD in theoritical physic, please remove your theoritical physicist claim in your bio, because it would be missleading and straight up false. Would somebody write that in an attempt to gain credibility towards people who don't question the claim and only focus on the doctor title next to the name? Most probably.
As a retired professor, I am jealously aware of the genius of the world's best-educated bongo player. I remember a movie starring Rock Hudson and Doris Day that mirrowed his personna.
His use of metaphors to simplify complex matters earned him a Nobel Prize when he created a system for illustrating nuclear decay.
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
"you might consider this tangetial to physics" -- that's my favorite line.
You're jealous because he's famous and you're not.
You are so smart you should become a psychologist.
@unsicker real physics: actually you got your PhD in Psychology not in physics !!!
@@TheMachian If you're so smart please make a video explaining his PhD thesis on Principle of Least Action using simple language that anyone can understand. I'm not being sarcastic.
@@liquidbraino anyone takes highway to reach faster its target instead of following the shortest path. Or take the shortest path, or simply small roads if the goal is to enjoy the beauty, calm and charm of country side. So what is being minimized in different situation depends on the goal, and is called the « Action ». It can be the time, or the « length » (euclidian or else), the energy, the charm, etc. All GPS provides at least a few choice for such « Action ». Such principle is known implicitely since…ever…by « cave mans », but was gradually enrich of new examples, and mathematically formulated since the XVIII th century, by Maupertuis, Euler, Lagrange, etc. Rational Mechanics that is based on, was widely taught in 1800. It was used by Poincaré in 1895 to build The theory of Relativity and establish the famous E=mc^2. By Planck in 1900. By Grossman in 1912 and Hilbert in 1915 to built GR of gravitation. Feynman didn’t invented it at all.
As I understand it, QED is used in solid state physics, among other things to build the computer I'm watching this on. Since the computer works, that would seem to indicate that QED is a decent approximation.
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.
He was a great teacher, he was great at explaining things. I.e. the Feynman technique
No doubt about that.
Feynman is better known for his diagrams (Feynman Diagrams). However, these diagrams represent an ingenious way of describing a calculation: they do NOT describe the physics underlying the process. Quantum Electrodynamics describes the repulsion between the electrons in terms of the exchange of an infinite number of ‘virtual photons’. A Feynman diagram summarises the way the exchange of a single ‘virtual photon’. However, bear in mind that in all those seminal early papers of Quantum Mechanics (1920's) there was NO mention of exchange particles. Such as the photons that are said to mediate the linear and rotational electromagnetic forces between the electron and the proton in the hydrogen atom. Or the rotational electromagnetic force that makes an electron go round and round in circles in a uniform magnetic field. Or makes the moving electron take a curved path near the current in the wire, but does not affect the stationary electron, The exchange-particle idea began to work its way into Quantum Electrodynamics from the mid-to-late 1930s. And that Heisenberg’s importation of exchange forces into nuclear physics depended essentially on a model of the neutron that was later RETRACTED. The idea now taken as definitional of the concept of force for quantum field theory, the all-important idea of particle exchange was not in fact there from the start, but rather worked its way in from somewhere outside.
If you are saying the particle exchange description is flawed, I wholeheartedly agree.
@@TheMachian Thank you. The main problem with mainstream physics is that it assumes an empty, inert space, since the abolition of the all-pervading aether in 1905 “it is superfluous.” This is the reason of the major shortcomings of general relativity and the standard model. In fact, there is a list of the biggest unsolved mysteries in physics. On the other hand, fringe physicists contend that all forces must be transmitted point-to-point through the vacuum of space through the zero-point field (ZPF) a sort of aether. It is the energetic vacuum fluctuations that inhabit all of space. ZPF is the only thing that is found everywhere in space, the only thing that could be the medium for all force transmission. No need to invent the exchange particle gimmick. What is real is the ZPF. It is known from the existence of the Casimir effect that quantum fluctuations behave like quantum dipoles that are capable of interacting through van der Waals forces. These forces between quantum fluctuations also cause bodies of matter to move such as in the case of the original two-plate Casimir effect. ZPF vacuum energy fluctuations work to create fundamental forces and gravity, without the mess and shortcomings of the standard model. A little known branch of physics, Stochastic Electrodynamics (SED) is working on it.
I like Feynman in general, but damn these Feynman fanboys are annoying.
^^ this!
If you sum graphic arts, bongos, lockpicking and physics, Feynman is clearly the GOAT. He could outdraw Einstein, outdrum Bohr, outpick Heisenberg and outphysic virtually all of us, that makes him the greatest ever!
@@u.v.s.5583 loool
@@u.v.s.5583 so you thought to prove Bruno's point about "these Feynman fanboys" then ey?
@@ResurrectingJiriki you bet!
In every trade, you need people that are great at different disciplines within said trade.
Feynman could visualize things that others could not understand. He could describe said visualizations to the likes of Freeman Dyson, who could then make sense of it mathematically. To put it in overly simplistic terms: The coach of a team dreams up a play that he thinks will work because of his imagination and past experiences. He knows the star players that would best execute it, explains his theory, and lets them run with it - all the while having moved on to the next 10 plays in his head. However, the coach doesn't ever touch the ball.
A perfect example is Dyson's: The Radiation Theories of Tomonaga, Schwinger and Feynman. He realized that they all came up with completely different ways of solving the same problem. None had any detectable correlation with another's theory, but Dyson figured it out.
To call Feynman 'bogus' is nothing more than a form of projection from one that likely has no imagination and should stay away from the teaching and/or theoretical end of the trade.
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.
Unfortunately, it was actually Bohr and Heisenberg who killed philosophy in Physics, not Feynman. They actually dragged the preexisting, nearly 100-years old "end of philosophy" concept to Physics. They were the "original revolutionaries" and did it, because they had to severe connections to classical thinking and some classical concepts to make their new quantum theory possible.
This same person claimed in another video that Minkowski harmed physics by inventing spacetime. Without Minkowski, there would not have been possible for Einstein and Hilbert to develop General Relativity, and it would not have been possible for Dirac to develop the relativistic equation of the electron. So I would not take his view about Feynman seriously.
So he is overhyped because he made mistakes? Is Einstein overhyped too since he failed to unify electromagnetism and gravity?
If you listen carefully, that is not the point. Everyone can make mistakes, and Einstein was eager to admit his own. The problem is that QED, on which Feynman's glory is based, turns out to be a mass self-deception of physicists.
@@TheMachian ..and what's your glory based on? You're basically spreading misconceptions and harsh critiques against theories and theorists, except you lack the credibility and authority in the field to even start talking about Physics, let alone people like Feynman.
@@TheMachian Feynman made up models which allowed people to do work in high energy physics such as QED and Feynman diagrams he never claimed them to be a solid theoretical construct just a tool to allow further research.
@@vincenzo7597 What does authority have to do with science? Absolutely nothing, which is the entire problem with the pseudoscientific methodologies of "modern science."
Unzicker isn't making sense. QED makes it possible to predict things that we couldn't predict otherwise _and_ _the_ _predictions_ _bear_ _out!_ It even makes fundamental predictions that bear out!
Just because we can't yet make sense out of every ingredient of our recipes doesn't mean we should starve.
We can't understand how we go from quantum states to measurements either, but if we treat THAT hole the way Unzicker treats renormalization, we wouldn't have any quantum physics either.
I was somewhat unprepared for my forthcoming PhD oral candidacy exams as I hadn't had a great start as an undergraduate. So I took the summer off the read the Feynman Lectures prior to the interviews. One of my inquisitors was Felix Bloch (famous Nobel Laureate). I passed easily.
Congrats. But that does not mean Feynman did contribute anything significant to fundamental physics.
@@TheMachian Actually in the "web of stories" interviews with Murray Gell-Mann he says that Feynman did himself say that he regretted not having contributed anything to fundamental physics. Gell-Mann said that he told Feynman that his path-integral idea may yet be shown to be a contribution to fundamental physics. (This does not refer to Feynman's propagator theory or diagrams; rather those were inspired by his path-integral idea which is difficult to implement.)
"Shut up and calculate" ... Feynman gave up on creating a coherent theory. He was willing to accept (for the time being) an algorithm that could predict / reproduce experimental results. This is an engineer's empirical method - It might not be a good theory, but if it makes good-enough predictions, it is better than nothing and better than a theory which makes none.
I disagree. The big merit of Consa's paper is to have shown that these "predictions" were rather post-dictions, often tinkered. Besides that, there is a philosophical issue here how to approach physics: either you aim for true understanding (which goes along with real results, such as Maxwell/Weber's eps0 mu0= 1/c2) or you are content yourself with muddying the waters with newparameters, geocentric-astronomy style.
@@TheMachian this is NUTS. Ok a few early calculation by hand weren't to enough precision to be meaningful and people stopped adding terms when they got the answer they were expecting - did I guess right? I couldn't stand to watch you drip contempt while missing the bigger picture so I made an educated guess.
Let me throw some of the obvious bigger picture at you.
No one is calculating a small number of terms by hand anymore. In 2021, a $10 toy computer has exactly the computing power of a Cray 1 from 1978. Hell, the graphics card in my game computer has the computing power of what was IBM's new supercomputer at Laurence Livermore Lab in 2000 - that took up a gymnasium sized room to do nuclear calculations.
They're not calculating a few diagrams and stopping when they get tired. We've come a _long_ _way._ And if there were mistakes 75 years ago, there have been trillions of calculations since then, and they weren't failures!
You are just pretending that you understand what is going on in these computer codes. Literally nobody checks.
@@TheMachian Oh we're down the the international scientist conspiracy where every scientist, every professor, every student, every researcher, every software developer is lying except you?
Get help!
@@TheMachian I don't know if Feynman himself would disagree with Consa here. See his talk "Knowing versus Understanding" where he argues against or at least satirizes "geocentric-astronomy."
I don't see any merit in Unzicker's personalizations of physics. They don't tell us anything we do not already know, and they serve only to deny merit that is deserved by outstanding physicists of the past. The Germany of the NAZI period, well before both Unzicker and Feynman, was infamously contemptuous of "Jewish physics". Richard Feynman was of Jewish descent. Unzicker's remarks may be a demonstration that the NAZI era has passed and that Germans are now free again arbitrarily to diminish the role of a physicist of Jewish descent.
Another physicist with a frequent presence on youtube is also a frequent critic of contemporary physics, but she does not personalize her criticisms as does Unzicker.
More like Unzicker's overhyped channel.
"shut up and calculate"
I 100% agree with this unpopular take; and solely because of the fact that "[Feynman] tried to strip physics from its philosophical roots". There is such an arrogant attitude towards empiricism amongst contemporary physicists, and although this mentality is great for further developing theories, and incredible for engineering systems, it is not the mentality of scientific revolution. It is at the point where students and faculty in Universities are mocked if they agree with the Scientific Philosophy of Einstein or Dirac or Maxwell (This Feynman view of science is actually very new).
Of course Prof. Feynman was a mind orders upon orders of magnitude greater than mine; and his contributions to science and mankind are almost immeasurable; but I do think his philosophy and approach to science has had a profoundly negative impact on Physicists and Physics Faculties everywhere.
It is absurd to criticise pioneer work this way. It is like saying that Newton and Euler were overhyped because they used infinitesimals instead of topological spaces.
Quote from Feynnman:
People say to me, “Are you looking for the ultimate laws of physics?” No I am not. I am just looking to find out more about the world. And if it turns out there is a simple ultimate law that explains everything so be it. That would be very nice discovery. If it turns out it’s like an onion with millions of layers and we just sick and tired of looking at the layers then that’s the way it is! But whatever way it comes out it’s nature, it’s there, and she’s going to come out the way she is. And therefore when we go to investigate we shouldn’t pre-decide what it is we are trying to do except to find out more about it. If you said…but..the problem is why we do you find out more about it, if you thought that you are trying to find out more about it because you are going to get an answer to some deep philosophical question you may be wrong and may be that you can’t get an answer to that particular question by finding out more about the character of the nature.
Feynman would often criticize "cocktail philosophers"
Could be why a lot of wannabe physicists don’t think much of him?
@@glenecollins seems legit yes
There is now a huge body of work in mathematics regarding the so called ,,regularity structures'' which is a tool for making sense of apparently ill-defined equations involving multiplying distributions. This is the same kind of problem one is dealing in QFT: and guess what-the methods used in this theory looks very much the same as renormalization. This whole theory is mainly due to Martin Hairer.
There is also a tremendous rich algebraic structure hidden within renormalization. Dirk Kreimer was the first to notice the hidden Hopf algebra structure behind renormalization (the Hopf algebra of Feynman graphs). After him Alain Connes and Matilde Marcolli went further and discovered some sort of universal universal Hopf algebra appearing beneath the process of renormalization.
Finally, there is huge body of work regarding the so called constructive quantum field theory: up to this day, no one succeed in constructing rigorously nontrivial QFT in 4D but there are some partial results in lower dimensions. What is interesting, that there are results about triviality of some models (which very apparently expected to be nontrivial) in 4D, see e.g. Hudo Duminil Copin's work. Renormalization is a monster and we are just starting to understand it. It's foolish to dismiss something from the start just because at the beginning it is not well defined mathematically. It works so perfectly fine that there must be something in it and we are just making first steps in understanding this.
As somebody mentioned in the comments, ordinary calculus vas very vague at the beginning. What is maybe less known: that the formulation of calculus using infinitesimals CAN be made rigorous but it had to wait until 1960 for the birth of the so called nonstandard analysis (due to Abraham Robinson)
That might all be very sophisticated stuff develeoped by smart people, yet it is irrelevant to reality.
"the most important calculation in the history of modern physics cannot be independently verified.
" - Consa
Come on
I hope Wolfram’s physics model somehow pumps out the fine structure constant.
“Overhyped RUclipsr” seems more likely.
It's not Einstein's E=mc2, it belongs to an Italian called Olinto De Pretto as he published it three years prior to Einstein and a friend of the De Pretto family also was a friend and work colleague of Einstein when he worked in the patent office. Einstein even thanked this friend in his publications but never said what he contributed.
I would say this guy steered Einstein towards De Pretto's publication of E=mc2
Interesting, yet historians still discuss.
Is he overhyped? Yes, probably. But your premise, along with the video itself, is in very poor taste.
"Overhyped Physicists: Richard Feynman"
You have overhyped yourself. You are not fit to judge anyone.
Feynman took most of the ideas named for him from existing work, and improved them for application to (statistical) quantum field theory. He was a great teacher and I recommend his many books. It is tough to be pedagogical in physics but he did a fine job. As for over-hyped physicists, imho he wasn’t one of them. There are presently alive quite a few though, in particle physics, string theory, relativity, astrophysics, cosmology. Plenty of what is considered “settled science” in these areas is far from it, black hole physics being a prime example. Feynman supposedly had “Unruh radiation” written on his blackboard when he died, I wish he had taken a look at that and weighed in as has been the case with several Russian theorists that have established its non-existence.
Well, Feynman's scientific value obviously depends on how ome assesses QED...
@@TheMachian I just gave a reasoned assessment in the comments above. Physicists make mistakes and just because historically (1950,1957) there were discrepancies between hand calculations of the second order contributions doesn’t make QED a “scandal” or “rotten”. You’d be better off questioning more egregious speculations that have become more or less accepted and settled physics, I mentioned a few in my first comment. Those have attracted way more money and power in the community at the expense of far better and correct concepts/theories, which may not sell as many books or movie screenplays, and are actually HARD physics problems (requiring physics that has been essentially ignored or thrown out since those involved can’t do that level of dynamical modeling based on correct ideas).
Needless to say, I agree with you in criticising strings, particle physics, astrophysics, cosmology. Also in those fields, however, it is worthwhile to closely look at the history, which, in my opinion, tells a lot about the soundness of teh concepts.
Why would I trust someone with a bs in physics over a Nobel prize winner?
@@timeformegaman well that isn't a very good argument in general. New ideas are being created and tested daily, most competent physicists today with a BS will know more than Wilhelm Röntgen, the first Nobel Physics prize winner
I feel like you have a general misconception about what the physicists are doing. Science is language and language is use.
I think Feynman wasn't the kind of guy who used to invent new physics . But he was the kind of guy who used to think about old discovered physics and understand them in a new way , often very interesting and in a more fundamental way ! So I disagree with your last remark on Feynman that he did not think about fundamental physics . Although he used shortcuts , but he did think in fundamental ways !
I was under the impression that he was famous for his diagrams, and his bongo playing.
Maybe in a year Mr. Unzicker will say that Einstein and Dirac are also overhyped. And this from a german high-school teacher 😂😂😂😂. Most ridiculous thing I've ever seen. But I admire the level of self-assurance. 🙈
If you happen to know Weierstrass or Balmer, there is nothing wrong with being a teacher. In case you consider yourself a professional scientist, you will surely enjoy this : ruclips.net/video/_NZiCRqhFIg/видео.html
You can't compare Feynman with Einstein, Pauli, Bohr, Sommerfeld, Heisenberg, Born, Planck, Dirac. They don't play in the same yard.
The subsidised researchers are tongue-bound, don't expect any unconvenient truth from them, they parrot and that's all folk.
Einstein and Dirac are overhyped! As is Feynman... They are all wrong at whatever they thought they were right about, and they have to be, how else are we going to know what's right if we don't really know what's wrong!
I found the Fine Structure Constant 7.2m. I showed to formula to Unzicker, but wisdom
Didn't he pull a plug on a part of some crank's PMM resulting in an explosion that blew someone's arm off?
@TheMachian: Feynman became famous not for his work on QED. He became famous because of DOING physics (and not just talking about it (talk the talk but not walk the walk)). Many colleagues and students turned to him to get help with very difficult and long calculations (mainly calculus). No one else was able to do this on paper like him.
I'm not sure about his premise. I'm an engineer by education, but read a couple books about Feynman. He is definitely a national treasure. The story about him going to Los Alamos with his young bride ill with TB left in a sanitorium where he would visit and her death was a touching story.
The USA was lucky to have had Feynman on that space shuttle disaster committee. He probably listened to the engineers in the report and his genius was presenting the issue with a demonstration of placing one of those rings in ice water and demonstrating what happened that fateful morning.
If it is any physicist that is a manufactured fraud, that would be Einstein. Much of his alleged work is derived from earlier ideas published by those less well known before him.
correct...einstein was an absolute thief!!
What? Who else thought about General Relativity?
He had a 123 IQ and won a Noble Prize. I don't see how proponents can say that IQ is kosher
123 is not that exceptional. Almost average among physicists.
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.
He still got superfluidity, though.
AND the bomb. I would not want to argue with a man who has this kind of bomb.
@@u.v.s.5583 His contribution to the Manhattan Project involved chatting with 'monster minds' as he called them. To say he made anything significant towards the development of the atomic bomb is nonsense.
@@francishunt562 Well, yes, but then again there is no great ballet without corps-de-ballet. He was a legit part of the numerical team.
I mean to paraphrase feynman, its all well and good to say that some theory might be wrong - anyone can do that. But what do you substitute the theory with? That is the important question. Once you try to replace a theory that you think may be wrong with something else, you will realise that it is no easy task, and with all the acknowledged flaws in the accepted theory, this is the best we've got right now, until something better is found
The pilot flies through the Rocky mountains, with a map of the Andian montains, saying, "it is the best map we have". I do not enter the plane.
"Debunking" QED because of conceptual issues with renormalization is overhyped. I think everyone agrees renormalization is far from pretty and tidy. Just like everyone agrees that perturbation theory in QED becomes problematical at high orders. I have never encountered anyone who has actually been working in QFT who would deny this, or who would think these are problems that "debunk" a theory. The consensus has really always been that these renormalization & high-order perturbation theory issues are just a reflection of the fact that at the smallest scales quantum field theory simply breaks down as a proper description of nature. But dumping on QED because of that would be like suggesting architects and civil engineers shouldn't be using Newtonian physics because we know it breaks down on atomic scales🙄
All theories in physics have a domain of validity and typically at some point they get "replaced" with a better theory at the fringes. No artillery unit would use quantum mechanics or relativistic classical mechanics to figure out where their shells are landing ... Newtonian mechanics is just fine there. And while the limit from special relativistic mechanics to Newtonian mechanics is straightforward and well-understood, the limit from non-relativistic quantum mechanics to Newtonian physics is much more involved and still partly obscure.
The notion of "theory replacement" is a very narrow and idealized view of the scientific process that is very detached from the reality of Science. Theories don't get replaced (with very few exceptions) but rather 'new' theories that extend our human thinking into hitherto indescribable domains are constructed to provide a more or less satisfying "bridge" of those new domains to the previously held theoretical beliefs. Newton's mechanics wasn't "debunked" but it was shown to display different degrees of inaccuracy in describing different domains of nature, such as the very small, the very fast, or the very large. Of course QED will, in due time, suffer the same fate. It too will not be "debunked" but in the matters where it seems inaccurate it will be augmented by something more accurate. Science doesn't aim for "truth" ... it aims for *accuracy*.
A great video. Feynman was a really good and committed teacher. Unlike all of the other snotty professors of physics, he volunteered to teach undergrads.
Feynman volunteered to teach undergrads because he wanted to sleep with younger, more attractive students, especially before they dropped out.
@@xxxYYZxxx That is a mean-spirited comment. Over 90% of his classes were men. The primary reason he stated for wishing to teach undergrad physics was so that he could inspire more students into the field. He was a very good teacher, and i know at least one person who loved his classes and it was the highlight of his undergrad time at CalTech, which is a very small and fun school
Feynman was an American physicist. It was inevitable that this guy would bash him.
Uh yet another case of Feynman envy. Let it go man...
May be, may be not. In any case, my envy would be much stronger for Einstein, Bohr, Dirac, Schrödinger, Heisenberg, Pauli, Mach ... who have really advanced physics. :-)