@@TherrhdSomeone who joined RUclips 3 years ago, did CC for a 9 year old quantum physics video, while incorrectly using 3rd grade English for "your"? And...that person actually found and responded to a comment (two and a half years after it was left) that was directed at them in the 4th episode of a 2 dozen long series? Not buying it.
@@jasondean88888 As you failed to use parallelism in your response (which is a 5th grade concept) and seemed to have forgotten the third item of your list (since you mention "joined" and "did" but forgot a third verb), I'm sure you have no reason to be commenting on this grammar issue, which does not interfere with comprehension, and you especially do not need to point out their late comment for two major reasons. The first reason is it should not matter, or RUclips would have removed the feature to remove a comment after a year, but no one cares and asks this to be implemented, which implies you shouldn't care either. The second reason is straightforward: you replied to this comment even later than the original reply which you are targeting. All this compiles into one question: why bother to a ridiculous response when you would make your claim even more questionable and grammatically incorrect? The difference between "your and you're" is simply an apostrophe, a mistake easily made by fast typing or a keyboard error, whilst your mistakes are conceptual and grammatical. Whilst it is likely that the user in question did not compile the subtitles, your reasoning is incorrect, for your evidence is simply correlations to why he couldn't have made the subtitles, not evidence of fact or experiment. Therefore, I'm not buying your argument and reasoning. (^ Hm, AI did a good job at this... or was it AI?)
56:03 I remember when I was first learning QM 10 yrs ago, I used to complain that the way of "deriving" operator p was definitely bullshit. Now this lecture gives me the salvation of my soul. Thank you, Pf. Adams.
I would love to have Allan as my instructor. He's so excited about physics and he's friendly. I've seen some talks that he has done as well, like with TED, and he's such an engaging speaker.
i like watching and would love taking his classes.. i find his lectures easy to understand and i like how he does not write cursive script on the board. very cool how hes always giving his audience positive reinforcement when they ask questions.. that and his happy demeanor makes learning much easier
I just want to say I've never loved a teacher as much as professor Adams. He's SO good!!! His enthusiasm makes all the difference. Thanks for teaching!!
Just loving this course especially because of Adams's way of teaching. I also liked clicker session and gave all correct answers. It's my request to ocw community, if possible please give the recitation videos as well. It helps in solving problems and assignments. Thanks for the great work MIT. you are helping lots of interested students.
Apart from being informative these lectures help us baseline what a good lecture should look like. I spent considerable time thinking I was solely responsible for not understanding the lecture. But in reality a precondition for understanding is good quality of the lecturer.
Big thanks to Allan Adams and all the teams that make this possible. Besides the business sense of giving out university lectures for free, the fact is that it is contributing to the spread of scientific knowledge, to anybody interested, giving opportunities to talented people regardless of country, level of income... And that's something that speaks high of the MIT, its mission and its people.
I would like to have had more discussion. I'd like for him to have gone through the details with Noether's theorem so that I could "feel it in my gut."
1:07:55 Prof makes a Freudian slip - harbinger of later events - then laughs to himself 1:12:05 Clever bail out of the pranksters who make their appearance a bit too early 1:16:08 An allusion to the pirates appearing a few minutes ago or a foreshadowing of the next one? 1:17:00 Pirates invade classroom (again)!
Beautiful lecture, I love to watch these classes by Dr Adams, but watch out for the statement at 1:11:42 , that is a tricky road. To quote Einstein: "it's the theory that tells you what can you see". Dr Adams warns minutes before about this by telling that what he is going to say is an epistemic mistake, theories are not derived from data analysis but from a logical, profound and reasonable explanation of why and how things work the way they do.
But doesn't the logical reasonable explanation somehow come from practice done before. LoL, you need to know that you are going to see before you know what something is going to tell you what you can see.
Wavefunction is one definition of the particle's state, because there can be more than one wavefunction. You can sum wavefunctions together in a superposition. It may help to think of x as a "state" (NOT x as "position"). Then, momentum would then be the change of "state" or the evolution of the "state"
The physics faculty at the University of Minnesota had weekly meetings in the 1990's to develop novel methods of obfuscating the bloody obvious in undergrad courses. Allan Adams is my proof. He's actually got me convinced that my understanding is correct... most of the time. When I was an undergrad, my professors had me convinced I was wrong about the simplest things because I already understood the concepts without having to go through tortuous and bizarre logic to get there, and maybe because I understood that the quantum stuff, as it was understood then, was a lot of competing, mutually incompatible guesses, and nothing had really changed since high school physics a decade earlier. Nothing they'd teach at the undergrad level anyway. Nobody dared ask questions because the simplest question would result in a 15-minute droning, incomprehensible proof of the answer in detail that far exceeded the course content. And it wasn't just one guy. It was all of them that taught my classes. I quit coming to class except to take exams and my scores went up. That's like... anti-teaching. Professor Adams makes it so obvious how unnecessary and counter-productive that is. I might have enjoyed physics if I'd had professors who were a little more human.
I still feel like he does it to a certain extent. The first lecture in the series was the worst of it, and he'd shush people asking questions immediately after saying that it was okay to interrupt him.
you speak out of my heart. i had precarious family situations. got a heavy disease. went to hospital. failed. got even sicker. got more fatalities around me. didnt make it. and in the end yet my prof said my approaches are genius, but i was destroyed everywhere. the talent was destroyed, and so we all had no gains from this ... and so we have destryoed
First person was saying that people who would describe lovely dames or beautiful people in the ancient past perhaps prophesied (suggesting 100% probability) the professor's existence, but praise is still not commensurate with his "worth to sing." Second person was saying that the professor's memory as a universally lovable person will always survive in the memories of posterity somehow despite monuments or statues of him being destroyed by war or washed away by tides
@@spectralanalysis Thank you for your summary. I only slept three hours last night, and was much confused by the verses, thus could extract no sense from them (although I've written [bad] olde poetry sometimes....). Whereas I could follow this professor's explanations very easily from start to end, English not being my first language notwithstanding. I agree with @Zeratul Of Aiur . . . 100%.
urus you ur full time baby girl 👧 I miss ur too sweet uruturuturut uruserirrrriuruiiirrittiiiirriuitiittT I and urut are doing us using for some advice but usually I’m urusurut do get it urutmaybe but uruturut erirrrriuruiiirrittiiiirriuitiittT
From wiki page of variance: variance is the expectation of the squared deviation of a random variable from its mean...The variance is the square of the standard deviation, the second central moment of a distribution, so yes, the teacher used the wrong terms.
Around 22:20... I'd explain that it uses a large range of frequencies because it's a RECT function multiplied by the sinewave in time domain, which means a sinc function convolved with a delta function in the frequency domain. So you get an infinite number of decreasing sidelobes as you get further from the spike But then I come from a EE signal processing background, so I look at things a little differently
yeah maybe that's the reason we like him, "physics doesn't tell you what is true... physics tells you it is a good model and it does really well and it fits the data. And to the degree that it doesn't fit the data, it's wrong!" this is really the heart of physics. we've never been told the truth by god, we've just been observing and proposing and correcting
Now it's getting weird :) I totally love how he introduced this, outlining that it's indeed weird, but also giving intuitions. When other teachers just write the formulas it's just overwhelmingly confusing and you're lost 100%.
I have a question if anyone can clarify, psi^2(x) is regarded as probability density....then shouldn't the probability of finding electron between x and dx be psi^2(x)*4pix^2dx....rather than just psi^2(x)dx, because the density is to be multiplied by a thin element's volume. Please help me over this At 4:25
That's correct. A probability is the integral of the probability density over a volume. Having said that, the one common mistake that you can find in every book on quantum mechanics is that the modulus of the wave function squared is the probability density. That is simply not true. You ALWAYS have to use the Born rule to derive a probability. It just happens that the spatial projection operator for the wave function in spatial representation (and only in spatial representation!) is the unity operator. That's why the Born rule simplifies to that particular form for this corner case. What looks "miraculous" is actually fairly trivial, IF you explain the theory correctly, which most books do not.
To anyone wondering how the evolution of viewers on the course acts (plotted): i60.tinypic.com/2cz6920.png I post this in the 4th video course because here is where the real decline happens.
+Ella Blun Valid point. Quantum mechanics formalities can get quite confusing for an autodidact, so this decline is coupled to a huge progression in the complexity of concepts. I don't think anyone wants to work a few hours (2-8) at home on concepts he learned and would rather just watch the next lecture, yet it is necessary, in my opinion, to do so.
At first it seems that it would take 24x1.3 = 31 hours to understand QM. But then come the lecture notes and mathematical concepts that pull you down. The transition in the course is not simple either. It goes like this: Lec1,2,2,1,3,3,4,4,5,5,4,1,3,5,6... How can we expect the viewers to be motivated and complete the course? Nonetheless, the series is an excellent resource.
The probability distribuition of a continuous variable a is ALWAYS P(a)=0. In case of continuity the probability is solely described by a probability density.
Other girls: being big fans of actors, singers. Me: being a big fan of a physics professor He is so awesome. These students are so lucky to have him as a teacher.
In the second clicker question, which asks "which particle has larger momentum?", it is not specified that each particle is an identical particle; therefore, isn't D the correct answer given that particle 1 and particle 2 could have different masses? I guess you could make a semantic argument about the definition of "wave form", but even then they could have the same wave form and different masses.
I agree with you, but usually people cannot find 1 hour to spend fully concentrated on this. These lectures are without a doubt awesome, but only for the ones who have the time and the energy to focus throughout 1 hour of complex science. Usually people in general tend to use youtube to relax and not to think, listening to music or wtaching vloggers, which can be relaxing.
Description of Noether's Theorem was really interesting. I can't quite grasp how it must have a conserved quantity though, I might have to go through the paper.
I have a different way of saying the same thing. Look suppose we have a particle at position x=0 and we want to translate it to x=l. Now if the system has no interaction and an inherent definite momentum in positive x direction. We simply sit back and take our next observation at the moment it reaches x=l. We can claim that we have translated the particle without changing it's momentum state. Now suppose our particle has zero momentum at x=0, or we are not patient enough to let it reach x=l on its own then we cannot translate it to x=l without accelerating it. Then we will have to bring it back to its original momentum state after it reaches x=l. We can either accelerate and decelerate it to x=l. Or accelerate it and subject it to a collision so that it's momentum is restored to it's x=0 state. So claiming particle symmetry at two different positions requires the particle to be at same momentum state in both the positions. Remember Sir explained that to fully define the state of a particle in classical sense we need to know it's position and momentum. Hence we see translational symmetry dictates momentum conservation. Now you should consider the case if we perform same experiment at different places with identical but different particles. What's the condition for translational symmetry for this case?
Calm down MLK, I'm sure there are other, slightly more important battles to pick than calling someone a bigot for a throwaway observation about a watch.
You cute little algorithm, you punished me for leaving the computer on while I was asleep by convincing people I had gained a wider understanding of the delta function while I was asleep.
I took 3 classes in qm for my undergraduate and graduate studies in the 80s and 90s. These lectures are a wonderful review. I do wish I had continued my studies and not been sidetracked by life, but it is fun to see how much I remember!
No it doesn't, as we never know the presence of virtual particles but for expecting a quantum fluctuation around the event horizon so expecting the norm square of psi(x) would be really bad P(x) ≠ | psi(x) |²
@@schmetterling4477 Ok. I hear you. But wait to you see this happen. Because that is exactly what I am going to do. LMAO. Except I will work feverishly to do just that, and it is going to happen. LLMMAAOO.
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
Let’s take a moment to thank whoever wrote these incredibly accurate subtitles
Your welcome i did them
@@M_Lopez_3D_Artistyou’re very appreciated
@@TherrhdSomeone who joined RUclips 3 years ago, did CC for a 9 year old quantum physics video, while incorrectly using 3rd grade English for "your"?
And...that person actually found and responded to a comment (two and a half years after it was left) that was directed at them in the 4th episode of a 2 dozen long series?
Not buying it.
Thanks 🎉❤
@@jasondean88888 As you failed to use parallelism in your response (which is a 5th grade concept) and seemed to have forgotten the third item of your list (since you mention "joined" and "did" but forgot a third verb), I'm sure you have no reason to be commenting on this grammar issue, which does not interfere with comprehension, and you especially do not need to point out their late comment for two major reasons. The first reason is it should not matter, or RUclips would have removed the feature to remove a comment after a year, but no one cares and asks this to be implemented, which implies you shouldn't care either. The second reason is straightforward: you replied to this comment even later than the original reply which you are targeting. All this compiles into one question: why bother to a ridiculous response when you would make your claim even more questionable and grammatically incorrect? The difference between "your and you're" is simply an apostrophe, a mistake easily made by fast typing or a keyboard error, whilst your mistakes are conceptual and grammatical. Whilst it is likely that the user in question did not compile the subtitles, your reasoning is incorrect, for your evidence is simply correlations to why he couldn't have made the subtitles, not evidence of fact or experiment. Therefore, I'm not buying your argument and reasoning.
(^ Hm, AI did a good job at this... or was it AI?)
This Professor is awesome!
Good lecture series.
Thanks MIT for offering this quality content for free!!!
No kidding! Love this dude and am binge-watching these lectures. I'll probably watch his earlier lectures if they're available.
@@erikayer2146 💯
He is terrific.
''Whatever state you are in, we will always love you'' Can not fit more perfectly
I’m so glad this series was created before he quit teaching this class. Wouldn’t want any other Parasocial Professor.
Why did he quit
Causal processes in QM lectures: we see the unintentional summoning of pirates at 1:07:50 ; they materialise four minutes later: 1:12:00 :)
7 years later: still the most underrated comment in the history of comments...
😂😂😂
56:03 I remember when I was first learning QM 10 yrs ago, I used to complain that the way of "deriving" operator p was definitely bullshit. Now this lecture gives me the salvation of my soul. Thank you, Pf. Adams.
Thank you, MIT for making such lectures available free for everyone.
I would love to have Allan as my instructor. He's so excited about physics and he's friendly. I've seen some talks that he has done as well, like with TED, and he's such an engaging speaker.
Oh thanks, i Will look his ted talks
i like watching and would love taking his classes.. i find his lectures easy to understand and i like how he does not write cursive script on the board. very cool how hes always giving his audience positive reinforcement when they ask questions.. that and his happy demeanor makes learning much easier
I just want to say I've never loved a teacher as much as professor Adams. He's SO good!!! His enthusiasm makes all the difference. Thanks for teaching!!
19:39 Love the moment when you get to see all the little physicist in the making practice their hand waving arguments
Allan Adams... You're my favorite teacher!!!!!
Just loving this course especially because of Adams's way of teaching. I also liked clicker session and gave all correct answers.
It's my request to ocw community, if possible please give the recitation videos as well. It helps in solving problems and assignments.
Thanks for the great work MIT. you are helping lots of interested students.
The lecturers at MIT really are amazing.
1:19:27
Pirate guy: "whatever STATE you're in.."
Prof Allan Adams: * laughs hysterically *
Love the way of teaching, and the way he is in general
This is literally the most clear and perfect teaching I have ever seen
Fantastically interesting.
He brings it alive with his knowledge, enthusiasm and sense of humour.
Top draw dude
Solid...gold! I wish I was in that lecture theatre.
Epic professor
Apart from being informative these lectures help us baseline what a good lecture should look like. I spent considerable time thinking I was solely responsible for not understanding the lecture. But in reality a precondition for understanding is good quality of the lecturer.
Big thanks to Allan Adams and all the teams that make this possible.
Besides the business sense of giving out university lectures for free, the fact is that it is contributing to the spread of scientific knowledge, to anybody interested, giving opportunities to talented people regardless of country, level of income... And that's something that speaks high of the MIT, its mission and its people.
Did anyone else almost cry at his enthusiasm when declaring that (hbar/i)d/dx is momentum?
I would like to have had more discussion. I'd like for him to have gone through the details with Noether's theorem so that I could "feel it in my gut."
1:07:55 Prof makes a Freudian slip - harbinger of later events - then laughs to himself
1:12:05 Clever bail out of the pranksters who make their appearance a bit too early
1:16:08 An allusion to the pirates appearing a few minutes ago or a foreshadowing of the next one?
1:17:00 Pirates invade classroom (again)!
Ella Blun I'm testing people's will power and mental agility: Don't read past the point you see it coming.
The professor's energy its so awesome i definitely will finish all the quantum Mechanics lectures, its great to see someone teaching with this passion
Beautiful lecture, I love to watch these classes by Dr Adams, but watch out for the statement at 1:11:42 , that is a tricky road. To quote Einstein: "it's the theory that tells you what can you see". Dr Adams warns minutes before about this by telling that what he is going to say is an epistemic mistake, theories are not derived from data analysis but from a logical, profound and reasonable explanation of why and how things work the way they do.
But doesn't the logical reasonable explanation somehow come from practice done before. LoL, you need to know that you are going to see before you know what something is going to tell you what you can see.
I like how they applaud at the end of each lecture so far.
His teaching skill..Thank You prof. and MIT. This class is masterpiece thanks professor, thanks MIT.
MIT is bringing freedom to a lot of students in the world.
Wavefunction is one definition of the particle's state, because there can be more than one wavefunction. You can sum wavefunctions together in a superposition.
It may help to think of x as a "state" (NOT x as "position"). Then, momentum would then be the change of "state" or the evolution of the "state"
The physics faculty at the University of Minnesota had weekly meetings in the 1990's to develop novel methods of obfuscating the bloody obvious in undergrad courses. Allan Adams is my proof. He's actually got me convinced that my understanding is correct... most of the time. When I was an undergrad, my professors had me convinced I was wrong about the simplest things because I already understood the concepts without having to go through tortuous and bizarre logic to get there, and maybe because I understood that the quantum stuff, as it was understood then, was a lot of competing, mutually incompatible guesses, and nothing had really changed since high school physics a decade earlier. Nothing they'd teach at the undergrad level anyway. Nobody dared ask questions because the simplest question would result in a 15-minute droning, incomprehensible proof of the answer in detail that far exceeded the course content. And it wasn't just one guy. It was all of them that taught my classes. I quit coming to class except to take exams and my scores went up. That's like... anti-teaching. Professor Adams makes it so obvious how unnecessary and counter-productive that is. I might have enjoyed physics if I'd had professors who were a little more human.
I think your professors had it right, after all. :-)
I still feel like he does it to a certain extent. The first lecture in the series was the worst of it, and he'd shush people asking questions immediately after saying that it was okay to interrupt him.
you speak out of my heart. i had precarious family situations. got a heavy disease. went to hospital. failed. got even sicker. got more fatalities around me. didnt make it. and in the end yet my prof said my approaches are genius, but i was destroyed everywhere. the talent was destroyed, and so we all had no gains from this ... and so we have destryoed
Don’t hurt on the Gophers!🥷
His teaching skill😍..Thank You prof. and MIT
It is MUCH easier to understand Quantum Mechanics than those who spoke last couple minutes lol
First person was saying that people who would describe lovely dames or beautiful people in the ancient past perhaps prophesied (suggesting 100% probability) the professor's existence, but praise is still not commensurate with his "worth to sing." Second person was saying that the professor's memory as a universally lovable person will always survive in the memories of posterity somehow despite monuments or statues of him being destroyed by war or washed away by tides
@@spectralanalysis Thank you for your summary. I only slept three hours last night, and was much confused by the verses, thus could extract no sense from them (although I've written [bad] olde poetry sometimes....). Whereas I could follow this professor's explanations very easily from start to end, English not being my first language notwithstanding.
I agree with @Zeratul Of Aiur . . . 100%.
urus you ur full time baby girl 👧 I miss ur too sweet uruturuturut uruserirrrriuruiiirrittiiiirriuitiittT I and urut are doing us using for some advice but usually I’m urusurut do get it urutmaybe but uruturut
erirrrriuruiiirrittiiiirriuitiittT
Its beautyful and interactive. calmly and professionally delivered lectuer. Thanks.Ade.
The ending was just awesome...
11:00 delta function
14:00
22:00
24:00 :(
45:00
52:00 ???
1:07:00
1:07:38 !!!!
1:10:00
1:14:00
why aren't all professors at university so passionnate and motivated like this guy?
This class is masterpiece thanks professor, thanks MIT
Thank you very much Professor Allan Adams!
That quantum mechanics joke at the end by the pirates was gold..
Ive watch this multiple times and it gets me every time.
"Whatever state you're in, we will always love you." hahahaha! Excellent
Loved it too , I agree
37:00 i think what he's calling stad dev is actually the variance, and std dev is the square root of the variance?
From wiki page of variance: variance is the expectation of the squared deviation of a random variable from its mean...The variance is the square of the standard deviation, the second central moment of a distribution, so yes, the teacher used the wrong terms.
I was thinking this too. But I wasn't 100% sure bc the notation is different than I'm used to.
That ending was totally unexpected.
Now we can understand. Brilliant teachers +smart students = MIT = Nobel prize winning
Around 22:20...
I'd explain that it uses a large range of frequencies because it's a RECT function multiplied by the sinewave in time domain, which means a sinc function convolved with a delta function in the frequency domain. So you get an infinite number of decreasing sidelobes as you get further from the spike
But then I come from a EE signal processing background, so I look at things a little differently
D Vill 👏👍Right the way EE thinking
The title if this video sounds like a description of my last relationship.
Why this doesn't have hundreds of like 😂😂😂
5:55- shouldn't it be superposition of the wave function down and up? which results in the wave func.=upper one
Multivalued function (vectorfunction) is (can be) a function of the form f(x)= x, y, z. It gives back multiple values, on different axis.
1:10:42 - 1:12:05 wow that was awesomely passionate
yeah maybe that's the reason we like him, "physics doesn't tell you what is true... physics tells you it is a good model and it does really well and it fits the data. And to the degree that it doesn't fit the data, it's wrong!" this is really the heart of physics. we've never been told the truth by god, we've just been observing and proposing and correcting
Nice class, I love quantum physics.
Thank you very much! Just have started watching lectures but they help a lot.
Now it's getting weird :)
I totally love how he introduced this, outlining that it's indeed weird, but also giving intuitions.
When other teachers just write the formulas it's just overwhelmingly confusing and you're lost 100%.
Right man ... The way he related momentum with del x is satisfying... Great teacher
I have a question if anyone can clarify, psi^2(x) is regarded as probability density....then shouldn't the probability of finding electron between x and dx be psi^2(x)*4pix^2dx....rather than just psi^2(x)dx, because the density is to be multiplied by a thin element's volume. Please help me over this
At 4:25
That's correct. A probability is the integral of the probability density over a volume. Having said that, the one common mistake that you can find in every book on quantum mechanics is that the modulus of the wave function squared is the probability density. That is simply not true. You ALWAYS have to use the Born rule to derive a probability. It just happens that the spatial projection operator for the wave function in spatial representation (and only in spatial representation!) is the unity operator. That's why the Born rule simplifies to that particular form for this corner case. What looks "miraculous" is actually fairly trivial, IF you explain the theory correctly, which most books do not.
Probability of Shakespeare always = 1.
"To be or not to be, that is the probability distribution..."
But what would be the probability of Chaucer?
Very nice & well explained ! Thanks for the awesome content MIT
God bless you free MIT, YOU helped me a lot
Ive never taken any college classes and dont really have any knowledge on QM but it is pretty cool to learn
To anyone wondering how the evolution of viewers on the course acts (plotted):
i60.tinypic.com/2cz6920.png
I post this in the 4th video course because here is where the real decline happens.
+Jovana Savic I haven't yet I feel like any phenomenon related to human determination will naturally be described by such a "curve".
+Ella Blun Valid point. Quantum mechanics formalities can get quite confusing for an autodidact, so this decline is coupled to a huge progression in the complexity of concepts. I don't think anyone wants to work a few hours (2-8) at home on concepts he learned and would rather just watch the next lecture, yet it is necessary, in my opinion, to do so.
At first it seems that it would take 24x1.3 = 31 hours to understand QM. But then come the lecture notes and mathematical concepts that pull you down. The transition in the course is not simple either. It goes like this: Lec1,2,2,1,3,3,4,4,5,5,4,1,3,5,6...
How can we expect the viewers to be motivated and complete the course? Nonetheless, the series is an excellent resource.
The evolution of viewers is not the same as the plot of the number of views per lecture though they are clearly correlated.
Perfect boltzmann disribution,which is a basic rule of the whole universe.
1:10:45 - I'd really like to see more about that relationship. Just "declaring" it is terribly unsatisfying.
The probability distribuition of a continuous variable a is ALWAYS P(a)=0. In case of continuity the probability is solely described by a probability density.
which he actually says at around 45 min. Oops.
Extraordinary lectures, Awesome
Why are pirates called pirates?
Because they Arrrrh.
The Show at the end... was truly unexpected!
i fell asleep and woke up to this, not disappointed
Other girls: being big fans of actors, singers.
Me: being a big fan of a physics professor
He is so awesome. These students are so lucky to have him as a teacher.
Excelent Teacher. I will see all the course
“I’m going to skip the examples in the interest of time” always hurts to hear
just quick heads up when he says standard deviation he means variance, standard deviation is on order (1), and is the square root
"Basic rule" things don't just disappear."
-My mom when I wouldn't admit that I secretly ate a cookie.
around 37:00 i'm pretty sure he's talking about variance and not std deviation
19:32 nice convincing skills u have there
In the second clicker question, which asks "which particle has larger momentum?", it is not specified that each particle is an identical particle; therefore, isn't D the correct answer given that particle 1 and particle 2 could have different masses? I guess you could make a semantic argument about the definition of "wave form", but even then they could have the same wave form and different masses.
I felt like a student sitting in one of those benches. Thank you !
This Professor is so much better than mine! Are all professors in the US this cool? should have applied to MIT!
If i can't be at the MIT, youtube bring the MIT to me...;-)
almost, not completely though. you cannot take a question to his office.
"you cannot take a question to his office..." [CHALLENGE ACCEPTED]
@@stumbling any update on the challenge i am interested
@Debasish Ray Chawdhuri some who are Introverts don’t typically ask something.
The coefficient of the integral describing δ(x-x₀) is 1/2π, not 1/√2π
what was going on at the "please leave" "I love MIT" bit around 1:12:30? (edit: answer - keep watching til the very end)
Who knew that MIT has a pirate department?
Haha perfect ending for a perfect lecture!
I didn't get it. Was it just a compliment? The lines weren't clear in meaning. 1:17:00
Explain this so well!! Thanks for these courses!
This is amazing. Such a good lecture!
Que aula excepcional!!!!!
why at 50:35 the top equation needs 1/square-root 2 pi , and the one below doesnt? something related to phase?
Bump, same question
@Floyd Barber Thank you!
Brilliant! sad that there are so little views
I agree. They have half a million subscribers and less than 1k views on most videos. This series of videos is over most heads on RUclips though.
Michael Allen Exactly. All they want to do is listen to Justin Bieber and watch "vloggers" instead of learning something.
Haha, I am running into your comments more and more Mr Louw
Nice to see you have joined the party Mr Cassidy, unfortunately this means the enermies of hell grow stronger (diablo II).
I agree with you, but usually people cannot find 1 hour to spend fully concentrated on this. These lectures are without a doubt awesome, but only for the ones who have the time and the energy to focus throughout 1 hour of complex science. Usually people in general tend to use youtube to relax and not to think, listening to music or wtaching vloggers, which can be relaxing.
Thank you sir Alan Adams
Description of Noether's Theorem was really interesting. I can't quite grasp how it must have a conserved quantity though, I might have to go through the paper.
Same here...(1st time hearing about Neother's theorem)
I have a different way of saying the same thing. Look suppose we have a particle at position x=0 and we want to translate it to x=l. Now if the system has no interaction and an inherent definite momentum in positive x direction. We simply sit back and take our next observation at the moment it reaches x=l. We can claim that we have translated the particle without changing it's momentum state. Now suppose our particle has zero momentum at x=0, or we are not patient enough to let it reach x=l on its own then we cannot translate it to x=l without accelerating it. Then we will have to bring it back to its original momentum state after it reaches x=l. We can either accelerate and decelerate it to x=l. Or accelerate it and subject it to a collision so that it's momentum is restored to it's x=0 state. So claiming particle symmetry at two different positions requires the particle to be at same momentum state in both the positions. Remember Sir explained that to fully define the state of a particle in classical sense we need to know it's position and momentum. Hence we see translational symmetry dictates momentum conservation. Now you should consider the case if we perform same experiment at different places with identical but different particles. What's the condition for translational symmetry for this case?
1:17:39 The watch is incongruous with the outfit and language.
Education is about content over form. Bigotry is about form over content.
Guess what? This is education.
Calm down MLK, I'm sure there are other, slightly more important battles to pick than calling someone a bigot for a throwaway observation about a watch.
Indeed, just as I am sure that you must also have far more important battles to pick than to comment on such an trivial observation my friend.
You cute little algorithm, you punished me for leaving the computer on while I was asleep by convincing people I had gained a wider understanding of the delta function while I was asleep.
Do a superposition of talking to the person left to you and talking to the person right of you.
Pirates at end were nice! ☠️☠️🏴☠️
I am so curious what happen about 'pirates',and what does it mean with the final drama?a gift for teacher?
I took 3 classes in qm for my undergraduate and graduate studies in the 80s and 90s. These lectures are a wonderful review. I do wish I had continued my studies and not been sidetracked by life, but it is fun to see how much I remember!
I love this guy.
Can anyone please help me out with this? At 34:47 isn't that supposed to be the variance.
Yeah
Do the rules of probability density apply at the event horizon of a black hole with regards to Hawking radiation and virtual decay?
No it doesn't, as we never know the presence of virtual particles but for expecting a quantum fluctuation around the event horizon so expecting the norm square of psi(x) would be really bad P(x) ≠ | psi(x) |²
I just realized for the first time these lectures are 80 mins, here I was thinking that these 'hours' went by faster than in my uni 😅
happy valentine's day!! @ MIT
thank you prof. adams
Very cool professor!
the age example can be found in the Griffith quantum mechanics
Epic class, epic professor
Prof: try to convince each other
some guy: *threatens his neighbor with a pen to the throat*
19:30
😂😂😂
Dear Professor Adams, Can you find nano particles in a 3d closed system in a moving and non-moving fluid? The fluid being in the human body?
I can certainly find the crazy in the minds of people who think that. ;-)
@@schmetterling4477 Ok. I hear you. But wait to you see this happen. Because that is exactly what I am going to do. LMAO. Except I will work feverishly to do just that, and it is going to happen. LLMMAAOO.
@@j.michaelmoa7587 Any time now.