Feedback Requested: Turning Think Like a Physicist Into a Course
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 27 окт 2024
- Hi!
I'd like feedback on eventually turning the content on this channel into an organized course. In particular, I'd like to know if there are any accompanying course materials I could provide which would be helpful. Please leave comments below!
Many thanks!
![Megan Thee Stallion - Bigger In Texas [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QxTkZTLWdo4/mqdefault.jpg)
Hi! Feedback welcome!
I believe your content should reach more people, if possible please create a twitter handle and let the people know about the video library.
If you are creating a website, would be far better step, where you can keep your slides along with video link.
I have thought of a few stuff, in a later part I will let you know.
Is there any way to communicate with you directly, like mail id ??
Many thanks for creating rich physics content 👍🏻👍🏻
@@sadashivsahoo Many thanks for the suggestions! Right now, the only way I'm reaching/communicating with people is through youtube itself, but perhaps I should change that.
Making the slides available would be pretty easy. That might be a good place to start. Thanks!
Not sure if this helps, but I think there should be some (rigorous in some cases) mathematics. Eg merely stating an equation is good (you've done this in multiple videos), but a derivation would really help me understand how that equation came into being and also the mathematics that was taught prior (or as an aside) would be useful. Not a maths person but I want to know a bit of maths for learning physics. Eg tensor analysis taught in advance helps in better understanding of GR and in that case derivations can be shown as well instead of just stating the EFEs.
Thanks! I will keep this in mind.
Lectures are usually boring because they just run through the data without sufficient explanation. Your channel is great because you explain everything in detail! So.. keep everything as is -- just organize it according to a logically evolving curriculum? \o/
Additional material? Like what are differential equations? You could just link to something on web, it's full of math courses, luckily.
If you could make a boring course interesting... like, with examples from real life that started that area of science... to provide motivation, that would be awesome! Videos on differential equations where you realise why you're learning those at all.
Hi! Yes, I do need to get things organized--that's for sure. ;-) Thanks for your suggestions!
@@ThinkLikeaPhysicist Thanks for interesting videos! \o/ :3
There are hidden particles like Monopole particles and hypothetical particles like gravitons that the standard model of particles doesn't show. If you can make a model including all those additional particles (unknown parameters/constants, Axions, etc) to discuss about them relatively and separately, then it will be helpful for many people to get an idea about those unpopular research fields.
Hi! Thanks for the suggestion! I could probably include videos on some more speculative topics. I'll take a look.
@@ThinkLikeaPhysicist, Thank you for your consideration and reply.
Yes, these are very interesting topics, people just know these jargons but don't know how/where such hypothesis came from !
I think lecture notes that go along with the videos would be really helpful. Maybe add some references to websites or books that you might be following for the course. There are many of us who follow channels like these to refresh our data science knowledge and how to apply them to real life scenarios. So far, its been useful
OK, great! Thanks for the feedback. I'll see what I can do.
You are building up a good library of interesting information on this site with a really interesting and distinct approach. Hopefully you will hit a critical mass (pardon the pun), when the numbers go exponential. I hope that others like me, will promote it on some of the most popular sites.
Many thanks! Much appreciated!
Not a feedback but content request: I've noticed this channel primarily focuses on particle physics as it's content, it'd be great if GR was taught as well...
Hi! Thanks for the feedback. I'd like to expand to more material, but it will probably take me quite a while. I will keep this in mind, especially since it is so interesting!
1. In a video last year, you explained a problem I had in my understanding by pointing out that E=MC2 applies only at specific conditions. Ah, the penny dropped then. Why is this ignored generally in lower level courses when it would help people understand why they don't get something (ie sometimes there's something obvious that course materials haven't caveated)
Hi!
At a quick glance, I couldn't find the old question, so I'm guessing that I said that E=mc^2 holds only for an object at rest, while the expression is more complicated for an object in motion. (If that wasn't the general theme of the question, what I say here might not be so useful!)
Well, I don't know if I have a good answer to your question. E=mc^2 and the more general expression that holds for objects in motion both come out of special relativity. So, if one has a course in special relativity, one will see the relation that holds for objects in motion. (If one doesn't, though, it's not so easy to come across.) In physics curricula, special relativity tends to get taught after Newtonian mechanics and electromagnetism. I would guess that it's typically not included in the curricula for, say, engineering or other fields. So, unless one is actually majoring in physics, it can be very easy to never run across this relation.
Not an ideal situation, certainly!
I guess one possible solution would be if there is at least some special relativity tacked onto classical mechanics courses. And, I don't really see why this couldn't be done. It would also be helpful to have exposure to relativity before taking electromagnetism, so it seems like a good idea all around.
So, why is this relation usually pushed into classes that most people won't be exposed to? Offhand, I don't see a good reason. Alas....
2. I've struggled with basic things for want of finding probably a simple explanation...consider the Photon...it's massless so travels at C, and interacts with nothing because it has no mass ( or does it). Why do we not see so many distant objects. Is it because of the dust and gas that's in the way. that is then number of photons that get through to our eves is insufficient to excite an image?, so we need cameras with shutter speeds that collect enough photons over time to give an image. I've not seen this explained to my satisfaction in other web videos, though it seems simple
Hi!
I might only be getting the general gist of the second part of your question, so I might need you to clarify it a bit. But, I can address the beginning of what you said.
So, photons most definitely do interact with other things. Photons interact with anything that has charge. So, for example, they interact with the electrons in the matter around us. So, light coming from distant objects can be absorbed or scattered en route.
(A possible guess for why you suggested it did not interact: Often, we talk about neutrinos. Neutrinos have a couple of traits that are usually mentioned: they barely interact with matter, at least at low energies, and they have very tiny masses. These are mentioned together so often that it would be easy to think that massless=doesn't interact. But, they are (for the most part) unrelated. These just happen to be 2 traits that neutrinos have. In principle, we can have a massless particle that does interact, and we can have a massive particle that doesn't.)
Does that start to address your question?
This may be a little off topic but there are so many podcasts and other videos online about the double slit experiment and collapse of the wave function. I think of the many Ive seen, that the following gives a better intuition by putting the experiment on it's side. I appreciated this because it brought the notion of gravity into it for a single particle and that cemented the one particle at a time thing. ruclips.net/video/A9tKncAdlHQ/видео.html at 1:45. Surely the individual particle would have a trajectory, set at the time of initial velocity which is a straight line to where it hits, just like the action of sand under gravity?. I'm an engineer so looking at basic shortest path. Wouldn't a particle have a determined path determining the slit to go through for basic mechanics? Any thoughts?
Hi!
Answering this will probably be a little involved, so I'd better make sure I understand your question first! Are you asking if the particle in a double-slit experiment has a well-defined trajectory between the particle source and the place where it hits on the screen?
@@Centurianarv Hi!
I'll make a few general comments. I don't know how far they will go in answering your question, but let's start here. Feel free to ask follow-ups!
In quantum mechanics, the state a particle (or other system) is in depends on what measurements we have performed on it. If there is some observable quantity (like position, momentum, direction of spin, etc.) that we haven't measured, then we can't say that the system has a definite value for that quantity.
Additionally, measuring one quantity will affect the results of measurements of other quantities. Let's say we measure the momentum of some particle. We get a value. If we immediately measure the momentum again, we will get the same value again. It has (up to our measurement's precision) a well-defined value for its momentum.
Now let's say we measure its position. We get a result. If we then measure the particle's momentum again, we won't get the same value we had the first time. This is a manifestation of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. (If you're familiar with Fourier analysis, let me know--I can go into more detail on this.)
So, in quantum mechanics, the state that a particle is in depends on how we've measured it. And, if we, say, measure the position of a particle, its momentum simply does not have a definite value.
Long ago, it was thought that the mysteriousness of quantum mechanics possibly merely reflected our lack of knowledge of a system's state. For example, it was thought that a particle perhaps does, in fact, have definite values for its position and momentum, but that we simply fail to measure this information completely. These ideas were known as Hidden Variable Theories.
However, John Bell showed that there was an experimentally testable difference between Hidden Variable Theories and quantum mechanics; his mathematical results are known as the Bell inequalities. These have, in fact, been checked experimentally, and the predictions of quantum mechanics have passed experimental tests, while those of the Hidden Variable Theories have not. (The most famous of these experiments was done by Aspect et al, leading to this year's Nobel Prize.)
So, the short answer to your question is that, if we haven't measured the particle's trajectory, then it doesn't have a definite trajectory. Probably not a very satisfying answer!
Let me know if that helps. Feel free to ask for more details.
@@ThinkLikeaPhysicist It does help thanks!. You gave me much more information than I needed but I shall take this and make good use of it. I know Fourier from Electrical Engineering but I wasn't that great at the maths as a student, way back when, so, anything further might be wasted on me at this point. Grateful that you took the time to answer an off topic point. I do follow Don Johnson, Krauss, Sabina Hossenfelder, Brian Greene and others but there question bags are so big.
@@di7948 Glad I could help!
I will try to give just an inkling about how the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is related to Fourier stuff, without going through any of the math directly.
You might remember that a system that was tightly constrained in the time domain would be wide in the frequency domain and vice-versa. A particle's wavefunction gives information on where in space the particle is likely to be found. But, the wavelength associated with the particle is related to (more precisely, inversely proportional to) its momentum. This means that if you take a particle's wavefunction and Fourier transform it, you get its momentum spectrum. So, a particle that is well-localized in space will have a wide spread in momentum, and vice-versa. That is basically the H.U.P for position and momentum.
If that made no sense, let me know, and I can write it out with more detail and/or point you to some online sources.