Received most of my physics education in the Schroedinger lecture theatre in Dublin. You possibly should have mentioned his contribution to genetic science. Watson and Crick recognized his work as the foundation for their research and eventual discovery of the double helix as far as I remember.
Of course, the origin Watson's realization of the double helix DNA structure was from a dream he experienced of two snakes entwining like the caduceus of Hermes. Let's just take a moment -- to realize that reality is weird.
Gotta love a guy who can break down the beauties and the mind-bending eccentricities of both physics and physicists and also use the word baloney in complete context. It seems that the direction of physics the last fifty years has been to try to bury the unresolved contradictions in nonfalsifiable baloney like infinite multiple universes.
Dirac showed an equivalence between Schrodinger's and Heisenberg's picture, but what few people noticed was that the Heisenberg picture equations (which look much like Hamiltonian mechanics) are actually weaker than Schrodinger's equation. Even if you solve the equation for the evolution of position/momentum time-dependent operators A(t) in Heisenberg picture, you can't directly extract the wavefunction, thus the probability distribution of the position/momentum of the particle, from it. That's because when you apply the time-dependent operator on a initial state, say A(t)psi(0), what you get is not A(0)psi(t) (what you usually get in Schrodinger's picture when you apply an operator), but instead U*(t)A(0)psi(t) (i.e. the inverse of the time-evolution operator applied to it). So, to get Schrodinger's result, you need to apply U(t) to it, but that requires finding what U(t) concretely is, which exactly means finding a general solution to Schrodinger's equation. I.e., even if you solve the Heisenberg equations you'd need to solve Schrodinger's equation, so it is a weaker theory. That's why Schrodinger's picture is more fundamental
I like how you told that he had the insight into wave equation while on holiday with his lover (7:20). This makes sense to me. As an EE micro-chip designer, I woke up one morning with a lover, and thought of a new way to construct Programmable Logic Arrays (PLAs) using CMOS elements (FETs). My evidence is empirical and anecdotal, but I suggest that sex enhances creativity.
Soccer player or boxers are asked to avoid sexual activity before important match play. This can say sexual enhance creativity and play down rudeness force behavior.
Thank you so much for this beautiful epistemologic insight . I had somewhat forgotten the crucial part of Cartan in relativity. As for Erwin Schrödinger, he remains fascinating...
Schrodinger discovered the hydrogen equation but not only ! Every atomic equation, neglecting the exchange potential and very small relativistic effects. He discovered also the light emission with its transition current. He is for sure the big boss of QM, it is crazy the advance he had. Niels Borh have occulted his work with the Solvay congress.
Thanks for this new format of shortly introducing important physicists. I like it very much! An interesting point to me was the fact, that Schrödinger did not believe in the probabalistic interpretation of the wave function. When I first heard about that in school years ago, I came very fast to the conclustion, that this sounds like a rediculous statement on the level of a fundamental theory. Until today my opinion on that did not change. A funny anecdote I experienced, when I recently explained to a friend, who is not familiar with physics, that while measuring the physical state of a system, the wave function breakes down to a random (nearly) classic state and that it is (due to modern view) fundamentally not understandable, which state will appear. He startet laughing and said: "I just imagine a man coming home late to his wife. She is asking, where he has been and his answer is: This is fundamentally not understandable." xD I have found it interesting that also to people who are not involved to physics the probability interpretation sounds somehow unreliable. My biggest criticism on the probability interpretation would be that the measurement process, that is supposed to be probaballistic, can in principle not be described by the equation of motion of the theory, since it is a deterministic equation. Therefore the theory is not complete/consistent. I cannot understand why no physicist today seams to care in any way on this huge problem within the consistency of this whole concept. Well nearly no physicist ... it is calming to hear that at least the founders of the concept did care xD So thanks a lot for the video!:)
The measurement problem is the biggest unsolved problem in physics. Many ignore it because it's ridiculously hard to solve, and they'd rather make progress elsewhere.
Start questioning measurements, you bring computer modeling into question...go down that rabbit hole you risk being called anti-science and maybe even a climate denier because you will say things like "How can the science be settled?" Most physicists know who butters their Grant Bread.
where's that qupte about 'Now they abuse my beautiful wave mechanics...' from? I tried googling it, but it turns out if you google 'Schrodinger' and 'abuse' in the same phrase you get some horrifyingly disgusting stuff.
What do you think Schrodinger's Wave Equation is waving? He states in his paper that he is JUST using waves and has nothing to do with material point particles. It is CERTAIN that Schrodinger was not building a statistical/probabilistic equation. His equation gave good answers for the spectral line frequencies, intensities, and Stark Effect polarization (without ANY need to invoke a probability or statistical explanation).
It is surprising how all of Unzicker's puzzles evaporate as soon as you accept quantized space and time, leading to the big bang and how the universe rebound (Carlo Rovelli, 2021), explained beautifully by string theory and Kaku claiming to explain everything, but the strings. Eastern mystics discovered thousand years ago, that there is no fundamental building block from which everything is made of.
@@sonarbangla8711 no. The most fundamental building block is uncreated and outside time and space. It is transcendental Mind or Being-Consciousness. Per the mystics, all that is created is modification or permutation of this Mind, which is Clear -Light Energy, or Spirit-Power, that becomes all existents, gross and subtle, physical and mental.
why pioneers of quantum Physics schrodinger, Bohr , hisenberg, david bohm were very interested in Eastern mysticism or religion while dealing with quantum mechanics interpretation like Advait Vedanta or taoism, buddhism which states with whole world is a one consciousness and realities and then we have fritzof capra Tao of physics book in 1975 which considered by many scientists as pseudoscience but praised by heisenberg . In his book "my view of life " by schrodinger in chapter the vedantic vision he advocate for why seeing quantum mechanics with reductionist and scientific method is not useful and he advocating for so called holistic view which is vedanta. Many will say it just pseudoscience as used by people like Deepak Chopra of connecting both , but why these noble prize winners are falling for it ?
Well, considering that all the planet planets come from our star, meaning ours sun.The big bang is just the big exit, and the big exit came from our sun
Can we get an english translation of the 1925 paper Die Erfiillbarkeit der Relativitiitsforderung in der klassischen M echanik Annalen der Physik, (4), 77, (1925), 325-336?
Wie stark ist nun die gravitative Zugkraft von allen Seiten? Immerhin wissen wir ja jetzt wieviel es nun dort draußen gibt. Diese dürfte ja die Trägheit festzurren.
Anyone remember the old movie Revenge of the Nerds? The cute girl was surprised she was in love with a Nerd. The Nerd explained jocks thought about football and nerds thought about sex, implying of course that made nerds better lovers. Wonder if the movie was inspired by true stories about physicists?
. . . Super Position . . . Erwin: _"I called the Babysitter."_ Wife Annemarie: *"But we don't have a baby!"* Erwin: _"She'll be bringing the baby."_ The Many Worlds of Erwin Schrödinger - j q t -
Several have suggested the Cat Experiment be tried out on all death penalty victims, who would describe their experience. The ones who survived would get commuted to life in prison.
May be at the start of universe when it started to expand gravity was because of all the masses in the universe as the masses were nearer and size of universe small and now as the size of universe increased to a great extent and masses have moved apart Einstein's relativity came into play.
@@TheMachian Yes Sir. I totally agree with you. According to big bang at the start all the four fundamental forces were unified. After certain time protons started forming. After that some time later atoms started forming. Then gravitational force separated from other 3 forces. Actually it's my mistake that I have mentioned at the start of universe when it started to expand. Instead of that I should have mentioned after big bang when gravitational force came into play. It's my fault.
@@TheMachian Is light immaterial ? And if it spreads then where does it spread. Space , so what is that? Is it void? Or, may be light itself constitute space?
If some person is lying on the ground. We can't make sure whether he is dead or sleeping unless we go and feel his pulse or warmth of breathing air near his nose so is Schrodinger's cat experiment and state of electron.
Our Creator stated The Solution to any Problem lays in the Letters in the Problem. "In the Beginning Was the Word .The Word was with God The word was in God The word was God it is interesting to solve problems this wayMBraithwaite
Schrodinger's Cat - is no longer valid. As we now accept the existence of the "Multiverse" which instantly negates "Super Position" because that would only be relative to the so called Universe at the time of his writing this. This now punches above the concept that if the Multiverse is in effect real, then you would have to shift from "Super Position" up a gear to being "Hyper Position" which would only be the next logical step to take at this point. However mathematically hyper position would have to take the state of 0 and 1, up another level to, which for me would make sense to snatch 0 - 9. This then gets problematic because we cannot get our heads around the introduction of all the other numbers. Which Hyper Position is all about so where do? Or how do we get to use these other numbers and is it only limited to 0-9 or is it 0-360 degrees, which becomes mind boggling. My gut instinct is that it has always be 360 and there's the magic number of 9 in all of it which is why Tesla was going on about 3, 6, 9, being the divine numbers The nucleus of an atom remains in spin, the spin is 360 degrees, and hence why 0, and 1. is obsolete in. Because this new level of physics introduces not just spin, or phase rotation, but goes further to explain entanglement which many of us have been only wondering about. A ball of string could simply explain entanglement and the string theory then has credence automatically. This then throws up other issues which we haven't even considered and I for one have been grappling with Black Holes, and White Holes, and their specific roles in the Cosmos, and have come up with the theory which is that they are no more than simple elevators to allow us to go up and down the levels of a "Multiverse" if you pictured an onion and you cut through it, it would have layers and layers. The multiverse operates similarly.
Не камильфо,в русскоязычном сегменте,без перевода. Вы теряете много подписчиков и лайков.всегда очень интересно сравнивать предлагаемый материал и как правило, каждый лектор дополняет друг друга.
Surprized to know your linking the great achievement of scientists to their personal or private lifehistory . I doubt whether you have that much moral courage to link that of Einstein s to his personal and private life history
You don't have graduate school education (ph.d.'s) in physics and mathematics,how can you claim to be authority in these fields and make lofty claims. Prof.Dr(MIT/University College Londo ) Nasir Fazal Cambridge USA
You make amazing videos I request to make video on this topic I know it's not a quiet scientific topic but because after seeing your video i see you are very knowledgeable in history of science I request you to make video on why pioneers of quantum Physics schrodinger, Bohr , hisenberg, david bohm were very interested in Eastern mysticism or religion while dealing with quantum mechanics interpretation like Advait Vedanta or taoism, buddhism which states with whole world is a one consciousness and realities and then we have fritzof capra Tao of physics book in 1975 which considered by many scientists as pseudoscience but praised by heisenberg . In his book "my view of life " by schrodinger in chapter the vedantic vision he advocate for why seeing quantum mechanics with reductionist and scientific method is not useful and he advocating for so called holistic view which is vedanta. Many will say it just pseudoscience as used by people like Deepak Chopra of connecting both , but why these noble prize winners are falling for it ?
Look, I enjoy and appreciate your videos - what I don't like is you using them as a plug for your books! It tells me you are not serious. However the history of 20th century Physics IS very important and the subject of a good teacher - like Dr Mason, who taught me this area at Manchester Polytechnic, UK, in the md 1970's. He stirred my interest (which I retain today) by telling us the History. QM is still not a theory (it lacks an explanation) since it only has interpretations, some of which are stupid (like many worlds). The interpretations are just ways of getting around gaps - Schrodinger was right. What we need is a deeply penetrating brain - like Einstein's, to fill the gaps.
I am sorry you get this impression. As a matter of fact, my books describe in a more detailed manner the content of some videos. But if have no problem to send a pdf to anyone with either sincere interest or strudents with a small budget -> just use ChannelInfo.
How would you suggest he advertise he has taken the trouble to expound on his ideas in a book length format for those who wish to better understand his ideas?
I agree with Jacob Bassett. It doesn't make him a "womanizer", whatever that means, different meaning for each person. And consorting with other women can be a good thing, if your wife agrees. Our Prof. brought it up as personal sidenote, not nasty at all, it shows that scientists are also people.
Наука
It is incredible that Schrodinger has formulated the universal gravitation this way. It is the very radius of the event horizon.
Received most of my physics education in the Schroedinger lecture theatre in Dublin. You possibly should have mentioned his contribution to genetic science. Watson and Crick recognized his work as the foundation for their research and eventual discovery of the double helix as far as I remember.
Of course, the origin Watson's realization of the double helix DNA structure was from a dream he experienced of two snakes entwining like the caduceus of Hermes. Let's just take a moment -- to realize that reality is weird.
@@kimwelch4652 ...especially then you use LSD
Gotta love a guy who can break down the beauties and the mind-bending eccentricities of both physics and physicists and also use the word baloney in complete context. It seems that the direction of physics the last fifty years has been to try to bury the unresolved contradictions in nonfalsifiable baloney like infinite multiple universes.
Dirac showed an equivalence between Schrodinger's and Heisenberg's picture, but what few people noticed was that the Heisenberg picture equations (which look much like Hamiltonian mechanics) are actually weaker than Schrodinger's equation. Even if you solve the equation for the evolution of position/momentum time-dependent operators A(t) in Heisenberg picture, you can't directly extract the wavefunction, thus the probability distribution of the position/momentum of the particle, from it. That's because when you apply the time-dependent operator on a initial state, say A(t)psi(0), what you get is not A(0)psi(t) (what you usually get in Schrodinger's picture when you apply an operator), but instead U*(t)A(0)psi(t) (i.e. the inverse of the time-evolution operator applied to it). So, to get Schrodinger's result, you need to apply U(t) to it, but that requires finding what U(t) concretely is, which exactly means finding a general solution to Schrodinger's equation. I.e., even if you solve the Heisenberg equations you'd need to solve Schrodinger's equation, so it is a weaker theory. That's why Schrodinger's picture is more fundamental
Hearing you speak so candidly is like a breath of fresh cold mountain air.
I like how you told that he had the insight into wave equation while on holiday with his lover (7:20). This makes sense to me. As an EE micro-chip designer, I woke up one morning with a lover, and thought of a new way to construct Programmable Logic Arrays (PLAs) using CMOS elements (FETs). My evidence is empirical and anecdotal, but I suggest that sex enhances creativity.
Soccer player or boxers are asked to avoid sexual activity before important match play. This can say sexual enhance creativity and play down rudeness force behavior.
Sir the videos are amazing. Can we get a video on all the books u have. Greetings From India
keep it coming Professor! awesome material!
Thank you so much for this beautiful epistemologic insight .
I had somewhat forgotten the crucial part of Cartan in relativity.
As for Erwin Schrödinger, he remains fascinating...
Schrodinger discovered the hydrogen equation but not only ! Every atomic equation, neglecting the exchange potential and very small relativistic effects. He discovered also the light emission with its transition current. He is for sure the big boss of QM, it is crazy the advance he had. Niels Borh have occulted his work with the Solvay congress.
You are right. History in physics is just as important. Subscribed!
I hated Schrödinger for his Schrödinger cat thought experiment. Now I love him because it was mockery. What a man.
Thanks for this new format of shortly introducing important physicists. I like it very much!
An interesting point to me was the fact, that Schrödinger did not believe in the probabalistic interpretation of the wave function. When I first heard about that in school years ago, I came very fast to the conclustion, that this sounds like a rediculous statement on the level of a fundamental theory. Until today my opinion on that did not change.
A funny anecdote I experienced, when I recently explained to a friend, who is not familiar with physics, that while measuring the physical state of a system, the wave function breakes down to a random (nearly) classic state and that it is (due to modern view) fundamentally not understandable, which state will appear. He startet laughing and said: "I just imagine a man coming home late to his wife. She is asking, where he has been and his answer is: This is fundamentally not understandable." xD I have found it interesting that also to people who are not involved to physics the probability interpretation sounds somehow unreliable.
My biggest criticism on the probability interpretation would be that the measurement process, that is supposed to be probaballistic, can in principle not be described by the equation of motion of the theory, since it is a deterministic equation. Therefore the theory is not complete/consistent. I cannot understand why no physicist today seams to care in any way on this huge problem within the consistency of this whole concept.
Well nearly no physicist ... it is calming to hear that at least the founders of the concept did care xD So thanks a lot for the video!:)
The measurement problem is the biggest unsolved problem in physics. Many ignore it because it's ridiculously hard to solve, and they'd rather make progress elsewhere.
Wave becomes random result when time stop.
Start questioning measurements, you bring computer modeling into question...go down that rabbit hole you risk being called anti-science and maybe even a climate denier because you will say things like "How can the science be settled?"
Most physicists know who butters their Grant Bread.
I love this guys videos
I love this/you. I subscribed. Thanks
Your take on everything makes it all interesting, though
where's that qupte about 'Now they abuse my beautiful wave mechanics...' from? I tried googling it, but it turns out if you google 'Schrodinger' and 'abuse' in the same phrase you get some horrifyingly disgusting stuff.
What do you think Schrodinger's Wave Equation is waving?
He states in his paper that he is JUST using waves and has nothing to do with material point particles. It is CERTAIN that Schrodinger was not building a statistical/probabilistic equation. His equation gave good answers for the spectral line frequencies, intensities, and Stark Effect polarization (without ANY need to invoke a probability or statistical explanation).
Is that G equation from Schodeinger somehow related to Friedman's Equation for k = 0. That is 2MGH = c^3
M = Mass of Universe.
Would you mind dwelling on the equations, please. What are the variables?
Well, I agree it is a short video about Schrödinger. H is the Hamilton operator, psi the wave function, E energy... of course, much needs to be said.
I'm amazed Schrodinger lived through WWI, WWII and Korea. A Trifecta! Oh and that other stuff.
Very interesting character...I was hoping you would go into more detail about his theories of womanization.
It is surprising how all of Unzicker's puzzles evaporate as soon as you accept quantized space and time, leading to the big bang and how the universe rebound (Carlo Rovelli, 2021), explained beautifully by string theory and Kaku claiming to explain everything, but the strings. Eastern mystics discovered thousand years ago, that there is no fundamental building block from which everything is made of.
Wrong. The fundamental building block, per mystics, is Consciousness itself, which has become everything while not becoming anything.
@@l.rongardner2150 What about micro tubules"
@@sonarbangla8711 no. The most fundamental building block is uncreated and outside time and space. It is transcendental Mind or Being-Consciousness. Per the mystics, all that is created is modification or permutation of this Mind, which is Clear -Light Energy, or Spirit-Power, that becomes all existents, gross and subtle, physical and mental.
why pioneers of quantum Physics schrodinger, Bohr , hisenberg, david bohm were very interested in Eastern mysticism or religion while dealing with quantum mechanics interpretation like Advait Vedanta or taoism, buddhism which states with whole world is a one consciousness and realities and then we have fritzof capra Tao of physics book in 1975 which considered by many scientists as pseudoscience but praised by heisenberg . In his book "my view of life " by schrodinger in chapter the vedantic vision he advocate for why seeing quantum mechanics with reductionist and scientific method is not useful and he advocating for so called holistic view which is vedanta. Many will say it just pseudoscience as used by people like Deepak Chopra of connecting both , but why these noble prize winners are falling for it ?
Well, considering that all the planet planets come from our star, meaning ours sun.The big bang is just the big exit, and the big exit came from our sun
I don't read Unzicker's videos, because the titles I have seen feature unsavory personal characteristics of their subjects, if true.
Where is Wolfgang Pauli in this opening pic???
If you got a chance to talk to Erwin schrodinger and you could ask only one question what would it be?
Do you like cats?
5:31 reference? Please
Can we get an english translation of the 1925 paper Die Erfiillbarkeit der Relativitiitsforderung in der klassischen M echanik
Annalen der Physik, (4), 77, (1925), 325-336?
I'm afraid it doesn't exist. google translate or DeepL helps
So then what did solutions of Schroedinger's equation mean to Schroedinger himself?
Wie stark ist nun die gravitative Zugkraft von allen Seiten? Immerhin wissen wir ja jetzt wieviel es nun dort draußen gibt. Diese dürfte ja die Trägheit festzurren.
Anyone remember the old movie Revenge of the Nerds? The cute girl was surprised she was in love with a Nerd. The Nerd explained jocks thought about football and nerds thought about sex, implying of course that made nerds better lovers. Wonder if the movie was inspired by true stories about physicists?
. . . Super Position . . .
Erwin: _"I called the Babysitter."_ Wife Annemarie: *"But we don't have a baby!"*
Erwin: _"She'll be bringing the baby."_ The Many Worlds of Erwin Schrödinger - j q t -
Omfg did he really call it shitty? That's amazing 🤣
The graviational potential of all the mass in the universe = half the speed of light squared?
What?
Then that implies a finite universe.
Several have suggested the Cat Experiment be tried out on all death penalty victims, who would describe their experience. The ones who survived would get commuted to life in prison.
May be at the start of universe when it started to expand gravity was because of all the masses in the universe as the masses were nearer and size of universe small and now as the size of universe increased to a great extent and masses have moved apart Einstein's relativity came into play.
There is no material expansion; just light spreads.
@@TheMachian Yes Sir. I totally agree with you. According to big bang at the start all the four fundamental forces were unified. After certain time protons started forming. After that some time later atoms started forming. Then gravitational force separated from other 3 forces. Actually it's my mistake that I have mentioned at the start of universe when it started to expand. Instead of that I should have mentioned after big bang when gravitational force came into play. It's my fault.
@@TheMachian Is light immaterial ? And if it spreads then where does it spread. Space , so what is that? Is it void? Or, may be light itself constitute space?
70 or 17!? Either way
He had a wife and a girlfriend who were both down with it. That doesn't make him a womanizer.
No, it makes him a master salesman.
@@friendlyone2706 😄😁😅😂🤣
If some person is lying on the ground. We can't make sure whether he is dead or sleeping unless we go and feel his pulse or warmth of breathing air near his nose so is Schrodinger's cat experiment and state of electron.
We can use distance measurements to determine life factors. Not possible in Cat experiment.
IF THERE IS AN ETHER AND A DIRAC SEA THEN SPACE TIME NEEDS TO BE RETHOUGHT.
seems to me he needed a bit of inspiration every now and then from these 'unknown Fräuleins'..
Erwin Schrödinger is my favorite Physicist
Did he say one of his affairs was a 17 year old or a 70 year old?
17.
Planck wurde 1958 geboren??
Our Creator stated The Solution to any Problem lays in the Letters in the Problem. "In the Beginning
Was the Word .The Word was with God The word was in God The word was God it is interesting to solve problems this wayMBraithwaite
Schrodinger's Cat - is no longer valid. As we now accept the existence of the "Multiverse" which instantly negates "Super Position" because that would only be relative to the so called Universe at the time of his writing this.
This now punches above the concept that if the Multiverse is in effect real, then you would have to shift from "Super Position" up a gear to being "Hyper Position" which would only be the next logical step to take at this point. However mathematically hyper position would have to take the state of 0 and 1, up another level to, which for me would make sense to snatch 0 - 9. This then gets problematic because we cannot get our heads around the introduction of all the other numbers. Which Hyper Position is all about so where do? Or how do we get to use these other numbers and is it only limited to 0-9 or is it 0-360 degrees, which becomes mind boggling.
My gut instinct is that it has always be 360 and there's the magic number of 9 in all of it which is why Tesla was going on about 3, 6, 9, being the divine numbers The nucleus of an atom remains in spin, the spin is 360 degrees, and hence why 0, and 1. is obsolete in. Because this new level of physics introduces not just spin, or phase rotation, but goes further to explain entanglement which many of us have been only wondering about.
A ball of string could simply explain entanglement and the string theory then has credence automatically.
This then throws up other issues which we haven't even considered and I for one have been grappling with Black Holes, and White Holes, and their specific roles in the Cosmos, and have come up with the theory which is that they are no more than simple elevators to allow us to go up and down the levels of a "Multiverse" if you pictured an onion and you cut through it, it would have layers and layers. The multiverse operates similarly.
Heisenberg was quite a skirt-chaser as well, so I hear.
Не камильфо,в русскоязычном сегменте,без перевода.
Вы теряете много подписчиков и лайков.всегда очень интересно сравнивать предлагаемый материал и как правило, каждый лектор дополняет друг друга.
A womanizing Schrodinger is the best thing that had happened to the physics industry. That's what triggered his genius.
Surprized to know your linking the great achievement of scientists to their personal or private lifehistory . I doubt whether you have that much moral courage to link that of Einstein s to his personal and private life history
Just say what you want to say, I am not afraid. Consider however that these videos are not to be taken as biographies.
An far from universe.
Whether statics or dynamics
BUT ROUND THE SUN WITH AXIS.
What a nice wife.
You don't have graduate school education (ph.d.'s) in physics and mathematics,how can you claim to be authority in these fields and make lofty claims.
Prof.Dr(MIT/University College Londo ) Nasir Fazal Cambridge USA
Do you really think the only path to deep learning is a classroom?
You make amazing videos
I request to make video on this topic
I know it's not a quiet scientific topic but because after seeing your video i see you are very knowledgeable in history of science I request you to make video on why pioneers of quantum Physics schrodinger, Bohr , hisenberg, david bohm were very interested in Eastern mysticism or religion while dealing with quantum mechanics interpretation like Advait Vedanta or taoism, buddhism which states with whole world is a one consciousness and realities and then we have fritzof capra Tao of physics book in 1975 which considered by many scientists as pseudoscience but praised by heisenberg . In his book "my view of life " by schrodinger in chapter the vedantic vision he advocate for why seeing quantum mechanics with reductionist and scientific method is not useful and he advocating for so called holistic view which is vedanta. Many will say it just pseudoscience as used by people like Deepak Chopra of connecting both , but why these noble prize winners are falling for it ?
Look, I enjoy and appreciate your videos - what I don't like is you using them as a plug for your books! It tells me you are not serious. However the history of 20th century Physics IS very important and the subject of a good teacher - like Dr Mason, who taught me this area at Manchester Polytechnic, UK, in the md 1970's. He stirred my interest (which I retain today) by telling us the History. QM is still not a theory (it lacks an explanation) since it only has interpretations, some of which are stupid (like many worlds). The interpretations are just ways of getting around gaps - Schrodinger was right. What we need is a deeply penetrating brain - like Einstein's, to fill the gaps.
I am sorry you get this impression. As a matter of fact, my books describe in a more detailed manner the content of some videos. But if have no problem to send a pdf to anyone with either sincere interest or strudents with a small budget -> just use ChannelInfo.
@@TheMachian Yes I am sure your books do - but we do not look at youtube for sales, marketing and promotion of books.
@@nosnibor800 Dissimulating the fact that there is a market won't take money out of science. Or RUclips.
How would you suggest he advertise he has taken the trouble to expound on his ideas in a book length format for those who wish to better understand his ideas?
And being a womanizer has to concern Schrödinger's scientific contributions exactly how? That's extra nastiness. Not cool.
I agree with Jacob Bassett. It doesn't make him a "womanizer", whatever that means, different meaning for each person. And consorting with other women can be a good thing, if your wife agrees. Our Prof. brought it up as personal sidenote, not nasty at all, it shows that scientists are also people.
I know, he liked women, so what.
@@concinnity9676 some people have monogamous tendency and some people have polygamous tendency
@@aqilshamil9633 polygamous tendency is degeneracy