Law of Conservation' by Richard Feynman [HD Clearest video ever with Cle...

Transcript Search in video 0:04 [Music] 0:14 [Music] 1:14 [Applause] 1:26 when learning about the laws of physics you find that there are a large number of complicated and detailed laws the 1:32 laws of gravitation of electricity and magnetism nuclear interactions and so on 1:37 and so on but across the variety of these detailed laws there sweep great general 1:44 principles which all the laws seem to follow now these principles are for instance the principles of 1:50 conservation certain qualities of symmetry the general form of quantum 1:57 mechanical principles and unhappily or happily as we spoke about last time the fact that all the laws are 2:04 mathematical and tonight I want to talk about the conservation 2:10 principle now a principle of cons the physicist uses all ordinary words in a 2:15 peculiar manner which is unfortunate for example conservation means conservation 2:21 law means this the way he uses the word is that there is a number which you can 2:28 calculate at one moment and if as nature undergoes its 2:34 multitude of changes this number doesn't change that is if you calculate again 2:40 this quantity it'll be the same as it was before an example is the conservation of energy there's a 2:45 quantity that you can calculate according to a certain Rule and that comes out the same answer after no 2:51 matter what happen happens now you can see that such a 2:57 thing is a possibly use ful it's analogous to this suppose that the 3:03 physics or the nature is is made analogous to a great chess game that 3:09 we're watching with millions of pieces on it and we're trying to discover the laws or the rules by which the pieces 3:15 move and the great Gods who play these chest plays it very play it very rapidly it's hard to watch and it's difficult to 3:21 see and we're catching on to some of the rules but there are some rules which we could work out which do not require that 3:28 we watch every move for instance if there's one Bishop only 3:33 on the board since the bishop moves diagonally it never changes its color so 3:39 if there's a red Bishop on the board and we look away for a moment while the gods play for a few look again we can expect 3:44 that there's a red Bishop on the board maybe in a different place but the same red Bishop I mean the same color square 3:52 and this is in the nature of a conservation law it doesn't we don't need to watch the insides but we know at 4:00 least know something about the game anyway it's true that in chess this 4:05 particular law is not necessarily perfectly valid if we watch long enough it could happen that the bishop is 4:11 captured while we weren't looking a pawn went down to queen and the God decided that it was better thr it a bishop 4:16 instead of a queen in the place of that porn and it was on a black square and so unfortunately it may well 4:23 turn out that some of the laws which we see today may not be exactly perfect but I'll tell you how it looks now 4:35 I said that we use words in a technical fashion and another name word in this title is the great conservation 4:42 principles this is not a technical word it was merely put in to make the title sound more dramatic just as well call 4:48 them the conservation law if you wish there are a few conservation laws that don't work that are only approximately 4:55 right that are kind of useful and we might call those a little conservation laws I'll mention one or two of those 5:01 but the conservation other ones that I'm going to mention are as far as we can tell today absolutely 5:08 accurate the easiest one to understand is the one I'll start with and that's 5:14 the conservation of electric charge there's a number the total electric charge on a thing which no matter what 5:21 happens doesn't change of course the total electric charge in the world 5:27 rather is what doesn't change the charge may go from one place to another but if you lose it here you'll find it over there so the conservation is of a total 5:35 of the electric charge this was discovered experimentally or demonstrated 5:41 experimentally by I am embarrassed to say I don't remember whether it was I think it's Faraday but it might have 5:47 been Franklin anyway it's somebody whose name begins with f and I know at least this much that it 5:54 isn't Fineman anyway but it's that's at any rate the experiment 6:01 consisted of getting inside of a great globe of metal on the outside of which 6:06 was a very delicate galvanometers to look for charge on the globe because small amounts of charge would make a big 6:12 effect and then inside the globe this experiment whose name began with f built 6:19 all kinds of weird electrical equipment of every kind he made charges by rubbing 6:24 uh glass rods with uh cat's fur and he made big electrostatic machines run 6:30 inside and so on so that the inside of this thing looked like those horror movies laboratory and during all these 6:35 experiments no charge developed on the surface there was no net charge made when a glass rod was charged up with a 6:42 cats spur the cat spur although the rod may have been I forget say positive then 6:48 the cat spur would be the same amount of charge negative because the total charge uh was 6:55 never anything if there were any charge developed on the inside it would have appeared as an in the galvanometer on 7:00 the outside so the total charge is conserved now this one is an easy one to 7:06 understand because a very simple model that's not mathematical at all will explain it 7:13 suppose that the world is only made of two kinds of particles electrons and protons there was a time when it looked 7:18 like it was going to be as easy as that and that the electrons carry a negative charge and the protons a 7:25 positive charge so we can separate them we can take a piece of matter and put more electrons on or less electrons but 7:30 suppose that electrons are permanent they do not disintegrate they never disappear and that's all now that's not 7:36 even mathematical that's a simple proposition and now you see that the total number of electrons take away or 7:42 the protons rather take away the number of electrons won't change as a matter of fact the total number of protons won't 7:48 change and the total number of electrons won't change in this particular model but we're concentrating now on the 7:54 charge and the difference the contribution of the positive of the protons is positive and electrons is 7:59 negative and if these objects are never created or destroyed 8:04 alone then the total charge will be conserved I want to list uh later on the 8:10 number of properties of conserved quantities and I start with the one about charge that we're talking about 8:16 and we mark down here that it is conserved uh and that's the beginning this go 8:22 yes so that's the first the chart will expand as we go 8:28 along this theoretical interpretation is very simple but it was later discovered that electrons and protons are not 8:34 permanent for example a particle called a neutron disintegrate can disintegrate into a proton and an 8:42 electron plus something else which will come to but the neutron it turns out is electrically neutral so although protons 8:49 are not permanent nor are electrons permanent in the sense that they can be created from a neutron the charge still 8:55 checks out because starting before we had zero charge and afterward we have plus one and minus one so when add it 9:00 together you get zero charge so that the rule is now another 9:06 example of a similar trouble uh not trouble but fact is this that 9:15 there exists another particle which is positively charged besides a proton called a positron which is a kind of an 9:20 image of an electron it's just like the electron in most respects except it has the opposite sign of charge and more 9:27 important it's called an anti particle because when it meets with an electron the two of them can disintegrate they 9:33 can annihilate each other and nothing but light come out so electrons are not permanent even them by themselves an 9:40 electron plus a positron will just make light or actually the light is invisible 9:46 gamma rays but it's the same thing for a physicist just the wavelength is different so a particle and the 9:51 antiparticle can annihilate the light has no electrical charge but we remove one positive and one negative charge so 9:57 we haven't changed the total charge therefore the charge the theory of this conservation of charges a little 10:03 slightly more complicated but still very 10:15 [Music] 10:29 and whatever happens in any reaction the total amount of charges on one side has to balance on the other 10:38 side that's one aspect of the conservation of charge now comes an interesting question is it sufficient to 10:45 say only that that charge is conserved or can we say do we have to say more if 10:50 charge were conserved because it was a real particle which moved around it would have a very special property the 10:56 total amount of charge in a box might stay the same in two ways it may be that the charge moves from one 11:01 place to the other in the box and just stays in the box but another possibility is this charge here 11:07 disappears and simultaneously over here charge arises such in such a manner 11:15 instantaneously related so that the total charge is never changing this possibility for the 11:21 conservation is a different kind than the other one in which if anything happens that the charge goes away here 11:27 something has got to go through the in between something goes past you if you stood there and watch something would 11:32 goart the second form of charge conservation is called local charge 11:37 conservation and is far more detailed than the simple remark that the total charge doesn't change so you see we've 11:43 been proving our law if in fact it's true that charge is locally concerned it is true that it must be 11:50 true that it must be true of course nothing can be proved without some other things but I as I desire to show you 11:58 from time to time as as much as possible some of the possibilities of reasoning interconnecting one idea with another I 12:04 would like to show you an argument which is fundamentally due to Einstein which indicates that if anything is conserved 12:10 and in this case I apply it to charge it must be conserved locally provided one 12:15 thing provided that if two fellas are passing each other in a spaceship the argument about which guy is doing the 12:21 moving and which one is standing still cannot be resolved by any expon that's 12:27 called the principle of relativity that the motion is relative and that we can look at any phenomenon from either point 12:32 of view either from the point of view that uh the one is moving and that this say this one is standing still and this 12:39 one is moving or the other way around now suppose I take this point of 12:44 view that that this one is the one that's moving past him don't forget that that's just tempor you can also look at 12:49 it the other way and you must get the same phenomena of nature now suppose that this man who's standing still wants 12:55 to argue whether or not he sees a charge over here disappear and the charge over 13:00 here appear at the same time in order to make sure that's the same time he can't sit in the front of 13:07 the ship because he'll see one before he sees the other on a kind of light so let's suppose to be very careful he sits 13:12 dead center in the middle of the ship right here and looks he's right in the middle halfway in between incidentally 13:19 I'm going to have another man doing the same kind of observation in the other ship and now a lightning bolt strikes 13:27 and charge at this point a is created at a certain instant and at the 13:33 same instant back over here at this place B and the other side and the back of the the other end of the spaceship 13:40 funny looking spaceship the charge is annihilated disappears at the same time which is 13:46 perfectly consistent with our idea that charge is conserved because if we lose one electron we get one electron here 13:53 and lose one here but nothing went in between now see he says at the same time 13:58 he watches sees it's exactly the same time because the light which comes from the bolt which created the a reaches him 14:05 at the same time as the light which comes from the flash of disappearance we supposed that when it 14:12 disappears there a Flash and when it's created there's a flash so we can see what happened and then we see the two 14:17 flashh at the same time and since he knows he's in the middle of the ship he says yes when one disappeared the other was created but what happens to our 14:24 friend in the other ship he says no you're wrong my friend I saw a was created before B because the light is coming out of a but 14:32 the man is moving toward it because he's moving and the light hits him from the front before the light can reach him 14:38 from the back because he's moving away from the light so by the time the light gets here he's got moved over so he says 14:44 no a you see was created first and then B disappeared so for a short time after 14:50 a after I saw a was created B hadn't yet been dis hadn't yet disappeared and I 14:56 got some charge that's not the conservation of charge against the LA so the other fell says yeah but you're 15:02 moving he says how do you know and so on I think you're 15:09 moving so the if we are unable by any experiment to see a difference in the 15:15 physical laws whether we're moving or not if the conservation of charge were not local we could tell when we were you 15:21 see if it were not local only a certain kind of man would see it work right namely the guy who's standing still in 15:27 an absolute sense but such a thing shall be impossible according to Einstein and therefore it's impossible according to 15:33 the relativity principle to have non local conservation of charge this conservation local the locality of the 15:40 conservation of charge is consonant with the theory of relativity and it turns out that 15:46 uh locally that um that this is true of all the 15:52 conservation laws not just the charge as you can appreciate if anything is conservative the same principle 16:00 now another interesting thing about charge which has nothing to do with the conservation law and is independent of 16:05 that is a very strange one for which we have no real explanation today and that is that the charge always comes in units 16:11 when we have a particle that's charged it's got one charge or two charge or minus one or minus two it's a nice little lumpy unit and has nothing to do 16:18 with the conservation of charge but I can't help writing down that it find out it it comes in units the thing that's 16:25 conserved and that's very nice that it comes in units because that makes a theory of conservation of charge very easy to understand is just a thing which 16:32 we count which goes from place to place finally it turns out technically 16:39 that the total charge of a thing is very easy to determine electrically because the charge has a 16:45 very important characteristic it's the source of the electric and magnetic field charge is a measure of the 16:52 interaction of an object with electricity with electric field and so the other item that we should put here 17:00 on the list is that this is a source of a 17:05 field in other words the electricity is related to the charge so the particular quantity which is conserved here has two 17:12 other aspects which are not connected with the conservation directly but are interesting any either way one is that 17:18 it comes in unit and the other that it's the source of a field are there other examples there are many conservation 17:25 laws I give some more examples of conservation laws of the same type is the charge in the sense that is merely a 17:31 matter of counting there is a conservation law called the conservation of barion a 17:37 neutron can go into a proton if we count each of those as one then we don't lose the numbers the 17:45 number of the word is actually substituted by barion which is equally mysterious and 17:51 meaningless as one the neutron carries one bionic charge unit or represents one 17:57 barion then a proton represents one Baron all we're doing is counting and making big words and so the total number 18:04 if this reaction occurs the total number of Barons doesn't change it does turn out however that 18:09 there are other reactions in nature for example a proton plus a proton can produce rather a great variety of 18:15 strange objects a Lambda a proton and a k+ for instance which are these Lambda and k+ 18:22 are names for peculiar particles now from this one here know 18:29 you put two Barons in you see one come out so possibly one or the other is one but if you'll study the Lambda later 18:35 you'll discover that it very slowly this is easy for it easy and this 18:41 is hard for it to do it disintegrates into a proton and a pie and ultimately the pi disintegrates into electrons and 18:46 whatnot but what you've got here is the barion coming out again so we think that the Lambda has a baron number but the K 18:54 does not has zero and so in counting these other numbers we have a simar situation with Barons so we have charge 19:02 and then we have barion number with a special rule that the baron number is the number of protons 19:09 plus the number of neutrons plus the number of lambas minus the number of antiprotons minus the number of anti- 19:14 neutrons and so on it's just a counting proposition it's conserved it comes in 19:20 units and nobody knows but everybody wants to think by 19:26 analogy that it's the source of a field we are trying to guess at the nuclear 19:31 the laws of nuclear interaction and the reason we make these kind of tables is this is one of the trick ways of 19:36 guessing at nature if this is a source of a field and this does the same thing ought to be the source of a field too 19:42 too bad so far it doesn't seem to be or for sure isn't anyway we don't know sometimes people think it is sometimes 19:48 not we don't know enough to be sure about that question now it turns out that there is 19:56 a very peculiar thing I would like to mention or there one or two more of these counting propositions called 20:01 lepton numbers and so on but you learn nothing new the same idea just counting there is one however 20:08 which is slightly different is that there are in nature characteristic rates 20:14 apparently with these strange particles there are rates of reactions which are very fast and very easy reactions to do 20:21 and others that are very slow I don't mean easy and and hard in a technical sense it's a little I mean in a actually 20:26 doing the experiment it's got to do with the rates at which these reactions occur when the particles are present anyway 20:32 there's a clear distinction between this kind of a reaction and this and it turns out that if you take only the faster 20:39 easy reactions that there's one more counting law in which the Lambda gets a 20:45 minus one and the k+ gets a plus one and it's called the strangeness number or 20:50 hyperon charge rather and the proton gets zero and in that particular rule is 20:56 all is right for every easy reaction but it's wrong for the slow reaction and 21:01 then we have a conservation law called the conservation of strangeness or the conservation of hyperon 21:07 number which is nearly right which is very peculiar so we why the stuff has been 21:13 called Strang the number it's nearly true and nearly true but in trying to 21:21 understand the strong interactions which are involved in nuclear forces since as far as the strong interactions are 21:27 involved the thing is conserved that has made people propose that for the strong 21:33 interactions that's again a source of a field but we don't know but it's this I bring these matters up to show you how 21:38 the conservation laws are used to guess new laws now there are other conservation 21:44 laws have been proposed from time to time of the same nature is counting for example chemists once thought that no 21:50 matter what happened the number of sodium atoms stayed the same but sodium atoms are not permanent 21:55 it's possible to transmute atoms from one to another so that one is disappear another law which was for a while 22:01 believed to be true was that the total mass of an object stays the same it depends on how you Define mass 22:08 and how you whether you get mixed up with the energy nowadays and I will disregard this Mass law until we come to 22:13 the conservation of energy but the mass conservation law has been contained in the next one which I'm 22:21 going to discuss now which is the law of conservation of energy 22:29 the conservation the law of conservation of energy is the most difficult abstract 22:34 one and the most useful as a matter of fact of all the conservation laws it's more difficult to understand than the 22:40 charge and these other ones because in the charge and these other ones it's obviously merely the mechanism is perfectly clear it's a conservation of 22:46 the object sort of I mean not quite because of this problem that we get some 22:52 new thing from all things but it isn't it's really a matter of counting but the conservation of energy is a little more 22:58 difficult here we have a number which is not changed in time but the number 23:03 doesn't represent the number of any particular thing I would like to make a kind of 23:10 silly analogy to explain a little bit about it and I want you to imagine that 23:15 a mother has a very difficult child well not necessarily difficult but he has she has a child who she leaves alone in a 23:21 room with 28 block the indestructible absolutely indestructible block like the charge of 23:28 and the child plays with the blocks and then during all during the day and when the mother comes back she discovers indeed there are 28 blocks she checks 23:35 all the time the conservation of blocks well this goes on for a few days 23:40 until one day when she comes in there are only 27 blocks uh two blocks she 23:46 finds or one block she finds later outside the window he threw one out the window so first we must appreciate the conservation laws involved that you 23:53 watch out that the stuff that you're trying to check doesn't go out through some war of course 23:59 and the same thing could happen the other way if a boy came to play with him and brought in some blocks of course those are obvious technical matters that 24:05 you have to be careful of when you talk about a conservation law 24:12 but now suppose however that when the mother comes to count the blocks she 24:19 finds there are only 25 blocks but suspects that in a little toy box in a 24:25 box that the boy has he has hidden the block so she says I'm open the box he says no you cannot open the 24:32 box how can she tell she say I'm a very clever mother unlike most she would 24:37 say the Box weighs I know when it's empty 16 oz and each block weighs 3 oz 24:43 so what I'm going to do is I'm going to weigh the box so she would have another thing number of 24:50 blocks seen plus weight of 24:56 box- 16 o o divided by 3 oz and that adds always the same to 28 25:04 goes on for a while until it doesn't check what you notice is that the dirty water in the sink is changing its 25:11 level so we have the water level height of water in 25:20 sink - 6 in which it is when there's no block in it divided by a/4 of an inch which is 25:28 the height that the water rises when a block is in the dirty water now as she the boy becomes more 25:35 ingenious and the mother continues to be Engineers more and more terms must be added on here which all really represent 25:43 blocks but from a mathematical standpoint our abstract calculations CH 25:48 the blocks are not seen now I would like to draw my analogy and tell you what is common to this and 25:55 the conservation of energy and what is different so suppose that you never saw the blocks at 26:01 all that in any one of the situations there were never any blocks then the 26:06 mother would be always calculating a whole lot of terms which you should call blocks in the Box blocks in the water 26:12 blocks and so on but there aren't the other differences that there aren't any blocks 26:19 as far as we can tell and that the numbers that come out here are not integers unlike the case of the blocks 26:24 with the child suppose I mean it could happen to the poor lady that when she calculates this number it comes out 6 26:31 and 1/8 blocks and when she calculates this number comes out 78 of a block and the rest of them give 21 still 28 that's 26:37 the way it looks so what we discover is that we have a scheme in which we can find a sequence of 26:44 rules and from the rules each one of the different kinds of calculations we call 26:50 calculating the same thing number of blocks or energy by different rules and 26:56 then we add all the number numbers together from all the different forms of energy it always adds up to the same 27:02 total but as far as we know there are no real units it's not made out of little ball bearings so it's abstract it's 27:10 purely mathematical there exists a number such that you can calculate and it doesn't change and I cannot interpret 27:16 any better than that and this energy has all kinds of forms analogous to the blocks in the box 27:24 and blocks in the sink water and F there are energy due to motion it's 27:29 called kinetic energy there's energy due to gravitational interaction gravitational 27:34 potential energy it's called there's thing called thermal energy electrical energy light energy elastic energy and 27:41 springs and so on chemical energy nuclear energy and there is also an 27:46 energy that a particle has from its mere existence an energy that depends on its mass directly that's the contribution of 27:52 Einstein as you undoubtedly know eal mc² is what I was talking about 27:59 which is a famous equation Mystic law now actually although I mentioned a 28:04 large number of energies I would like to explain that we're not completely ignorant about the thing and that we understand the relationship of some of 28:10 them for example what we call thermal energy is to a large extent nearly the energy the kinetic energy of motion of 28:17 the particles inside an object what we call elastic energy and chemical energy are both have about the 28:23 same origin namely the forces between the atoms when the atoms rearrange in a new pattern some energy has changed that 28:29 quantity changes that means that some other quantity has to change so for for instance if the chemical energy changes 28:35 then heat energy is changed so that in burning something the chemical energy changes and you find heat where you 28:41 didn't have the heat before because it all has to add up to us and uh but elastic energy and 28:48 chemical energy are both interactions of atoms and we Now understand the interactions of the energies of the atoms or those chemical interaction or 28:55 those interactions of the atoms to be a a combination of two things one is electrical energy and the other is 29:02 kinetic energy again only the formula for it is quantum mechanical instead of the usual it's a little different one 29:09 light energy is nothing but electrical energy because light has now been interpreted as an electric and magnetic 29:15 wave the nuclear energy has no uh is not represented in the terms of the others 29:20 but as a result what do we say do the nuclear forces what if we didn't say anything but nuclear energy is not 29:26 connected yet to the others uh I'm not just talking about the energy released in the uranium nucleus has a certain 29:33 amount of energy and then when the thing uh disintegrates it changes the amount of energy in the nucleus but the total 29:39 amount of energy in the world doesn't change so a lot of heat and stuff is generated in the process in order to balance that thing 29:46 out now this uh conservation law is very 29:51 useful uh in many technical ways and I wish I could give you a number of of 29:58 them I'll give you some very simple ones to show you how from the conservation of energy and knowing the formulas for the 30:04 energy which are not those you uh can calculate you can see what some certain 30:11 things have to happen in other words many laws are not independent laws but are just secret ways of talking about 30:17 the conservation of energy or better knowing the conservation of energy you can also you can understand a lot of 30:24 laws the simplest one is a lever the if this is a lever on a pivot and 30:30 let's say this distance is one and this distance is four times one foot and fourt 30:37 then uh the first I must give you the law for Gravity energy and the law for Gravity energy is to take if you have a 30:44 lot of weight you take the weight of each weight and multiply it by the height above the ground and add this 30:50 together for all the weights and that getes all the gravity energy now let's put the ground right 30:57 here now the problem is this suppose that I 31:02 have a one pound weight here just to make it or say to make it more complicated 2B weight 31:10 here and I have an unknown Mystic weight on the other 31:15 side x is always the unknown so let's call it w to be make it look more that 31:21 we've Advanced above the usual now the question is how much must W be so that a 31:27 just bounds and it swings quietly back and forth without any trouble that means that the energy if it 31:34 swings quietly back and forth without any trouble when it's set this way and when it's tilted up a little bit say for 31:40 instance that this has gone up 1 in the energy is the same if it is the same then it doesn't care much which way and 31:46 it doesn't fall over so if this goes up 1 in how far down does this go if you 31:52 think about it quite a long time this being 1 in and that being 4T you can figure out by proportion that this being 31:58 1T this is a/4 of an inch so that the rule says this that 32:03 before anything happened all the heights were zero so the total energy is zero 32:09 after the thing has happened we multiply the weights Unknown by the height minus a quar of an inch add the other weight 32:15 two by the height 1 inch and this should add up to the same energy as before so 32:20 that a quarter of w taken away from two is zero and W must be eight so that's 32:27 how we find the laws I mean that's one way we can understand the easy law that you know of course the law of the lever 32:33 but it's interesting that not only this one but hundreds of others of the physical laws can all be closely related 32:40 to the various forms of energy so I illustrate that only to illustrate how useful it is the only trouble is of 32:46 because it doesn't really work I mean if you did that it wouldn't swing like this on account of friction 32:51 in the full if I had something moving for instance it has kinetic energy like a 32:57 rolling ball and it's on a constant height and it rolls along and then it stops that's sound a kind of friction 33:03 but what happened to the energy of the ball the answer is that the energy of the ball has gone into the energy of the 33:08 jiggling of the atoms in the Florin in the ball the world that we see on a large scale looks so nice when we polish 33:14 a nice round ball and so on it's really quite complicated when you look at it in a little scale a little billions of tiny 33:19 atoms with all kinds of irregular shapes and look that in detail it's like a very rough Boulder really when look at fin 33:27 enough because it's made out of these little balls and the floor is the same way as a bumpy business made out of balls and you roll this monster thing 33:35 over the other you can see that the little atoms are going to go snap jiggle snap jiggle and after the thing has 33:41 rolled across the ones that are left behind are still shaking a little bit from the pushing and snapping that they 33:46 went through so there is left in the floor a jiggling motion or thermal energy and the freak although the at 33:52 first it looks like the law of conservation is false energy has a tendency to hide from us 33:58 and we need thermometers and other instruments to make sure that it's still there the first demonstration of the 34:04 conservation of energ oh the energy you conserve no matter how complex the process or no matter what even when we 34:10 don't know the detail laws the first demonstration of the law of conservation of energy in fact was not by a physicist 34:15 but by a doctor a medical man he demonstrated with rights that the 34:22 total energy of the food put in before and that heat generated by the by you 34:27 burn food and you find out how much heat is generated and then you feed the rats the food and it's converted an oxygen 34:34 and it's converted to carbon dioxide the same way as in burning and measure the energy in that case and you find out that living creatures do exactly the 34:41 same thing as non-living creatures that the law of conservation of energy is exactly as true for life as not as a 34:47 matter of fact it was discovered by this incidentally it's interesting that every overall principle that we know that we 34:53 can test on the great phenomena of Life work just as well as for dead things 34:58 that is there is no evidence yet that what goes on in living creatures is not is necessarily different of may be more 35:06 complicated but that is necessarily different than what goes on in non living things I mean in the physical as 35:11 far as the physical laws are concerned incidentally this amount of energy that's in the food it'll tell you 35:17 how much heat and mechanical work and everything that's generated is is what you read when you read here about 35:23 calories you're not eating something called calories but you're eating that me of the amount of heat energy that's 35:29 in the food for people who like to if physicists always feel so Superior and 35:35 smart and so on that people would just like to get them once on something and so I'll give you something to get them 35:40 on they should be utterly ashamed of themselves because they take the same 35:45 thing energy and they measure it in a host of different ways with different names absolutely absurd energy can be 35:51 measured in calories in URS in electron volts in foot pounds in BTU in Horsepower hours in kilowatt hour all 35:58 exactly the same thing it's like having money you know in uh dollars and in pounds and so on but unlike the economic 36:06 situation where the ratio can change these Dopey things are an absolutely guaranteed 36:12 proportion if anything could be analogous to it at all the only hope would be to say that there are uh 20 36:19 shillings to a pound and that they have Shillings and pounds with one complication that the physicist allows 36:25 and that instead of saying has 20 shillings to a pound he said say he has irrational ratios like 1.618 3178 36:32 shillings to a pound so in addition to that you'd think 36:37 that the more modern high class theoretical physicist would at least use a common unit but you can find papers 36:43 with degrees Kelvin for measuring energy Mega Cycles inverse phies is the latest invention we don't need any more 36:51 inventions we should all measure the energy in exactly the same we should measure the energy in one unit and let it be done instead of having all these 36:58 different names and it's just as it just shows that people are often also they 37:03 want to say see I should bring my little boy to show on the screen so that the audience will understand that I'm human 37:10 well the proof that physicists are human is the idiocy of all the different units which they use they're measuring 37:18 energy now uh the we have a number of interesting 37:25 phenomena in nature which present us some Curious problems with energy has recently been discovered 37:32 things called quazars which are very far away and emit 37:38 a lot of light they're enormously far away emit a lot of light and a lot of radio wave and have radiating so much 37:44 energy that the question is where does it come from that is after it's radiated this enormous amount of energy the 37:50 condition must be different than it was before if the conservation of energy is right question is the thing collapsed 37:56 gravitationally is it different condition gravitationally is it coming from Gravity energy this big emission or 38:01 is it coming from nuclear energy and so on and nobody knows will you like to propose that maybe the law of 38:06 conservation of energy is not right well when a thing is investigated as poorly I 38:12 don't mean as incompletely as is their quazar because they can't see so easy at 38:18 such a large distance it very rarely is when a thing looks difficult that the 38:23 fundamental laws are wrong it's usually that the details are unknown another interesting example of the use 38:30 of the conservation of energy is in this reaction it was first thought that neutrons turned to protons plus 38:36 electrons but the energy of a neutron is fixed and that of a proton could be measured and the energy of electron did 38:42 not add up correctly to the energy of the neutron after proton and electron together didn't they add up to the 38:47 neutron two possibilities existed one was the law of energy conservation is not right in fact it was proposed by 38:54 bore for a while that maybe the conservation law worked only statistically on the average for large 39:00 scale but it turns out that fairy I mean poy suggested no that the fact that the 39:05 energy doesn't check out it because there's a something else coming out which we now call an anti- neutrino and 39:11 that this other thing coming out takes out the energy you say the only reason for the anti- nutrino is to make the conservation of energy right well it 39:18 takes a lot of other things right conservation of momentum and cons other conservation laws are fixed up by because a piece came out that we weren't 39:24 worrying about and very recently it has been directly demonstrated that such neutrinos indeed 39:30 exist that illustrates a point why are we able to extend our laws to Regions 39:35 that we're not sure how is it possible why are we so confident because we check the energy 39:42 conservation here then when we get a new phenomenon we say it's got to satisfy the conservation of energy and every 39:47 once in a while you read in the paper that the physicists have discovered one of their favorite laws is wrong it's not 39:53 a mistake to say that it's true in a region where you don't looked yet when 39:58 you haven't looked yet if you will not say that it's true in a region that you haven't looked yet you don't know 40:03 anything if the only laws that you find are those which you just finished observing 40:10 then you can't make any predictions and the only utility of the science is to go on and to try to take guesses you see 40:16 the most likely thing is that the energy is conserved in other places so what we do always is to stick your neck out 40:22 people like to and that of course means that the science is uncertain the moment that you make a proposition that about a 40:28 region of experience that you haven't directly seen then you must be uncertain but we always must make statements about 40:34 the regions that we haven't seen or is no use in the whole business for 40:39 instance in early experiment the mass of an object changes when it moves because of the conservation of energy the uh 40:47 energy associated with the motion appears as an extra mass because of the relation of mass and energy so things 40:52 get heavier when they move it was first believed by Newton that this wasn't the case that the mass stayed constant and 40:58 so when it was discovered that that was false uh everybody say it's terrible 41:04 thing the physicist found out they were wrong why did they think they were right the effect is very small only when you 41:10 get near the speed of light doesn't make any difference if you spin a top it is the same as if you don't spin it within million very very fine 41:18 fraction so you could say oh they should have said they should have said if you 41:24 do not move any faster than so and so then the mass doesn't change that would then be certain no the 41:30 experiment which happens to be done only with co uh Tops made out of wood copper 41:36 steel and so on so we should have said that Tops made out of copper steel wood 41:41 and so on when not moving any fast you see there are to we do not know all the conditions that we need for an 41:47 experiment it is not known whether a radioactive top would have a mass that's concern but we have to take a guess so 41:53 in order to have any utility at all to the science in order not simply to describe an experiment that's just been 41:58 done we have to propose laws beyond their range and there's nothing wrong with that that's the success that's the 42:06 point and uh that makes the science uncertain if you thought before that science was certain well that's just an 42:13 error on your part now there are other oh we have here 42:19 the energy which we could put in our 42:26 list and it's conserved perfectly as far as we know but it does not come in units 42:32 and now the question is is it the source of a field and the answer is yes Einstein understood 42:40 gravitation as being generated by energy energy and mass are equivalent and 42:45 Newton's interpretation that the mass is what produced the gravity has been modified to being the energy that 42:50 produces the gravity there are other laws that are similar to the conservation of energy in 42:56 the sense at their numbers I haven't very much time to describe them but I'll mention what they are one of them is the 43:04 momentum uh it's mean if you take all the masses in an object and multiply them by the velocities for instance and 43:09 add it together that's the momentum of the particles in it anyway and uh that 43:15 total amount of momentum is conserved the energy and the momentum are now understood to be very closely related 43:22 and so I should be in the same column uh in this conservation a law 43:27 another example of a conserved quantity is angular momentum an item which we discussed some time before the angular 43:36 momentum is the uh 43:42 area generated per second by objects moving about for example if an object is 43:48 here and is moving and we take any Center whatsoever then the 43:54 area the rate of change the speed at which this area increases multiplied by 43:59 the mass of the object and added together for all the objects is called the angular momentum and that quantity 44:06 doesn't change either so we have conservation of angular 44:15 momentum incidentally at First Sight if you know too much physics you might think that the angular momentum is not 44:22 conserved like the energy it it appears also in different forms or most people think it only appears in motion but it 44:28 does appear in other forms and I will illustrate that you know that if you have a wire and move a magnet up into it 44:35 increasing the magnetic field through the flux Through the Wire there'll be an electric current that's how electric generators work so now imagine that I 44:42 have instead of a wire a disc on which there are electric charges analogous to the electrons in the wire and then I 44:49 bring up a magnet dead center along the axis from far away very rapidly up to 44:54 here so then now there's a flux change through here then just as in The Wire these will start to go around and so if 45:02 this were on a wheel it would be spinning by the time I brought the magnet up well that doesn't look like 45:07 conservation of angular momentum because when it's down here nothing's turning and when it's up here it's spinning and so we got turning for 45:14 nothing and that's against the rules oh yes you say I know there must 45:22 be another kind of interaction makes the magnet spin the opposite way that's not the case there is no electrical force on 45:28 the magnet tending to twist it the opposite way the explanation is that angular 45:33 momentum appears in two forms one of them is angular momentum of motion and the other is angular momentum in 45:39 electric and magnetic fields and there is angular momentum in the field here although it doesn't appear as motion and 45:44 has the opposite sign to the spin if we take the opposite case it's even more 45:50 clear if we have just these particles and the magnet 45:57 here and everything standing still I say there's angular momentum there there's a rotational effect I mean there's an 46:03 angular momentum in the field there's a hidden form of angular momentum doesn't appear as actual rotation when you pull 46:09 this magnet down and take the instrument apart and all the fields separate then 46:14 the angular momentum that's in the field has to appear now and this thing will spin from the and the law that makes it 46:20 spin is the law of induction of electricity 46:28 now the question as to whether it comes in units is very difficult for me to answer at First Sight you'd say it's 46:34 absolutely impossible that angular momentum come in units because angular momentum depends upon the direction in 46:39 which you project the picture I said that one another lecture that you have to look at this thing and see how the area changes if you look at an angle if 46:47 you had something turning this way and you looked at it sideways you wouldn't see any area changing and if you looked 46:53 at it not quite vertical but just a little bit off you see that the area changed is a little bit different a little bit different if you come at a 46:59 small angle so if angular momentum came in units eight units and then you look 47:05 not exactly down at the eight but at a slight angle it should look like a little bit less than eight now seven is 47:11 not a little bit less than eight it's a definite amount less than eight so the darn thing can't possibly come in units 47:17 this proof however is evaded by the subtleties and peculiarities of quantum mechanics if we measure the angular 47:23 momentum about any axis amazingly enough it's it's always a number of units so 47:29 what to say about this is yes 47:34 but it's not the kind of unit like electric charge that you can count them inside the angular momentum is although 47:41 it does come in units in the mathematical sense that the number that we get in any measurement is a definite integer times a unit we cannot interpret 47:48 that in the same manner that we interpret this in the case of electricity that there's this one and I 47:54 see another one you see those little sixu units in there you can't see the units you see but it comes out always 47:59 integer anyway which is very 48:06 peculiar now there are a number of other conservation laws which are more that I 48:13 should include in the list and I'll just illustrate the type they're not as interesting as these there they're not 48:19 numbers exactly if if the laws of physics are nice and if we were to start some kind 48:24 of an device off with particles moving which had a certain definite symmetry suppose that we had some objects that 48:30 were like this and that the exact way that they were moving was such that it was bilaterally 48:36 symmetrical then as the laws of physics go on and all the collisions and so on you would probably expect and rightly so 48:43 that if you look at this same picture later it will be bilaterally symmetrical so there is a kind of conservation a 48:49 conservation of the Symmetry character which is should be in the list 48:54 there but it's just it's not like a number that you measure it's just a well 49:01 symmetry character and at below I will discuss it in much more detail in the next lecture the reason it's not 49:06 interest it's not very interesting in classical physics because the times in which you get such a nicely symmetrical 49:11 initial conditions is very rare and it's not a very important or practical conservation law but in quantum 49:17 mechanics when we deal with very simple systems like atoms and so on their internal Constitution often has this 49:22 kind of symmetry of some sort like bilateral symmetry or other and and then the Symmetry character is maintained and 49:28 it's an important law for understanding Quantum phenomena but I should include it in a list of all the important conservation 49:34 laws but uh I will discuss it next time an interesting question 49:43 uh is as to whether there is a deeper basis for these conservation laws or 49:49 whether we have to take them as they are and that again I will reserve for next time finally I would like however to 49:56 mention to re remind you that in making a popular speech on these subjects there 50:03 seem to be a lot of independent things but with a deeper understanding of the 50:08 physics of the various principles there are deep interconnections between the things so that one implies the other in 50:14 some way for example the relation between relativity and the necessity for 50:19 local conservation which if I said that without the demonstration would appear some kind of a miracle that the 50:26 statement that you can't tell how fast you're moving implies that if something is conserved it must be done not by 50:32 jumping from one place to another and here I would like to show you that the conservation or indicate 50:39 how the conservation of angular momentum and conservation of momentum and a few other things are to 50:46 some extent related the conservation of angular momentum has to do with the area swept 50:54 by particles moving now if the radius if you had a lot of little particles here and you 51:01 took the center very far away then the distances are almost the 51:06 same for every object and it doesn't make much difference so the only thing that counts 51:11 in the area sweeping or in the conservation of angular momentum is the component of motion vertically say in 51:17 this case so what we would discover is that the each Mass multiplied by its velocity vertically added together must 51:23 be a constant because the angular momentum is a constant about any point and if that 51:28 point is far enough away then it must be only that the sum of the masses times velocities is constant and therefore the 51:35 angular momentum implies the conservation of momentum the conservation of angular momentum implies 51:40 the conservation of momentum and that in turn implies another thing which is the conservation of another item which is so 51:47 closely connected that I don't put it in the list which is a principle about the center of gravity that a 51:53 mass in a box cannot just move disappear here and move over here by itself that's 52:00 nothing to do with conservation if you think well you still got the mass and I moved it from here to here charge could 52:05 do that but not a mass let me explain why suppose since the laws of physics 52:10 are not affected by emotions that this box was drifting slowly upwards and take a point not far away 52:18 now as it's drifting upwards if the mass were here quiet in the Box in the beginning it has a mass here going up 52:24 and producing an area at a certain rate after the mass has moved over here if it's going up at the same speed because 52:30 the box is drifting then the area would be increasing at a greater rate because there's a bigger length this way 52:35 although the altitudes are the same but by the conservation of angular momentum 52:40 you can't change the rate at which the area is changing and therefore you simply can't move one Mass from one place to the other if you don't push on 52:47 something else and get rid of the momentum or angular momentum and that's the reason why the rockets in empty space can't go but they do go that's 52:56 because we have the rocket is what the center of gravity uh that is if you figured it out with a lot of masses if 53:03 you move one forward you got to move in others back so that the total motion back and forth is of all the masses is 53:08 nothing now the the way a rocket works is that is a rocket which shoots some gas 53:16 out of the back and here's a glass gas you see beforehand the rocket standing still say in empty space and afterwards 53:22 it shoots some stuff out the back and then the Rocket's going forward and the point is that of all of the stuff in the 53:28 world the center of mass the average of all the mass is still right where it was before but the interesting part has 53:35 moved out here and an uninteresting part that we don't care about has moved out here there's no theorem that says that 53:41 the interesting things in the world are conserved only the total of 53:48 everything the discovering the laws of physics is like trying to put the pieces 53:53 together of a jigsaw puzzle and we we have all these different pieces and today they're proliferating rapidly and 54:00 they're lying about many of them can't be fitted with other ones how do we know that they belong 54:06 together how do we know that they really are parts of one picture one at present incomplete picture we're not sure and it 54:12 worries us to some extent but we get encouragement from the common characteristics of several pieces they 54:19 all show Blue Sky or they're all made out of the same kind of wood thank you 54:24 very much 54:41 [Music] Law of Conservation' by Richard Feynman [HD Clearest video ever with Clear Audio] ThinkOf 16.7K subscribers Subscribe Like Share Download 65,747 views Feb 20, 2025 #richardfeynman #solarsystem #universe All the Credit goes to : Caltech, UCLA, BBC, Richard Feynman....and whole team.. Feynman lecture Link- https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/ Please Caltech or BBc do not copyright strike, this is only for educational purposes please please.. . . . #feynmanlecture #lawofconservation #gravity #physics #science #solarsystem #universe #feynman #richardfeynman Transcript Follow along using the transcript. Show transcript ThinkOf 16.7K subscribers Videos About Instagram - 80 Comments rongmaw lin Add a comment... @kengilmore2563 2 weeks ago Saw him once playing bongos and singing about drinking orange juice. He became one of my hero’s that day. 7 Reply 1 reply @FullFrontalNerdity-e3z 1 month ago (edited) Awesome quality. Feynman was one of a kind. I see now why they wouldn't let me take physics in high school. I wouldn't have survived it. 18 Reply 1 reply @tlskillman 1 month ago It's great to see a great lecture with clear video and audio. Thank you to the team that created this version, very nice work. 24 Reply @Gehennite 13 days ago That's called pure , sparkling intelligence . An intellect that can cut through noise like a scalpel to reach the core . 1 Reply @GroovyGears69 1 month ago I absolutely love feynman! 11 Reply @SherriMSDRML-qm1pe 1 month ago Thank you thank you 👍😊🌍🤠🇮🇳🇱🇷💯💯💯💯🧠🫀🫁 2 Reply @rtt1961 1 month ago Thank you for your continued work in bringing forward these classics in cleaned -up form. 3 Reply ThinkOf · 1 reply @joseochoa9798 1 month ago This are incredible man! Hope you can upload more lecturnes with this quality 14 Reply ThinkOf · 1 reply @lippup-g5j 3 weeks ago Thank you for posting these incredible lectures 1 Reply @Philomats 3 days ago If only I had met this teacher when I was in 5th grade. Reply @lluvik2450 1 month ago Thanks a lot 5 Reply @nyceyes 1 month ago (edited) These are great. I love Physics. Thank you uploader. 🤗 8 Reply ThinkOf · 1 reply @robappleby583 1 month ago Excellent lecture, keep posting them. 35 Reply ThinkOf · 2 replies @robbannstrom 1 month ago Thanks so much for this. 2 Reply @paulgibby6932 5 days ago (edited) I'd like to hear what a current (2025) grad student in physics would say about this. 53:56 "...they all show blue sky or they're all made out of the same kind of wood" p.s. love the bells: "High about Cayuga's waters". Reply @akshatsrivastavaaa 1 month ago wonderful! Another masterpiece. Thank you so much <3 7 Reply ThinkOf · 1 reply @jjiacobucci 3 weeks ago Inspiring. Brilliant. Reply @sidneysentell2510 1 month ago Thank you so very much. 1 Reply ThinkOf · 1 reply @knowledgeckr786 1 month ago Very friendly style of teaching science. I can't understand how did Richard Feynman say that science is not certain because certainty is a relative term like all other human perceptions about external human observations by brain. Certainty of science is verified by it's understanding through repeatibility of objectivity of an external event. Regards 3 Reply 1 reply @MarioXP2008 1 month ago Thank You!! Woow Amazing!! I remember the Bool six easy pieces 🙂 2 Reply @Vikashkumarsingh09 1 month ago Relativity applies to physics not to ethics. ~Albert Einstein 2 Reply @6Cthebest 1 month ago (edited) So that's what explains what a spin is? In my mind it was always 'particle X, Y, Z have intrinsic number 1, 2, -2 that allow each to do distinct types of magic'. I might still need a rewatch to get a clearer personal understanding. Loved the dicussion at 38:44. Deviation from conservation laws might not be true for every physical system humanity will ever meaure, especially those we haven't measured yet. Though proven wrong, I found Bohr's hypothesis a similar vein of thinking that anticipated big discoveries. For example, Boltzmann's statistical mechanics and thermodynamics were needed to prove matter is made of atoms, and that atoms are made of subatomic particles! Reply @drvortex 1 month ago Thank you for uploading this lecture. Is the "unknown field" at 19:27 referring to the Higgs field? 3 Reply 1 reply @kwgm8578 1 month ago Thank you for finding and sharing this Dick Feynman lecture. I was an a computer engineering student in those days and recall hearing Dr Feynman during the final years of his life. I don't recall all the suit and tie folks at his outreach lectures, but Feynman was quite the joker and I wouldn't be surprised if he salted these videos with hired suits. 😉🧙🏽‍♂️ Reply @myriamlopezfernandez2089 1 month ago Por favor. Todas las lecciones. Gracias 1 Reply @T.Nastra 1 month ago Watching at 2x but the lecture is👍🏻 3 Reply ThinkOf · 1 reply @SpotterVideo 1 month ago How about the Law of Conservation of Spatial Curvature? Is there a geometric explanation of Planck's constant? Does this explanation require at least one extra spatial dimension? Are vortices in superfluids macroscopic simulations of this geometry? Dr. Roger Penrose has suggested instead of trying to create a particle called the "graviton" to explain gravity, why not try to describe subatomic particles in terms of spatial curvature, as in the twist in a piece of real thread. What if we add one extra spatial dimension to the "Twistor Theory" of Dr. Roger Penrose? It can be "chiral" by having either Right-hand or Left-hand twist. It can be "Quantized", based on the number of twist cycles. If Physicists describe electrons as point particles with no volume, where is the mass of the particle? Can one extra spatial dimension produce a geometric explanation of the 1/2 spin of electrons? The following is an extension of the old Kaluza-Klein theory. Can a twisted 3D <---> 4D soliton containing one extra spatial dimension help solve some of the current problems in Particle Physics? What do the Twistors of Roger Penrose and the Geometric Unity of Eric Weinstein and the exploration of one extra spatial dimension by Lisa Randall and the "Belt Trick" of Paul Dirac have in common? Is the following idea a “Quantized” model related to the “Vortex Theory” proposed by Maxwell and others during the 19th century? Is the best explanation of the current data a form of “Twistor Theory” first proposed by Dr. Roger Penrose during 1967? During recent years Dr. Peter Woit has explored Twistor Theory as a possible solution to help explain the current Standard Model. Has the concept of the “Aether” been resurrected from the dead and relabeled as the “Higgs Field”? In Spinors it takes two complete turns to get down the "rabbit hole" (Alpha Funnel 3D--->4D) to produce one twist cycle (1 Quantum unit). Can both Matter and Energy be described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature? (A string is revealed to be a twisted cord when viewed up close.) Mass= 1/Length, with each twist cycle of the 4D Hypertube proportional to Planck’s Constant. In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137. 1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface 137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted. The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.) If quarks have not been isolated and gluons have not been isolated, how do we know they are not parts of the same thing? The tentacles of an octopus and the body of an octopus are parts of the same creature. Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the constant exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. Are these the “Flux Tubes” being described by many Physicists today? When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together. Therefore, the gluon is a synthetic particle (zero mass, zero charge) invented to explain the Strong Force. The "Color Force" is a consequence of the XYZ orientation entanglement of the twisted tubules. The two twisted tubule entanglement of Mesons is not stable and unwinds. It takes the entanglement of three twisted tubules to produce the stable proton. The term “entanglement” in this case is analogous to three twisted ropes being wrapped around each other in a way which causes all of the ropes to move if someone pulls one of the ropes. Does the phenomenon of “Asymptotic Freedom” provide evidence that this concept is the correct interpretation of the experimental data now available? Can the phenomenon of "Supercoiling" help explain the "Multiple Generations" of particles in the Standard Model? The conversion of twist to writhe cycles is well understood in the structure of DNA molecules. Can the conversion of twist to writhe cycles and vice-versa help explain "neutrino oscillations"? Within this model neutrinos are a small, twisted torus produced when a tube becomes overtwisted and breaks producing the small, closed loop of twisted tube (neutrino), and a twisted tube open on each end, which is shorter than the original. (Beta Decay) Within this subatomic model gravity is produced by a very small higher dimensional curvature imbalance within atoms, which causes all atoms to be attracted to all other atoms. This extremely weak attraction reveals the very small scale of the curvature imbalance. This produces the curvature of spacetime on a larger scale like the solar system which is required to counterbalance this small imbalance in the individual atoms. 1 Reply @Goat-e3g 1 month ago Do you have more feynman videos? Of his cronell lecture 2 Reply ThinkOf · 1 reply @paulgibby6932 5 days ago 19:20 and he said conservation of charge was the "easy" one. :) Reply @nayandutta3691 1 month ago Please upload all the lectures 3 Reply ThinkOf · 1 reply @Vanshika-v2q 3 weeks ago please more lectures of Richard Feynman Reply @hpro123 1 month ago from where do you get these videos bro ? 3 Reply ThinkOf · 1 reply @BAgodmode 13 days ago Great lecture but is anyone gonna talk about the intro credit roll having a completely different tone? I thought I was watching a damn horror movie for a whole Minute. Reply @charlesbromberick4247 1 month ago The dude sure has a gift for looking at things. 1 Reply @XXVIII333 2 weeks ago So the total amount of E is constant universally speaking, its only a matter of converting from specific properties to different properties. The question is can something either completely cease to exist or be created out of nothing. Reply @pietrogiusti3436 1 month ago Tank you from Tuscany.😅 1 Reply @heitorchierentin6885 1 month ago A Teoria do Universo em Retro Expansão pressupõe a conversão de matéria em energia gravitacional, com o consequente encolhimento das partículas fundamentais, como causadora da aparente expansão cósmica. Para tanto, pressupõe, além do tempo relativístico, um outro tipo de tempo em escala quântica. Esse tempo seria absoluto e simultâneo em todo o Cosmos. Seria também graduado num "instante mínimo", este indivisível. Nessa mínima unidade de tempo ocorreria no nível material mais fundamental o fenômeno que chamo de "Correção". Ao passo que as partículas fundamentais perdem massa convertida em gravidade, novas partículas surgem no espaço gerado. Mas as partículas constituintes de todo o Universo guardariam todas uma relação quântica cujo balanço seria atualizado a cada mínima unidade desse tempo. O processo de "Correção" ocorreria graduado, instante por instante, indivisível no meio tempo. De modo que, apesar da relatividade do tempo para os objetos em movimento e para os observadores, haveria no nível mais fundamental da matéria um tempo universal, um momento presente em todo o Universo. Essa seria a principal referência temporal a se pautar. 1 Reply @XXVIII333 2 weeks ago Status quo or not Reply @daveyowful 1 month ago Charge here disappears and simultaneously appears somewhere over there —- the crowds laughs. Reply @ottokruse 4 weeks ago What was the context in which these lectures were given? It seems a general audience , but young Reply ThinkOf · 1 reply @XXVIII333 2 weeks ago The blocks are atoms Reply @Sakscratch 2 weeks ago I hung on for about 16 minutes. :) Reply @Leoo___ 3 weeks ago Wow the intro feels liminal 😧😵‍💫 Reply @francescoghiretti1239 1 month ago Coool...,p Reply @nishchalsingh5040 1 month ago bhai i am of similar age , aisa lagta h you live in village vahan par bhi aap ye sab dekhte ho 1 Reply ThinkOf · 2 replies @Sweetguyyy 1 month ago bro please upload next lecture Reply @balabuyew 1 month ago Why Feynman lectures are not yet restored using AI, as some old movies... Reply @anamariatiradogonzalez 1 month ago Creo haveis perdido el afan de enlatarne o cibsevarne, muy tibtis Reply @DistortedV12 1 month ago Feynman is quite charismatic, but the examples he uses and explanations are kind of odd 1 Reply @vibrolax 1 month ago Just think, a cat "contributed" its fur to science. Reply @sc5725 1 month ago I'm a Feynman Fan since high school. However, in this lecture, he seems diffuse - unable to converge to a point. He's lost... the audience and maybe his overall point. Reply @quakers200 1 month ago Chess is traditionally black and white not red. Not a chess player. 1 Reply 5 replies @jeffreyluciana8711 4 weeks ago You atheists worship your god, Science lol Reply