Lecture 1 | Quantum Entanglements, Part 1 (Stanford)

Posted on February 21, 2009
Filed Under Видео | 15 Comments

stanforduniversity asked:


Lecture 1 of Leonard Susskind’s course concentrating on Quantum Entanglements (Part 1, Fall 2006). Recorded September 25, 2006 at Stanford University.

This Stanford Continuing Studies course is the first of a three-quarter sequence of classes exploring the “quantum entanglements” in modern theoretical physics. Leonard Susskind is the Felix Bloch Professor of Physics at Stanford University.

Complete playlist for the course:
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=A27CEA1B8B27EB67

Stanford Continuing Studies: http://continuingstudies.stanford.edu/

About Leonard Susskind: http://www.stanford.edu/dept/physics/people/faculty/sussk…

Stanford University channel on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/stanford

Comments

15 Responses to “Lecture 1 | Quantum Entanglements, Part 1 (Stanford)”

  1. simplystimpy on February 21st, 2009 4:44 pm

    Don’t be so close minded, any of you. Unless you know the real secrets of the universe. “Einstein, don’t tell God what to do.”

  2. DustyMay1944 on February 24th, 2009 2:32 am

    I think you’ll find that it is you who is clearly ignorant. THERE IS NO EXPERIMENTATION THAT SUPPORTS STRING THEORY. Everything about it is failed math. Check your facts before insulting those who are better educatied than yourself.

  3. thisnamestoolong on February 27th, 2009 8:10 am

    Math and reality are inextricably intertwined — when our experience shows us that everything we know of as reality is based on math (it is), we have no choice but to continue using that model until we have reason to believe that that assumption is incorrect (we have no such reason). As for string theory being conjecture, you are clearly totally ignorant. String theory is certainly not proven, but IS based strongly in experimentation. It may be wrong, but such is the nature of science.

  4. chrisahn on February 27th, 2009 1:34 pm

    Susskind’s ‘random’ example of a base 2 number at 20:26 is 100101001 = 297 in base 10. Pretty close to 300!

    At 20:38 he is hesitating. Had he chosen a 1 at this point and then two 0s (instead of two 0s and a 1), he would have gotten 300 exactly right.

  5. chrisahn on February 27th, 2009 11:14 pm

    Of course it’s simple, but being able to do it quickly without tools takes a lot of practice – and is quite useless… :-)

  6. chrisahn on March 2nd, 2009 2:12 pm

    Not sure what you are talking about…

    Are you opposed to string theory? Then I agree with you to some extent, simply because there is no empirical evidence for strings. Yet.

    Or are you opposed to modern physics because it is counterintuitive and inconsistent with our ‘macro world’ notions of space and time? Then I stronly disagree with you and doubt that you actually have much knowledge of physics.

  7. Doggieman1111 on March 5th, 2009 11:28 am

    If you can determine a second vector by taking a first vector and applying a matrix to it, can you take two vectors and, from them, determine the necessary matrix needed to transform one into the other?

  8. swedish89 on March 6th, 2009 12:51 pm

    yeah, its amazing!

  9. DustyMay1944 on March 9th, 2009 11:54 am

    I would suggest any want-to-be physicist understand that there are no dimensions outside our dimensions of space and time; that type of conjecture only promotes supernatural philosophies to be imbedded into real science.

    Unless you have over forty years of hands on experience behind you, I would suggest you continue with your education until you learn to think and not just parrot the current popular unsupported theories. Don’t let the math dictate the reality; let the reality dictate the math

  10. kamyarghofrani on March 10th, 2009 9:58 pm

    the grandfather perhaps!!!

  11. stevao on March 12th, 2009 11:29 am

    theres nothing supernatural about quantam. its just hard to get ur head round. Any sufficiently advanced technology would be indistinguisable from magic (aka supernatural) to the primitive mind (great words, not mine) . We just need time and some brilliant minds before we crack it. religion and quantam theory shouldnt be used in the same book let alone sentence

  12. metabog on March 14th, 2009 4:10 am

    He is. In fact, he is one of the fathers of string theory.

  13. metabog on March 14th, 2009 8:06 am

    Wow I can’t believe there are full Stanford lectures here!!

  14. Alterstateresearcher on March 17th, 2009 12:28 am

    DustyMay1944 “The natural laws that govern the behavior of the macro world must also govern the the behavior of the micro world”

    Really? So you have seen how fundemental particals behave? No offense, but the youth of the world is the future and you in my opinion are out of touch. This is not turning science into a religion in my opinion, science is what it is based upon information with or without the observer.

  15. waperboy on March 19th, 2009 10:55 pm

    Physics and quantum mechanics? No, it’s a way to understanding what we are.

Leave a Reply