Continuing Education (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2h1E3YJMKfA)

Light in, Light out.

Terry, the light may be in, the light may be out. But what has become increasingly unclear to me, is whether or not the lights are on.

Are they on Terry? Is there anyone home?

Watch and learn, I know I am.

Einstein's Special Relativity (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAurgxtOdxY&feature=channel)

Einstein's General Relativity (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbmf0bB38h0&feature=related)

Quantum Mechanics (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2h1E3YJMKfA)

Statistical Mechanics (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1Zbp6__uNw&feature=related)

Quantum Entanglements (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Eeuqh9QfNI&feature=channel)

Light in, Light out.

Lights out.

Watch and learn, I know I am.
No, you delude yourself into thinking you're learning. Have you tested your 'learning' by trying to do problems yourself? Its easy to watch a video and then say "I understood all of that, therefore I can do it". Do you bother to test yourself afterwards?

All I have done, is to bring attention to a collection of excellent Modern Physics course, "for dummies", by Prof. Leonard Susskind.

One of the worlds leading Theoretical Physicist.

It is the way and the manor he is presenting his "lecture".

It is a talk not a lecture, listen or don't listen, watch or don't watch, but if you enjoy learning, knowing and wondering how the universe works, down to the basic fundamental ideas, axioms, mathematics, physics..... concepts, look no further...

There are many great Prof.'s and Dr.'s, but very few good teachers.

I can't recommend a better teacher and Prof. Leonard Susskind.

A good teacher is a very rare gift.

Keep up the good work.

Light in, Light out. :)

I’ve watched all of Susskind’s video lectures. I loved them. I noticed that AlphaNumeric has a little bit of a sarcastic tone with you. He’s normally very polite, unless you’re an amateur, who’s created your own little crank theory. You’re not one of those, are you? I hope not, but now I’m curious. I’ll have to dig into your history…:D

I had trouble learning the math on my own. There were a few professors who created lectures that answered all possible questions. I’m sure everyone is aware of Kahn Academy, but I really liked this little guy. He was a great speaker and presented the material well. You can ask Susskind questions on his blog.

Edward Frenkel (http://math.berkeley.edu/~frenkel/)

Edward Frenkel’s Lectures on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=07CF868151394FE3)

Susskind's Blog-Physics for Everyone (http://susskindsblogphysicsforeveryone.blogspot.com/2008/04/from-leonard-susskind-to-everyone.html)

Oh, dear! History…Well, um, er, um, hmmmm…
“History is the sum total of things that could have been avoided.”:jawdrop:

Watch and learn, I know I am.

Why don't you just start with some calculus and trig first, then move on to differential equations, then stuff like wobbling plates, pendulums on springs, etc. etc., and then you handle the crazy quantum stuff? It will be of much greater benefit to you, trust me.


Lights out.

Bahaha, just too short and hilarious!

Dear Trooper,

Welcome to the forum and welcome to this tread on Leonard Susskind's Courses.

It was alephnull on another thread which I started to list all Physics audio and video lectures (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=103928), that I found these lectures, Prof. Susskind.

I thought they were to good to miss and everyone should watch them, which is why I give them they own thread.

Are there any more lectures by Prof. Susskind?

Light in, Light out.

All I have done, is to bring attention to a collection of excellent Modern Physics course, "for dummies", by Prof. Leonard Susskind.

One of the worlds leading Theoretical Physicist.

It is the way and the manor he is presenting his "lecture".

It is a talk not a lecture, listen or don't listen, watch or don't watch, but if you enjoy learning, knowing and wondering how the universe works, down to the basic fundamental ideas, axioms, mathematics, physics..... concepts, look no further...

There are many great Prof.'s and Dr.'s, but very few good teachers.

I can't recommend a better teacher and Prof. Leonard Susskind.

A good teacher is a very rare gift.

Keep up the good work.

Light in, Light out. :)

Watch and learn (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KokditqpAJg&feature=channel)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ee/Eur.it.100.gif

:jawdrop: This happens to anyone, you show my diagram to.:jawdrop:


Light in, Light out.

You might want to make vitruvian man a bit smaller. :)

Dear Trooper,

Welcome to the forum and welcome to this tread on Leonard Susskind's Courses.

It was alephnull on another thread which I started to list all Physics audio and video lectures (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=103928), that I found these lectures, Prof. Susskind.

I thought they were to good to miss and everyone should watch them, which is why I give them they own thread.

Are there any more lectures by Prof. Susskind?

Light in, Light out.

Terry,

Thank you! I have tons of links to numerous online courses, podcasts, free text books, free ebooks, etc. I didn’t realize that BenTheMan had created a sticky (http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=73777) for this purpose. He even offered to categorize them. What more could you ask for? Why would you want to create two separate threads?

Please forgive me for probing but my curiosity is insatiable. After reading through your history in various places, I’ll admit that I’m a bit interested. Do you have a formal education? If so, to what extent? What are your present levels of achievement in mathematics? This one...:o...is just simply being nosy. Do you really know the people you claim to know?

Thanks!

Trooper

My name is Terry Giblin (http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/terry-giblin/b/429/753) don't wear it out.

Light in, Light out.

My name is Terry Giblin (http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/terry-giblin/b/429/753) don't wear it out.

Light in, Light out.

WHOA! Are you the king of Boyville or something? I’m surprised that you didn't just say “PUDDIN ‘N’ TAME ask me again and I'll tell you the same.”
Well, now I know who to ask, if I ever need to create a successful resume.

The British system is a little different. So, you have thirteen years at Sunderland Polytechnic, and you have a BSc (Hons) in both Mathematics and Physics, from Sunderland. Hmmm…
Are the other institutes just conferences that you attended?

What’s up the “Light in, Light out”? Is it an "Alpha, Omega" thing? :shrug:

I don’t mean to sound unappreciative or anything, but topics get buried, and aren’t easy to get to. I’ll stick with the sticky… :D

I'm not judging...:mufc:...I'm just saying!

Ask him to repost his "thesis" on Quasars. It's hilarious.


In fact, no one at Sunderland Polytechnic has seemed to proof read you "Final Year Paper." Here is a sentence which has been incompetently cut-and-pasted from a better man's work:
The key feature of these models can be electromagnetically extracted from the black hole the black hole.
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=9424&view=findpost&p=205396

You mention the Penrose process but from what I can glean from that page, your 'model' is nothing like the Penrose process. Would you care to explain your model in a bit more detail?

As you've demonstrated many times in this thread, your grasp of physics is nothing close to the level required to understand the Penrose process on a quantative level.

By the way, the spelling in your essay is terrible. When someone's essay is about black holes and their accretion disk, it's usually a good idea to spell "Schwarzchild" correctly, not as "Schwcurzchild". Then there's the "Black Hole Dynamo Model" page, where you say
The black hole rotates, it has an initial gravity-induced positive charge.....the magnetic field induces a positive charge in the disk

Wow, where to start on that one eh? Black holes don't induce a charge on themselves by rotating. Ever heard of the Kerr metric (no, not the Kerr-Newman metric)? Or how about electromagnetic charge conservation? Ringing any bells up there? Then there's the comment a positive charge black hole makes it's surrounding matter postiviely charged! So like charges attract..... interesting.... :roflmao: A charged black hole would induce a non-uniform charge distribution on the disk, but the overall charge wouldn't change. It would attract charges of the opposite charge more readily and so the disk would have a gradient with the opposite charged material to the black hole closer on average. It's this mechanism which means that large black holes are unable to collect much charge, they are self limiting, eventually they simply cannot pull in any more matter of the same charge. But yet you state :
The charge in the black hole thus grows exponentially, while it's mass grows linearly with time

First of all, the rate of mass increase depends entirely on the amount of matter available around the black hole. Secondly, by the above reasoning I just outlined, the charge not only doesn't 'increase exponentially', it limits itself and reaches a stable equilibrium after a while.

Besides, if you're talking about a black hole of large angular velocity and what you claim is a HUGE electromagnetic charge, why does the picture in "PICT1020.JPG" say the Schwcurzchild (sic!) radius? You do realise the event horizon size depends on the charge and angular momentum as well as the mass, right? Right?! Infact, given enough charge and/or angular momentum, you reach an 'extremal black hole', which has no event horizon!

But you knew all that didn't you? Yeah, sssuuurrrreee you did! :roflmao:

This isn't high level thinking, it's BASIC dynamics. Like charges repel, opposite charges attract. A huge concentration of a single charge type will try to neutralise itself by attracting opposite charges.
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=9424&view=findpost&p=205443

Holy mackerel! Now, that’s what you call a jaw dropper.
What's wrong with you, boy? :roflmao:

I'm not judging...:mufc:...I'm just saying...Holy ѕhit!

Even an Electric Universe needs some love...

Even an Electric Universe needs some love...

Wasn't it Feynman and Wheeler, who discussed if there were 10^80 electrons or 1 electron observed 10^80 times.

Light in, Light out.

Einstein said it best, "If you can't explain it to your Grandmother, you don't understand it".

Prof. Susskind, not only knows his subject inside out, upside down, and every related area, he can explain in words and simple diagrams, that even dummies like me can understand.

He gives a new meaning to "being able to teach 'QFT' to dummies".

I will never look at the electron or the Ricci tensor, the same way ever again.

Is he still giving the lectures?

How do you apply?

How do I get an invite?

Light in, Light out.

Einstein said it best, "If you can't explain it to your Grandmother, you don't understand it".

Prof. Susskind, not only knows his subject inside out, upside down, and every related area, he can explain in words and simple diagrams, that even dummies like me can understand.

He gives a new meaning to "being able to teach 'QFT' to dummies".

I will never look at the electron or the Ricci tensor, the same way ever again.

Is he still giving the lectures?

How do you apply?

How do I get an invite?

Light in, Light out.

The video lectures you watched were from an actual university course given to undergraduates so I really doubt you can get an invite.
You'd be the creepy man sat at the back.

You could enrol to do a degree? You'd still be the creepy man sat at the back though mind.

Also, I'm far from an idiot, but I really don't see how anyone could explain QFT to a dummy. It needs a fair few prerequisites, no matter how brilliant the teacher.

Dear alephnull,

How can I tell you have not been paying attention in class, or doing you homework. (D-) or (-D) which ever you prefer.

All I asked you to do is watch some maths and physics videos, which might change your life.



Continuing Education (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2h1E3YJMKfA)

Light in, Light out.


In Prof. Leonard Susskind's own words.... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2h1E3YJMKfA) The average age in this class, is somewhere between, 40 and 80 years old.

Light in, Light out.

Einstein said it best, "If you can't explain it to your Grandmother, you don't understand it".But that doesn't then mean your grandmother knows how to do what you've explained.

I know the principles of how an internal combustion engine works but I couldn't fix my car if it broke down. I know the rules of football but that doesn't mean I'm good at it. You watching video lectures doesn't mean you understand and can do the physics explained in the videos. If that was all which is needed to make people capable of doing physics universities wouldn't do exams or coursework or homework and anyone could pass simply by going to all the lectures. Obviously this isn't the case, hence why people have to study and revise and actually do the work they are lectured.


He gives a new meaning to "being able to teach 'QFT' to dummies". Probably because the people he lectures to are not dummies, unlike yourself. Do you think you can actually do the stuff he lectures?


I will never look at the electron or the Ricci tensor, the same way ever again.
Again? When have you ever actually do anything involving the Ricci tensor?


How do you apply?

How do I get an invite?
You sit the exams recognised by the university he works at in subjects like mathematics and physics, get high enough marks to meet the requirement of said university in physics or mathematics, you then pay to attend the university for the duration of a degree and maybe at some point he'll lecture one of the courses you do. If not then you'd need to continue your education, getting high enough results to get a PhD place and then you can attend postgrad lecture courses, some of which he might lecture, and then you can discuss research with him.

There's a minimum standard required by any competent university to be admitted to the university and to be allowed to attend lectures. If you can meet them Terry and you have the money to pay for the education then I'm sure his university would not have a problem.

The problem is you fall very very very far short of said requirements.


All I asked you to do is watch some maths and physics videos, which might change your life.
They might but only by sparking an interest in the topics and giving people a reason to then get a proper education, working and studying throughout. There's more to education and learning than just watching a video lecture series.

You seem to be struggling to grasp this point.

:jawdrop: The mother load (http://academicearth.org/courses/foundations-of-modern-physics) :jawdrop:

Light in, Light out.

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,

It keeps getting better, two weeks ago, I had obviously heard of Prof. Leonard Susskind, but I never knew him or read any of his books and I had never attended anyone of his lectures.

Until now.

Check him out on wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Susskind).

Apparently he has done a few more addition lectures, for us dummies.

Particle Physics: Basic Concepts (Fall 2009) YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=768E1383EA79C603)
Particle Physics: Standard Model (Winter 2010) YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=8BCB4981DD1A0108)
Particle Physics: Supersymmetry, Grand Unification, String Theory (Spring 2010) iTunes?

Light in, Light out.

but I never knew him or read any of his books and I had never attended anyone of his lectures.

Until now. It might seem like a minor point but you still haven't attended any of his lectures, you've watched videos of them. Obviously this doesn't reduce the information content but from previous experience I know you have a particular way of wording things which is deceptive. Previously you've claimed that Martin Rees was your mentor, which most people would take to mean you and he worked together face to face but what you actually meant was you'd read some of his books. Now you're doing the same with Susskind. Saying 'I've attended lectures by him' would make most people think that you have attended his university and sat a course for which he was the lecturer. This, like your comment about Martin Rees, gives the false impression you have considerable formal education and thus have a good grasp of physics.

Misrepresenting yourself does you no favours. Such a thing, to imply those things I just outlined about Rees and Susskind, would not be allowed on say a CV, as you misrepresent yourself as having experience, education and track record you don't.

Rees is not your mentor just because you read a book by him. You have not attended a university course which Susskind has lectured. You have not been invited to CERN to present your work. You have not been invited to the Isaac Newton Institute on the grounds of any work you've done. All of these are things which you reference in such a way to make it seem to the casual reader that you have a long history of working within the physics community and that you're taken seriously as a researcher. None of which is even remotely true.

Snap out of your little world Terry, stop deluding yourself.

Dear Alpha(Nob),

As I have already discovered, from previous experience, having dealt you and your Forum Mafia (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIqlysM9DTo), before.

If you punch a bag sh*t, you get covered in it.

Since when has it became a crime to watch and learn from Prof. Leonard Susskind?

I like his attitude, I like his style, I can understand him clearly, he always explains with informative diagrams and descriptions and he doesn't mind silly questions now and then.

It's not a crime, not to know something, it just makes the conversation difficult or slightly one sided.

Light in, Light out.

Multi-million dollar question?

Has anyone written the transcripts to these lectures?

Is there a book?

Is there a list of 'problem sheets'!

Any recommended reading list?

Will QFT in a nutshell by A. Zee do?

Any suggestions?

Light in, Light out.

Do you have a copy of Zee's book to hand? We can do the first exercise in the first chapter, if you want?

Pages 11:

As an exercise you should convince yourself that had we started with the Hamiltonian for a particle in a potential H = \frac{\hat{p}^2}{2m} + V(\hat{q}) (again the hat on \hat{q} indicates an operator) the final result would have been
\langle q_F | e^{-iHT} | q_I> = \int Dq(t) e^{i \int_0^T dt [ \frac{1}{2} m \dot{q}^2 - V(q)]} \quad (5)

Page 15:

Exercises
I.2.1 Verify (5)

We have the same revision rpenner! So Terry, here's an opportunity to put all that you've learnt into practice.

Here's a hint: I believe this involves a clever multiplication by 1.

Give a guy a chance, it has been 25 years since I last solved a problem sheet.

So why don't we go one better, lets increase the stakes.

"Which one do you recommend, I apply to?" (http://www.postgraduatesearch.com/msc/theoretical-physics/uk/study/postgraduate-browse.htm)

"How could I refuse?" (http://www.postgraduatesearch.com/durham-university/51559784/postgraduate-course.htm)

Light in, Light out.

There’s a list of errors for page 11. If you read Zee you should also consider reading these.

Maybe, you should admit that you lied and apologize. :shrug:

Easy in, Easy out.

http://www.physics.ucsb.edu/~mark/qft.html

http://physics.weber.edu/schroeder/qftbook.html

There’s a list of errors for page 11. If you read Zee you should also consider reading these.

Maybe, you should admit that you lied and apologize. :shrug:

Easy in, Easy out.

http://www.physics.ucsb.edu/~mark/qft.html

http://physics.weber.edu/schroeder/qftbook.html

http://l.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/24.gif

I knew from the first directed post (History? Well, ermm...) that you were evil.

But seeing it confirmed was beautiful.

I knew from the first directed post (History? Well, ermm...) that you were evil.

But seeing it confirmed was beautiful.

So, I am your concept of evil? I left information. Did I not? :mufc:

Besides, evil is just a comparison that one judges as good or evil; in as far as it concerns him, or those around him.

I calls ‘em like I sees ‘em.

I'm just honest, a little evil, and above all else...I'm frickin funny...:D

There’s a list of errors for page 11.
Indeed. These sorts of things are typical for blackboard lectures.
http://www.itp.ucsb.edu/~zee/nuts.html

And after working through the exercise in the few minutes since I first posted this reply, it's now clear to me how the sign of the potential term in the Hamiltonian, H = \frac{\hat{p}^2}{2m} + V(\hat{q}) gets "flipped" during the path-integral as a pure term in the eigenstates of q.

I would say more, but I don't want to derail this thread.

There’s a list of errors for page 11. If you read Zee you should also consider reading these.

Maybe, you should admit that you lied and apologize. :shrug:

Easy in, Easy out.

http://www.physics.ucsb.edu/~mark/qft.html

http://physics.weber.edu/schroeder/qftbook.html

I don't have Zee's book, but AFTER seeing some of these corrections on the first field theory link will never have me look at a field theory book in quite the same fashion.

How in Gods good name can so many mistakes be made? Printing errors?

I don't have Zee's book, but AFTER seeing some of these corrections on the first field theory link will never have me look at a field theory book in quite the same fashion.

How in Gods good name can so many mistakes be made? Printing errors?

Don't disrespect the Srdniecki! I'd like to mention that's just a free draft version, if you're willing to pay for the published version, I'm sure it would be far more polished, as the guy would be getting professional help and oversight. You try coding up 1000+ pages of this stuff in LaTeX and not making mistakes all over the place. There's rushed deadlines and all kinds of issues when single calculations and derivations can take 10 pages or more.

Maybe one of the reasons you got a bad reception here from some folks is because you seem like you have some background in introductory science topics like freshman calculus and such, but you want to discuss or speculate about topics that are actually many times more advanced. I don't know you, so I can't say what kind of background you have. I will say though that as much as intro calculus and linear algebra/matrices will seem like highly advanced topics compared to what was done in most high schools, it's really only just the beginning, and high school math/physics is like taking a couple of laps around a field as warmup before going on a 20 mile jog. Not to disparage what's done and taught in high school, but there's a huge initial learning curve and then once you start to get over it, the pace of learning picks up exponentially. I'm finding that's the way it is now that I've been forced to learn bucketloads about computer systems and coding as part of my grad studies- the more I learn about this stuff, the easier I'm able to digest newer and more advanced concepts.

I think this thread is done.