Feynman is Everything Wrong With Modern Physics

It's not difficult. Produce some useful work that demonstrates phsyics is wrong, gives us something we didn't have before and get it peer reviewed. I get the feeling Terryology is your area of experise.

You're misunderstanding Feynman. Of course the remarks in his lecture are oversimplified since he's speaking to a popular audience, but still he does a great job getting across the process of doing physics.

Feynman excluded explanations from his model, just because he didn't get annoyed by people asking him about his subjective procedures to get those mathematical constructs ... Assertively, He believed that trying to explain them through Natural Language words would derail the mathematical framework established. Perhaps, with a few, who he felt trusted about not misinterpret his cognitive mechanism to arrive at those mathematical constructs, he was open to 'use analogical descriptions through natural language' with them ... but to stay quiet to the masses and prevent overthinking about the meaning of the diagrams and the equations, He denoised the implementation and consolidation of his theoretical paradigm ... ... just denoising the mathematical construct/relationships from human's subjective chaos ... ... What's wrong with that ?? ... ... 'Humans Natural Languages' are limited by Human Perception data incomes, those languages fall into unsolvable paradoxes when/where you are trying to deal with stuff out of the perceptual range of the species... If you are a philosopher, you should understand why Feynman took that stance about those mathematical discernments. The 'wise' Jedis don't have to kill the 'evil' Sith' ... Maybe, The 'wise Jedis' are working for the emperor.

The ceiling fan looks threatening. Apart from that, the video is fun

Einstein was thinking about non-Euclidean geometry, having that in his toolbox was a pre-requisite for thinking about light bending.

"The purpose of scientific knowledge is to understand cause and effect relationships." Hmm, who told you that, Ayn Rand? Considering how problematic causality is in quantum physics and relativistic physics, that puts you on the losing side of an argument that was settled a century ago. The mathematics that best describes the world at quantum scale is probabilistic. Beliefs that there's some hidden local causal reality beneath the probabilities (called "realism) have been shown to be false, and many of the paradoxical predictions of quantum theory have been experimentally observed. So, if your basic assumptions about cause and effect don't stand up, but the mathematics does, it's sensible to consider the mathematics the more correct description. This is deeply counter-intuitive, but show me the signed contract that was handed to us at birth promising that the world would conform to our intuitions.

Haven't watch the video yet but comment section is fucking nuts.

Your guest's name is Aviram Rosochotsky. You haven't included it in either the title or in the description.

Nifty. I always had a Feynman-esque attitude about philosophy in general too for roughly the 1st half of my life so far. But there is little Q that science & philosophy can both inspire each other, & pretty much always have, regardless of the "division" that occured in academia since the renaissance/enlightenment. David Albert recently said something interesting on Brian Keating's channel that I totally agree with, which was being a fan of division of labor. That is to say, Its fine for people to be interested in only one or the other or even both. What's NOT OK is having hostility towards your non-preference. Arguing over importance is silly. We need both, & that's all there is to it. EDIT: They also discussed Eisenstein/Maxwewell/Bore & the Popper take & all. "Foundations" ought to be the hot topic that it is IMO.

This is a misunderstanding and misrepresentiation of what Feynman is saying, f.i. at 5:35 he's not talking about quantum mechanics, he says that speculation about what is going on in a scattering process is speculative and as good as any other. He's teaching physics here, not philosophy.

The speaker on the left is James Ellias, a self-described "Math, Physics, Philosophy and Writing Tutor," who in 2015 claimed (on LinkedIn) that his Inductica project would 1. Discover new principles of physics. 2. Use new theories and discoveries to produce new technologies for profit. But so far all this project seems to have produced is some videos, including this one dissing a well-known physicist who in fact discovered new principles of physics (for which he was awarded a Nobel Prize) and helped produce new technologies (nanotechnology, quantum computing).

To me there is nothing wrong the way they drive physics today, it is like driving a car as long you know what are you doing. But if you want to understand how a car works you don't just drive it you have to go really deep into getting knowledge. That's what physicist are not looking for, they are just happily enjoying the ride.

14:14 maxwells’ equations 2, 3 and 4 can be deduced from just equation 1 (the electric field) and special relativity

15:54 “derive relativity from maxwells” - i don’t think so. i think maybe: special relativity must be deduced just from noticing that there is no absolute location or speed [galileo]. and that the speed of light is constant for all observers at an inertial frame of reference. [michaelson morely].

It's a fact that there are a lot of great physicists who've made significant contributions to the field that admire Feynman. Even Murry Gell-Mann who personally dislikes Feynman admires him as a physicist. I don't know of any exceptions. The only people I know of who diss Feynman (and Einstein, and other great physicists) have made no positive contributions to the field.

12:28 You say Special Relativity obviously doesn't have a causal structure. That's not obvious because it's not even clear what you mean by "causal structure" and by "SR doesn't have causal structure".

This back and forth sounds a lot like Turok.

By some strange coincidence I just read Feynman's book this past weekend. Transcribed from his lectures at MIT it was described as an introductory course for non-science majors at MIT, which immediately struck me as an oxymoron. But I kept reading because I was a non-science major too and thought this would be way over my pay grade. In fact these lectures are on their face eminently understandable. I believe these lectures become the orthodox understanding of Physics at that time, late 1940's, early 1950's. The chemistry of nuclear physics required a mathematical model based on observed phenomenon. By the time I was in high school in the late 1960's this kind of thinking became axiomatic. Being intensely interested in science and bad at math, I went for the social sciences, which required mostly statistics, boring but doable, because I didn't think I could hack the math. This dance between observation and calculation appears to me as a completely rational AND emotionally satisfying resolution.

1:21:50 This point is SUPER important. The physically (What are the components of [action] in the theory do we detect in the physical world, and which parts are theoretical probabilistic or statistical buffers that are not measured in the physical world). Good point.

1:13:39 no, man! Particles and waves are a dialectic! When a molecule of water is on the surface of a "wave," it literally "composes" the "phenomenon" of the "wave"! It's similar with photons! Photons are just energized spacetime itself! That's why they "cancel each other out"! They "cancel" each other into "spacetime"!