Lecture 5 | Modern Physics: Quantum Mechanics (Stanford)

Category : Randomness
Lecture 5 | Modern Physics: Quantum Mechanics (Stanford)by wpjljron.Lecture 5 | Modern Physics: Quantum Mechanics (Stanford)Lecture 5 of Leonard Susskind’s Modern Physics course concentrating on Quantum Mechanics. Recorded February 11, 2008 at Stanford University. This Stanford Co…

Lecture 5 of Leonard Susskind’s Modern Physics course concentrating on Quantum Mechanics. Recorded February 11, 2008 at Stanford University. This Stanford Co…

Author: 

Related Posts

24 Responses

  1. TheVnom14 August, 2013 at 11:51 pm

    the link for the playlist sends to the classical mechanics course 😛

  2. TheVnom14 August, 2013 at 10:37 pm

    Susskind, a light-wave electromagnetic graphist expert. 0:59:29

  3. Pedro Goncalves16 June, 2013 at 3:48 am

    Wonderful lecture. I specially liked it ended on a cliff hanger.

  4. Aman Kanojia2 June, 2013 at 5:58 pm

    I am here because there are many subtle things I hope to learn. It’s not like I memorize lectures and I never check it again. It is about concepts. Anyways why are you concerned about what I am watching? Find some useful employment.

  5. Aman Kanojia2 June, 2013 at 5:42 pm

    A teacher can never make you successful. Teaching method matters. Some are easy with abstract concepts and some are not. And just because someone doesn’t share your opinion doesn’t make one an idiot. Give respect and you will recieve too.

  6. Aman Kanojia2 June, 2013 at 5:34 pm

    I surely will. I actually commented on the part “… you never will”. While lecture series like Susskind’s are valuable resources, I personally feel he could make the presentation more intuitive. I have seen his lectures on relativity too. There also he focuses more on math and less on the physical picture. That is not to say that his lectures are bad. I said that even if you can’t understand what he is saying, if one spends some time pondering over it then he will definitely get it.

  7. IdentifiablePerson2 June, 2013 at 4:19 pm

    Youtube does not allow web address. So you can Google for uncertainty principle is wrong subhendu. This will find the URL.
    Thank you for trying to visit the site. If you cannot find, I will write to you directly using YouTube email system. You can also email to me at [email protected]

  8. Daniel Ketterer2 June, 2013 at 3:30 pm

    If you are a physicist, I would like to ask why you are here relearning rather basic material.. and not say doing something more physics y.. like watching “Charles Ramsey’s Reward: Free Burgers for Life”

  9. Daniel Ketterer2 June, 2013 at 3:30 pm

    I can try
    See, it looks like the first post by luzzie was speaking on behalf of his teaching ability, and that he has made the process so simple that IF you cannot learn the watered down version, you have no hope of doing the real stuff.

    Whereas you responded to “Quantum mechanics is hard” or some variant thereof it seems, or do not think he is making it simple, presenting almost only the bare bones of the theory?

    Perhaps I can follow up, too, care to explain how?

  10. Aman Kanojia2 June, 2013 at 4:38 am

    care to explain why? I am a physicist myself and I believe he could explain in a better way. 

  11. Daniel Ketterer1 June, 2013 at 7:17 pm

    site didn’t work

  12. Daniel Ketterer1 June, 2013 at 7:16 pm

    You’re an idiot aren;t you.. What are you doing here?
    

  13. Kamran Nasir7 May, 2013 at 7:34 pm

    when he discusses about the polarization of the photon, he says that when the polarizer is set at 45 degrees, the photon emerges out with a zig-zag polarization (45 with either x or y, in the x-y plane, but when I saw his lectures on quantum entanglement, he told that in such a situation, a large number of photons pass through with x-polarization, and half with y-polarization, the average is that zig zag configuration (he explained a similar situation of an electron spin inside a mag. field.)

  14. Al Gebra25 March, 2013 at 6:52 am

    This is wonderful. I am a mathematician, and it is interesting how fourier analysis comes into this….

  15. Aman Kanojia14 February, 2013 at 3:59 pm

    nothing like that. Just sit and ponder over it. All one needs is patience.

  16. IdentifiablePerson6 October, 2012 at 6:23 pm

    Yes, anything that is out of main line will always appear “crackpot zone” to most people. But if you are a scientists, and have given time to understand the logic, you should point out the zones in the blog site comments blocks. Thank you for visiting the site.

  17. xamarmm6 October, 2012 at 9:21 am

    I see that I have just entered the weird crackpot zone. Time to get out of there.

  18. IdentifiablePerson5 October, 2012 at 4:28 pm

    see my site – uncertainty principle is wrong – one word.

  19. xamarmm4 October, 2012 at 8:32 am

    You are missing the point. The quality of the polarizer is not in question.

  20. IdentifiablePerson19 September, 2012 at 5:51 am

    If a 90 degree polarizer allows 45 degree light that means polarizer is not good, right? A high quality 90dg polarizer should not allow any light other than 90dg. If this is not true then maybe we should define what 45dg light is and what 90dg polarizer is.

  21. xamarmm17 September, 2012 at 1:32 pm

    in fact if you get hold of polarizing film you can do a QM experiment yourself. step 1. Hold a single such film up and you see light gets dimmer – only polarized light get through. Stack two such film up align them and you see the same light. Now rotate one to 90 degrees of the other and it becomes dark – no light goes through. Take a third film and put it between the two at 0 or 90 degree – still black but then move it to 45 degree and some light goes through! That is QM at work.

  22. ytLeou15 September, 2012 at 2:55 pm

    My guess is that the lecturer meant to design the polarizer as follows to allow both horizontal and vertical polarized states through.
    |
    — —
    |

  23. ytLeou15 September, 2012 at 2:54 pm

    Question at 01:16:21
    The apparatus corresponds to P_⊕ is the horizontal polarizer in the video.
     P_⊕ |x>=|x> corresponds to no change to the prepared state |x> which is horizontal.
    P_⊕ |y>= -|y> literally means the state is changed to -|y> after P_⊕ interferes the prepared input state |y> which is vertical state.
    But P_⊕ |y>=0 because the measure device is a horizontal polarizer.

  24. Entropy3ko27 July, 2012 at 9:24 pm

    Experiments tell us that 1/2 of the photons with a 45 degree polarization pass through a vertical (90 degree) or horizontal (0 degree) polarizer, so… no, the probability can’t be zero.

Leave a Reply