Religion | Gaming | Film | Fashion | Sex | Philosophy | Education | History | Arts | Music | Travel | Photography

The Cosmic Landscape

More from this series:

Commonwealth Club of California

More videos from this partner:


  • Info
  • Bio
  • Chapters
  • Preview
  • Download
  • Zoom In
  • Transcript
There are 19 comments on this program

Please or register to post a comment.
Previous FORAtv comments:
socratus Avatar
Posted: 02.14.13, 03:14 AM
Euler's Equation and the Reality of Nature. =. Mr. Dexter Sinister wrote: ' I understand Euler's Identity, and I know what it means, and I know how to prove it, there's nothing particularly mystical about it, it just demonstrates that exponential, trigonometric, and complex functions are related. Given what we know of mathematics it shouldn't surprise anyone that its various bits are connected. It would be much more surprising if they weren't, that would almost certainly mean something was badly wrong somewhere.' Mr. Gary wrote: Mathematics is NOT science. Science is knowledge of the REAL world. Mathematics is an invention of the mind. Many aspects of mathematics have found application in the real world, but there is no guarantee. Any correlation must meet the ultimate test: does it explain something about the real world? As an electrical engineer I used the generalized Euler's equation all the time in circuit analysis: exp(j*theta) = cos(theta) + j*sin(theta). So it works at that particular level in electricity. Does it work at other levels, too? Logic cannot prove it. It must be determined by experiment, not by philosophizing. ====.. Thinking about theirs posts I wrote brief article: Euler's Equation and Reality. =. a) Euler's Equation as a mathematical reality. Euler's identity is "the gold standard for mathematical beauty'. Euler's identity is "the most famous formula in all mathematics". ' . . . this equation is the mathematical analogue of Leonardo da Vinci's Mona Lisa painting or Michelangelo's statue of David' 'It is God's equation.', ' It is a mathematical icon.' . . . . etc. b) Euler's Equation as a physical reality. "it is absolutely paradoxical; we cannot understand it, and we don't know what it means, . . . . .' ' Euler's Equation reaches down into the very depths of existence' ' Is Euler's Equation about fundamental matters?' 'It would be nice to understand Euler's Identity as a physical process using physics.' ' Is it possible to unite Euler's Identity with physics, quantum physics ?' ==. My aim is to understand the reality of nature. Can Euler's equation explain me something about reality? To give the answer to this question I need to bind Euler's equation with an object - particle. Can it be math- point or string- particle or triangle-particle? No, Euler's formula has quantity (pi) which says me that the particle must be only a circle . Now I want to understand the behavior of circle - particle and therefore I need to use spatial relativity and quantum theories. These two theories say me that the reason of circle - particle's movement is its own inner impulse (h) or (h*=h/2pi). a) Using its own inner impulse (h) circle - particle moves ( as a wheel) in a straight line with constant speed c = 1. We call such particle - 'photon'. From Earth - gravity point of view this speed is maximally. From Vacuum point of view this speed is minimally. In this movement quantum of light behave as a corpuscular (no charge). b) Using its own inner impulse / intrinsic angular momentum ( h* = h / 2pi ) circle - particle rotates around its axis. In such movement particle has charge, produce electric waves ( waves property of particle) and its speed ( frequency) is : c>1. We call such particle - ' electron' and its energy is: E=h*f. In this way I (as a peasant ) can understand the reality of nature. ==. I reread my post. My God, that is a naïve peasant's explanation. It is absolutely not scientific, not professor's explanation. Would a learned man adopt such simple and naive explanation? Hmm, . . . problem. In any way, even Mr. Dexter Sinister and Mr. Gary wouldn't agree with me, I want to say them ' Thank you for emails and cooperation' =. Best wishes. Israel Sadovnik Socratus. =. P.S. ' They would play a greater and greater role in mathematics - and then, with the advent of quantum mechanics in the twentieth century, in physics and engineering and any field that deals with cyclical phenomena such as waves that can be represented by complex numbers. For a complex number allows you to represent two processes such as phase and wavelenght simultaneously - and a complex exponential allows you to map a straight line onto a circle in a complex plane.' / Book: The great equations. Chapter four. The gold standard for mathematical beauty. Euler's equation. Page 104. / # Euler's e-iPi+1=0 is an amazing equation, not in-and-of itself, but because it sharply points to our utter ignorance of the simplest mathematical and scientific fundamentals. The equation means that in flat Euclidean space, e and Pi happen to have their particular values to satisfy any equation that relates their mathematical constructs. In curved space, e and Pi vary. / Rasulkhozha S. Sharafiddinov . / ===============...
henoktg Avatar
Posted: 12.30.11, 04:41 AM
Until science define what conciseness means they should not talk about religion. Leibniz clearly told the scientific community to use rational thinking deductive reasoning to know the existence of the architect. But as Kurt Gödel said his publication was censured to keep humanity dumb. Kurt Gödel was a friend of Einstein he proved one of the most important logical results of the century—indeed, of all time.In short he prove to them that the scientific methods in use is incomplete and will get us no-where, that is when they try to poison him. Susskind know all this and he should have said that Einstein was dumb by being a friend to Kurt Gödel.
henoktg Avatar
Posted: 12.30.11, 04:08 AM
Susskind dearly said Einstein was dumber as he got old.
iwih Avatar
Posted: 11.06.11, 07:18 AM
Periergeia, antithesis: When you talk about God, you need some elementary information that I would like to explain it for you and others if you wish. At first, let's go back in time to the past -for example year 1800- having all our information that we have it now, when you start to talk to people in that time -even the scientists of them- about the computers, the modern physics theories, ...etc they won't understand anything and consider you crazy until you choose clever ones and start to explain all the sciences dicovered between their time and ours, and there still a propability of not understanding you. What I want to tell that we always have lack of information whatever we do and whatever we dicovered it won't be enough...... the FIRST QUESTION --> Why is the science limitless??! We return to our time and start to think again about the evolution-theory of Darwin, there is some question about it: 1- Why all these quantity of limitless-coincidences? 2- Where is the transitional stages between the living-objects??! did they just vanished?! why?! are all of them not able to live?! that's an impossible coincidence!! 3- The most important thing, WHY DOES THE PHYSICS HAVE THE KNOWN SHAPE, LAWS, PHYLOSOPHY..ETC???!!!! and not another one. The physics is the shaper of every thing we see around including DNA, chemical bonds -there are physical power-, weight of objects, properties of objects.... etc. Why is it that perfect-shaped and prefectly-connected way??!! Here is the role of God, if the physics has another form, everything would have another form too according to the physics. To prove that, we need to answer the above question. If the answer is available without need for God-existence , so, God doesn't exist. Otherwise it would be the prove for God-existence . For me, I can't imagine those questions have answer other than " It's the God will ". Periergeia: You said: Quote: So by your very definition, you have proven that your God is more limited than the systems he was supposed to have created. Seems like a pretty poorly conceived God to me. " The systems you're talking about are created that way, so, their properties are following their creation, so, the starting, ending, energy-conserving, mass-conserving...etc are properties of those systems. The God -to be truely God- should not have the properties of the systems he had created (to cancel each ideas of: "those systems are part of him" or "he is part of those systems"). So, the God is not limited as you said, but, he is limitless and doesn't follow any of the laws of physics, chemistery, biology.... etc. He is the divine-existence. You won't be able to measure the size, weight, mass, place, power, enery.... etc of God, simply because, he isn't a material or anything we find in our systems. You won't see him, you won't hear him... etc but you can easily prove his existence by thinking deeply in religions -the right ones of them-, especially Islam -you shouldn't believe the fake speech and thought about it-, you can start safely by reasing Quran, Thank you every one for reading :-)
socratus Avatar
Posted: 08.05.11, 10:23 AM
I have only two questions: First - Didn’t my parrot fly to you? Second - Why does everyone say that all movements are relative if the speed of quantum of light isn’t relative but it is an absolute constant in absolute Vacuum ? P.S. You can easily find out my parrot. It studied only two sentences: ‘ there is no absolute movement ’, ‘ there is no absolute reference system ‘ # Israel Sadovnik Socratus ==== . P.S. ‘ All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?' Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken. ‘ / Einstein /
Marco Cardoso Avatar
Marco Cardoso
Posted: 05.30.11, 09:33 AM
Isn´t it beautiful? Kiitos Leonard!
Fora.tvfan Avatar
Posted: 05.21.11, 05:08 AM
Also why are there I am a mormon commercials on this one of the best intellectual sites out there. I cant beleive I just saw that commercial.
Fora.tvfan Avatar
Posted: 05.21.11, 04:52 AM
god is not an answer. How is that an answer? Time after time the god did it saying is pushed aside to a real scientific explanation. Just because you don't have an answer doesn't mean you can say god did it. You should say I dont know. I don't know is a better response than god did it. if you can imagine a eternal god couldn't you imagine and eternal universe creating force that is no way self aware or anything you define as god. "god did it" is such a strange pretend explanation. How does that explain anything. So strange
Lary9 Avatar
Posted: 08.02.10, 08:46 AM
~replying to Onesimus~ "In speaking of irreducible complexity, why only refer to Dawkin's book? It is Dr. Mike Behe who is credited with coining the term "irreducible complexity". It should at least be suggested to read Darwin's Black Box as well as The Blind Watchmaker. " ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Behe's Darwin's Black Box is filled with some of the most glaring misrepresentations of existing science. His short shrifted conclusions about irreducible complexity have been addressed and debunked by the mainstream science community so effectively that it's embarassing. The case of the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, Behe's DBB example of the bacterial flagellum of E. coli was effectively shown to be pseudoscience. Additionally, (I rather like this one) irreducible complexity is never an effective argument for a big-C Creator anyhow because as the body of accepted knowledge grows through scientific inquiry, these areas of unknown complexity shrink thus effectively reducing the domain of God's mysteries. God is in the cracks...and the cracks grow smaller all the time. With reference to 'you can't study something with out a beginning' : How about a circle? It has no beginning or end unless it's arbitrarily given and even its fundamental expression 'pi' is endless. This is because we are now in the fantastical realm of the concept of infinity---which science and math has reduced to an imaginary abstraction that also does not exist in reality.
Lary9 Avatar
Posted: 08.02.10, 08:10 AM
~replying to antithesis~ "I completely agree with you. There seems to be many missing links in the evolution theory. There is no proof of beneficial mutations in any living biological genome. All mutations lead..." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Get in touch with your inner Occam's Razor.

Advertisement ticker