looks like part of a 4 part lecture series, each around 1hr40min long

http://faissal-bd.blogspot.com/2009/12/richard-feynmans-qed-lecture-series.html

I've read this mans book QED, and safe to say that I probably didn't understand a lot of it. But it was still good.

One of my role models. Especially for his work on the Challenger disaster.

http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v2appf.htm

He doesn't really setup why people want to use feynman diagrams. The reason is quite interesting. It turns out the simplest (i.e. the fewest lines) interactions are the most probable and dominant. There are also specific conservation rules you have to follow when drawing them. The genius of these diagrams is that we draw all the solutions to a given QED problem and solve for the wave functions in an intuitive way. It is a clever trick.

>> ^MaxWilder:
When I heard about the seemingly spontaneous creation and destruction of particles, as described by this theory, I was immediately struck that this is probably related to the big bang. The universe as we know it, spontaneously created from nothing and eventually disappearing again, on a time scale unimaginable by we who popped up in the brief moment between.


They're probably not related at all since "before" the big bang, space and time didn't exist, which is not the case for spontaneous appearance of matter and antimatter pairs. Also, we have no theory that describes what happens at the time of the singularity, or "before" it, as opposed to QED.

Your video, The Dirac Equation and QED: Part 2, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Here is the second part.

http://www.videosift.com/video/The-Dirac-Equation-and-QED-Part-2

The Dirac equation is a pretty incredible step in physics. Dirac made a huge leap from standard quantum mechanics to modern day field theory.

Dirac tried to rectify quantum mechanics with relativity and in the process proved that negative energy - i.e. antiparticles - had to exist. But there was still a major problem. The Dirac Equation didn't take into account electrodynamics. A great question here is how can macroscopic electrodynamic fields be justified for point particles like fermions and bosons... The answer is that the are understood as spin, torque, and charge. QED was the next big step. But it all started with the elegant and simple dirac equation.

This dude is dumb, nasty & fuck ugly.

QED

I wonder, then, how might he explain how the countries with the lowest crime rates, including violent crimes, are also the least religious countries?

Glenn Becks theory predicts the opposite, however, and therefor can be ignored.

QED

Since when is government unfair competition? I can't think of an example of a government-run institution that is "unfair" in any sense to its free market competitors. Consider the United States Postal Service. It's a pretty good deal - you drop a letter in your mailbox with necessary postage and it gets picked up and delivered with an extremely high probability of success. For packages you may have to drive a few minutes to the nearest post office instead (for weighing and labels and so forth), but it is still marginally convenient. The letter/package then arrives a few days later (or longer depending on where you are sending to) at the addressed destination.

Now, there are companies such as FedEx and UPS that ultimately decided to enter the free market/capitalist system of the United States (which is completely within their Constitutional rights and freedoms) with the intent of creating a competing service to that of the USPS. The private sector now provides a valuable service to businesses as well as individuals who have specialized mailing needs, whether that be same day/overnight priorities for time-critical deliveries, extended hours/customized pickup times beyond hours the USPS is bound to (by law), or perhaps other special services (such as prepaid-labels or advanced package tracking) that the USPS simply does not have.

The proponents of privatized health care are all in favor of the free market capitalist system, and find no lack of ways to extoll capitalism's virtues and remind people that the free market ultimately is self-policing and provides for the needs of all people, a la textbook Adam Smith.

To reiterate the point - if privatized health care is such a firm believer in their own infallibility and the power of laissez-faire economics (and how it ultimately provides the consumer with the best possible health care through open competition and supply & demand), why would they be opposed to another player entering that arena regardless of whether it is government- or private-run? Again - if they provide a better service than the government does, why should they be afraid of a mass exodus to the public option? The government SURELY will provide an inferior level of health care, so they have nothing to be afraid of!

Any health care provider that is not saying "Bring it on" is one that knows they are screwing their customers up the wazoo.

Think about what would happen if the public option failed miserably. Let's say the legislation passes and Obama's plan is put into effect. If anyone who joins that plan gets treated like cattle in a slaughterhouse, is denied health care due to so-called "rationing," or a "death panel" euthanizes their grandma in front of them - that is what will frighten consumers into going back to ol' reliable privatized health care. And the government option will inevitably collapse and Obama will look like a worse president than Bush, all while reaffirming the strength and sensibility of a free market health care system. Capitalism 1, "Socialism" 0.

Let them duke it out, and to the victor go the spoils. QED.

>> ^gtjwkq:
^ Because government is unfair competition. People being forced to pay for government healthcare would have less money and incentive to pay for private healthcare.
Government is not really an "option" when it's funded by taxes. You can only choose not to use it, but you can't choose whether or not to pay for it.

Well , it appears to me that string theory is a interesting attempt to "quantize" the space-time manifold (added with suitable supersymmetric structures ).Everything in higher dimensions become reduced to two-dimensional quantum field path integral models "living"on the string chart manifold (the intrinsic two-dimensional "string space-time").However , people impose dipheomorffism invariance on this intrinsic string parameter "space-time" which unfortunatelly get mixed with 2D conformal invariance , when one uses the sigma model Polyakov' action to assign "energy" for these "quantum -fluctuating extrinsic /observable higher dimension space-time process (quite different from the more geometrical Nambu-Goto string action ).In order to solve this problem one thus impose full sigma model conformal invariance by restricting that all strings Schwinger sources (the string higher dimensional field back grounds-including the own extrinsic space time manifold dimension!)to lead to a vanishing beta function for the sigma model Polyakov action at any perturbative order of the new universal coupling constant-the String length scale/Regge parameter.This produces an apparently well defined (?,and about the infrared 2D cut-off remotion on the perturbative Feynman calculationson the intrinsic string space-time ?) 2D Field theory for the extrinsic space-time quantum energy action, besides of fixing the string Schwinger sources to satisfy the usual Einstein-Maxwell-etc field equations at one loop and the extrinsic space-time dimension and the classical manifold topology of the extrinsic space-time to be fixed, when one has supersymmetry (Spin manifold space time structures,etc..).At this point , one has an apparently well defined quantum -mechanical framework to evaluate numerically scattering amplitudes (including quantum gravity!-the old dream ) to compare with the experimental results.That is the problem on this new quantum-mechanical framework : as far as I know nothing has been matched with the usual qed,qcd,etc results!(anomalous particle magnetic momentum, deduction of the asymptotic freedom in QCD ,The Higgs mechanism on the weak sector ,etc.

>> ^gwiz665:
alien_concept can't help but talk about her penis... that's right, we've all seen the pictures I took.

QED on the creepy stalker characteristic then. Case closed.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'nuclear, war, nukes, cold war, qed, threads' to 'nuclear, war, nukes, cold war, qed, threads, effects, shelters, blast, fallout' - edited by calvados

Tags for this video have been changed from 'nuclear, war, cold war, qed, threads' to 'nuclear, war, nukes, cold war, qed, threads' - edited by calvados

Fair enough



In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
Flat earth didn't have a global empire to protect from the idea of a spherical earth, though.

All we really want from people is efficiency, conservation, and a move away from fossil fuels. Global warming is our motivation, but it's a good idea for everyone, regardless.

In reply to this comment by Irishman:
Flat Earth WAS mainstream scientific belief for hundreds of years.


In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
>> ^blankfist:
Warmist sounds a lot like alarmist, doesn't it? We'll most likely see more of those for the next four years. Quality find, Irishman. We need more opposing viewpoints on this issue, because the Gore-following Warmist Automatons think the debate is over about Global Warming, science be damned.


Yes, all people who follow mainstream scientific belief are automatons.

That's what they tell me in my weekly Flat Earth Society meetings. We've got to stop those deadly Sphere-ists from throwing away billions on "satellites" that just sail over the edge of the earth, never to be seen again!

I mean, they're obviously trying to cow people into giving up good money with fear, the word Sphere-ists has phere fear built right into it!

QED