Classical Mechanics | Lecture 1

(September 26, 2011) Leonard Susskind gives a brief introduction to the mathematics behind physics including the addition and multiplication of vectors as well as velocity and acceleration in terms of particles. This course is the beginning of a six course sequence that explores the theoretical foundations of modern physics. Topics in the series include classical mechanics, quantum mechanics, theories of relativity, electromagnetism, cosmology, and black holes. Stanford University www.stanford.edu Stanford Continuing Studies continuingstudies.stanford.edu Stanford University Channel on YouTube: www.youtube.com

(October 3, 2011) Leonard Susskind discusses the some of the basic laws and ideas of modern physics. In this lecture, he focuses on some of the incorrect laws of motion that were first proposed by Aristotle. While they are invalid they provide some insight into how modern physics has developed to the state it is at today. This course is the beginning of a six course sequence that explores the theoretical foundations of modern physics. Topics in the series include classical mechanics, quantum mechanics, theories of relativity, electromagnetism, cosmology, and black holes. Stanford University www.stanford.edu Stanford Continuing Studies http:/continuingstudies.stanford.edu/ Stanford University Channel on YouTube: www.youtube.com
Video Rating: 4 / 5

This entry was posted in Physics and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to Classical Mechanics | Lecture 1

  1. SunriseFestival says:

    Love this!, and Susskind is so pretty in 720p

  2. BYMYSYD says:

    Susskind teaching classical mechanics…….haha

  3. Bohacification says:

    21:43 “It just needs to have 1 object that can be rearranged in an infinite number of ways.”

    MIND. FUCK. How can 1 thing be arranged in an infinite amount of ways? LOL I’ll probably find out.

  4. Nachtjagdgeschwader says:

    25:50

  5. Nachtjagdgeschwader says:

    That’s EPIC! “Not allowable by whom? By… me” ))))

  6. fractalres says:

    In a scaling coordinate frame, there are infinite causal webs; modeling systems in such frames demonstrates false causality by evident irreversible determinism. This makes aperiodic systems cyclical by placing them in a larger context. Irreversibility highlights cyclic emergence.

  7. Hythloday71 says:

    Symphony de Mechanic’ Fantastic by Prof Susskind ;o)

  8. social3ngin33rin says:

    lol it’s like another class w/o having to go there ^_^

  9. schok51 says:

    @smashu2 Thêta (the little circle crossed by a bar) is the angle between the two sides of the triangle you know(a and b for this example).In the formula c^2=a^2 + b^2 – 2ab * cos(thêta),you need to prioritize your operations(muyltiplication before addition and soustraction),giving us (a^2 + b^2)-(2ab*cos(thêta)).

  10. matharoofmaths says:

    @IndigentiaSumEgo I think you could be correct, what we are saying is in no way scientific. However I think philosophy is needed in science in order to illuminate to us what the predictions and laws of science really mean.
    P.S. The reason what we are saying sounds like babble is that we are not trained to express things in a philosophically coherent manner; real philosophers sound a lot more meaningful. Anyway let us babble, it is good for us to learn how to set up arguments logically.

  11. IndigentiaSumEgo says:

    @Sari3352 You are babbling worthless philosophical pseudoscience. So shut up.

  12. smashu2 says:

    @schok51 A ok great but I don’t know what mean cos(thêta) lol nor where you see that could you point me out ? but I will rewatch to see (sorry but I just watch that video out of curiosity I am not studying in that field)

  13. TheNecromancer077 says:

    I love this channel learned alot!

  14. gastroboy7 says:

    Maaaaaaaaaaaaaaany thanks

  15. Erramtum6 says:

    My tacher each computer’s she told the class that she was doing worksheet for.class and she is looking for grande for college

  16. janne808 says:

    Tentacles!

  17. Tr3xKuro says:

    @bhigr

    Its obviously not the point of the lecture.

  18. xapemanx says:

    so was the microphone on him not working?

  19. boogiebuddy01 says:

    it would be great if i knew what the fuck this guy was talking about

  20. bhigr says:

    He implicitly equated the inertial mass with the gravitational mass. A clear distinction would be nice, but that’s probably not his point in this lecture.