You don't like it? Go somewhere else! by Richard Feynman, the QED Lecture at University of Auckland
Why Physics Stack Exchange recommends it
Physics Stack Exchange users link it when someone complains that quantum mechanics or relativity feels philosophically unacceptable, as a blunt reminder that nature need not satisfy our intuitions.
Recommended by 3 people across 3 different months, 2011 to 2019.
What it is
A 75-second clip from Richard Feynman's QED lectures at the University of Auckland in 1979. He tells the audience that quantum physics is strange and that nature does not have to match our intuitions, so people who dislike that should look for another universe. It is a short excerpt uploaded to YouTube in 2009.
What people said
Recommends Luboš Motl · 2011-12 · Physics Stack Exchange · on “Which physically acceptable quantum interpretations do not require the existence of any observer at all?”
This video has a recipe for anyone who doesn't find QM (and QED) sufficiently psychologically easy and philosophically pleasing: [this video]
Recommends Jold · 2013-03 · Physics Stack Exchange · on “Are quantum mechanics and determinism actually irreconcilable?”
My advice would be "don't tell the nature how it should behave." The universe doesn't have to conform to our naive philosophical biases. I tend to show people the following video when questions like these come up: [this video] .
Recommends user12029 · 2014-05 · Physics Stack Exchange · on “What is the cause of Special Relativity”
This is a very serious issue, until one realizes that the assumption which is common in every day lives that there is no maximum speed limit and therefore one can use Galilean transformations, is an equally dubious hypothesis. It is an assertion about nature to say that one can transform coordinates of an event $(x,y,z,t)$ into another one $(x-v_x t,y-v_y t,z-v_z t,t)$, and that this is what events occurring in the frame moving with velocity $(v_x,v_y,v_z)$ will observe. e.g., that if we apply laws and reasoning in the transformed frame, we get the same physical results as in the untransformed frame. This is an imposition on nature justified only by everyday low-velocity experience. The vari
Cites raindrop · 2013-02 · Physics Stack Exchange · on “How do magnets work?”
You probably want an explanation of how and why string theory works, Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) arises from string theory and QED makes magnets work. That's a very long answer. It would take years to give a thorough explanation of how magnets work to a layman, since we'd have to teach him/her lots of Physics, assuming we accept string theory as true. Of course once we hit string theory, if you ask why string theory is true [LINK] (assuming it's true; see the last 7 paragraphs), the answer is we just accept nature to be true. See You don't like it? Go somewhere else! by Richard Feynman, the QED Lecture at University of Auckland - Youtube [this video]
Cites Emilio Pisanty · 2013-12 · Physics Stack Exchange · on “The nature of theoretical models”
No. There is nothing wrong with perturbation theory, or with theories with known, restricted accuracy. The point of theory is to explain the results of observation from as simple an initial theoretical standpoint as possible. Therefore: Since experiment always has a finite uncertainty, one can only ask that theory match the experimental value within its uncertainty range. Exact answers are not very useful in physics, because we know that other, smaller effects will always get in the way before an experiment matches the infinite set of significant figures we can draw out of an 'exact' answer. Ignoring these effects, or trying to minimize them, is very often the best way to hide your head in t
Cites Jokela · 2015-11 · Physics Stack Exchange · on “Why can I always see a star?”
Yes. Light is constructed from single photons. And there is a distance between them. And their path is a straight line only in vacuum. As we are in Physics-platform, I think it's not proper to make same un-true simplifications, which would only disturb further learning; [this video]
Cites Robin Ekman · 2016-03 · Physics Stack Exchange · on “Is there something behind non-commuting observables?”
You say that This leads to the problem of not having a definite value of some quantity in some states. but what sort of problem is this? It's not a problem of disagreement between theory and experiment. In fact, as I will get to, it's the other way around! If observables commute, we cannot construct theories that agree with experiment. So the problem here is that this is a psychologically or philosophically difficult thing to accept, but that's the way it is and if you don't like it you have to find another universe where the rules are simpler [this video] ... Bell's inequalities and GHZ experiments [LINK] can be argued to show that there really isn't anything behind non-commuting observables. A
Cites Emilio Pisanty · 2019-07 · Physics Stack Exchange · on “Has anyone tried to incorporate the electrons magnetic dipole moment into the atomic orbital theory?”
To be crystal clear: Has anyone tried to incorporate the electrons magnetic dipole moment into the atomic orbital theory? YES. They've tried and they've succeeded. The electron's spin magnetic dipole is a standard part of atomic physics and quantum chemistry. Anybody attempting to claim that this isn't the case is simply describing their own ignorance about atomic physics rather than the subject as it is known. Also, to be crystal clear: The effects are perfectly well-known and have been described for the past 80+ years, but still The effects are weak, and they are secondary to all sorts of other interactions that happen in atoms, including: The electrostatic interaction between the electron