Education has become an expensive bureaucratic exercise, completely dissociated from reality and usefulness.

It completely rejects what the individual wants to achieve, and instead attempts to mass homogenize and test people through endless hours of boredom.

And the only goals it achieves are testing student's resilience to stress, and facilitating the finding of sexual partners. True learning is completely absent.

Teachers only teach because they have to do it to get paid, not for passion. Their only true incentive is co-authoring papers.

We reject this bullshit.

Education is meant to help us, the students, achieve our goals through passionate learning.

And, we, the students, are individuals, with different goals and capabilities.

The way we protest is to publish the knowledge from University for free, on the Internet, so that anyone can access it.

And we do this is a law-abiding way, without copyright infringement, so that no one can legally take it down.

We come to our courses just for the useless roll calls. But we already know all the subject better than the "teacher" on the very first day.

And we are already more famous than the "teacher" online, and through the Internet have already taught more way way more people than they ever will.

The effect of this is to demoralize the entire school system at all levels, until only one conclusion is possible: implosion.

And from the ashes of the old system, we will build a new one, which does only what matters with absolute efficiency: help the individual students achieve their goals.

A system in which the only reason why university exist will be to <the only reason for universities to exist should be the laboratories>[allow the most knowledgeable students to access million dollar laboratory equipment], and to pay the most prolific content creators so they can continue content creating.

No more useless courses. No more useless tests. Only passion, usefulness and focus.


Manifesto

https://www.puntseq.co.uk/[PuntSeq] is a side project led by a few <University of Cambridge> <doctor of Philosophy>[PhDs] that aims to determine which <bacteria> are present in the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Cam[River Cam].

In July 2019, the PuntSeq team got together with the awesome https://biomake.space[Cambridge Biomakespace], an awesome biology makerspace open to all, to create a two day science outreach activity showing their procedures.

The data collected in this experiment, together with other collection sessions done by the organizers actually led to a publication on <eLife>: https://elifesciences.org/articles/61504 "Freshwater monitoring by nanopore sequencing" by Lara Urban et al. (2021), so it is awesome to see that were are actual being part of "real science".

Ciro knows nothing about biology, but since he is <molecular biology technologies>[very curious about it], he jumped at this opportunity, and decided to document things as well as his limited knowledge would allow.

All participants chipped in some money to help cover the experiment's costs. Ciro suspects that this activity was done partially to help crowdfund the experiment, but it was a worthy investment!

The impressions you get from the experiment as a software engineer will be:
* OMG, this is so labour intensive, why haven't they automated this
* OMG, this is frightening, all the 8 hours of work I've just done are present in that tiny plastic tube
* Amazing! Look at that apparatus! And the bio people are like: I've used this a million times, it's cheap and every lab has one, just work faster and don't break you piece of junk!


Experiment background

{c}
{wiki}

They put a lot of emphasis into <base calling>. E.g.:
* they have used <FPGAs> to accelerate it on certain models: https://twitter.com/nanopore/status/841671404588302338[], sampe engineer: https://www.linkedin.com/in/balaji-renganathan-31b98415/


Oxford Nanopore Technologies

{c}

The normal navigation to them was <Open access at the University of Oxford>[paywalled], but the static files are served without login checks if you know their URL. One way to go about it is to search by prefix on the <Wayback Machine>: https://web.archive.org/web/*/https://www2.physics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/contentblock/2011/06/03/*

The last handbooks we can find are 2020/2021, they might have move to a new more properly paywalled location after that year.

* 2020/2021:
  * Year 1: https://www2.physics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/contentblock/2011/06/03/y1-ug-handbook-2020-2021-final-47501.pdf
  * Year 2: https://www2.physics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/contentblock/2011/06/03/y2-ug-handbook-2020-2021-final-47495.pdf
  * Year 3: https://www2.physics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/contentblock/2011/06/03/y3-ug-handbook-2020-2021-final-47496.pdf
  * Year 4: https://www2.physics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/contentblock/2011/06/03/y4-ug-handbook-2020-2021-final-47497.pdf
  * Physics and Philosophy: https://www2.physics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/contentblock/2011/06/03/pphandbook-47524.pdf
* 2019/2020. They seem to have split the handbook up per year after some point.
  * Year 1: https://www2.physics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/contentblock/2011/06/03/y1-ug-handbook-2019-2020-final-8october2019-45541.pdf
  * Year 2: https://www2.physics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/contentblock/2011/06/03/y2-ug-handbook-2019-2020-final-8-october2019-45542.pdf
  * Year 3: https://www2.physics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/contentblock/2011/06/03/y3-ug-handbook-2019-2020-updated-21november2019-45955.pdf
  * Year 4: https://www2.physics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/contentblock/2011/06/03/y4-ug-handbook-2019-2020-final-8october2019-45544.pdf
* 2016/2017: https://www2.physics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2011-06-03/course_v3_pdf_80151.pdf 2022 archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20221229021312/https://www2.physics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2011-06-03/course_v3_pdf_80151.pdf

  This older handbook had a more detailed course breakdown in terms of <term of the University of Oxford>[terms] and weeks, e.g. on page 19.


Oxford physics course handbook

{c}
{wiki=Phaser_(game_framework)}

Likely the best <JavaScript> <2D> game engine as of 2023.
* https://github.com/photonstorm/phaser
* https://phaser.io/
Uses <Matter.js> as a <physics engine> if enabled. There's also an alternative (in-house?) "arcade" engine: https://photonstorm.github.io/phaser3-docs/Phaser.Physics.Arcade.ArcadePhysics.html but it appears to be simpler/less robust (but also possibly faster).

TODO any 2D first person examples a bit like <Ciro's 2D reinforcement learning games>?

The examples are present under:
``
git clone https://github.com/photonstorm/phaser3-examples
``
but note that that repo is huge, about 4.5 GiB on local disk, as is has tons of assets.

The demos also include a <Monaco (editor)>-editor based sandbox mode where you can edit code directly on the web and see the game update which is a really sweet addition.


Phaser.js

{tag=Cirism}

This is the only way to truly understand and appreciate the subject.

Understanding the experiments gets intimately entangled with basically learning the <history of physics>, which is extremely beneficial as also highlighted by <Ron Maimon>, related: <there is value in tutorials written by early pioneers of the field>.

"How we know" is a basically more fundamental point than "what we know" in the natural sciences.

In the <Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman chapter O Americano, Outra Vez!> <Richard Feynman> describes his experience teaching in <Brazil> in the early 1950s, and how everything was memorized, without any explanation of the experiments or that the theory has some relationship to the real world!

Although things have improved considerably since in Brazil, Ciro still feels that some areas of physics are still taught without enough experiments described upfront. Notably, ironically, <quantum field theory>, which is where Feynman himself worked.

Feynman gave huge importance to understanding and explaining experiments, as can also be seen on <Richard Feynman Quantum Electrodynamics Lecture at University of Auckland (1979)>.

\Video[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpTFQcD7bME]
{title='Making' - the best way of learning science and technology by Manish Jain (2018)}


Physics education needs more focus on understanding experiments and their history

{disambiguate=package manager}
{wiki}

= pip
{synonym}

How many stupid bugs. How many stupid bugs do we need to face???
* this fucking train-wreck cannot come up with a unified documented way of specifying dependencies:
  * https://stackoverflow.com/questions/14399534/reference-requirements-txt-for-the-install-requires-kwarg-in-setuptools-setup-py
  * https://stackoverflow.com/questions/26900328/install-dependencies-from-setup-py
  * https://stackoverflow.com/questions/30797124/how-to-use-setup-py-to-install-dependencies-only/63743115
  * https://stackoverflow.com/questions/6947988/when-to-use-pip-requirements-file-versus-install-requires-in-setup-py
  So basically `requirements.txt` is the `package-lock.json`. But how to generate it cleanly? You would need to create a virtualenv?
* `pip search` was disabled in 2020: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/17373473/how-do-i-search-for-an-available-python-package-using-pip[]. WTF. If server load is a problem, just create a token system! It is hard to understand how such a popular language can't rais enough money to keep such simple server functionality running.


{c}
{title2=2013}

* https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=293382.0
* https://xiaohuiliu.medium.com/bitcoin-zk-bounty-series-part-2-finding-hash-collisions-5e3aa3eb3925
* https://bitcoinjs-guide.bitcoin-studio.com/bitcoinjs-guide/v5/part-three-pay-to-script-hash/puzzles/computational_puzzle_sha1_collision_p2sh

As mentioned at the prize was claimed at https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/transactions/btc/8d31992805518fd62daa3bdd2a5c4fd2cd3054c9b3dca1d78055e9528cff6adc[8d31992805518fd62daa3bdd2a5c4fd2cd3054c9b3dca1d78055e9528cff6adc] (2017-02-23) which spends several inputs with the same unlock script that presents two different constantants that have the same <SHA-1>:
``
printf 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 | xxd -r -p | sha1sum
printf 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 | xxd -r -p | sha1sum
``
both giving
``
f92d74e3874587aaf443d1db961d4e26dde13e9c
``
It was claimed on the same day that <Google> disclosed the collision: https://security.googleblog.com/2017/02/announcing-first-sha1-collision.html

Both of these are <PDF> prefixes, so they start with the PDF <file signature>, but are not fully viewable PDFs on their own. 


Peter Todd's hash collision puzzles

{c}
{title2=1900}
{wiki}

Used to explain the <black-body radiation experiment>.

Published as: <On the Theory of the Energy Distribution Law of the Normal Spectrum by Max Planck (1900)>.

<The Quantum Story by Jim Baggott (2011)> page 9 mentions that Planck apparently immediately recognized that <Planck constant> was a new fundamental <physical constant>, and could have potential applications in the definition of the <system of units> (TODO where was that published):
\Q[<Planck> wrote that the constants offered: 'the possibility of establishing units of length, mass, time and temperature which are independent of speciﬁc bodies or materials and which necessarily maintain their meaning for all time and for all civilizations, even those which are extraterrestrial and nonhuman, constants which therefore can be called "fundamental physical units of measurement".']
This was a visionary insight, and was finally realized in the <2019 redefinition of the SI base units>.

TODO how can it be derived from theoretical principles alone? There is one derivation at; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_law\#Derivation but it does not seem to mention the <Schrödinger equation> at all.
* https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/22075/deriving-plancks-radiation-law-from-microscopic-considerations
* https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4816/is-there-a-fully-quantum-field-theoretic-treatise-of-plancks-law-for-black-body

\Video[https://youtube.com/watch?v=KabPQLIXLw4]
{title=Quantum Mechanics 2 - Photons by <ViaScience> (2012)}
{description=Contains a good explanation of how <discretization> + <energy> increases with frequency explains the <black-body radiation experiment> curve: you need more and more energy for small wavelengths, each time higher above the average energy available.}


Planck's law

{wiki}

Related:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronics_right_to_repair
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoebus_cartel

The first time <Ciro Santilli> <Googled> this was when trying to repair his cell phone.

2019 cell phones are glued together with adhesive, which makes them impossible to repair them unless you have a heat gun, spend hours and hours learning and planning, and accept the risk of breaking the screen

Repairability scores: https://www.ifixit.com/smartphone-repairability

If you take a phone less than 300 dollars to a repair shop in the first world, they will say: I've never repaired this crap, and likely for the price of the repair you should just buy a new one, and so to the trash goes the old one, polluting the planet, and in comes a new one, enriching the manufacturer further.

European Union, <Europe cookie law>[I need you now].

Oh, there is some 2017 EU action actually: (https://web.archive.org/web/20190521082737/https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20170629IPR78633/making-consumer-products-more-durable-and-easier-to-repair[archive]) https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20170629IPR78633/making-consumer-products-more-durable-and-easier-to-repair

Good article: https://www.androidauthority.com/device-repairability-807585/ (https://web.archive.org/web/20191201135434/https://www.androidauthority.com/device-repairability-807585/[archive]).


Planned obsolescence

{wiki}

One of the main reasons why physicists are obsessed by this topic is that position and momentum are mapped to the <phase space coordinates> of <Hamiltonian mechanics>, which appear in the <matrix mechanics> formulation of <quantum mechanics>, which offers insight into the theory, particularly when generalizing to <relativistic quantum mechanics>.

One way to think is: what is the definition of space space? It is a way to write the wave function $\psi_x(x)$ such that:
* the position operator is the multiplication by $x$
* the momentum operator is the derivative by $x$
And then, what is the definition of momentum space? It is of course a way to write the wave function $\psi_p(p)$ such that:
* the momentum operator is the multiplication by $p$

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/39442/intuitive-explanation-of-why-momentum-is-the-fourier-transform-variable-of-posit/39508\#39508 gives the best idea intuitive idea: the <Fourier transform> writes a function as a (continuous) sum of plane waves, and each plane wave has a fixed momentum.

Bibliography:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Position_and_momentum_space


Position and momentum space

{c}
{tag=C (language)}

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/73877965/how-to-compile-c-c-code-into-a-hex-file-for-the-bbc-microbit

Official support is abysmal, very focused on <MicroPython> and their graphical UI.

The setup impossible to achieve as it requires setting up the <Yotta (Build system)>, just like the impossible to setup <Compile MicroPython code for Micro Bit locally on Ubuntu 22.04 with your own firmware> setup.

So we just use https://github.com/lancaster-university/microbit-samples + https://github.com/carlosperate/docker-microbit-toolchain[]:
``
docker pull ghcr.io/carlosperate/microbit-toolchain:latest
git clone https://github.com/lancaster-university/microbit-samples
cd microbit-samples
git checkout 285f9acfb54fce2381339164b6fe5c1a7ebd39d5

# Select a sample, builds one at a time. The default one is the hello world.
cp source/examples/hello-world/* source

# Build and flash.
docker run -v $(pwd):/home --rm ghcr.io/carlosperate/microbit-toolchain:latest yotta build
cp build/bbc-microbit-classic-gcc/source/microbit-samples-combined.hex "/media/$USER/MICROBIT/"
``
.hex file size for the hello world was 447 kB, much better than the <MicroPython> hello world downloaded from the website which was about 1.8 MB!

If you try it again for a second time from a clean tree, it fails with:
``
warning: github rate limit for anonymous requests exceeded: you must log in
``
presumably because after Yotta died it started using GitHub as a registry... sad. When will people learn. Apparently we were at 5000 API calls per hour. But if you don't clean the tree, you will be just fine.


Program the Micro Bit in C

$$
e^x = \lim_{n\to\infty} \left(1+\frac x n \right)^n
$$

The basic intuition for this is to start from the origin and make small changes to the function based on its known derivative at the origin.

More precisely, we know that for any base b, <exponentiation> satisfies:
* $b^{x + y} = b^x b^y$.
* $b^{0} = 1$.
And we also know that for $b = e$ in particular that we satisfy the <exponential function differential equation> and so:
$$
\dv{e^x}{x}(0) = 1
$$
One interesting fact is that the only thing we use from the <exponential function differential equation> is the value around $x = 0$, which is quite little information! This idea is basically what is behind the importance of the ralationship between <Lie group-Lie algebra correspondence> via the <exponential map>. In the more general settings of groups and <manifolds>, restricting ourselves to be near the origin is a huge advantage.

Now suppose that we want to calculate $e^1$. The idea is to start from $e^0$ and then then to use the first order of the <Taylor series> to extend the known value of $e^0$ to $e^1$.

E.g., if we split into 2 parts, we know that:
$$
e^1 = e^{1/2}e^{1/2}
$$
or in three parts:
$$
e^1 = e^{1/3}e^{1/3}e^{1/3}
$$
so we can just use arbitrarily many parts $e^{1/n}$ that are arbitrarily close to $x = 0$:
$$
e^1 = (e^{1/n})^n
$$
and more generally for any $x$ we have:
$$
e^x = (e^{x/n})^n
$$

Let's see what happens with the Taylor series. We have near $y = 0$ in <little-o notation>:
$$
e^y = 1 + y + o(y)
$$
Therefore, for $y = x/n$, which is near $y = 0$ for any fixed $x$:
$$
e^{x/n} = 1 + x/n + o(1/n)
$$
and therefore:
$$
e^x = (e^{x/n})^n = (1 + x/n + o(1/n))^n
$$
which is basically the formula tha we wanted. We just have to convince ourselves that at $\lim_{n \to \infty}$, the $o(1/n)$ disappears, i.e.:
$$
(1 + x/n + o(1/n))^n = (1 + x/n)^n
$$

To do that, let's multiply $e^y$ by itself once:
$$
e^y e^y = (1 + y + o(y))(1 + y + o(y)) = 1 + 2y + o(y)
$$
and multiplying a third time:
$$
e^y e^y e^y = (1 + 2y + o(y))(1 + y + o(y)) = 1 + 3y + o(y)
$$
TODO conclude.


Product definition of the exponential function

{c}

In this example we will initialize a quantum circuit with a single <CNOT gate> and see the output values.

By default, <Qiskit> initializes every <qubit> to 0 as shown in the <qiskit/hello.py>{file}. But we can also initialize to arbitrary values as would be done when computing the output for various different inputs.

Output:
``
     ┌──────────────────────┐
q_0: ┤0                     ├──■──
     │  Initialize(1,0,0,0) │┌─┴─┐
q_1: ┤1                     ├┤ X ├
     └──────────────────────┘└───┘
c: 2/═════════════════════════════

init: [1, 0, 0, 0]
probs: [1. 0. 0. 0.]

init: [0, 1, 0, 0]
probs: [0. 0. 0. 1.]

init: [0, 0, 1, 0]
probs: [0. 0. 1. 0.]

init: [0, 0, 0, 1]
probs: [0. 1. 0. 0.]

     ┌──────────────────────────────────┐
q_0: ┤0                                 ├──■──
     │  Initialize(0.70711,0,0,0.70711) │┌─┴─┐
q_1: ┤1                                 ├┤ X ├
     └──────────────────────────────────┘└───┘
c: 2/═════════════════════════════════════════

init: [0.7071067811865475, 0, 0, 0.7071067811865475]
probs: [0.5 0.5 0.  0. ]
``
which we should all be able to understand intuitively given our understanding of the <CNOT gate> and <quantum state vectors>.

https://quantumcomputing.stackexchange.com/questions/13202/qiskit-initializing-n-qubits-with-binary-values-0s-and-1s describes how to initialize circuits qubits only with binary 0 or 1 to avoid dealing with the exponential number of elements of the <quantum state vector>.


qiskit/initialize.py

These appear to be benchmarks that don't involve running anything concretely, just compiling and likely then counting <quantum gates>[gates]:
* https://github.com/ArlineQ/arline_benchmarks


Quantum compiler benchmark

{tag=Computer physical principle of operation}
{wiki}

= Quantum computer
{synonym}

= Quantum computation
{synonym}

Quantum is getting hot in 2019, and even <Ciro Santilli> got a bit excited: <quantum computing could be the next big thing>.

No useful algorithm has been economically accelerated by quantum yet as of 2019, only <quantum supremacy>[useless ones], but <quantum computing player>[the bets are on, big time].

To get a feeling of this, just have a look at the insane number of startups that are already developing <quantum algorithms> for hardware that doesn't/barely exists! https://quantumcomputingreport.com/players/privatestartup (https://web.archive.org/web/20191223175204/https://quantumcomputingreport.com/players/privatestartup/[archive]). Some feared we might be in a bubble: <Are we in a quantum computing bubble?>

To get a basic idea of what programming a quantum computer looks like start by reading: <quantum computing is just matrix multiplication>{full}.

Some people <quantum computing skepticism>[have their doubts], and that is not unreasonable, it might truly not work out. We could be on the verge of an <AI winter> of quantum computing. But <Ciro Santilli> feels that it is genuinely impossible to tell as of 2020 if something will work out or not. We really just have to try it out and see. There must have been skeptics before every single <next big thing>.


Quantum computing

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T58H6ofIOpE

Bibliography review:
* <Quantum Field Theory lecture notes by David Tong (2007)> is the course basis
* <quantum field theory in a nutshell by Anthony Zee (2010)> is a good quick and dirty book to start

Course outline given:
* classical field theory
* quantum scalar field. Covers <bosons>, and is simpler to get intuition about.
* quantum Dirac field. Covers <fermions>
* interacting fields
* <perturbation theory>
* <renormalization>

Non-relativistic <QFT> is a limit of relativistic QFT, and can be used to describe for example <condensed matter physics> systems at very low temperature. But it is still very hard to make accurate measurements even in those experiments.

Defines "relativistic" as: "the <Lagrangian> is symmetric under the <Poincaré group>".

Mentions that "QFT is hard" because (a finite list follows???):
\Q[There are no nontrivial finite-dimensional unitary <representation theory>[representations] of the <Poincaré group>.]
But I guess that if you fully understand what that means precisely, QTF won't be too hard for you!

Notably, this is stark contrast with rotation symmetry groups (<special orthogonal group>[SO(3)]) which appears in space rotations present in <non-relativistic quantum mechanics>.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T58H6ofIOpE&t=5097 describes the <relativistic particle in a box thought experiment> with shrinking walls


Lecture 1

= QED Lagrangian
{synonym}
{title2}

$$
\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{QED}} = \bar \psi (i\hbar c {D}\!\!\!\!/\ - mc^2) \psi - {1 \over 4\mu_0} F_{\mu \nu} F^{\mu \nu}
$$
where:
* $F$ is the <electromagnetic tensor>

Note that this is the sum of the:
* <Dirac Lagrangian>, which  only describes the "inertia of bodies" part of the equation
* the <electromagnetic> interaction term ${1 \over 4\mu_0} F_{\mu \nu} F^{\mu \nu}$, which describes term describes forces
Note that the relationship between $\psi$ and $F$ is not explicit. However, if we knew what type of particle we were talking about, e.g. <electron>, then the knowledge of <psi> would also give the charge distribution and therefore $F$

As mentioned at the beginning of <Quantum Field Theory lecture notes by David Tong (2007)>:
* by "<Lagrangian>" we mean Lagrangian density
* the <generalized coordinates> of the Lagrangian are fields

\Video[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4CjewbJgRQ]
{title=Particle Physics is Founded on This Principle! by Physics with Elliot (2022)}


Quantum electrodynamics Lagrangian

{scope}

It is the <norm induced by the complex dot product> over <\C^2>:
$$
|\ket{\psi}|
= \sqrt{\left|\frac{1 + i}{2}\right|^2 + \left|\frac{1-i}{2}\right|^2}
= \sqrt{\left|\frac{1}{2} + i\frac{1}{2}\right|^2 + \left|\frac{1}{2} + i\frac{-i}{2}\right|^2}
= \sqrt{
    \sqrt{\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)^2 + \left(\frac{1}{2}\right)^2}^2 +
    \sqrt{\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)^2 + \left(\frac{-1}{2}\right)^2}^2
  }
= \sqrt{
    \left(\frac{1}{2}\right)^2 + \left(\frac{1}{2}\right)^2 +
    \left(\frac{1}{2}\right)^2 + \left(\frac{-1}{2}\right)^2
  }
= \sqrt{\frac{1}{4} + \frac{1}{4} + \frac{1}{4} + \frac{1}{4}} +
= \sqrt{\frac{1 + 1 + 1 + 1}{4}}
= 1
$$


{c}

Sample playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLW_HsOU6YZRkdhFFznHNEfua9NK3deBQy

Basically the same content as: <Richard Feynman Quantum Electrodynamics Lecture at University of Auckland (1979)>, but maybe there is some merit to this talk, as it is a bit more direct in some points. This is consistent with what is mentioned at http://www.feynman.com/science/qed-lectures-in-new-zealand/ that the Auckland lecture was the first attempt.

Some more information at: https://iucat.iu.edu/iub/5327621

By Mill Valley, CA based producer "Sound Photosynthesis", some info on their website: http://sound.photosynthesis.com/Richard_Feynman.html

They are mostly a <New Age> production company it seems, which highlights Feynman's absolute cult status. E.g. on the last video, he's not wearing shoes, like a proper guru.

Feynman liked to meet all kinds of weird people, and at some point he got interested in the <New Age> <Esalen Institute>. <Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman> this kind of experience a bit, there was nude bathing on a pool that oversaw the sea, and a guy offered to give a massage to the he nude girl and the accepted.

https://youtu.be/rZvgGekvHest=5105 actually talks about <spin (physics)>, notably that the endpoint events also have a spin, and that the transition rules take spin into account by rotating thing, and that the transition rules take spin into account by rotating things.


Title	Created	Updated
Manifesto	1970-01-01	1970-01-01
Experiment background	1970-01-01	1970-01-01
Oxford Nanopore Technologies	1970-01-01	1970-01-01
Oxford physics course handbook	1970-01-01	1970-01-01
Phaser.js	1970-01-01	1970-01-01
Physics education needs more focus on understanding experiments and their history	1970-01-01	1970-01-01
pip	1970-01-01	1970-01-01
Peter Todd's hash collision puzzles	1970-01-01	1970-01-01
Planck's law	1970-01-01	1970-01-01
Planned obsolescence	1970-01-01	1970-01-01
Position and momentum space	1970-01-01	1970-01-01
Program the Micro Bit in C	1970-01-01	1970-01-01
Product definition of the exponential function	1970-01-01	1970-01-01
qiskit/initialize.py	1970-01-01	1970-01-01
Quantum compiler benchmark	1970-01-01	1970-01-01
Quantum computing	1970-01-01	1970-01-01
Lecture 1	1970-01-01	1970-01-01
Quantum electrodynamics Lagrangian	1970-01-01	1970-01-01
a	1970-01-01	1970-01-01
Quantum Mechanical View of Reality by Richard Feynman (1983)	1970-01-01	1970-01-01

Ciro Santilli (@cirosantilli, 32)