Walter Lewin 8.

01x Lecture 1
https://youtu.be/GtOGurrUPmQ
00:00
I'm Walter Lewin.
00:01
I will be your lecturer this term.
00:04
In physics, we explore the very small to the very large.
00:10
The very small is a small fraction of a proton
00:13
and the very large is the universe itself.
00:16
They span 45 orders of magnitude--
00:20
a 1 with 45 zeroes.
00:24
To express measurements quantitatively
00:28
we have to introduce units.
00:31
And we introduce for the unit of length, the meter;
00:37
for the unit of time, the second;
00:41
and for the unit of mass, the kilogram.
00:46
And you can read in your book how these are defined
00:49
and how the definition evolved historically.
00:54
Now, there are many derived units
00:56
which we use in our daily life for convenience
00:59
and some are tailored toward specific fields.
01:02
We have centimeters, we have millimeters
01:05
kilometers.
01:06
We have inches, feet, miles.
01:10
Astronomers even use the astronomical unit
01:13
which is the mean distance between the Earth and the sun
01:15
and they use light-years
01:17
which is the distance that light travels in one year.
01:21
We have milliseconds, we have microseconds
01:24
we have days, weeks, hours, centuries, months--
01:27
all derived units.
01:29
For the mass, we have milligrams, we have pounds
01:34
we have metric tons.
01:36
So lots of derived units exist.
01:41
Not all of them are very easy to work with.
01:44
I find it extremely difficult to work with inches and feet.
01:48
It's an extremely uncivilized system.
01:50
I don't mean to insult you, but think about it--
01:52
12 inches in a foot, three feet in a yard.
01:56
Could drive you nuts.
01:57
I work almost exclusively decimal,
02:01
and I hope you will do the same during this course
02:03
but we may make some exceptions.
02:06
I will now first show you a movie,
02:08
which is called The Powers of Ten.
02:11
It covers 40 orders of magnitude.
02:13
It was originally conceived by a Dutchman named Kees Boeke
02:17
in the early '50s.
02:19
This is the second-generation movie, and you will hear
02:23
the voice of Professor Morrison, who is a professor at MIT.
02:30
The Powers of Ten-- 40 Orders of Magnitude.
02:37
Here we go.
02:40
I already introduced, as you see there
02:42
length, time and mass
02:45
and we call these
02:46
the three fundamental quantities in physics.
02:51
I will give this the symbol capital L for length
02:55
capital T for time, and capital M for mass.
02:59
Many other quantities in physics can be derived
03:02
from these fundamental quantities.
03:05
I'll give you an example.
03:07
I put a bracket around here.
03:10
I say speed, and that means the dimensions of speed.
03:14
The dimensions of speed is the dimension of length
03:16
divided by the dimension of time.
03:19
So I can write for that: [L] divided by [T].
03:24
Whether it's meters per second or inches per year
03:27
that's not what matters.
03:28
It has the dimension length per time.
03:31
Volume would have the dimension
03:37
of length to the power three.
03:42
Density would have the dimension
03:47
of mass per unit volume
03:51
so that means length to the power three.
03:54
All-important in our course is acceleration.
03:59
We will deal a lot with acceleration.
04:02
Acceleration, as you will see, is length per time squared.
04:06
The unit is meters per second squared.
04:08
So you get length divided by time squared.
04:17
So all other quantities can be derived
04:19
from these three fundamental.
04:22
So now that we have agreed on the units--
04:25
we have the meter, the second and the kilogram--
04:28
we can start making measurements.
04:30
Now, all-important in making measurements
04:33
which is always ignored in every college book
04:36
is the uncertainty in your measurement.
04:40
Any measurement that you make
04:43
without any knowledge of the uncertainty
04:45
is meaningless.
04:47
I will repeat this.
04:49
I want you to hear it tonight at 3:00 when you wake up.
04:52
Any measurement that you make
04:55
without the knowledge of its uncertainty
04:57
is completely meaningless.
05:01
My grandmother used to tell me that...
05:05
at least she believed it...
05:07
that someone who is lying in bed
05:09
is longer than someone who stands up.
05:12
And in honor of my grandmother
05:14
I'm going to bring this today to a test.
05:19
I have here a setup where I can measure a person standing up
05:23
and a person lying down.
05:26
It's not the greatest bed, but lying down.
05:29
I have to convince you
05:30
about the uncertainty in my measurement
05:33
because a measurement without knowledge of the uncertainty
05:35
is meaningless.
05:36
And therefore, what I will do is the following.
05:39
I have here an aluminum bar
05:41
and I make the reasonable, plausible assumption
05:45
that when this aluminum bar is sleeping--
05:47
when it is horizontal--
05:49
that it is not longer than when it is standing up.
05:52
If you accept that, we can compare
05:54
the length of this aluminum bar with this setup
05:58
and with this setup.
05:59
At least we have some kind of calibration to start with.
06:03
I will measure it.
06:03
You have to trust me.
06:05
During these three months, we have to trust each other.
06:08
So I measure here, 149.9 centimeters.
06:16
However, I would think that the...
06:19
so this is the aluminum bar.
06:21
This is in vertical position.
06:24
149.9.
06:27
But I would think that the uncertainty of my measurement
06:30
is probably 1 millimeter.
06:32
I can't really guarantee you
06:33
that I did it accurately any better.
06:36
So that's the vertical one.
06:38
Now we're going to measure the bar horizontally
06:42
for which we have a setup here.
06:43
Oops!
06:44
The scale is on your side.
06:46
So now I measure the length of this bar.
06:49
150.0 horizontally.
06:56
150.0, again, plus or minus 0.1 centimeter.
07:01
So you would agree with me that I am capable of measuring
07:05
plus or minus 1 millimeter.
07:06
That's the uncertainty of my measurement.
07:10
Now, if the difference in lengths
07:14
between lying down and standing up
07:16
if that were one foot
07:18
we would all know it, wouldn't we?
07:20
You get out of bed in the morning
07:21
you lie down and you get up and you go, clunk!
07:23
And you're one foot shorter.
07:24
And we know that that's not the case.
07:26
If the difference were only one millimeter
07:29
we would never know.
07:31
Therefore, I suspect that if my grandmother was right
07:35
then it's probably only a few centimeters,
07:37
maybe an inch.
07:39
And so I would argue that if I can measure
07:41
the length of a student to one millimeter accuracy
07:45
that should settle the issue.
07:47
So I need a volunteer.
07:51
You want to volunteer?
07:52
You look like you're very tall.
07:53
I hope that... yeah, I hope that we don't run out of, uh...
07:59
You're not taller than 178 or so?
08:02
What is your name?
08:03
STUDENT: Rick Ryder.
08:04
LEWIN: Rick-- Rick Ryder.
08:05
You're not nervous, right?
08:06
RICK: No!
08:08
LEWIN: Man!
08:09
(class laughs)
08:11
Sit down.
08:12
(class laughs)
08:15
I can't have tall guys here.
08:16
Come on.
08:17
We need someone more modest in size.
08:21
Don't take it personal, Rick.
08:24
Okay, what is your name?
08:27
STUDENT: Zach.
08:27
LEWIN: Zach.
08:30
Nice day today, Zach, yeah?
08:32
You feel all right?
08:34
Your first lecture at MIT?
08:36
I don't.
08:39
Okay, man.
08:40
Stand there, yeah.
08:44
Okay, 183.2.
08:49
Stay there, stay there.
08:49
Don't move.
08:51
Zach...
08:55
This is vertical.
08:57
What did I say? 180?
09:01
Only one person.
09:03
3?
09:06
Come on.
09:09
.2 Okay.
09:11
183.2.
09:13
Yeah.
09:14
And an uncertainty of about one...
09:19
Oh, this is centimeters-- 0.1 centimeters.
09:24
And now we're going to measure him horizontally.
09:29
Zach, I don't want you to break your bones
09:31
so we have a little step for you here.
09:35
Put your feet there.
09:37
Oh, let me remove the aluminum bar.
09:39
Don't... Watch out for the scale.
09:40
That you don't break that, because then it's all over.
09:44
Okay, I'll come on your side.
09:45
I have to do that-- yeah, yeah.
09:48
Relax.
09:51
Think of this as a small sacrifice
09:53
for the sake of science, right?
09:55
It's not... Okay, you good?
09:57
ZACH: Yeah.
09:58
LEWIN: You comfortable?
10:00
(students laugh)
10:01
You're really comfortable, right?
10:02
ZACH: Wonderful.
10:03
LEWIN: Okay. You're ready?
10:06
ZACH: Yes.
10:07
LEWIN: Okay.
10:10
Okay.
10:13
185.7.
10:15
Stay where you are. 185.7.
10:19
I'm sure... I want to first make the subtraction, right?
10:22
185.7, plus or minus 0.1 centimeter.
10:28
Oh, that is five...
10:30
that is 2.5 plus or minus 0.2 centimeters.
10:35
You're about one inch taller when you sleep
10:37
than when you stand up.
10:37
My grandmother was right.
10:39
She's always right.
10:40
Can you get off here?
10:42
I want you to appreciate that the accuracy...
10:45
Thank you very much, Zach.
10:46
That the accuracy of one millimeter
10:48
was more than sufficient to make the case.
10:51
If the accuracy of my measurements
10:53
would have been much less
10:54
this measurement would not have been convincing at all.
10:59
So whenever you make a measurement
11:00
you must know the uncertainty.
11:01
Otherwise, it is meaningless.
11:05
Galileo Galilei asked himself the question:
11:10
Why are mammals as large as they are and not much larger?
11:17
He had a very clever reasoning which I've never seen in print.
11:20
But it comes down to the fact that he argued
11:23
that if the mammal becomes too massive
11:27
that the bones will break
11:29
and he thought that that was a limiting factor.
11:32
Even though I've never seen his reasoning in print
11:35
I will try to reconstruct it
11:37
what could have gone through his head.
11:39
Here is a mammal.
11:43
And this is the... one of the four legs of the mammal.
11:48
And this mammal has a size S.
11:55
And what I mean by that is
11:57
a mouse is yay big and a cat is yay big.
12:01
That's what I mean by size-- very crudely defined.
12:06
The mass of the mammal is M
12:09
and this mammal has a thigh bone
12:13
which we call the femur, which is here.
12:17
And the femur of course carries the body, to a large extent.
12:22
And let's assume that the femur has a length l
12:25
and has a thickness d.
12:27
Here is a femur.
12:34
This is what a femur approximately looks like.
12:37
So this will be the length of the femur...
12:45
and this will be the thickness, d
12:49
and this will be the cross-sectional area A.
12:57
I'm now going to take you through what we call in physics
13:01
a scaling argument.
13:04
I would argue that the length of the femur
13:07
must be proportional to the size of the animal.
13:10
That's completely plausible.
13:11
If an animal is four times larger than another
13:14
you would need four times longer legs.
13:16
And that's all this is saying.
13:18
It's very reasonable.
13:21
It is also very reasonable that the mass of an animal
13:24
is proportional to the third power of the size
13:28
because that's related to its volume.
13:31
And so if it's related to the third power of the size
13:34
it must also be proportional
13:36
to the third power of the length of the femur
13:39
because of this relationship.
13:42
Okay, that's one.
13:45
Now comes the argument.
13:48
Pressure on the femur is proportional
13:54
to the weight of the animal divided by the cross-section A
13:59
of the femur.
14:01
That's what pressure is.
14:03
And that is the mass of the animal
14:05
that's proportional
14:06
to the mass of the animal divided by d squared
14:09
because we want the area here, it's proportional to d squared.
14:14
Now follow me closely.
14:18
If the pressure is higher than a certain level
14:22
the bones will break.
14:25
Therefore, for an animal not to break its bones
14:29
when the mass goes up by a certain factor
14:31
let's say a factor of four
14:33
in order for the bones not to break
14:35
d squared must also go up by a factor of four.
14:38
That's a key argument in the scaling here.
14:40
You really have to think that through carefully.
14:43
Therefore, I would argue
14:45
that the mass must be proportional to d squared.
14:48
This is the breaking argument.
14:51
Now compare these two.
14:53
The mass is proportional to the length of the femur
14:56
to the power three
14:57
and to the thickness of the femur to the power two.
15:00
Therefore, the thickness of the femur to the power two
15:05
must be proportional to the length l
15:07
and therefore the thickness of the femur must be proportional
15:10
to l to the power three-halfs.
15:13
A very interesting result.
15:16
What is this result telling you?
15:19
It tells you that if I have two animals
15:23
and one is ten times larger than the other
15:26
then S is ten times larger
15:28
that the lengths of the legs are ten times larger
15:31
but that the thickness of the femur is 30 times larger
15:38
because it is l to the power three halves.
15:39
If I were to compare a mouse with an elephant
15:42
an elephant is about a hundred times larger in size
15:46
so the length of the femur of the elephant
15:48
would be a hundred times larger than that of a mouse
15:50
but the thickness of the femur
15:52
would have to be 1,000 times larger.
15:57
And that may have convinced Galileo Galilei
16:01
that that's the reason
16:02
why the largest animals are as large as they are.
16:06
Because clearly, if you increase the mass
16:09
there comes a time that the thickness of the bones
16:12
is the same as the length of the bones.
16:14
You're all made of bones
16:16
and that is biologically not feasible.
16:18
And so there is a limit somewhere
16:20
set by this scaling law.
16:25
Well, I wanted to bring this to a test.
16:28
After all
16:29
I brought my grandmother's statement to a test
16:31
so why not bring Galileo Galilei's statement to a test?
16:35
And so I went to Harvard
16:38
where they have a beautiful collection of femurs
16:42
and I asked them for the femur of a raccoon and a horse.
16:48
A raccoon is this big
16:50
a horse is about four times bigger
16:54
so the length of the femur of a horse
16:57
must be about four times the length of the raccoon.
17:01
Close.
17:03
So I was not surprised.
17:05
Then I measured the thickness, and I said to myself, "Aha!"
17:11
If the length is four times higher
17:14
then the thickness has to be eight times higher
17:18
if this holds.
17:20
And what I'm going to plot for you
17:21
you will see that shortly is d divided by l, versus l
17:27
and that, of course, must be proportional
17:28
to l to the power one-half.
17:30
I bring one l here.
17:32
So, if I compare the horse and I compare the raccoon
17:36
I would argue that the thickness
17:38
divided by the length of the femur for the horse
17:41
must be the square root of four, twice as much
17:45
as that of the raccoon.
17:47
And so I was very anxious to plot that, and I did that
17:52
and I'll show you the result.
17:55
Here is my first result.
18:01
So we see there, d over l.
18:03
I explained to you why I prefer that.
18:07
And here you see the length.
18:08
You see here the raccoon and you see the horse.
18:11
And if you look carefully, then the d over l for the horse
18:14
is only about one and a half times larger than the raccoon.
18:17
Well, I wasn't too disappointed.
18:20
One and a half is not two, but it is in the right direction.
18:22
The horse clearly has a larger value for d over l
18:25
than the raccoon.
18:28
I realized I needed more data, so I went back to Harvard.
18:31
I said, "Look, I need a smaller animal, an opossum maybe
18:35
maybe a rat, maybe a mouse," and they said, "okay."
18:39
They gave me three more bones.
18:42
They gave me an antelope
18:43
which is actually a little larger than a raccoon
18:46
and they gave me an opossum and they gave me a mouse.
18:51
Here is the bone of the antelope.
18:59
Here is the one of the raccoon.
19:06
Here is the one of the opossum.
19:09
And now you won't believe this.
19:12
This is so wonderful, so romantic.
19:17
There is the mouse.
19:18
(students laugh)
19:20
Isn't that beautiful?
19:21
Teeny, weeny little mouse?
19:23
That's only a teeny, weeny little femur.
19:27
And there it is.
19:29
And I made the plot.
19:33
I was very curious what that plot would look like.
19:36
And...
19:42
here it is.
19:46
Whew! I was shocked.
19:48
I was really shocked.
19:51
Because look-- the horse is 50 times larger in size
19:55
than the mouse.
19:56
The difference in d over l is only a factor of two.
20:00
And I expected something more like a factor of seven.
20:06
And so, in d over l, where I expect a factor of seven
20:09
I only see a factor of two.
20:11
So I said to myself, "Oh, my goodness.
20:13
Why didn't I ask them for an elephant?"
20:16
The real clincher would be the elephant
20:18
because if that goes way off scale
20:21
maybe we can still rescue the statement by Galileo Galilei
20:25
and so I went back and they said
20:28
"Okay, we'll give you the femur of an elephant."
20:30
They also gave me one of a moose, believe it or not.
20:32
I think they wanted to get rid of me by that time
20:34
to be frank with you.
20:36
And here is the femur of an elephant.
20:41
And I measured it.
20:42
The length and the thickness.
20:45
And it is very heavy.
20:48
It weighs a ton.
20:50
I plotted it, I was full of expectation.
20:54
I couldn't sleep all night.
20:56
And there's the elephant.
20:59
There is no evidence whatsoever that d over l is really larger
21:03
for the elephant than for the mouse.
21:04
These vertical bars indicate my uncertainty
21:07
in measurements of thickness
21:09
and the horizontal scale, which is a logarithmic scale...
21:12
the uncertainty of the length measurements
21:15
is in the thickness of the red pen
21:16
so there's no need for me to indicate that any further.
21:20
And here you have your measurements
21:22
in case you want to check them.
21:24
And look again at the mouse and look at the elephant.
21:28
The mouse has indeed only one centimeter length of the femur
21:35
and the elephant is, indeed, hundred times longer.
21:37
So the first scaling argument that S is proportional to l
21:41
that is certainly what you would expect
21:43
because an elephant is about a hundred times larger in size.
21:46
But when you go to d over l, you see it's all over.
21:49
The d over l for the mouse
21:51
is really not all that different from the elephant
21:54
and you would have expected that number to be
21:57
with the square root of 100
22:01
so you expect it to be ten times larger
22:03
instead of about the same.
22:07
I now want to discuss with you
22:09
what we call in physics dimensional analysis.
22:16
I want to ask myself the question:
22:19
If I drop an apple from a certain height
22:24
and I change that height
22:27
what will happen with the time for the apple to fall?
22:34
Well, I drop the apple from a height h
22:39
and I want to know what happened with the time when it falls.
22:43
And I change h.
22:46
So I said to myself, "Well, the time that it takes
22:48
must be proportional to the height to some power alpha."
22:53
Completely reasonable.
22:54
If I make the height larger
22:55
we all know that it takes longer for the apple to fall.
22:58
That's a safe thing.
23:00
I said to myself, "Well, if the apple has a mass m
23:04
it probably is also proportional
23:06
to the mass of that apple to the power beta."
23:09
I said to myself, "Gee, yeah, if something is more massive
23:13
it will probably take more time."
23:15
So maybe m to some power beta.
23:17
I don't know alpha, I don't know beta.
23:20
And then I said, "Gee, there's also something like gravity
23:23
that is the Earth's gravitational pull--
23:25
the gravitational acceleration of the Earth."
23:28
So let's introduce that, too
23:30
and let's assume that that time is also proportional
23:33
to the gravitational acceleration--
23:35
this is an acceleration; we will learn a lot more about that--
23:38
to the power gamma.
23:41
Having said this, we can now do what's called in physics
23:45
a dimensional analysis.
23:51
On the left we have a time
23:55
and if we have a left... on the left side a time
23:57
on the right side we must also have time.
24:00
You cannot have coconuts on one side and oranges on the other.
24:04
You cannot have seconds on one side
24:06
and meters per second on the other.
24:09
So the dimensions left and right have to be the same.
24:12
What is the dimension here?
24:14
That is [T] to the power one.
24:17
That T... that must be the same as length to the power alpha
24:26
times mass to the power beta, times acceleration--
24:34
remember, it is still there on the blackboard--
24:36
that's dimension [L] divided by time squared
24:42
and the whole thing to the power gamma
24:43
so I have a gamma here and I have a gamma there.
24:46
This side must have the same dimension as that side.
24:48
That is nonnegotiable in physics.
24:51
Okay, there we go.
24:53
There is no M here, there is only one M here
24:56
so beta must be zero.
24:59
There is here [L] to the power alpha, [L] to the power gamma
25:03
there is no [L] here.
25:05
So [L] must disappear.
25:07
So alpha plus gamma must be zero.
25:11
There is [T] to the power one here
25:14
and there is here [T] to the power -2 gamma.
25:17
It's minus because it's downstairs.
25:19
So one must be equal to -2 gamma.
25:23
That means gamma must be minus one half.
25:27
That if gamma is minus one half, then alpha equals plus one half.
25:34
End of my dimensional analysis.
25:37
I therefore conclude that the time that it takes
25:41
for an object to fall
25:43
equals some constant, which I do not know
25:47
but that constant has no dimension--
25:49
I don't know what it is--
25:51
times the square root of h divided by g.
25:59
Beta is zero, there is no mass
26:02
h to the power one half-- you see that here--
26:05
and g to the power minus one half.
26:07
This is proportional to the square root of h
26:11
because g is a given and c is a given
26:12
even though I don't know c.
26:14
I make no pretense that I can predict how long it will take
26:18
for the apple to fall.
26:19
All I'm saying is, I can compare two different heights.
26:23
I can drop an apple from eight meters
26:25
and another one from two meters
26:27
and the one from eight meters will take two times longer
26:31
than the one from two meters.
26:33
The square root of h to two, four over two
26:37
will take two times longer, right?
26:38
If I drop one from eight meters
26:40
and I drop another one from two meters
26:43
then the difference in time will be the square root of the ratio.
26:47
That will be twice as long.
26:49
And that I want to bring to a test today.
26:55
We have a setup here.
26:57
We have an apple there at a height of three meters
27:00
and we know the length to an accuracy... the height
27:03
of about three millimeters, no better.
27:05
And here we have a setup whereby the apple
27:07
is about one and a half meters above the ground.
27:10
And we know that to about also an accuracy
27:13
of no better than about three millimeters.
27:19
So, let's set it up.
27:21
I have here...
27:26
something that's going to be a prediction--
27:29
a prediction of the time that it takes for one apple to fall
27:35
divided by the time that it takes
27:37
for the other apple to fall.
27:39
h1 is three meters
27:43
but I claim there is an uncertainty
27:45
of about three millimeters.
27:47
Can't do any better.
27:49
And h2 equals 1.5 meters
27:54
again with an uncertainty of about three millimeters.
28:01
So the ratio h1 over h2...
28:06
is 2.000
28:09
and now I have to come up with an uncertainty
28:11
which physicists sometimes call an error in their measurements
28:15
but it's really an uncertainty.
28:16
And the way you find your uncertainty is
28:19
that you add the three here
28:21
and you subtract the three here
28:23
and you get the largest value possible.
28:25
You can never get a larger value.
28:27
And you'll find that you get 2.006.
28:30
And so I would say the uncertainty is then .006.
28:36
This is a dimensionless number
28:38
because it's length divided by length.
28:42
And so the time t1 divided by t2
28:47
would be the square root of h1 divided by h2.
28:51
That is the dimensional analysis argument
28:54
that we have there.
28:55
And we find if we take the square root of this number
28:58
we find 1.414, plus or minus 0.0
29:04
and I think that is a two.
29:06
That is correct.
29:08
So here is a firm prediction.
29:14
This is a prediction.
29:17
And now we're going to make an observation.
29:23
So we're going to measure t1 and there's going to be a number
29:29
and then we're going to measure t2
29:32
and there's going to be a number.
29:34
I have done this experiment ten times
29:36
and the numbers always reproduce within about one millisecond.
29:41
So I could just adopt an uncertainty of one millisecond.
29:43
I want to be a little bit on the safe side.
29:45
Occasionally it differs by two milliseconds.
29:48
So let us be conservative
29:50
and let's assume that I can measure this to an accuracy
29:55
of about two milliseconds.
29:57
That is pretty safe.
30:00
So now we can measure these times
30:04
and then we can take the ratio
30:07
and then we can see whether we actually confirm
30:11
that the time that it takes is proportional to the height
30:16
to the square root of the height.
30:18
So I will make it a little more comfortable for you
30:22
in the lecture hall.
30:27
That's all right.
30:29
We have the setup here.
30:31
We first do the experiment with the... three meters.
30:39
There you see the three meters.
30:41
And the time... the moment that I pull this string
30:45
the apple will fall, the contact will open, the clock will start.
30:49
The moment that it hits the floor, the time will stop.
30:54
I have to stand on that side.
30:56
Otherwise the apple will fall on my hand.
30:58
That's not the idea.
31:00
I'll stand here.
31:02
You ready?
31:04
Okay, then I'm ready.
31:07
Everything set?
31:08
Make sure that I've zeroed that properly.
31:10
Yes, I have.
31:12
Okay.
31:13
Three, two, one, zero.
31:18
781 milliseconds.
31:22
So this number... you should write it down
31:26
because you will need it for your second assignment.
31:29
781 milliseconds, with an uncertainty of two milliseconds.
31:34
You ready for the second one?
31:39
You ready?
31:42
You ready?
31:43
Okay, nothing wrong.
31:46
Ready.
31:50
Zero, zero, right?
31:53
Thank you.
31:54
Okay.
31:55
Three, two, one, zero.
32:00
551 milliseconds.
32:05
Boy, I'm nervous because I hope that physics works.
32:13
So I take my calculator
32:17
and I'm now going to take the ratio t1 over t2.
32:24
The uncertainty you can find by adding the two here
32:28
and subtracting the two there
32:30
and that will then give you an uncertainty
32:32
of, I think, .0... mmm, .08.
32:38
Yeah, .08.
32:39
You should do that for yourself-- .008.
32:43
Dimensionless number.
32:44
This would be the uncertainty.
32:47
This is the observation.
32:49
781 divided by 551.
32:56
One point...
32:57
Let me do that once more.
32:59
Seven eight one, divided by five five one...
33:03
One four one seven.
33:09
Perfect agreement.
33:11
Look, the prediction says 1.414
33:16
but it could be 1 point... it could be two higher.
33:19
That's the uncertainty in my height.
33:21
I don't know any better.
33:23
And here I could even be off by an eight
33:26
because that's the uncertainty in my timing.
33:28
So these two measurements confirm.
33:30
They are in agreement with each other.
33:32
You see, uncertainties in measurements are essential.
33:37
Now look at our results.
33:45
We have here a result which is striking.
33:50
We have demonstrated that the time that it takes
33:53
for an object to fall is independent of its mass.
34:00
That is an amazing accomplishment.
34:05
Our great-grandfathers must have worried about this
34:09
and argued about this for more than 300 years.
34:14
Were they so dumb
34:16
to overlook this simple dimensional analysis?
34:23
Inconceivable.
34:26
Is this dimensional analysis perhaps not quite kosher?
34:31
Maybe.
34:35
Is this dimensional analysis
34:38
perhaps one that could have been done differently?
34:42
Yeah, oh, yeah.
34:44
You could have done it very differently.
34:47
You could have said the following.
34:51
You could have said, "The time for an apple to fall
34:55
"is proportional to the height that it falls from
34:59
to a power alpha."
35:01
Very reasonable.
35:02
We all know, the higher it is, the more it will take--
35:04
the more time it will take.
35:07
And we could have said,
35:08
"Yeah, it's probably proportional
35:10
"to the mass somehow.
35:11
If the mass is more, it will take a little bit less time."
35:15
Turns out to be not so, but you could think that.
35:17
But you could have said
35:18
"Well, let's not take the acceleration of the Earth
35:22
but let's take the mass of the Earth itself."
35:24
Very reasonable, right?
35:25
I would think if I increased the mass of the Earth
35:28
that the apple will fall faster.
35:30
So now I will put in the math of the Earth here.
35:35
And I start my dimensional analysis
35:37
and I end up dead in the waters.
35:41
Because, you see, there is no mass here.
35:46
There is a mass to the power beta here
35:48
and one to the power gamma
35:50
so what you would have found is beta plus gamma equals zero
35:54
and that would be end of story.
35:58
Now you can ask yourself the question
36:00
well, is there something wrong with the analysis that we did?
36:04
Is ours perhaps better than this one?
36:07
Well, it's a different one.
36:09
We came to the conclusion
36:10
that the time that it takes for the apple to fall
36:12
is independent of the mass.
36:15
Do we believe that?
36:17
Yes, we do.
36:20
On the other hand, there are very prestigious physicists
36:24
who even nowadays do very fancy experiments
36:28
and they try to demonstrate that the time for an apple to fall
36:32
does depend on its mass
36:33
even though it probably is only very small, if it's true
36:37
but they try to prove that.
36:38
And if any of them succeeds or any one of you succeeds
36:41
that's certainly worth a Nobel Prize.
36:44
So we do believe that it's independent of the mass.
36:47
However, this, what I did with you, was not a proof
36:52
because if you do it this way, you get stuck.
36:56
On the other hand, I'm quite pleased with the fact
36:58
that we found that the time is proportional
37:00
with the square root of h.
37:01
I think that's very useful.
37:03
We confirmed that with experiment
37:05
and indeed it came out that way.
37:07
So it was not a complete waste of time.
37:09
But when you do a dimensional analysis, you better be careful.
37:17
I'd like you to think this over, the comparison between the two
37:23
at dinner and maybe at breakfast
37:26
and maybe even while you are taking a shower
37:29
whether it's needed or not.
37:31
It is important that you digest and appreciate
37:35
the difference between these two approaches.
37:38
It will give you an insight in the power
37:41
and also into the limitations of dimensional analysis.
37:45
This goes to the very heart
37:47
of our understanding and appreciation of physics.
37:50
It's important that you get a feel for this.
37:54
You're now at MIT.
37:56
This is the time.
37:58
Thank you, see you Friday.