Comments by "Liam" (@1495978707) on "3Blue1Brown" channel.

  1. Indeed, we often only ever see the math, and never get intuition for what’s actually going on when it comes to EM waves
    86
  2. Alcyon Eldara Yeah my experience as a TA confirms that most people aren't motivated enough to make this work. We're all here because we want to be, students are usually not.
    12
  3. You should see his newest video on sphere surface area. So satisfying...
    2
  4. Holy fuck your videos are amazing. Just the best. Like if you taught math in school I think no one would hate it
    2
  5. Hot damn I love how cleanly you explain and how appropriately you animate things and that you take the time to share that with the world
    1
  6. I was just thinking at around 9:30 that that way of thinking about it does seem like cheating, like it's not a rigorous proof because it wasn't filled with mathematical notation and convoluted. Just saying "well it's clearly true" doesn't feel sufficient, but it's a gut/intuitive feeling, and that's what is most helpful in this endeavor. This is often an issue I have with physics homeworks that I have; I understand concepts intuitively very quickly and that allows me to skip a lot of hard messy work but it leaves me feeling guilty because it doesn't seem rigorous enough, even though I clearly had to understand it to make those jumps. Thankfully in higher level physics classes with handwritten homework this generally isn't an issue for the exact reason that it's better if I can figure it out without slaving over it, I just have to prove that I'm not cheating and am genuinely figuring it out for myself. That's my 2 cents.
    1
  7. 6:50 you just explained my first huge foundational lack of understanding with this, and I'm excited for more!
    1
  8. I really appreciate this. So frequently in pop science, and even in my actual physics classes in college lumped together wave mechanics and quantum mechanics, and so there was a lot of confusion about what exactly Quantum stuff is. Like the Heisenberg uncertainty principle for example, which you already did a video in this spirit on.
    1
  9. I just wanted to say for other’s reference, one of the reasons for using quaternions is that gimbal lock isn’t a problem as with using rotation matrices and Euler angles. Plus, for a general 3D rotation, you have to do 27 products, and 27 additions. There’s a number of the terms that are zero, but hopefully you can see this way that quaternions are a much easier to use (if not understand way to handle rotations. I think it’s clear from Grants videos that quaternions amount to rotating a vector to a new point (3 degrees of freedom) and then specifying rotation about that axis (the fourth degree), instead of doing 3 Euler rotations, where each rotation depends on the last, and gimbal lock is an issue. It would be nice if Grant did a follow up explaining this stuff better than I am right now.
    1
  10. Oooh I see you updated your graphics system
    1
  11. 24:18 So a curve with a single kink is a problem, you don't have to get as complex as fractals
    1
  12. Turns out that the schrodinger equation can be used to quite accurately model turbulent flows. Let me know what you think: https://youtu.be/heY2gfXSHBo
    1
  13. Watching and giving my prediction: I bet it’s because to get to our eyes, the light has to scatter off something, and refract out of the tube. I’d be interested to see this done with a square tube. But fresnel’s equation says that polarization and refraction are an interface are linked together, so that’s my bet
    1
  14. 16:00 You should’ve compared a rectangular tube to the circular one here. Then what you’re showing would be closer to what’s actually happening. There’s refraction happening in addition, which greatly magnifies the perspective angle variation
    1
  15. What if you had a thin loop in the output space that went all the way around and then doubled back so it didn't include the origin?
    1
  16. 15:18 It's not moving yet, it's starting to move right away. t^3 would correspond to a constant increase in acceleration. So this is like if you pressed the gas pedal down at a constant rate. You start out not moving, but you're starting to move right away. That "starting to move" encapsulates how velocity requires some time interval to ultimately make sense. When you say dt is not "infinitely small", I somewhat disagree in that when I first learned calculus, I understood infinitesimal or infinitely small to specifically mean tending to zero in this way. This is really just semantics though.
    1