I was not screwing around. When I took the first physics class of my life, at age 35, it was at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and my professor was Walter Lewin, one of that institution's most respected instructors. Lewin is a man so comfortable with his vectors that he diagrams them in front of a classroom audience while wearing Teva sandals. OK, I wasn't really "at" MIT. And "took" the class may be a stretch. I was watching the video of one of Lewin's lectures from the comfort of my backyard in Brooklyn, and I too was wearing sandals (but not Tevas; I have standards).
As a senior at MIT, I am not surprised that he struggled with 8.01 for several reasons. 1. It is a hard class. Many of the actual students were confused too. I know I struggled with the math. 2. No recitations! 8.01 has two or three hour long recitations a week with a professor. You work problems and ask questions. With ocw, you only get half of the instruction. 3. No textbook. The 8.01 textbook is well written, and useful. I spent many hours re-reading sections. 4. What about problem sets? They should be online as well, with solutions, but you didn't mention doing them. You actually understand the material by working problems. You would have to be some sort of mega-genius to lean without them. 5. Other students. On my hall, there is a pset party every night where the freshmen work on the 8.01/8.02 problem set together. I know I wouldn't have survived without friends who had a better understanding of the math. Anyway, that's my two cents. Don't feel bad for "droping" the class :)
If the diameter was really 55m, the outer edge would be going 1/1000th the speed of light :)
The game of Go has long been a bastion of human brilliance. While computers have gotten steadily better at playing chess and poker, they've had a harder time wrapping their silicon minds around the elegant Japanese strategy game. That's why it's a big deal that a computer Go player known as MoGo beat a top-ranked human, Myungwan Kim, yesterday.
Also, think about how much more efficient the human brain is. The 800 parallel processors must take up huge amounts of space and draw a ton of power compared to the brain. So while we can build a better computer by just throwing more resources at it until it gets good enough, the human brain is still in a sense much much better at solving the problem.
Sorry, vinyl aficionados, but CDs most accurately capture the clarity of musical performances. If you look at the grooves of a standard long-play record, or LP, through a microscope, you’ll see that each is filled with what look like rolling hills. These are, in fact, an extremely close replication of the shape of the sound waves from the musician’s instrument. But because the needle that carves the groove is shaped slightly different than the needle that reads it, the LP will never sound exactly like the original performance.
Well... 48kHz is not really so bad if you do the math. Humans can hear up to about 20kHz. If you have an audio signal which is bandlimmited to 20kHz and you sample it at a frequency greater than 40kHz (known as the Nyquist sampling frequency) you can mathematically recreate the exact original signal--zero loss. The only reason that 44kHz sampling does not exactly recreate the signal is the fact that there are no idealized filters, so you can't exactly band-limit the signal to 20khz and some aliasing occurs.
Stay up to date on the latest news of the future of science and technology from your iPhone with full articles, images and offline viewing
Featuring every article from the magazine and website, plus links from around the Web. Also see our PopSci DIY feed
Share links with friends, comment on stories and more
In our December issue, Popular Science names the 100 best innovations of the year: bombproof wallpaper, self-parking cars, the fastest helicopter, and 97 more. Plus inventor profiles and videos.
Check out the best of what's new here.