Are these Feynman lecture videos recommended or is there something better? I'm just a maths major who wants to learn some physics while watching comfy youtube videos.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3mhkYbznBk
Also, can you recommend me something with assignments too?
You will get a lot more out of these.
http://theoreticalminimum.com/courses
>>7763724
>Taught by a man who literally believes in String Theory which gets ridiculed by every serious physicist.
>>7763732
0/10
>>7763732
popsci lib arts fag here. Does string theory really get shit on?
>>7763743
>Does string theory really get shit on?
By people working on other types of QG. And some who can't get over the fact we can't test it, which would be true for any theory of QG, so they think we should just ignore the problem altogether (mostly experimentalists).
>>7763724
Hey, that's cool, but where can I find assigments for that?
What about the Lewin lectures at MIT? I can still find them on youtube, but on MIT OCW I can only find 8.01 Physics by some other guy. Can I still do the assigments watching the Lewin lectures? Provided they are actually good.
bamp
one last bump
>>7764373
This channel is run by Lewin. I think he posted the assignments on the videos. If not, ask him.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCiEHVhv0SBMpP75JbzJShqw/featured
>>7764747
much appreciated
>>7763535
You want "The Mechanical Universe". There's a companion textbook.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mechanical_Universe
It's a series of videos that covers a basic introductory course in physics, with animations demonstrating various physics principles. Really good for offline learning.
http://www.dailymotion.com/user/physics-lnr/2
>>7764373
Lewin was booted out of MIT for sexual harassment
His lectures are still top notch and were not taken down for being inadequet or anything
>>7765192
I was aware of that. Still can't find them at MIT OCW?
>>7763743
Physics major here
All of the faculty at my uni doesn't give two shits about it, try to avoid talking about it, and if asked, give a brief explanation and say "there's no way to test it yet so there's no need to discuss it in depth"
>>7765208
>so there's no need to discuss it in depth
Most physicists probably don't know enough about it to discuss it in depth anyway. It requires more math than the majority of experimentalists will ever learn, and more than theorists in some other fields will use on a regular basis.
>>7764824
>It's a series of videos that covers a basic introductory course in physics
Oops, meant to type "basic undergraduate course in physics".
