What did you get out of 1000 hrs. of Susskind lectures?

  • Thread starter DiracPool
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Lectures
In summary, the conversation is about a person's experience with watching Lenny Susskind's multiple marathons of "the theoretical minimum" lectures. The person found Susskind's lectures to be too abstract and lacking in specific examples, making it difficult to maintain attention. Other participants in the conversation also shared similar experiences, with some mentioning that they only learn through doing problems and asking questions. It is suggested that Susskind's lectures may be more suitable for students who have a background in physics and attend the lectures in person. However, it is also noted that it is impossible to please everyone when giving a lecture and that audience considerations should always be taken into account.
  • #1
DiracPool
1,243
516
I wanted to start a poll for this thread, but couldn't figure out how to do it. However, I was curious as to what people's experience was with watching Lenny Susskind's multiple marathons of "the theoretical minimum" variety of extended education lectures? Of course, I may be vilified for questioning the sanctity of almighty Susskind, but I'm just looking for experiences and opinions, you know... I think it may be a useful topic seeing as many aspiring physicists, and many on this site, myself included, have spent a lot of time on that Stanford channel looking for enlightenment from old Lenny.

So, here's my experience...Out of the 1000 (or so :smile:) hours of Lenny's lectures, I think I got a good 3 1/2 hours of good solid science knowledge, approximately. I mean I love his style and his command of the whiteboard, but all too often I caught myself fading out and dozing off when he'd go off on those 20 minute tangents of whatever he was talking about. He's so soothing and comforting in his delivery, though, that you don't even notice you've gone off topic until those 20 minutes have been burned.

Another issue for me was (is) that he almost never provides specific examples of actual problems and works through them. In the second quantum physics series, I can't remember one specific problem he worked through (although there probably were some). He never even discussed the quantum harmonic oscillator. His discourse just gets so abstract so fast and stays there, it's very difficult (for me) to maintain attention when the levels of abstraction keep building upon one after another hour after hour with it never being "brought home" or down to Earth with any specific examples. And I'm a pretty "abstract-o-phile" kind of guy. Am I out of bounds here?

I'm particularly bringing this up because I had high hopes for this series as something of a one-stop shopping to get me to the theoretical minimum. On the contrary, now that I look back on it, I really don't know how much I actually learned but I do know that I certainly burned a lot of hours watching it. That's not to say it wasn't worth it, though, Lenny's very entertaining, I still watch those lectures from time to time. It's much easier to enjoy them, though, if you're not expecting to get much out of them. I think that is a shame, though. They could have been great. Am I alone with this experience? What was yours?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
He's boring as hell. For some reason he reminds me of Gandalf the Grey.

EDIT: And his GR lectures are horrible by the way. They will confuse you and then once you sort out the confusions they will confuse you again. For the love of god don't watch them lol
 
Last edited:
  • #3
I don't think I ever got beyond 30 hours of his lectures while staying awake. He's a good orator but what I've seen is too informal and slow to get anything useful out of it IMO (ie: genuine understanding, being able to solve problems).

IMO there will never be a substitute for reading a proper textbook and trying to do the problems at the end of a chapter + asking questions to an instructor and/or PF/the internets.

Lewin's lectures really are excellent for all introductory physics though(and even as a revision for a grad like me), I wish half my lecturers were that organized and skillful.
 
  • #4
I also like Prof. Balakrishnan's QM lectures from IIT.
 
  • #5
Word! I watched those the summer before I had my first QM course, it definitely helped a lot to have those topics in the back of my head somewhere even before taking it, it certainly made things easier.
 
  • #6
Yeah I certainly found them to be insightful. It's too bad that GR isn't a required course for a physics BS in the US because that might help generate useful GR video lectures of a similar caliber. There are Padmanabhan's GR lectures: http://www.iucaa.ernet.in/~paddy/ although I haven't gotten around to watching them.
 
  • #7
Didn't know he did GR lectures too, awesome. There's always Mathview's youtube channel for getting started with GR. I actually watched them when I was a freshman but understood practically zilch at the time.
 
  • #8
DiracPool said:
Another issue for me was (is) that he almost never provides specific examples of actual problems and works through them. In the second quantum physics series, I can't remember one specific problem he worked through (although there probably were some). He never even discussed the quantum harmonic oscillator. His discourse just gets so abstract so fast and stays there, it's very difficult (for me) to maintain attention when the levels of abstraction keep building upon one after another hour after hour with it never being "brought home" or down to Earth with any specific examples.

This was my biggest problem with the the parts of the series I've seen. You're not alone. He may be a great teacher to people who already have a background in physics (e.g. his students), but I don't think he properly prepared himself for teaching the clueless among us (e.g. me); and that was the main point of the series, wasn't it?
 
  • #9
But anyways, I agree with Lavabug: I personally only learn by doing a lot of problems and asking questions; lectures alone are not going to be enough by any stretch. They are too passive (Susskind's especially since he is just so dang boring).
 
  • #10
When giving a lecture or presentation of any type you should always consider and take into account the background, current state of knowledge and other details of your audience. I'm assuming that Mr Susskind's lectures were primarily prepared and were most suitable for those students who actually attended the lectures.If so it is likely that they are lacking somewhat for those students who view the lectures via the internet. You can't please everyone.
 
  • #11
Dadface said:
When giving a lecture or presentation of any type you should always consider and take into account the background, current state of knowledge and other details of your audience. I'm assuming that Mr Susskind's lectures were primarily prepared and were most suitable for those students who actually attended the lectures.If so it is likely that they would be lacking somewhat for those students who viewed the lectures via the internet. You can't please everyone.

That sounds all nice and good, but there's two problems with that assessment. One, the course is advertised, if you will, as the "lectures for the rest of us" to get us to the point of the "theoretical minimum" in order begin to speak and think like a physicist. It's not designed specifically for the attending students, it's designed really for more of an open-courseware format. Of course, it is also advertised, as these things often are, that all you need to know to particiate is high school algebra, geometry, a "little" trigonometry, and "basic" college calculus. I don't think so...

Two, even if it were designed just for the students in the class which, from what I gather, are not actually students but interested "continuing education" persons from the community, no amount of pre-requisite work is going to prepare you for the disorganized, disconnected, and bombastic presentation of the material.
 
  • #12
Lavabug said:
There's always Mathview's youtube channel for getting started with GR. I actually watched them when I was a freshman but understood practically zilch at the time.

I had high hope's also with Mathview's series, especially with learning about covariant and contravariant indices, tensors, etc. But again, I didn't get much out of it. I had better luck with the guy from digital-university.org's series on tensors. He seems like an old school engineer of some sort trying to pass on his knowledge to the youngsters. Unfortunately, his writing of the equations is painfully slow, and I mean painfully. However if you can stick with it, you can get something out of it.
 
  • #13
DiracPool said:
That sounds all nice and good, but there's two problems with that assessment. One, the course is advertised, if you will, as the "lectures for the rest of us" to get us to the point of the "theoretical minimum" in order begin to speak and think like a physicist. It's not designed specifically for the attending students, it's designed really for more of an open-courseware format. Of course, it is also advertised, as these things often are, that all you need to know to particiate is high school algebra, geometry, a "little" trigonometry, and "basic" college calculus. I don't think so...

Two, even if it were designed just for the students in the class which, from what I gather, are not actually students but interested "continuing education" persons from the community, no amount of pre-requisite work is going to prepare you for the disorganized, disconnected, and bombastic presentation of the material.

The problem is that the usefulness of teaching "physics for the rest of us" ie: devoid of math and problem solving is extremely questionable. Thinking like a scientist involves a lot of problem solving, so removing it from a physics instruction is akin to learning to play basketball without laying hands on the ball. Math literacy and problem solving experience is required just like a working set of hands with muscle memory to dribble, pass and shoot hoops. You can do all of those with your face if you felt so inclined, but it would be painful and ugly in the long run. :P
 
  • #14
Hi WannabeNewton,
WannabeNewton said:
I also like Prof. Balakrishnan's QM lectures from IIT.

Would you say these lectures are at the level of Griffiths Introductory book on QM? If not, do you (or anyone) know of QM lectures at Griffiths level?

Thanks,
 
  • #15
Balakrishnan are probably at around Griffith's level. On their own they left me with a few blank spots (and there were no actual problems in it) but I was quickly able to fill them in when I actually had the course taught to me from Cohen-Tannoudji's book (more rigorous and extensive than Griffiths', less verbose).
DiracPool said:
I had high hope's also with Mathview's series, especially with learning about covariant and contravariant indices, tensors, etc. But again, I didn't get much out of it. I had better luck with the guy from digital-university.org's series on tensors. He seems like an old school engineer of some sort trying to pass on his knowledge to the youngsters. Unfortunately, his writing of the equations is painfully slow, and I mean painfully. However if you can stick with it, you can get something out of it.

Oh yes, that old dude's lectures on QM and circuit theory were pretty nice. I spent a great deal of time on his circuit theory videos, and only a little bit on the qm and gr but as you said these last two were painfully slow at times. Still very proper though, you could get basic proficiency in elementary QM problems out of those, but for understanding you would definitely want to read the words in a book like Cohen-Tannoudji (I admit I am a fanboy of this book).

Pat Hoppep's videos on electronic circuits are 80% of what I used to study for my analog electronics final. xD Elementary, but gets the job done faster than tearing through a massive tome like Malvino's "Electronic principles".

Mathview's videos make more sense to me now that I've actually had a GR course taught at practically the same level and leafed through a few of the popular elementary texts. :P Best to grab something super friendly like "relativity demystified" to get some basic proficiency and then have a look at a more advanced book.
 
  • #16
I quite enjoyed the Leonard Susskind lectures (Stanford University), from general relativity to cosmology to statistical mechanics. I think he gives a great introduction to these topics and others.

It's obvious by his cookie eating.
 
  • #17
collinsmark said:
It's obvious by his cookie eating.

If he puts down the bakery goods off-cam at the same rate as he does on cam, it's a miracle he didn't croak 20 years ago...
 
  • #18
I am going to search these out now and watch them. I'm usually not phased by dry lecturers, but this may be a treat. I'm always trying to push the limits of my willpower to stay awake.

wannabeNewton: "Boring as hell" and "reminds me of Gandalf the Grey..." do not belong together in a single statement. >=/
 
  • #19
I never understood the attempt to learn physics from youtube, to me any lecture on there, no matter how good, is pretty much useless. There's no substitute for a textbook and many hours of practice.
 
  • #20
CAF123 said:
Hi WannabeNewton,Would you say these lectures are at the level of Griffiths Introductory book on QM? If not, do you (or anyone) know of QM lectures at Griffiths level?

Thanks,
I would say they are somewhat above the level of Griffiths because the Professor doesn't shy away from actually teaching mathematics, something Griffiths doesn't do (he teaches something but it isn't math). I'm not sure if Griffiths even mentions what a separable Hilbert space is once in his text in a rigorous way; I'd be surprised if Griffiths even mentioned what a Cauchy sequence is with regards to completeness of metric spaces.

I don't know of any strictly Griffiths level QM lectures unfortunately, sorry :frown:

But hey there's always the Ellen DeGeneres Show! I'm sure there's some QM there somewhere.
 
  • #21
dipole said:
I never understood the attempt to learn physics from youtube, to me any lecture on there, no matter how good, is pretty much useless. There's no substitute for a textbook and many hours of practice.

What if you are someone like me?

I think the Susskind lectures are priceless. He hits the intended audience really well. Physics is just a hobby, I'm an old fart and I have no expectation of ever mastering anything of it. I just want to know more and more about all of it. I don't really care about how fast it goes.

Those lectures are a huge inspiration, to once in a while study a bit more deeply by looking in the books and do some tests etc.

I can understand that young students have no use for him, but they are not part of his target audience.

He jumps around yes, and that suits me perfectly ;) You have to love that newyork accent :)
 
Last edited:
  • #22
DiracPool said:
I wanted to start a poll for this thread, but couldn't figure out how to do it.

How come nobody got the hint here? Too late for this thread, but for the future, how do you do this?
 
  • #23
If you can't figure out how to add a poll, just PM me. Do you want me to add a poll?

When you start a new thread, scroll down to the section "Additional Options", you'll see "post a poll", select the box for "yes, post a poll with this thread", then make the selections and fill in any information.
 
Last edited:
  • #24
Evo said:
If you can't figure out how to add a poll, just PM me. Do you want me to add a poll?

When you start a new thread, scroll down to the section "Additional Options", you'll see "post a poll", select the box for "yes, post a poll with this thread", then make the selections and fill in any information.

Thanks Evo. No need for this thread, it seems to be evolving nicely on its own.
 
  • #25
I started to doze off while watching one of those Susskind lectures at least once. I disagree with dipole though, video lectures can be a valuable resource.

For quantum mechanics, as an alternative to the videos mentioned by WannabeNewton, there is a series of Lectures given by J.J. Binney of Oxford.
 
  • #26
FredericGos said:
What if you are someone like me?

I think the Susskind lectures are priceless. He hits the intended audience really well. Physics is just a hobby, I'm an old fart and I have no expectation of ever mastering anything of it. I just want to know more and more about all of it. I don't really care about how fast it goes.

Those lectures are a huge inspiration, to once in a while study a bit more deeply by looking in the books and do some tests etc.

I can understand that young students have no use for him, but they are not part of his target audience.

He jumps around yes, and that suits me perfectly ;) You have to love that newyork accent :)

Yes, but you aren't learning physics, you're just being entertained. In the same way that watching basketball on T.V. is not going to make you a good basketball player. That's fine, but to "know" physics is something which requires a long and painful process. If that's all your goal is, then that's fine, but for someone who wants to actually understand and learn physics, they'll find that no matter how closely they pay attention to those lectures that when put to the test they actually understood or absorbed very little of it.
 
  • #27
dipole said:
Yes, but you aren't learning physics, you're just being entertained.

You seem to be really polarized. I agree there's a high degree of entertainment if you like his style, but I've learned a lot. As I said, I take it as intro and then I can dig deeper on my own when I have time and want to understand something deeper.

dipole said:
That's fine, but to "know" physics is something which requires a long and painful process. If that's all your goal is, then that's fine, but for someone who wants to actually understand and learn physics, they'll find that no matter how closely they pay attention to those lectures that when put to the test they actually understood or absorbed very little of it.

I disagree. Why does it have to be all or nothing? There is something inbetween. There is another pace, I have the rest of my life. Your attitude is bit arrogant in saying that what I see and read 'is not physics'. Makes me smile. Maybe your pissedoff at having to rush through it in college and work really hard?
 
  • #28
FredericGos said:
You seem to be really polarized. I agree there's a high degree of entertainment if you like his style, but I've learned a lot. As I said, I take it as intro and then I can dig deeper on my own when I have time and want to understand something deeper.

I disagree. Why does it have to be all or nothing? There is something inbetween. There is another pace, I have the rest of my life. Your attitude is bit arrogant in saying that what I see and read 'is not physics'. Makes me smile. Maybe your pissedoff at having to rush through it in college and work really hard?

You can't really learn physics or mathematics only by watching video lectures. You actually need to work through a book and work through exercises.

That said, video lectures are great supplements. It's always nice to hear an expert speaking on something you're learning. It can be extremely illuminating. The key however is not to rely only on the video lectures, but to actually treat it as a second resource. Your first resource should always be a decent textbook.
 
  • #29
micromass said:
You can't really learn physics or mathematics only by watching video lectures. You actually need to work through a book and work through exercises.

Yes, have I said otherwise? But the OP's question was about the lectures. I was just saying that they have value. And I'm also saying that there is a different way of going it. You guys were probably doing physics 12+ hours a day for 5 years or something to learn this stuff. Fine. I'm going to do it in 50 years. But it's still physics and mathematics.
 
  • #30
FredericGos said:
You seem to be really polarized. I agree there's a high degree of entertainment if you like his style, but I've learned a lot. As I said, I take it as intro and then I can dig deeper on my own when I have time and want to understand something deeper.



I disagree. Why does it have to be all or nothing? There is something inbetween. There is another pace, I have the rest of my life. Your attitude is bit arrogant in saying that what I see and read 'is not physics'. Makes me smile. Maybe your pissedoff at having to rush through it in college and work really hard?

No it's not about arrogance or being "pissed off", I've just had enough experience of thinking I knew or understood something, only to be put to the fire and realize I actually didn't understand it all that well or even at all. Understanding physics means you can do calculations and solve situations you haven't encountered before, it's different from just reciting facts like you might in geography or something. I guess you're using the word "learn" and "understand" in a different way than a serious physics student would, which is fine, but you should at least concede that what you're getting from those videos is just the very thinnest surface of what is an ocean of knowledge.

I agree that they can be used as supplements, but only when the knowledge first came through proper study with a book and practice problems. However, this thread was about the value of the videos by themselves, and by themselves I think they're mostly useless.
 
  • #31
I don't think the user you are replying intended to imply a mastery of material that would be on the level of a full time student taking a physics course or a professional. A person can learn something from varying degrees and just because the person didn't learn the material in a deep and 'meaningful' matter or can't extend results, doesn't mean the person didn't learn anything.

To give a trivial example, I'm fairly confident that I can show the power rule of derivatives to a modest high school student in 10 minute video. I'm fairly confident that student would be able to apply that rule over and over again. I'm also fairly confident that that same student (assuming no familiarity with limits) would be able to explain why it's important, why the reason is true, and falsely apply it to something like tan^2[x]. Nevertheless, to say the student learn nothing is bit ridiculously, and that's initially what Frederic is saying.

The simple fact is that I can watch ANY physics video and learn SOMETHING. Simply because I know so little about the material. I have NO intent to become an expert, nor any desire to get into the deepest topic, but surely, I can get a 'feel' for what the topic is about by listening to people talk about it. I think about curling, I have no idea how to play that 'sport' or the 'techniques' but from watching it, I can pick up some detail about it, even if I don't completely understand it.

On a related note, can someone explain curling to me?

Edit: I also felt like adding this. I don't think learning should ever be considered an isolated event. I believe the key to good learning is

1)Have a great textbook
2)The access to someone who knows the material.
3)Interaction with peers that are learning the material too.

What is great about this website is that contains 2 out of the 3 things I've listed. (Although you can say it contains all three if you consider textbooks written by a member.) A good book with a student who hasn't learn to self-study is essentially worthless. A good teacher with a student with no motivation is to learn is worthless. Motivated peer group is pointless if you exclude yourself from the group. If you a student wants to have eventual masterly of a material, I believe it needs to be a consistent effort of going to different sources and asking questions. Expecting one sources to teach you everything is expecting too much from anyone or anything. Heck, even in a college course, self-study is often needed.
 
Last edited:
  • #32
Well we can argue endlessly about semantics, but if a student mindlessly applied the power rule over and over again, then how can you say they learned anything? Isn't learning more about understanding than it is about possession of knowledge? Also I never claimed you learn nothing from videos, but from a practical standpoint they're useless by themselves for all but the most fleeting and superficial of understanding. If that's all you want, then fine, but let's not pretend you're going to be able to read and understand real physics after spending a few hours with Lenny on youtube.

I also disagree with you about the curly analogy. Watching someone else do something is never the same as doing it yourself. You can watch some guy do downhill mountain bike racing for example, and that will not give you any clue what it's like to actually do it. True learning always has to come from doing things yourself. If some guy is so smart that he can watch a youtube video and learn physics, then he's just smart enough to do it in his head, but he still had to do it.
 
  • #33
There are lecture videos out there staring brilliant/skilled lecturers that are absolutely invaluable. In my experience these include (off of the top of my head) the MIT OCW intro physics lectures, the Berkeley comp sci lectures, the aforementioned QM lectures, and David Tong's QFT lectures. You can't compare, in any fair manner, the Susskind lectures to the aforementioned lectures because it serves a very different purpose-it's just there to give a general overview of things; note however that they are not made for just any layman as he goes into the mathematics behind the theory.

Other than that, I'd have to agree with dipole. If you want to learn physics then certainly it won't be enough.
 
Last edited:
  • #34
Regarding my curling example, I wasn't aiming to say that I can learn how to actually do what-ever they do in curling. But surely I can learn their intent and how to win, even if I can't do the techniques and win. For a lot of people, physics is the same way. I'll never take quantum mechanics class, but I can read a book and see how those concepts can be applied to problems. For me that's enough. Maybe you and others want and need to learn how to actually apply the physics to the problems, but I don't. I just have enough interest to read that it can be done and probably pick up some general idea how it may be done and that's ok for me. Thus, I learned about how quantum mechanics can be useful.

What Fred is saying is that there is a value for some people to just watch and soak up the information and get that information. For some people, the superficial understanding is all that is needed and if they have interest in it should spend the time to gather the proper resources to learn more about it, but I think it's uncalled for to criticize someone for finding value in the superficial understanding. It's like the time I had to rebuild my engine. Before that week, I just had a superficial understanding on how a car engine worked. It wasn't until I needed to sit down and rebuild it that I bothered to actually learn more specifics about it. Even now that I know how to rebuild it, I'm sure my knowledge on how it all works is superficial compared to an engineer or even an auto mechanic, but I don't think of my knowledge as meaningless :).
 
  • #35
dipole said:
I agree that they can be used as supplements, but only when the knowledge first came through proper study with a book and practice problems.

My goodness no! :bugeye: It's the other way around! The Susskind lectures are excellent introduction before you pick up the particular chapter in your book and work through the practice problems.

Most people (from this point on I will refer to the subset of most people that have a desire to learn physics as "we") don't have the opportunity to enroll in a university class, complete with a live professor. But we still want to learn physics. Yes, we can purchase textbooks, read them, and work out all the practice problems as we go. But what is missing is the classroom lecture. That's where videos such as the Susskind lectures are valuable. The Susskind lectures were intended for that very purpose: "continuing education" -- education for people who don't want to get a degree in physics, but still want to learn it for the love of it.

I don't know if you've seen any of the Susskind lectures, but they are not fluff. They are complete with the mathematics: triple integrals, differential equations, tensor algebra (generalized coordinates), Riemann manifolds, the works.

Are they all that is necessary to learn the material? Of course not. If you want to really learn (and retain) the material buy a textbook and work out the practice problems. But are the lectures then useless? No. Of course not. Saying the Susskind lectures are useless is like saying, "yeah, I enrolled in university classes, but I always skip class because the lectures are useless."

MarneMath said:
On a related note, can someone explain curling to me?

This video, although biased to the USA, does a fairly good job explaining the game.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxCH8CGqx88
 
Last edited:
<h2>1. What topics are covered in the Susskind lectures?</h2><p>The Susskind lectures cover a wide range of topics in physics, including classical mechanics, quantum mechanics, special and general relativity, cosmology, and particle physics.</p><h2>2. How long are the Susskind lectures?</h2><p>The Susskind lectures consist of over 1000 hours of video lectures, with each lecture ranging from 1-3 hours in length.</p><h2>3. Are the Susskind lectures suitable for beginners?</h2><p>The Susskind lectures are designed for students with a strong background in mathematics and physics. They may be challenging for beginners, but can also serve as a valuable resource for those looking to deepen their understanding of these topics.</p><h2>4. Can I access the Susskind lectures for free?</h2><p>Yes, the Susskind lectures are available for free on various online platforms, such as YouTube and Stanford University's website.</p><h2>5. How can the Susskind lectures benefit me as a scientist?</h2><p>The Susskind lectures offer a comprehensive and in-depth exploration of various topics in physics, providing valuable insights and knowledge for scientists in the field. They can also serve as a useful reference for research and problem-solving.</p>

1. What topics are covered in the Susskind lectures?

The Susskind lectures cover a wide range of topics in physics, including classical mechanics, quantum mechanics, special and general relativity, cosmology, and particle physics.

2. How long are the Susskind lectures?

The Susskind lectures consist of over 1000 hours of video lectures, with each lecture ranging from 1-3 hours in length.

3. Are the Susskind lectures suitable for beginners?

The Susskind lectures are designed for students with a strong background in mathematics and physics. They may be challenging for beginners, but can also serve as a valuable resource for those looking to deepen their understanding of these topics.

4. Can I access the Susskind lectures for free?

Yes, the Susskind lectures are available for free on various online platforms, such as YouTube and Stanford University's website.

5. How can the Susskind lectures benefit me as a scientist?

The Susskind lectures offer a comprehensive and in-depth exploration of various topics in physics, providing valuable insights and knowledge for scientists in the field. They can also serve as a useful reference for research and problem-solving.

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
30
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
10
Views
778
  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
584
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
21
Views
4K
Back
Top