Shadowing Practice: Way of Thinking by Richard Feynman | The Cosmological Reality - Learn English Speaking with Video

בחר מצב תרגול

כל מצב פותח חדר תרגול במסך מלא.

144 משפטים

אם המשפטים קצרים או ארוכים מדי, לחץ על ערוך כדי להתאים אותם.

You asked me if an ordinary person by studying hard would get to be able to imagine these things like I imagine.

Of course, I was an ordinary person who studied hard.

There's no miracle people.

It just happens they got interested in this thing and they learned all this stuff.

they're just people there's no talent a special miracle ability to understand quantum mechanics or a miracle ability

to imagine electromagnetic fields that comes without practice and reading

and learning and study so

if you say you take an ordinary person who's willing to devote a great deal of time

and study and work and thinking and mathematics and time and I then he's become a scientist

well when i'm actually doing my own things

and i'm working in the high you know deep and esoteric stuff

that i worry about i don't think i can describe very

well what it's like first of all it's like asking a centipede

which leg comes after which it happens quickly

and i'm not exactly sure what flashes and stuff go in the head

but i know it's a crazy mixture of partial equations partial

solving the equation then having some sort of picture of what's happening

that the equation is saying is happening but they're not

that well separated as the words i'm using

and it's a kind of a nut nutty thing it's very hard to describe

and i don't know that it does any good to describe And that's something that struck me that's very curious.

I suspect that what goes on in every man's head might be very, very different.

The actual imagery or semi -imagery which comes.

And that when we're talking to each other at these high

and complicated levels and we think we're speaking very well and we're communicating, but what we're really doing is having some kind of big

translation scheme going on for translating what this fellow says into our images

which are very different I found that out

because at the very early lowest level I won't go into the details

but I got interested in well I was doing some experiments

and I was trying to figure out something about our time sense and

so what I would do is I would count trying to

count up to a minute actually attribute say I'd count to 48 then it would be one minute

so I calibrate myself and I would count a minute

and 48 think I was count seconds but it's close enough

and then it turns out if you repeat

that you can do very accurately when you get the 48

or 47 or 49 not far off you're very close to a minute

and and I would try to find out what affected

that time sense and whether I could do anything at the same time as I was counting

and I found that I could do many things I could And there were some things that not.

For example, I had great difficulty.

I was in a high university.

I had to get my laundry ready.

And I was putting the socks out.

And I had to make a list.

How many socks?

And it was something like six or eight socks.

And I couldn't count them.

Because the counting machine was being used.

And I couldn't count them.

Until I found out I could put them in a pattern and recognize the number.

And so I learned a way after practicing by

which I could go down the lines of type in newspapers and see them in groups 3, 3, 3, 1, that's a group of 10, 3, 3, 3, 1, without saying the numbers, just seeing the groupings.

I could therefore count the lines of type I practiced

in the newspaper at the same time I was counting internally the seconds.

And so I would come, I could do this fantastic trick of saying, 48, that's a one minute, and there are 67 lines of type, you see.

It was quite wonderful.

And I discovered many things I could read while I was, no, I, excuse me, yes.

Yes, I could read perfectly all right while I was counting and get an idea of what it was about.

But I couldn't speak, I couldn't say anything.

Because, of course, I was sort of, when I count, I sort of spoke to myself inside.

I would say one, two, three, sort of in the head.

Well, I went down to the breakfast, and there was, uh, John Tukey was a mathematician down at Princeton at the same time,

and we had many discussions, and I was telling him about these experiments and what I could do.

And he says, that's absurd, he says.

He says, I don't see why you would have any difficulty talking whatsoever, and I can't possibly believe that you could read.

so i couldn't believe all this

but we calibrated him it was 52 for him to get to 60 seconds

or whatever i don't remember the numbers now

and then he'd say all right he said what do you

want me to say mary had a little lamb i can

speak about anything blah blah blah blah blah 52 it's a minute he was right

and i couldn't possibly do that And he wanted me to read because he couldn't believe it.

And then we compared notes and it turned out that when he thought of counting, what he did inside his head

when he counted was he saw a tape with numbers that when the tape would change with the numbers printed on it, he could see.

Well, since it's sort of an optical system that he's using and not voice, he could speak as much as he wanted.

But if he had to read, then he couldn't look at his clock.

Whereas for me, it was the other way.

And that's where I discovered, at least in this very simple operation of counting, the great difference in what goes on in the head when people think they're doing the same thing.

And so it struck me, therefore, if that's already true at the most elementary level,

that when we learn the mathematics and the Bessel functions and the exponentials and the electric fields and all these things,

that the imageries and method by which we're storing it all and the way we think about it

could be it really if we could get into each other's heads entirely different

and in fact why somebody sometimes has a great deal of difficulty understanding a point

which you see as obvious and vice versa it may be

because it's a little hard to translate what you just said into his particular framework

and so on now i'm talking like a psychologist and, you know, I know nothing about this.

Suppose that little things behaved very differently than anything that was big, anything that you're familiar with,

because, you see, as the animal evolves and so on, as brain evolves, it gets used to handling, and the brain is designed for ordinary circumstances.

But if the gut particles and the deep inner workings were by some other rules and some other character,

they behaved differently, they were very different than anything on a large scale, then there would be some kind of difficulty in understanding and imagining reality.

And that difficulty we are in.

The behavior of things on a small scale is so fantastic.

It's so wonderfully different, so marvelously different than anything that behaves on a large scale.

You say, electrodes act like waves no they don't exactly they act like

particles no they don't exactly they act like a kind of a fog around the nucleus no they don't exactly

and if you would like to get a clear sharp picture of an atom

so that you can tell exactly how it's going to behave correctly

and have a good image in other words a really good

100

image of reality i don't know how to do it because that image has to be mathematical.

101

We have a mathematical expression, strange as mathematics, I don't understand how it is,

102

but we can write mathematical expressions and calculate what the thing is going to do without actually being able to picture it.

103

It would be something like a computer that you put certain numbers in

104

and you have the formula for at what time the car will arrive at different destinations

105

and the thing does the arithmetic to figure out what time the car arrives at the different destinations, but cannot picture the car.

106

It's just doing the arithmetic.

107

So we know how to do the arithmetic, but we cannot picture the car.

108

No, it's not 100 % because for certain situations, a certain kind of approximate picture works,

109

that it's simply a fog around the nucleus that when you squeeze it, it repels you, is very good for understanding the stiffness of material.

110

That it's a wave which does this and

111

that is very good for some other phenomenon all right so

112

when you're working with certain particular aspects of the behavior of atoms for instance

113

when I was talking about temperature and so forth

114

that they're just little balls is good enough

115

and it gives a very nice picture of temperature but

116

if you ask more specific questions

117

and you get down to questions like how is it that

118

when you cool helium down even to absolute zero where there's

119

not supposed to be any motion it's a perfect fluid that It hasn't any viscosity, has no resistance, flows perfectly, and isn't freezing.

120

Well if you want to get a picture of atoms that has all of that in it, I can't do it.

121

But I can explain why the helium behaves as it does by taking my equations

122

and sowing that consequences of them is that the helium will behave as it is observed to behave.

123

So we know we have the theory right, but we haven't got the pictures that will go with the theory.

124

And is that because we're limited and haven't caught on to the right pictures? Or is that

125

because there aren't any right pictures for people who have to make pictures out of things that are familiar to them?

126

Well, I suppose it's the last one, but there's no right pictures in terms of things that are familiar to them.

127

Is it possible then to develop a familiarity with those things that are not familiar on hand by study?

128

Thank you.

129

by learning about the properties of atoms and quantum mechanics, by practicing with the equations, until it becomes a kind of second nature,

130

just like it's second nature to know that if two balls came toward each other, they'd smash into bits.

131

You don't say the two balls, when they come toward each other, turn blue.

132

You know what they do.

133

So the question is whether you could get to know what things do better than we do today.

134

As the generations develop, will they invent ways of teaching so

135

that the new people will learn the tricky ways of looking at things and be so trained,

136

so well trained, that they won't have our troubles with the atom picturing.

137

There's still a school of thought that cannot believe that the atomic behavior is so different than large -scale behavior.

138

I think that's a deep prejudice.

139

It's a prejudice from being so used to large -scale waves.

140

And they're always seeking to find, to waiting, for the day that we discover that underneath the quantum mechanics there's some mundane,

141

ordinary balls hitting or particles moving and so on.

142

I think they're going to be defeated.

143

I think nature's imagination is so much greater than man's, she's never going to let us relax.

144

Thank you.

הורד אפליקציה

כל מה שאתה צריך כדי לדבר בשטף

הגיית AIציון לכל משפט

תרגול IPAשלוט בכל צליל

אוצר מיליםבנה את מאגר המילים שלך

משחק אוצר מיליםלמד תוך כדי משחק

סרוק QR

Download on theApp Store Get it onGoogle Play

FOR YOU

המלץ על סרטון

200 משפטים

אוצר מילים והערות הגייה לשיעור הזה

שיעור הדיבור הזה ברמה C1 מבוסס על הסרטון “Way of Thinking by Richard Feynman”. בסרטון הזה יש 144 משפטים ו-1961 מילים לתרגול Shadowing. הדיבור נמשך 11:27. הדובר מדבר בקצב טבעי של כ-171 מילים בדקה, קרוב לשיחה יומיומית. 83% מהמילים נמצאות בין 3,000 המילים הנפוצות ביותר באנגלית; כדאי ללמוד את השאר לפני שמתחילים.

אוצר מילים מרכזי בסרטון הזה

15 המילים המתקדמות ביותר בסרטון, עם ההגייה והמשמעות שלהן:

מילה	הגייה	משמעות
behave פועל	/bɪˈheɪv/	הִתְנַהֵג
atom שם עצם	/ˈætəm/	אָטוֹם
equation שם עצם	/ɪˈkweɪ.ʒən/	משוואה \ מִשְׁוָאָה
arithmetic שם עצם	/æɹɪθˈmɛtɪk/	חֶשְׁבּוֹן
helium שם עצם	/ˈhiː.li.əm/	הֶלְיוּם
sock שם עצם	/sɑk/	גֶּרֶב, פֻּזְמָק
mechanic שם עצם	/mɪˈkænɪk/	מְכוֹנַאי
particle שם עצם	/ˈpɑɹtək(ə)l/	חֶלְקִיק, גַרגִיר
mathematical שם תואר	/ˌmæθ(.ə)ˈmæt.ɪ.kəl/	מָתֵמָטִי
quantum שם עצם	/ˈkwɑntəm/	קְוַנְט
calibrate פועל	/ˈkæl.ɪ.bɹeɪ̯t/	כייל
nucleus שם עצם	/ˈnuː.kli.əs/	גַּרְעִין, ליבה \ לִבָּה
prejudice שם עצם	/ˈpɹɛd͡ʒədɪs/	דֵּעָה קְדוּמָה
translate פועל	/tɹænzˈleɪt/	תִּרְגֵּם
centipede שם עצם	/ˈsɛn.tɪ.pid/	נָדָל

Phrasal verbs שתשמעו

מילה	משמעות
figure out פועל	הֵבִין, מצא תשובה
go down פועל	ירד

דקדוק בסרטון הזה

המבנים שהדובר משתמש בהם הכי הרבה, עם המילים המדויקות מהסרטון:

מבנה	בסרטון
סביל (Passive voice) be + past participle — הדגש הוא על מה שקורה, לא על מי שעושה את הפעולה	being used · is designed · is observed
משפטי זיקה (Relative clauses) who / which + clause — מידע נוסף על אדם או דבר	person who studied · people who have

הגייה ששווה לשים לב אליה

הדובר משתמש ב-50 קיצורים וצורות מקוצרות, כמו don't, couldn't, they're. אמרו אותם בצורה הקצרה, כפי שאתם שומעים אותם.

הצלילים של “th”: arithmetic /æɹɪθˈmɛtɪk/, mathematical /ˌmæθ(.ə)ˈmæt.ɪ.kəl/, mathematician /ˌmæθ.(ə.)məˈtɪʃ.ən/, underneath /ˌʌndɚˈniθ/
הצלילים של “sh” ו-“zh”: equation /ɪˈkweɪ.ʒən/, mathematician /ˌmæθ.(ə.)məˈtɪʃ.ən/, smash /smæʃ/
מילים ארוכות — שימו לב להטעמה: arithmetic /æɹɪθˈmɛtɪk/, mathematical /ˌmæθ(.ə)ˈmæt.ɪ.kəl/, esoteric /ˌɛs.əˈtɛɹ.ɪk/, exponential /ˌɛk.spəˈnɛn.t͡ʃəl/, familiarity /fəmɪliˈæɹɪti/

צלילים שדוברי עברית מתקשים בהם:

/w/ — שפתיים מעוגלות, לא /v/: equation /ɪˈkweɪ.ʒən/, quantum /ˈkwɑntəm/, wonderfully /wʌn.də(ɹ).fli/, squeeze /skwiːz/, whatsoever /ˌ(h)wʌtsoʊˈɛvɚ/
/æ/ — פתוח יותר מה-“אֶ” העברית, לא כמו “a” ב-“cup”: atom /ˈætəm/, arithmetic /æɹɪθˈmɛtɪk/, mechanic /mɪˈkænɪk/, mathematical /ˌmæθ(.ə)ˈmæt.ɪ.kəl/, calibrate /ˈkæl.ɪ.bɹeɪ̯t/
/r/ — הלשון לא נוגעת בשום מקום, לא ה-“ר” הגרונית: arithmetic /æɹɪθˈmɛtɪk/, imagery /ˈɪmɪd͡ʒɹi/, particle /ˈpɑɹtək(ə)l/, calibrate /ˈkæl.ɪ.bɹeɪ̯t/, prejudice /ˈpɹɛd͡ʒədɪs/

איך לתרגל עם הסרטון הזה

הקשיבו לכל הסרטון פעם אחת בלי לדבר, ורשמו את המילים שאתם לא מכירים.
התחילו במהירות 0.75×, תרגלו Shadowing משפט אחר משפט, וחזרו למהירות רגילה כשזה מרגיש קל.
הקליטו את עצמכם והשוו למקור, תוך תשומת לב למילים כמו behave, atom, equation.

מהי טכניקת השאדואינג?

שאדואינג היא טכניקת למידת שפה מבוססת מדע שפותחה במקור להכשרת מתורגמנים מקצועיים ופופולרית על ידי הפוליגלוט ד"ר אלכסנדר ארגואלס. השיטה פשוטה אך עוצמתית: אתה מקשיב לאודיו באנגלית ילידית וחוזר עליו בקול רם מיד — כמו צל העוקב אחרי הדובר עם עיכוב של 1–2 שניות בלבד. בניגוד להאזנה פסיבית או תרגילי דקדוק, שאדואינג מכריח את המוח והשרירים בפה לעבד ולשחזר דפוסי דיבור אמיתיים בו זמנית. מחקרים מראים שזה משפר משמעותית את דיוק ההגייה, האינטונציה, הקצב, הדיבור המחובר, הבנת השמיעה ושטף הדיבור — מה שהופך אותו לאחת השיטות היעילות ביותר להכנה לIELTS Speaking ולתקשורת באנגלית בעולם האמיתי.

טכניקת Shadowing: קרא את המדריך המלא שלב אחר שלב →

Shadowing Practice: Way of Thinking by Richard Feynman | The Cosmological Reality - Learn English Speaking with Video

בחר מצב תרגול

הורד אפליקציה

Force Your Brain to Think Like a Genius | Richard Feynman

how to create your desired reality (reality transurfing)

Has quantum mechanics proved that reality does not exist?

The ‘Self’ You Can’t Find with Sam Harris

A mind-blowing explanation of symmetry | Frank Wilczek for Big Think

What science can’t answer, according to physicist Jim Al-Khalili | Big Think

The Philosophy of Rick Sanchez

The Professor Who Taught People How To Think (1962)

Translating Claude’s thoughts into language

Whatever thought creates is reality | Krishnamurti

How Different Are Our Inner Monologues?

Some brains are built for philosophy. Is yours?