Практика Shadowing: The Most Controversial Idea In Physics - Изучайте разговорный английский по видео

In 1953, the astronomer Fred Hoyle had a problem.

He was studying how stars make different elements in their cores,

and he realized that there's much more carbon in the universe than there should be.

Stars fuse hydrogen into helium and then helium into beryllium-8.

That part is chill.

But to get carbon, you need to fuse three helium nuclei together.

But beryllium-8 is really unstable.

It falls apart in about 10 to the negative 16th of a second.

That's one 10 quadrillionth of a second.

So the third helium nucleus has to fuse with the beryllium in that fraction of a second, and when you run the numbers,

the reaction is far too slow.

So according to nuclear physics, stars should make almost no carbon. But clearly they do.

Carbon is the fourth most abundant element in the universe.

You and I are made out of carbon.

Hoyle knew that we were missing something, and predicted that there had to be an excited energy state,

a resonance, sitting near 7.68 mega electron volts,

which would vastly increase the chances of three helium nuclei coming together to fuse into carbon.

He was visiting Caltech at the time and he asked his experimentalist colleagues to look for this resonance.

And they found it at 7.65 mega electron volts, half a percent off from Hoyle's prediction.

It is now known as the Hoyle resonance.

And if we shift the Hoyle resonance up by just a few percent, stars make essentially no carbon.

down by a similar amount, and they make carbon, but barely any oxygen.

It's like the dial is set to exactly where it needs to be to produce both carbon and oxygen, which are so essential for life.

What people don't realize is that the lack of a resonance in oxygen stocks all of that carbon being converted into oxygen.

There's this balance between a resonance occurring in carbon and a lack of a resonance in oxygen

means that we've built up that useful carbon atom in the universe.

And when you look closely at the laws of physics, you keep finding numbers that look dialed in.

Values where a small change would mean no chemistry, no complexity, no stars or galaxies or us.

It's weird, it turns up in so many places and the explanations are.. um...

Well, we'll get to that.

When you look at the laws of physics, there are the equations and in those equations there are constants.

Like this is Newtonian gravity and this is the general theory of relativity and they predict how things fall to the ground, how planets move around the Sun,

etc, etc. Except that they don't.

Not without this constant.

Throughout all of our laws of physics are these numbers, right?

The fundamental constants.

And the thing is that the mathematics of physics is sterile until you know those constants.

And the only way that we get those constants is by asking nature.

So I could give you Newton's law of gravitation, right?

But there's no way you can calculate the orbit of the moon, how long it's going to take, etc. Until you know how big G is.

The big G in these equations is the strength of gravity, the universal gravitational constant.

In our universe, it's around 6.674 times 10 to the negative 11 meters cubed per kilogram per second squared.

And you can't get this number from the theory.

It's not something that can be derived, it had to be measured.

Which Henry Cavendish first did in 1798.

He suspended two small lead spheres from a torsion wire inside of a sealed shed

and watched the wire twist as two 350-pound lead bowls pull the small spheres towards them.

The force he was measuring was about the weight of a dust speck, so the signal was so faint that he had to watch it through a telescope from outside the shed,

because his own body heat would have stirred up the air so much and swamped the signal from gravity.

And by measuring how much the wire twisted, he was able to figure out the strength of gravity.

There's an amazing video about this experiment by Steve Mould, by the way.

If you haven't seen it, you really should.

Hey, you might have noticed something.

Units.

The meters, the seconds, the kilograms, they're all human inventions and are arbitrary.

And you're right, but what isn't arbitrary are the ratios between the constants.

The mass of a proton and the mass of an electron are also constants that we had to measure,

and a proton has a mass that's a thousand eight hundred and thirty-six times greater than that of an electron, and it doesn't matter what units you are measuring in.

And, of course, the actual value depends on the units that you use, but you can express combinations of constants in dimensionless ways.

So there are about 30 of these constants, these dials.

They aren't set by any of our theories, so in theory, they could be different numbers.

So the obvious question is, what if they were different numbers?

What happens when you start turning these dials?

So, let's turn some dials.

In our universe, neutrons are heavier than protons by 1.29 MeV,

which is about 0.14% of a neutron's mass, or two and a half electron masses.

The difference in their mass is tiny.

In our universe, a free neutron can decay into a proton, but a free proton is stable.

And this is really important, because if a proton was heavier than a neutron, the proton would decay into neutrons.

This means hydrogen atoms would decay, protons would capture their electrons and turn into neutrons.

A universe without even hydrogen, let alone the rest of the periodic table, is likely very, very boring.

Just endless neutrons doing basically nothing.

Another dialogue we can mess with is the strength of the strong force, the fundamental force that keeps atoms together.

The first step in the chain that powers the Sun is fusing two protons into deuterium.

Deuterium is bound by just 2.2 mega electron volts, it's barely holding on.

Weaken the strong force by just a few percent and deuterium falls apart, and the fusion chain never gets started.

Fusion does not get started.

The thing that makes stars...

stars.

The stars that make every element of the periodic table inside them.

The stars that burn out and scatter their heavy elements across the universe.

The stardust that we're made of.

Those stars.

If the strong force was just a few percent weaker, we'd have no stars.

And what you rapidly find is that it's easy to kill a universe.

And what I mean by that is you can end up with universes that are definitely not going to be habitable.

You rob them of the key thing that we think is important about life

and that's complexity to encode information and all this kind of stuff.

The question then turns to is then, okay, we appeared to live in a universe where we've got constants that allow us to be here.

And is that telling us something?

Is there something underlying about the nature of the universe?

Because we live in a universe that seems to be in some sense special.

We can also mess with gravity.

Compared to the other fundamental forces, gravity is pathetically weak.

Which is why a fridge magnet can beat out the pull of an entire planet.

The electric repulsion between two protons in a nucleus is about

10 to the 36 that's a trillion trillion trillion times stronger than the gravitational pull between them.

So why is gravity so weak compared to the other forces?

Well, we don't know.

100

But if we make it a million times stronger, I know that sounds like a lot, but now it's 10 to the 30 instead of 10 to 36, it's still so much weaker than the other forces.

101

Well, in that universe, stars will live for about 10,000 years

102

and not 10 billion likely not enough time for complexity or life to arise.

103

Okay, let's just mess with one more constant.

104

Please indulge me.

105

In 1929, Edwin Hubble discovered that the universe was expanding.

106

But we have stuff in this universe, and the stuff being acted upon by gravity should be getting pulled in.

107

So the thinking was that the faraway galaxies flying away from us should be slowing down.

108

But measuring this is really tricky.

109

It took another 70 years for us to find this answer.

110

Here's how we did it.

111

In our universe, we have this particular kind of supernova, called a Type Ia supernova, which occurs when a white dwarf sucks in the matter from another star that it's orbiting next to.

112

And at a certain point, around 1.44 solar masses known as the Chandrasekhar limit,

113

the electron degeneracy pressure that's keeping the whole structure up gives out.

114

The details are interesting and complex as usual and I'll get to it in another video, but what matters here is that these stars explode at basically the same brightness,

115

so you can use them as standard candles.

116

This is what astronomers call them.

117

And the brightness of an object follows the inverse square law.

118

A candle that is twice as far away is only a quarter as bright.

119

So, if you know how bright the thing that you're measuring actually is, compared to what you measure it to be, you can figure out the distance.

120

And you can measure how fast something is moving away from you by seeing how the light is redshifted.

121

The light waves that are moving away from you faster get stretched out more.

122

In the late 1990s, two teams, the Supernova Cosmology Project, led by Sol Perlmutter out of Berkeley, and the Hi-Z Supernova search team led by Brian Schmidt out of Canberra

123

were using this method to measure the rate of the expansion of the universe.

124

But type 1a supernovae are rare, so how did they find them?

125

Well, they photographed thousands of galaxies and then they came back weeks later, photographed them all again, and had a computer subtract one image from the other.

126

If you see a new bright spot appear, it might be a 1a supernova.

127

And the results they got were very surprising.

128

So surprising that they thought they made a mistake.

129

The rate of expansion of the universe wasn't slowing down.

130

It was speeding up.

131

The cosmological constant was positive.

132

There is something that is pushing the universe apart, not just counteracting the pull of gravity, but overpowering it.

133

We now call it dark energy, and we're still not sure what it is.

134

In 2011, Perlmutter, Schmidt and Rees won the Nobel Prize.

135

But the history of the cosmological constant goes back more than a hundred years.

136

Back in 1917, Einstein had a problem.

137

His own equations insisted that the universe should be expanding or contracting, but everyone knew that it had to be static and eternal.

138

So he added a term to the equations by hand, a kind of anti-gravity built into space itself,

139

tuned precisely to hold everything still, the cosmological constant.

140

Hey, quick side note, there's a story that people say

141

that Einstein referred to his addition of the cosmological constant as his biggest blunder,

142

and we actually don't have first-hand sources of him saying that.

143

There is a book by George Gamow from 1970 and an article from 1956 and also maybe a couple of other scientists,

144

a couple of other physicists that have heard him say something like that.

145

We don't know if he called it his biggest blunder, but we do know that he hated it.

146

In a letter to Georges Lemaitre he wrote, Since I had introduced this lambda term, I had always a bad conscience.

147

I had found it very ugly indeed that the field law of gravitation should be composed of two logically independent terms,

148

which are connected by addition.

149

I cannot help to feel as strongly, and I am unable to believe that such an ugly thing should be realized in nature.

150

Which is a shame for Einstein, because such an ugly thing is realized in nature.

151

The cosmological constant exists and it seems fine-tuned.

152

Anyway, dark energy, what could it be?

153

Well, there's an obvious candidate.

154

Empty space isn't truly empty.

155

Take a box, get rid of every atom, every particle, and then cool it to absolute zero.

156

Quantum field theory says that vacuum is still not empty.

157

There are virtual particles and antiparticles popping up, buzzing with energy.

158

exactly the kind of thing that could potentially push space apart.

159

So we know that there is this underlying field of energy in the universe

160

which over the last five billion years has come to dominate and is driving the expansion of the universe faster and faster.

161

So this dark energy discovered at the end of the 90s.

162

And when you do your calculation of quantum field theory about how much dark energy you expect,

163

The amount that we have is a teeny sliver compared to what there could be.

164

It's one part in 10 to the 120.

165

Some ridiculous number.

166

The theory predicts

167

that the vacuum energy of empty space should be 10 to the 120 times bigger than what we measure in our universe.

168

If dark energy is the energy of empty space, which would make sense, we're off by a factor of 10 to the 120.

169

It has been called the worst prediction in the history of physics.

170

But this dark energy is also fine-tuned.

171

A hundred times more than what we measure in our universe and galaxies don't form, or only very small ones.

172

And you can rapidly see that if you make it too large, then the universe would be born, and then all the matter in the universe would be spread out,

173

such that it would be completely diluted, that you'd never form stars,

174

never form galaxies, etc. So you could potentially wind the amount of dark energy up by a factor of, let's say, 100.

175

Okay, now you might say, oh, 100, that sounds huge, right?

176

A factor of 100 larger.

177

But a factor of 100 in 10 to the power of

178

120 is still next to nothing right it's a small volume

179

so we we there is a little bit of give in there

180

but compared to the potential range right there um it's it's it's it's tiny

181

so instead of a big galaxy like the milky way

182

that you have today you end up with these small compact little blobs of galaxies

183

and they are not good places for life

184

because you get supernova in there you get black holes in

185

there you get all kinds of stuff going on in a small volume, which is part of the reason why the center of our Milky Way is not a good place for life.

186

It's too much going on in too small a volume.

187

So I say a factor of 100, but the volume is probably smaller than that.

188

One of the things that I find wild here is that Steven Weinberg predicted a positive cosmological constant back in 1987,

189

a decade before we had the measurement of it.

190

He reasoned that because we exist and that galaxies are pretty big,

191

we must live in a universe where there is a small but non-zero amount of dark energy, a few times more than the density of matter,

192

which is about what we measured.

193

I find this paper to be remarkable because it uses the fact that we exist to make a prediction about the universe.

194

Weinberg's prediction is based on the existence of us and of galaxies, And so, the value of the cosmological constant must be low enough for galaxies to form.

195

And this prediction ended up being basically right.

196

I mean, how cool is that?

197

But it's not just the constants of nature that allow for complexity to arise.

198

We can mess with some other knobs too, for example, the initial conditions.

199

Our universe started in a very, very low entropy state.

200

This is the whole second law of thermodynamics thing, that over time entropy goes up, things spread out, they become mixed.

201

This is why we have the arrow of time.

202

Another way of saying low entropy is saying high available energy.

203

The ability to do complex, interesting stuff.

204

If the universe was born in this high entropy state, you don't get complexity.

205

Why is the initial state, why are the initial conditions of the universe such a low entropy state?

206

Why was it this way?

207

This is super weird.

208

Our universe was born in a state where matter was smoothly distributed,

209

so it had the potential to collapse and clump together into stars and then into galaxies galaxies.

210

So it was born in a low entropy state.

211

It was born with lots of possible energy.

212

But if the universe had been born instead with all of the matter clumped together and locked into black holes,

213

well all of that gravitational energy is gone, right?

214

You can't do anything really with black holes.

215

You can bring them together, but what are you going to do with that?

216

One of the things that we take for granted is the entire existence of the arrow of time.

217

Why does time point in one direction?

218

It doesn't have to.

219

There is nothing in the equations of relativity that tells you which direction time should run in.

220

Can you imagine physics if we had time running in both directions?

221

That is possibly one of the biggest fine-tuning.

222

Also, the dimensions that we live in, three dimensions of space and one of time, are conducive to complexity.

223

In two, everything's really boring and in four, well, orbits don't really work.

224

And I can't even imagine what two dimensions of time would look like, let alone more.

225

I mean, why three dimensions of space and one of time?

226

There's nothing in the equations of relativity that says I can't add another minus dt squared term.

227

I can add as many as I want and I can do all my laws of physics.

228

But what does that mean if you were a being in that universe with multiple dimensions of time?

229

So I can play these games, but if I want to then talk about habitability in those universes,

230

then I've got to talk about how the laws of physics behave in those universes.

231

So how should we think about all of this?

232

Well, to some degree, this is obvious, right?

233

We're here because we're here.

234

Out of all of the possible universes, with all the possible settings of the dials,

235

the only ones that ever get noticed are the ones where the dials let observers exist and do the noticing.

236

A universe with no stars, no chemistry, no brains, has nobody in it to marvel at how dead it is.

237

Douglas Adams, the author of Hitchhiker's Guide,

238

wrote about the sentient puddle where after some rain a puddle forms and gains sentience and thinks to itself,

239

this is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in.

240

Fits me rather neatly, doesn't it?

241

In fact it fits me staggeringly well.

242

Must have been made to have me in it.

243

So maybe it's as simple as that.

244

Maybe it's just we're here and that's it and stop asking questions and that just doesn't feel satisfying to me.

245

It doesn't feel scientific.

246

Throughout the whole history of science the stop asking questions things are the way they are that approach hasn't been very successful.

247

Being painfully annoyingly curious has been.

248

So maybe there is a deeper theory of physics that we're missing that explains why the constants are the way they are,

249

why the initial conditions are the way they are, that explains the three dimensions of space and one of time etc etc

250

and that would be really cool but it does just push fine-tuning to another level.

251

You go look physics is done, there is no freedom.

252

These are the ways that the fundamental constants are.

253

And you say, right, job done.

254

Except job isn't done.

255

Why?

256

Because the library of possible mathematics is infinite

257

and the mathematics used by this universe is a slim volume in an infinite library.

258

Why did our universe choose that set of mathematics to describe the universe?

259

Or maybe a way to explain all of this is theological.

260

If there are all these parameters, all these knobs that seem so fine-tuned for life,

261

maybe there's a fine-tuner, a creator that made this universe just so perfect for us.

262

So let me just explain the context of the book, right?

263

So it's written by myself and Luke Barnes.

264

I am an atheist, Luke is a theist.

265

And we have seen this argument from both sides.

266

For Luke, he sees plenty of people saying that fine-tuning is evidence of a creator.

267

For me, who doesn't have that particular hypothesis,

268

that this is evidence for something deeper going on with the nature of the universe.

269

For me, the notion that saying, if we just do more physics, we'll solve it, I don't think we do.

270

I think we just move fine-tune in elsewhere.

271

So for me, the thing that helps me sleep at night is the notion of the multiverse, right?

272

That there is an unfathomably large collection of other universes where the constants of nature and the initial conditions,

273

and maybe even the mathematical structures, are different.

274

Some small percentage of them allow for complexity and for life, but most don't.

275

And we're one of the lucky ones.

276

We live in a fortunate universe.

277

We have to let science play out.

278

What we shouldn't do is let noisy people shut down the debate because they don't like a concept.

279

Right?

280

And I've seen plenty of people say, you know, should not talk about the multiverse.

281

It's not the way science works.

282

Science is playing out and we are not at the end game.

283

And a lot of smart people fall into these different camps.

284

Hoyle, for example, said, a common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics.

285

Martin Rees looks at the same data and this pushes him towards the multiverse hypothesis.

286

I don't know what to make of this.

287

It's why this tab has been open in my brain for a decade.

288

I don't even know how seriously to take it.

289

Personally, I lean towards the multiverse argument

290

because there is a lot of good reasons to take the multiverse hypothesis seriously that's independent of fine-tuning.

291

But I just don't know.

292

I genuinely don't know what to do with this information.

293

I just think it's interesting and really neat and very weird.

294

When I worked at Veritasium, we really tried to tell stories that had a clear beginning, middle, and end.

295

The setup, the building tension, and then the resolution something that put a nice, neat little bow on the video.

296

There is no bow on this video.

297

I want to say that I'm sorry that I'm not giving you a resolution here, but I'm just not.

298

Humanity does not know the resolutions to some massive, fascinating, consequential problems.

299

As John Wheeler famously said, as the island of knowledge grows, so does the shoreline of ignorance.

300

When we learn things about the universe, we end up getting more and more questions to ask, more mysteries to unlock.

301

That's lovely.

302

That's how science works.

303

And I like that I've had this problem in my brain for a decade.

304

I like that this tab is open in my brain.

305

I also like that this is an advanced question to ask.

306

This feels like a tremendous success of science to get to

307

the point where we are rudely slapped in the face of how fortunate our universe seems to be

308

and how strange that is.

309

I love being reminded of our insignificance and of our fortune.

310

If you want to learn more about cosmological fine-tuning, you just have to read Grant and Luke's book.

311

It's really, really approachable and it's beautifully written.

312

It's really, really good.

313

As always, the reference list is in the description, including a few books that I'd recommend on the topic.

314

And if you have a well-paying job and you find the stuff that I make to be valuable, I would really appreciate it if you could subscribe to my Patreon.

315

Thank you for being here.

316

I'm grateful to share this fortunate universe with you.

✨ Рекомендуемое видео

66 предложений

First reactions | Francis Halzen, Nobel Prize in Physics 2026 | telephone interview

IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students

110 предложений

Feedback Mechanisms - Your body’s control Systems - Physiology

IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students

47 предложений

We Found Galaxies Too Old for the Universe

IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students

Лексика и советы по произношению к этому уроку

Этот урок разговорной практики уровня C1 построен на видео «The Most Controversial Idea In Physics». Чаще всего повторяются слова: universe, constant, star, energy. В этом видео 316 предложений и 4087 слов для шедоуинга. Речь длится 26:41. Говорящий говорит в естественном темпе, около 153 слов в минуту, близком к повседневной речи. 82% слов входят в 3000 самых частых слов английского языка; остальные стоит разобрать перед занятием.

Ключевая лексика этого видео

Самые сложные слова из видео (15), с произношением и значением:

Слово	Произношение	Значение
proton существительное	/ˈpɹoʊ.tɑn/	прото́н
cosmological прилагательное	/ˌkɒz.məˈlɒdʒ.ɪ.kəl/	космологи́ческий
resonance существительное	/ˈɹɛzənəns/	резона́нс
electron существительное	/ɪˈlɛk.tɹɑn/	электро́н
equation существительное	/ɪˈkweɪ.ʒən/	уравне́ние
complexity существительное	/kəmˈplɛk.sɪ.ti/	сло́жность
entropy существительное	/ˈɛntɹəpi/	энтропи́я
neutron существительное	/ˈnu.tɹɑn/	нейтро́н
supernova существительное	/ˌsuː.pə(ɹ)ˈnəʊ.və/	сверхно́вая звезда́, сверхно́вая
dial существительное	/ˈdaɪ.əl/	цифербла́т
dimension существительное	/daɪˈmɛn.ʃən/	аспе́кт
helium существительное	/ˈhiː.li.əm/	ге́лий
multiverse существительное	/ˈmʌltəˌvɝs/	мультивселе́нная
prediction существительное	/pɹɪˈdɪkʃən/	предсказа́ние, прогно́з
nucleus существительное	/ˈnuː.kli.əs/	ядро́, центр

Фразовые глаголы, которые вы услышите

Слово	Значение
end up глагол	зака́нчиваться, зако́нчиться
figure out глагол	разбира́ться, разобра́ться
slow down глагол	замедля́ть, заме́длить
build up глагол	накапливаться, скапливаться
burn out глагол	выгора́ть, вы́гореть
come back глагол	возвраща́ться, возврати́ться
fall apart глагол	распада́ться, распа́сться
give out глагол	обнаро́довать, объявля́ть

Фразы, которые стоит повторять

Короткие законченные фразы из видео, которые пригодятся в повседневном разговоре:

If you haven't seen it, you really should.
What happens when you start turning these dials?
The stardust that we're made of.
I mean, how cool is that?
Fits me rather neatly, doesn't it?

Грамматика в этом видео

Конструкции, которые говорящий использует чаще всего, с точными словами из видео:

Конструкция	В видео
Условные предложения if + предложение, will/would + глагол — условие и его результат	if we just do more physics, we'll solve
Present Perfect have/has + причастие прошедшего времени — прошлое действие, важное сейчас	we've built · haven't seen · have heard
Пассивный залог be + причастие прошедшего времени — важно, что происходит, а не кто это делает	are made · is now known · is set
Придаточные определительные who / which + предложение — уточнение о человеке или предмете	oxygen, which are · volume, which is

Произношение, на которое стоит обратить внимание

Говорящий использует 59 сокращённых и редуцированных форм, например don't, we're, doesn't. Произносите их коротко, так, как слышите.

Звуки «th»: hypothesis /haɪˈpɒθɪsɪs/, smoothly /ˈsmuːðli/, theological /θi.əˈlɑd͡ʒɪkl/, mathematical /ˌmæθ(.ə)ˈmæt.ɪ.kəl/
Звуки «sh» и «zh»: equation /ɪˈkweɪ.ʒən/, dimension /daɪˈmɛn.ʃən/, prediction /pɹɪˈdɪkʃən/, gravitational /ˌɡɹævɪˈteɪʃənəl/, gravitation /ˌɡɹævɪˈteɪ̯ʃən/
Длинные слова — следите за ударением: cosmological /ˌkɒz.məˈlɒdʒ.ɪ.kəl/, complexity /kəmˈplɛk.sɪ.ti/, supernova /ˌsuː.pə(ɹ)ˈnəʊ.və/, beryllium /bəˈɹɪl.i.əm/, deuterium /djuːˈtɪɹi.əm/

Звуки, трудные для русскоязычных:

/w/ — губы округлены, это не /v/: equation /ɪˈkweɪ.ʒən/, weaker /ˈwikɚ/, quantum /ˈkwɑntəm/
/h/ — лёгкий выдох, а не русское «х»: helium /ˈhiː.li.əm/, hypothesis /haɪˈpɒθɪsɪs/, hydrogen /ˈhaɪdɹəd͡ʒ(ə)n/, behave /bɪˈheɪv/
Звонкие согласные в конце слова — не оглушайте их: fuse /fjuːz/, arise /əˈɹaɪz/, compose /kəmˈpəʊz/, derive /dɪˈɹaɪv/, suspend /səsˈpɛnd/

Как заниматься с этим видео

Прослушайте всё видео один раз молча и выпишите незнакомые слова.
Начните со скорости 0,75×, повторяйте предложение за предложением и вернитесь к обычной скорости, когда станет легко.
Запишите себя и сравните с оригиналом, обращая внимание на такие слова, как proton, cosmological, resonance.

Что такое техника Shadowing?

Shadowing — это научно обоснованная техника изучения языка, изначально разработанная для подготовки профессиональных переводчиков и популяризированная полиглотом доктором Александром Аргуэльесом. Метод прост, но эффективен: вы слушаете аудио на английском от носителей языка и немедленно повторяете вслух — как тень, следующая за говорящим с задержкой в 1–2 секунды. В отличие от пассивного прослушивания или грамматических упражнений, Shadowing заставляет мозг и мышцы рта одновременно обрабатывать и воспроизводить реальные речевые паттерны. Исследования показывают, что это значительно улучшает точность произношения, интонацию, ритм, связную речь, понимание на слух и беглость речи — что делает его одним из самых эффективных методов для подготовки к IELTS Speaking и реального общения на английском.

Техника шедоуинга: читать полное пошаговое руководство →

Практика Shadowing: The Most Controversial Idea In Physics - Изучайте разговорный английский по видео

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

Why Are There No Holes Around Trees?

Neutron Stars – The Most Extreme Things that are not Black Holes

The Creation of Chemistry - The Fundamental Laws: Crash Course Chemistry #3

Superfluid Dark Matter

Arguments for God: The Fine Tuning Argument

Joe & Matt Walsh Go Back and Forth on the Moon Landing Conspiracy

The Professor Who Taught People How To Think (1962)

The Speed of Light Isn't a Limit. It's a Converter

First reactions | Francis Halzen, Nobel Prize in Physics 2026 | telephone interview

Feedback Mechanisms - Your body’s control Systems - Physiology

We Found Galaxies Too Old for the Universe

Лексика и советы по произношению к этому уроку

Ключевая лексика этого видео

Фразовые глаголы, которые вы услышите

Фразы, которые стоит повторять

Грамматика в этом видео

Произношение, на которое стоит обратить внимание

Как заниматься с этим видео

Что такое техника Shadowing?