The course itself is useful. This lecture in particular (and its equally irrelevant support act which was mostly pro-Greek propaganda and the lecturer’s particular interests) was not. It was a waste of my time, and I can far more easily see it damaging a person’s understanding of science than aiding it.

Even the bits that were correct were far too unimportant to deserve inclusion and not given enough time to be covered properly.

Because you didn’t go to an insititution that offers a 100% ‘by research’ PhD?

If you don’t want to seem like a geek then you might want to rethink your username. There are at least three words in there that might suggest ‘geek’.

I’ve removed that line from the blog, since there’s no real reason to deliberately include a known error, but I’m going to leave the comments as they are because it feels like the right thing to do.

Special relativity and quantum mechanics are “unified” successfully in quantum field theory. The problem is with General relativity and quantum mechanics.

Those chaps in Stockholm’ll have to look for another prize-winner on this one.

That’s right, he’s only gone and unified quantum mechanics and relativity! It’s only a shame nobody was listening, because I think he’d have got the Nobel Prize in Physics for that.

is wrong. Combining quantum mechanics and special relativity gives you relativistic quantum theory and quantum field theory.

The hard thing is producing a quantum theory of general relativity — that is, quantum gravity.

Mind you, still an abysmal set of slides, and not sure at all what it was supposed to teach anyone……….

I could follow most of it in the same way that I can watch an episode of Red Dwarf with no sound: I already know it all. I shudder to think what the rest of the class think science is now.