[HN Gopher] Feynman's Messenger Lectures (1964)
___________________________________________________________________
Feynman's Messenger Lectures (1964)
Author : bookofjoe
Score : 151 points
Date : 2023-07-30 16:55 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu)
| freediver wrote:
| I like the idea of the "website controls" in top right. Wonder if
| this should be a native feature in the browser?
| scrlk wrote:
| From the provost's introduction to Feynman:
|
| > The chairman suggested that an annual salary of $3,000 was a
| bit too low for a distinguished faculty member, and recommended
| that Professor Feynman's salary be increased $900. The dean, in
| an act of unusual generosity and with complete disregard for the
| solvency of the university, crossed out the $900 and made it an
| even $1,000.
|
| Using the BLS CPI inflation calculator to convert from 1945 to
| 2023 dollars gives an annual salary of ~$67.5k. Pretty good
| bargain for a "distinguished faculty member".
|
| However, considering that the USD was pegged to gold at $35/troy
| ounce, $4k in 1945 was worth 114.29 troy ounces of gold. This is
| $224k at the time of writing. Much more fitting for a
| "distinguished faculty member". :^)
| entriesfull wrote:
| What made Feynman a great scientist was that he could explain
| hard things in a simple manner. If you can't explain it simply,
| then you don't understand it well enough.
|
| Try to explain that to string theorist. No wonder quantum
| mechanics isn't making progress. These new scientists just want
| to prove how smart they are, and not how little they actually
| know. Thus allowing them to make progress.
| mk_stjames wrote:
| These used to be hard to come across - they were on the internet
| on, I think it was 'Google Videos' back in the day, and then
| disappeared, only to resurface on Youtube at some point a little
| over a decade ago. When they resurfaced I immediately ripped them
| and saved them, just because of how incredible of a show they
| are. It's all info I could rehash from memory at this point but I
| still go back and watch these sometimes just to witness the
| spectacle of Feynman lecture. The way he speaks, you almost feel
| like you are getting an understanding of how he thinks as he
| explains things, and that is the real lesson to take in.
|
| The only other lecture videos I think I have rushed to rip and
| save like that are the Richard Hamming lectures ("Learning to
| Learn").
| sp332 wrote:
| Bill Gates had them on a Silverlight demo website.
|
| Edit: oh, it says that on the page.
| weekendvampire wrote:
| YouTube playlist:
| https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLez3PPtnpncQLg_H7f6T9yJmJ...
| lighttower wrote:
| there is a little boy inside me who wants to watch all six
| lectures right away. but now with two kids and constant demand
| from work, I have gotten used to consuming education as 2 minute
| physics shorts on YouTube.
|
| the issue is much deeper than the format of media. it's a sense
| inside me that I'm "wasting time" not "productive" (related but
| not the same as not remunerated). I feel I* don't have
| permission* to just enjoy it ... I can give some reasons, like if
| I go for a bike ride with the kids it gets me and them exercise
| and my wife some respite, but sit and listen is just passive
| consumption that will never be productive... I wish I was free of
| this sense of guilt
| pests wrote:
| Why do you think you feel the need for every waking moment to
| be productive?
| lighttower wrote:
| I know what I'm about to say is not true. but it's a kernel
| in the right direction. I live in a city where no matter how
| hard I work I will never own property... and I have this
| irrational belief that just harder work will allow us to be
| happy.
| klausa wrote:
| I mean this in the warmest possible way: this is maybe
| something to bring up to a therapist.
| sillysaurusx wrote:
| Chill. I say that as a reasonably accomplished scientist.
|
| Yes, work hard. But there's a difference between working
| hard _on the right thing_ and doing it just because it
| makes you feel good.
|
| You're much less likely to find the right thing if you're
| in a spiral of working on things you know will be a waste
| of time. You can pull as many 16 hour shifts at a gas
| station as you want to, but people only do that because
| they're broke, not because they might find it fulfilling.
|
| I recommend reading
| http://www.paulgraham.com/greatwork.html in its entirety.
| You strike me as the type of person it was aimed at. And
| believe it or not, one of the most important takeaways is
| that you have to allow yourself to play, just a little, in
| order to Rome the kind of work that makes you happy.
|
| So explore your interests more, and worry less.
| lighttower wrote:
| Thanks for this.
|
| I _can reason_ that what I 'm saying is wrong, but it's
| how I _feel._ Some other comments have recommended
| getting therapy... I have, since I was 18. That 's the
| only reason I'm able to say these things and see myself
| comically on the treadmill. I'm voicing these things
| aloud because I figured others might felt _lack of
| permission_ to indulge in a few hours of physics lectures
| because of a sense of duty to _getting things done_
|
| Ps. My kids are 8 and 5.
| whompyjaw wrote:
| I assume your kids are somewhat young, and probably not going
| to be an ideal audience, but are you able to watch it with
| them? I know Feynman is known for his traceability, so maybe
| your kids will be entranced :)
| logifail wrote:
| > I assume your kids are somewhat young, and probably not
| going to be an ideal audience, but are you able to watch it
| with them? I know Feynman is known for his traceability, so
| maybe your kids will be entranced
|
| I'm so glad that someone stepped up and suggested this, I was
| about to do the same!
|
| [Full disclosure: have three kids - aged 7, 10 and 13 - and
| my goodness we do have our hands full with them...]
| markus_zhang wrote:
| I realized that once I have a kid I need to push every hobby or
| whatever away for X years. It's like the more social button I
| clicked the more pigeon holed I am.
| pomian wrote:
| You know what's great? By the time your kids are around 9-12,
| you can watch these videos together. Watching just for fun,
| they are still a wonder to learn from, and they are so we'll
| presented, that the kids will likely watch with interest.
| (Maybe half at a time.)
| codebolt wrote:
| I relate so much to this. The only time I could see myself
| watching something like this is if the wife falls asleep a bit
| early on the couch one evening. Or as someone else suggested,
| if I could get the kids interested.
|
| I do listen to a bunch of podcasts and audio books while I'm
| doing chores or driving, but that's about it these days. I have
| a faint hope that I will get more time for personal hobby
| projects (like learning more physics) as the kids get a bit
| older (currently 4, 7 & 13).
| schaefer wrote:
| Presumably you spent 12 years or more as a full time student.
| And that resulted in the life you have now.
|
| If "passive" watching stresses you out maybe try this: take
| notes, think about how to explain the one or two main concepts
| to your kids (or wife).
|
| Presumably: your kids are students now: it's chance to
| demonstrate that you value learning in your own life (not just
| on their report card).
| oldstrangers wrote:
| Unrelated but surprised by how little attention Feynman got in
| Oppenheimer given how enormous his stature would eventually
| become. Arguably the best mind on the project.
|
| edit: *one of the best minds on the project.
| TillE wrote:
| Feynman was involved, but not particularly instrumental in the
| Manhattan Project. I was glad they included his anecdote about
| watching through the truck windshield.
| mk_stjames wrote:
| I spent a fair amount of time during the film playing 'Spot
| Jack Quaid' in anticipation of Feynman being called out at some
| point. He is spotted early during the montage when Oppenheimer
| goes recruiting, and then during various scenes in the
| background, twice playing bongos (!), but only once is he
| called by name- Teller calls his name right before the Trinity
| test for not having goggles or a welding glass to look through,
| and he notes he is in a truck with a thick windshield that
| blocks the UV. I smiled so much when that little tidbit
| happens, as it is a story he prominently tells in his book
| 'Surely You're Joking Mr Feynman...'
|
| He gives an incredible account of his time there in the lecture
| (and almost stand-up-comedy act) 'Los Alamos from Below' -
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uY-u1qyRM5w
|
| So highly entertaining.
| atombender wrote:
| It's a great lecture. I posted it to HN yesterday, and it
| sadly didn't get much traction:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36923700
| oldstrangers wrote:
| The bongos scene was one that stood out to me for sure.
| OldGuyInTheClub wrote:
| That'll be hard to defend given von Neumann was on the effort.
| [deleted]
| oldstrangers wrote:
| Fair enough. One of the best minds on the project.
| OldGuyInTheClub wrote:
| Perhaps we can say Feynman was the best _human_ mind on the
| project since von Neumann et.al. are suspected to be from
| Mars. ;-)
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Martians_(scientists)
| [deleted]
| _dain_ wrote:
| Feynman wasn't one of the top guys on the project, he was low-
| mid level. There's an entertaining lecture somewhere on Youtube
| where he talked about his time there; most of the time he was
| buried in computational work and sometimes inspecting chemical
| plants. He usually wasn't in the rooms where Big Important
| Decisions were made, which is what this Nolan film spends a lot
| of time on.
| kklisura wrote:
| Who would you say is todays Richard Feynman?
|
| I would say it's professor Leonard Susskind [1] - interestingly
| he was also a Feynman's friend. Any other suggestions?
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Susskind
| abdullahkhalids wrote:
| There are likely many physicists today that are on the
| intellect level of Feynman, but we will never know because all
| the low hanging fruits in fundamental areas of Physics have
| already been picked. So the top scientists today have to spend
| decades working on one Nobel prize winning quality result. In
| Feynman's generation, many people were able to get multiple top
| quality results in their lifetime because they were there to
| pick.
|
| Recently, the only Physicsy field with new fundamental results
| is quantum computing/information. But the vast majority of the
| field is not about building a new predictive theory of nature.
| On the computer science end, Scott Aaronson is a candidate for
| a mini-Feynman. But there isn't anyone I can think of on the
| Physics end who stands super tall above his peers.
| mistermann wrote:
| The domain of philosophy on the other hand has all sorts of
| valuable low hanging fruit remaining to be picked. Perhaps
| someday someone will notice.
| abdullahkhalids wrote:
| I agree. There is actually quite a lot of fundamental work
| that could be done at the intersection of Physics and
| Philosophy, that is not getting done. Mainly because
| researchers are not given the space to engage in moonshot
| work.
|
| But even if that space was available. It will take truly
| great minds to learn centuries worth of physics, without
| fundamentally biasing themselves by the orthodox
| philosophy, so they can actually rewrite the philosophy of
| physics.
|
| Realistically, I think what can happen is that we find some
| new field (not even in physics), which acts as a fertile
| ground for new philosophy. And once it is developed there,
| someone imports it to fundamental Physics.
| hoten wrote:
| I have a passable understanding of physics, but nothing
| really for philosophy. I can't even begin to understand
| what sort of fundamental work you could be referring to.
| Would you mind breaking it down a bit?
| criddell wrote:
| What's an example of a major breakthrough in philosophy in
| modern times?
| mandmandam wrote:
| > On the computer science end, Scott Aaronson is a candidate
| for a mini-Feynman.
|
| Sorry, but Scott is nothing like Feynman. I wouldn't even
| call him a nano-Feynman.
|
| Mr. Aaronson has knowledge of a lot of fields. He surely
| knows more than I about many things. But he's not very well
| rounded, he's far more certain of his rightness with far less
| reason to be, and he makes some pretty big errors, with undue
| confidence, on a regular basis. His thinking isn't nearly as
| integrated, and his writing is nowhere near the same level.
|
| He's closer to Sheldon Cooper than he is to Feynman.
| gammajmp wrote:
| [dead]
| TillE wrote:
| In terms of communicating science to a general audience - as
| these lectures do - I think there's Feynman, Carl Sagan, and
| that's about it.
|
| It really takes a certain personality, a genuine enthusiasm,
| and their imitators don't really have it.
| notbeuller wrote:
| Not in nearly the same league, but Jim Al-Khalili is a
| physicist and science communicator for the bbc that I've
| really enjoyed. Far more on the "popular" end than Feynman,
| but his enthusiasm is infectious.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-07-30 23:00 UTC)