Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Feynman Lectures on Physics (1961-1964)

feynmanlectures.caltech.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 156 posts

Re: The Feynman Lectures on Physics (1961-1964)

#131

Post by AnimalMuppet »

muwtyhg wrote: post #130
ontouchstart wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I got a kindle Scribe which can load PDF, HTML and text files via iPhone Kindle App and read offline. Since most pre-1925 books are out of copyright and free on https://gutenberg.org , ACM is open access ( https://dl.acm.org/ ) and we have open https://arxiv.org/ , it is the golden age for readers seeking original content. We don’t need bots to read for us. We can live in the mind of human writers.

Are technical/scientific books from pre-1925 particularly useful for self-learning today? I'd imagine for most disciplines, the knowledge has progressed and possibly changed course since then and it may be more outdated than not.

It might depend on the topic. Classical mechanics? I'm not sure that there is any fundamentally new knowledge since 1925 in that field. What's different is that people have 100 more years of figuring out how to explain it well.

Re: The Feynman Lectures on Physics (1961-1964)

#132

Post by ShamLegacyTldr »

ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #107
ShamLegacyTldr wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's be clear about this video; the "sham legacy" is the commercialization/exploitation of Feynman's legacy after he died. Feynman was not a charlatan. Collier doesn't claim he is. She talks about the very real contributions he made. Her criticism is largely about the way people scraped together any scrap of paper he had jotted down a note on and turned it into a thin book, "Feynman on XYZ topic". But yes, he does c…

It should be knee-jerk dismissed because the submission topic is the textbooks, not the man, and it's derailed discussion into a tangent about his personal shortcomings. Not exactly in the spirit of intellectual curiosity HN tries to foster.

> Not exactly in the spirit of intellectual curiosity HN tries to foster.

I could not disagree more. If you don't see how a comprehensive, warts and all look at the man's life and legacy doesn't add context and foster curiosity, I'm not even sure what to tell you.

It didn't derail the conversation, it expanded it. There's still plenty of discussion about the lectures. This isn't even particularly close to the top of the thread.

What's opposed to curious discussion is knee jerk reactions and middlebrow dismissals.

Re: The Feynman Lectures on Physics (1961-1964)

#133

Post by ShamLegacyTldr »

rramadass wrote: post #115
ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It should be knee-jerk dismissed because the submission topic is the textbooks, not the man, and it's derailed discussion into a tangent about his personal shortcomings. Not exactly in the spirit of intellectual curiosity HN tries to foster.

Well said ! These sort of people are what is pejoratively called "attention whores" with nothing worthwhile to contribute on the topic under discussion. Hence they always come up with provocative phrases/statements simply to make themselves feel relevant. Downvote and Flag these sorts of comments into oblivion; don't engage with them.

This is offensive and uncalled for. If the admins see your comment, they will tell you that comments like this get you banned. I don't agree with ThrowawayR2 but they were respectful; I doubt they appreciate their views being lumped in with your insulting, inappropriate comment. You've done a disservice to both of us.

Re: The Feynman Lectures on Physics (1961-1964)

#134

Post by codelieb »

agnishom wrote: post #69
chadrs wrote: post #13

"the sham legacy of Richard Feynman" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwKpj2ISQAc

Some people are (understandably) upset at the title of the video. I will summarize some of the main interesting beats in the video for those who don't want to watch this 3 hour masterpiece. (1) The stories in "Surely you are joking Mr. Feynman" portray Feynman in a mean-spirited, sometimes sexist light. (2) These books were not actually written by Mr. Feynman. They were actually written by Ralph Laden. (3) Upon furth…

Let me begin by saying that I am a friend of Ralph Leighton, whom I have known for 27 years. I am also a friend of Feynman's children, and several of Feynman's friends and colleagues. Now I will tell you this: Collier is a liar. The books "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman" and "What Do You Care What Other People Think" were made the same way that The Feynman Lectures on Physics was made: Feynman was recorded, and the recordings were transcribed and (lightly) edited for readability. It is true for ALL of Feynman's books (also Stephen Hawking's many books, and those of some other authors) that he did not put pen to paper himself, but what is written came from him, and are not the inventions of Ralph Leighton, nor does Leighton claim authorship to them. It is another lie of Collier that the stories in Feynman's autobiographical books are "either made up or greatly exaggerated," for which Collier provides no evidence whatsoever, and for which there are witnesses who claim the contrary - this is something Collier just "made up", because, apparently her goal in making several pejorative videos about Feynman is to defame him, for her own personal reasons. Yes it is true that Ralph Leighton is Robert Leighton's son, and Robert Leighton, who is one of Feynman's coauthors in The Feynman Lectures on Physics, was a great physicist, best known for establishing the field of microwave astronomy. But why would Ralph mention his father in Feynman's autobiographical books, when Robert Leighton is not a character in any of the stories Feynman tells in those books? What kind of criticism is that to make of Ralph? This is another example of how Collier is merely trying to smear the names of Feynman and the people associated with him. Note that Collier also says in her videos that The Feynman Lectures on Physics (the subject of this discussion) is "not worth reading," which puts her at odds with almost everyone who reads it - it is, in fact, one of the most (if not THE most) popular physics books ever written, and many great physicists sing its praises. Once again, this is Collier just dissing Feynman and his works. Collier is a Feynman-hating liar who fully deserves to be ignored.

Re: The Feynman Lectures on Physics (1961-1964)

#135

Post by danielam »

ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #107
ShamLegacyTldr wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's be clear about this video; the "sham legacy" is the commercialization/exploitation of Feynman's legacy after he died. Feynman was not a charlatan. Collier doesn't claim he is. She talks about the very real contributions he made. Her criticism is largely about the way people scraped together any scrap of paper he had jotted down a note on and turned it into a thin book, "Feynman on XYZ topic". But yes, he does c…

It should be knee-jerk dismissed because the submission topic is the textbooks, not the man, and it's derailed discussion into a tangent about his personal shortcomings. Not exactly in the spirit of intellectual curiosity HN tries to foster.

Ad hominem is indeed the hallmark of a small mind.

Re: The Feynman Lectures on Physics (1961-1964)

#136

Post by Starman_Jones »

assemblyman wrote: post #117

It is very interesting to see completely different impressions of Feynman from comments here. As a physicist, I first got introduced to Feynman from his popular QED book as a freshman in college. Over the years, I came to admire his contributions and way of thinking but could also see the cult of personality that has formed. Feynman is definitely not like Neil deGrasse Tyson or Kaku. He was a very creative and techni…

I believe this is the point you are making, but it's worth clarifying that NDT is a technically sophisticated astrophysicist who is best known for his non-technical communication targeted at a non-technical audience. Part of the genius of Feynman is that he could communicate to a technical audience in a way that was still accessible to the lay audience. Tyson can't communicate to both groups at once like Feynman (or Tyson's mentor, Carl Sagan) could. It's a rare gift.

Re: The Feynman Lectures on Physics (1961-1964)

#137

Post by melling »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #128
melling wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess you didn’t watch the video so you don’t understand the point I’m trying to address. At any rate, this garbage doesn’t belong on HN.

Can you elaborate on that point? I didn't downvote you, but I'm also not going to watch a 3-hour #metoo video about a guy from my grandfather's era in order to understand what you mean. What's next... is she going to tell me that Newton was a real asshole? Noooooo, say it isn't so.

It’s discussed in the first few minutes. That’s basically all I watched. One of the first points she tries to make is that people claim that Feynman is one of the top physicists of all time, comparable to Einstein and Newton. She tries to set us straight.

Anyway, I’m a big Feynman fan. My Discord handle is feynman1918.

Re: The Feynman Lectures on Physics (1961-1964)

#138

Post by addled »

DiogenesKynikos wrote: post #89
jcranmer wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> misogynistic behaviors were cultural at the time, I agree they're abhorrent but people are embedded in their culture. Moral relativism is a thing, but I think a more useful way to think of it rather than just saying "misogyny was a thing back then, should we care he was a misogynist then?" is to ask "if he were to have lived and worked in the 2000s, would he associate with Epstein?" And to be honest… Feynman does s…

> That's the real strong vibe I get from Surely You're Joking. He's the kind of person who wants to be seen as someone who gets up to wacky hijinks, to be seen as "cool," and he specifically interprets "cool" in a way that's misogynistic even at a time (when he was dictating the stories that led to Surely You're Joking) when misogyny was starting to become a professional hindrance. In my experience, everyone who says…

I remembered enjoying the book, so having not read it in a long time, I tried sharing Surely You're Joking with my kids at bedtime.

That chapter wasn’t the only thing I ended up skipping or heavily editing.

* Picking a room at Los Alamos with a window facing the women’s housing, but being disappointed that a tree or something blocked his view. (Wasn’t he also married at this point?)

* Starting a new Uni faculty position and hanging out at student dances, dismayed that girls would stop chatting & dancing with him when they learned he was a prof and not a fellow student.

* Hanging out at strip clubs to practice his drawing skills.

* Considering a textbook sales rep’s offer to help him find “trouble” in Vegas.

So maybe that one chapter turns around some at the end, but it’s not the only cringe-worthy moment in the book, and I can see why some people may have an overall negative opinion.

If I were going to do this with my kids now that they are teens, I wouldn’t filter as much and use the more questionable events as points of discussion.

Re: The Feynman Lectures on Physics (1961-1964)

#139

Post by FarmerPotato »

opello wrote: post #63
emmelaich wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do not think Feynman was celebrating his activity in the book. From memory, he learnt the behaviour from other bar flies at the bars he hung out. And he expressed his surprise at how some women reacted. This was far from his upbringing and his experience with his fiancee. The behaviour is hardly laudable, but "celebrated" it is not.

> I do not think Feynman was celebrating his activity in the book. The argument presented in the video about this is that these are the stories Feynman edited and reworked over time, and shared with his friend Ralph Leighton, who then recorded them in the "Surely You're Joking" book. The video also describes a change in his behavior later in life. In 1974, responding to a letter asking to reprint "What is Science?"[1…

And…who hasn’t done offensive things, before learning that what they’re doing is bad? It’s a matter of developing self control and awareness.

Re: The Feynman Lectures on Physics (1961-1964)

#140

Post by renhanxue »

DiogenesKynikos wrote: post #87
renhanxue wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The speaker says that Feynman didn't write the Feynman lectures. Wrong. No, she's right, just talking about a different thing. "The Feynman Lectures on Physics" is a physics textbook. [0] He did prepare his own lecture material, but he did not write the book. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Feynman_Lectures_on_Physic...

No, she's absolutely wrong about this. The book is based very closely on Feynman's lectures. He wrote the material and gave the lectures. Other people edited that material into book form, but Feynman did the lion's share of the work. Saying that Feynman didn't write the book is just dishonest, unless you immediately clarify afterwards that Feynman did indeed write almost all of the material in the book, in something…

I mean, for the most part the book is an edited transcription of what he said at the lectures (or, in some cases, what a guest lecturer said). But the lectures weren't scripted, and we know this because his lecture notes are preserved[0] and they do not contain anything like he full text of even a single lecture. They're just lecture notes, not a script. And of course, the book also contain a lot of example problems and graphics - those are mostly the work of Bob Leighton, I believe. There's a reason the book has had so many errata corrected over the years: it was never written and edited in the way a book manuscript would've been written and edited.

[0]: https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/Notes.html

Post reply on HN