Here is a really nice video of Feynman playing the bongos. For some reason I really enjoy watching this:)
Click here to watch
Showing posts with label Feynman. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Feynman. Show all posts
Friday, August 27, 2010
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Wonderful:) ... as a follow up to ur post i would like to show an extract from Mlodinow's, "Feynman's Rainbow"...
" When I got to him, Feynman was gazing at a rainbow. He had an intense look on his face, as if he were concentrating. As if he had never seen one before. Or maybe as if it might be his last.
I approached him cautiously.
"Professor Feynman. Hi," I said.
"Look, a rainbow," he said without looking at me.
I joined him in staring at the rainbow. It appeared pretty impressive, if you stopped to look at it. It wasn't something I normally did-in those days.
"I wonder what the ancients thought of rainbows", I mused. There were many myths based on the stars, but I thought rainbows must have seemed equally mysterious.
"All I know," Feynman said, " is that according to one legend angels put gold at its ends and only a nude man can reach it.
"Do you know who first explained the true origin of the rainbows?" I asked.
"It was Descartes," he said. After a moment he looked me in the eye.
" And what do you think was the salient feature of the rainbows that inspired descartes' mathematical analysis?" he asked.
" Well, the rainbow is actually a section of a cone that appears as an arc of the colors of the spectrum when drops of water are illuminated by sunlight behind the observer."
"And?"
"I suppose his inspiration was the realization that the problem could be analysed by considering a single drop, and the geometry of the situation."
"You're overlooking a key feature of the phenomenon," he said.
" Okay, I give up. What would you say inspired his theory?"
"I would say his inspiration was that he thought rainbows were beautiful."
I looked at him sheepishly. He looked at me. " How's your work coming?" he asked.
I shrugged. " It's not really coming."
"Let me ask you something. Think back to when you were a kid. For you, that isn't going too far back. When you were a kid, did you love science? Was it your passion?"
I nodded. " As long as I can remember. "
"Me, too", he said. " Remember, it's supposed to be fun." And he walked on. "
Along with science being fun, I think there is a certain appreciation for beauty inherent in human beings. We cannot define beauty. What we find beautiful is usually something natural. ( Personally, I find Einstein's relativity beautiful, even if eventually it turned out to be wrong).
Curiosity may drive us to do science. The fact that it is fun is another motivation. Whatever it is, these things feed on us. Curiosity transforms itself into a strong driving force that pushes us through the greatest extents. We don't know where our search will lead us, but the journey sure is fun. In the end, I think it is the journey that matters, not the destination. And that I think is one of the most beautiful things about life and physics.
What remains to be answered about present day science is whether this is what still drives every physicist? Or have the motivations changed a bit?
" When I got to him, Feynman was gazing at a rainbow. He had an intense look on his face, as if he were concentrating. As if he had never seen one before. Or maybe as if it might be his last.
I approached him cautiously.
"Professor Feynman. Hi," I said.
"Look, a rainbow," he said without looking at me.
I joined him in staring at the rainbow. It appeared pretty impressive, if you stopped to look at it. It wasn't something I normally did-in those days.
"I wonder what the ancients thought of rainbows", I mused. There were many myths based on the stars, but I thought rainbows must have seemed equally mysterious.
"All I know," Feynman said, " is that according to one legend angels put gold at its ends and only a nude man can reach it.
"Do you know who first explained the true origin of the rainbows?" I asked.
"It was Descartes," he said. After a moment he looked me in the eye.
" And what do you think was the salient feature of the rainbows that inspired descartes' mathematical analysis?" he asked.
" Well, the rainbow is actually a section of a cone that appears as an arc of the colors of the spectrum when drops of water are illuminated by sunlight behind the observer."
"And?"
"I suppose his inspiration was the realization that the problem could be analysed by considering a single drop, and the geometry of the situation."
"You're overlooking a key feature of the phenomenon," he said.
" Okay, I give up. What would you say inspired his theory?"
"I would say his inspiration was that he thought rainbows were beautiful."
I looked at him sheepishly. He looked at me. " How's your work coming?" he asked.
I shrugged. " It's not really coming."
"Let me ask you something. Think back to when you were a kid. For you, that isn't going too far back. When you were a kid, did you love science? Was it your passion?"
I nodded. " As long as I can remember. "
"Me, too", he said. " Remember, it's supposed to be fun." And he walked on. "
Along with science being fun, I think there is a certain appreciation for beauty inherent in human beings. We cannot define beauty. What we find beautiful is usually something natural. ( Personally, I find Einstein's relativity beautiful, even if eventually it turned out to be wrong).
Curiosity may drive us to do science. The fact that it is fun is another motivation. Whatever it is, these things feed on us. Curiosity transforms itself into a strong driving force that pushes us through the greatest extents. We don't know where our search will lead us, but the journey sure is fun. In the end, I think it is the journey that matters, not the destination. And that I think is one of the most beautiful things about life and physics.
What remains to be answered about present day science is whether this is what still drives every physicist? Or have the motivations changed a bit?
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Scientific imagination
I have a free afternoon session today – no lab work to take care of and no students came with some bothering questions! So, I decided to post what Harshini’s Fine Man says about scientific imagination – which had fired my imagination for sure!
“Let us try to imagine electric and magnetic fields; you may say, “Professor, All this business of electric and magnetic fields is pretty abstract! What is actually happening? Why can’t you explain it? Please give us an approximate description of the electromagnetic waves, even though it may be slightly inaccurate, so that I too can “see” them!” I am sorry – I can’t do that for you. I don’t know how. I have no picture of this electromagnetic field that is in any sense accurate. The only sensible question is, “what is the most appropriate way to look at their effects?” Some people prefer to represent them as field lines and feel that writing vector E and vector B is too abstract! The field lines, however, are only a crude way of describing a field. Field lines cannot efficiently describe superposition of electromagnetic waves. From the mathematical stand point, on the other hand, superposition is easy – we simply add two vectors to get another vector. The field lines have some advantage in giving a vivid picture, but they also have some disadvantages. So, the best way is to use the abstract field idea. That it is abstract is UNFORTUNATE but NECESSARY!
Our science makes terrific demands on the imagination. It appears that scientific imagination requires mathematical view and then its experimental verification. Now, what is a mathematical view?
For example, from a mathematical view, there IS an electric field vector and magnetic field vector at every point in space. This concept is abstract – true, but in some sense the fields are real, because after we are all finished fiddling around with mathematical equations, we can still make the instruments detect electromagnetic signals.
The whole question of imagination is often misunderstood by people in other disciplines. They try to test our imagination in the following way. If someone asks me: “Here is a picture of some people in a situation. What do you imagine will happen next?” I would say “I can’t imagine (because I don’t have enough facts”. So, people think that I have a weak imagination. They overlook the fact that whatever we are allowed to imagine in science must be consistent with EVERYTHING else we know.
The electric and magnetic fields we talk about are not just some happy thoughts which we are free to make as we wish, but ideas which must be consistent with all the laws of Physics we know. We can’t allow ourselves to seriously imagine things, which are obviously in contradiction to the known laws of nature. One has to have the imagination to think of something that has never been seen before, never been heard before. But creating something new, has to be consistent with everything, which has been seen before, is extremely difficult and requires scientific imagination.”
So, tell me if this caught your imagination (poetic – if not scientific) too!
“Let us try to imagine electric and magnetic fields; you may say, “Professor, All this business of electric and magnetic fields is pretty abstract! What is actually happening? Why can’t you explain it? Please give us an approximate description of the electromagnetic waves, even though it may be slightly inaccurate, so that I too can “see” them!” I am sorry – I can’t do that for you. I don’t know how. I have no picture of this electromagnetic field that is in any sense accurate. The only sensible question is, “what is the most appropriate way to look at their effects?” Some people prefer to represent them as field lines and feel that writing vector E and vector B is too abstract! The field lines, however, are only a crude way of describing a field. Field lines cannot efficiently describe superposition of electromagnetic waves. From the mathematical stand point, on the other hand, superposition is easy – we simply add two vectors to get another vector. The field lines have some advantage in giving a vivid picture, but they also have some disadvantages. So, the best way is to use the abstract field idea. That it is abstract is UNFORTUNATE but NECESSARY!
Our science makes terrific demands on the imagination. It appears that scientific imagination requires mathematical view and then its experimental verification. Now, what is a mathematical view?
For example, from a mathematical view, there IS an electric field vector and magnetic field vector at every point in space. This concept is abstract – true, but in some sense the fields are real, because after we are all finished fiddling around with mathematical equations, we can still make the instruments detect electromagnetic signals.
The whole question of imagination is often misunderstood by people in other disciplines. They try to test our imagination in the following way. If someone asks me: “Here is a picture of some people in a situation. What do you imagine will happen next?” I would say “I can’t imagine (because I don’t have enough facts”. So, people think that I have a weak imagination. They overlook the fact that whatever we are allowed to imagine in science must be consistent with EVERYTHING else we know.
The electric and magnetic fields we talk about are not just some happy thoughts which we are free to make as we wish, but ideas which must be consistent with all the laws of Physics we know. We can’t allow ourselves to seriously imagine things, which are obviously in contradiction to the known laws of nature. One has to have the imagination to think of something that has never been seen before, never been heard before. But creating something new, has to be consistent with everything, which has been seen before, is extremely difficult and requires scientific imagination.”
So, tell me if this caught your imagination (poetic – if not scientific) too!
Sunday, August 15, 2010
A Fine Man Indeed
A funny thing happened in Sharath Sir's class this week. I think I'm one of two people sitting in that class who found it funny. It went like this- He was showing us these slides he'd made as an introduction to Atomic Physics. He chose to quote Feynman, who, in his Lectures said, famously, 'everything is made of atoms'. Sharath Sir repeated that, and then said, quite seriously, "I hope you all know who Feynman is. If you don't...get out of my class and don't come back..". I think the threat was quite real. But nevertheless, funny. You can't talk physics without bumping into Feynman.
My first encounter was a happy accident. I was in a book store, sometime in 8th standard when I came across 'Surely, you're joking Mr. Feynman'. And then my dad came around and told me I had to read it. This, from a doctor who hasn't "studied" physics since he was in Class 12. And yes, after reading it, I almost decided to hang around book stores, grab random people, and ask them to read it too! But I wasn't that insane(yet!).
What is it about Richard P. Feynman that brings out such reactions in us? To use a cliche, like him or hate him(Oh yes, there are those too), you just cannot ignore him. I thought about this for a long time. It is finally becoming clear to me. Feynman, to me, represented what I wasn't, but wished I could be. A free thinker, a free learner, and a free liver(as in life, not the organ, just clarifying).
Much has been said about his 'zest for life', his 'unique style of teaching physics', etc etc that I don't think I'll be able to say anything that hasn't been said before. Feynman for me, personally, embodies the complete man(not Raymond, whoever that is). Aristotle(see footnote) said "The whole is greater than the sum of the parts", and Feynman, you see, is greater than the infinitely many tales about him. He was one of the most outstanding physicists of the 20th century. Leonard Mlodinow says, in Feynman's Rainbow, "..there indeed was no problem in the world of physics into which he couldn't provide the greatest insight..". But he was equally well-known later, for his fun-loving nature, his various eccentricities and the like, having completely smashed away the notion of a scientist being a boring creature that can be found in labs, working on experiments with fuming liquids, or buried neck-deep in huge books, and the only thing more boring than the work was the person doing it. Feynman made science relevant. He made it fun! I actually have much more to say on this matter but will take mercy on the hapless readers(if any), and edge nearer towards an ending. But not just yet.
Feynman probably wasn't born that way, but everything that went on inside his head, and outside, made him who he turned out to be. He didn't have any grand plans for himself, and he certainly never had any grand plans for humanity. He touched millions of lives without even knowing it, by simply having the courage to be himself. Everything else that followed was a consequence of that. And that is the biggest lesson I learned from him. I try everyday to be a little more like Feynman. I try everyday to be a little more like me.
Harshini
P.S. This is the aforementioned footnote. I googled the quote to see who had said it first and found that it was Aristotle. Alongside that, I saw this, and found it interesting: Kurt Koffka: "It has been said: The whole is more than the sum of its parts. It is more correct to say that the whole is something else than the sum of its parts, because summing up is a meaningless procedure, whereas the whole-part relationship is meaningful." (Kurt Koffka, 1935: New York: Harcourt-Brace. p 176). Incidentally, Aristotle meant the same thing too. Whoever interpreted it otherwise, goofed up.
My first encounter was a happy accident. I was in a book store, sometime in 8th standard when I came across 'Surely, you're joking Mr. Feynman'. And then my dad came around and told me I had to read it. This, from a doctor who hasn't "studied" physics since he was in Class 12. And yes, after reading it, I almost decided to hang around book stores, grab random people, and ask them to read it too! But I wasn't that insane(yet!).
What is it about Richard P. Feynman that brings out such reactions in us? To use a cliche, like him or hate him(Oh yes, there are those too), you just cannot ignore him. I thought about this for a long time. It is finally becoming clear to me. Feynman, to me, represented what I wasn't, but wished I could be. A free thinker, a free learner, and a free liver(as in life, not the organ, just clarifying).
Much has been said about his 'zest for life', his 'unique style of teaching physics', etc etc that I don't think I'll be able to say anything that hasn't been said before. Feynman for me, personally, embodies the complete man(not Raymond, whoever that is). Aristotle(see footnote) said "The whole is greater than the sum of the parts", and Feynman, you see, is greater than the infinitely many tales about him. He was one of the most outstanding physicists of the 20th century. Leonard Mlodinow says, in Feynman's Rainbow, "..there indeed was no problem in the world of physics into which he couldn't provide the greatest insight..". But he was equally well-known later, for his fun-loving nature, his various eccentricities and the like, having completely smashed away the notion of a scientist being a boring creature that can be found in labs, working on experiments with fuming liquids, or buried neck-deep in huge books, and the only thing more boring than the work was the person doing it. Feynman made science relevant. He made it fun! I actually have much more to say on this matter but will take mercy on the hapless readers(if any), and edge nearer towards an ending. But not just yet.
Feynman probably wasn't born that way, but everything that went on inside his head, and outside, made him who he turned out to be. He didn't have any grand plans for himself, and he certainly never had any grand plans for humanity. He touched millions of lives without even knowing it, by simply having the courage to be himself. Everything else that followed was a consequence of that. And that is the biggest lesson I learned from him. I try everyday to be a little more like Feynman. I try everyday to be a little more like me.
Harshini
P.S. This is the aforementioned footnote. I googled the quote to see who had said it first and found that it was Aristotle. Alongside that, I saw this, and found it interesting: Kurt Koffka: "It has been said: The whole is more than the sum of its parts. It is more correct to say that the whole is something else than the sum of its parts, because summing up is a meaningless procedure, whereas the whole-part relationship is meaningful." (Kurt Koffka, 1935: New York: Harcourt-Brace. p 176). Incidentally, Aristotle meant the same thing too. Whoever interpreted it otherwise, goofed up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)