The reason I wanted to read "Surely, you're joking Mr. Feynman", was due to the praise it received in the hands of a couple of trustworthy fellow readers, who have an inclination to pick some of the best non-fiction books. Then, when I found out that there was an audio book copy of the same, I was doubly interested, since that would prevent me from postponing reading this to a suitable time slot - maybe years from now. Yet, I did have to refer the kindle copy, since some of the more elaborate details of his experiments - still over my head admittedly - painted a better, albeit still vague, picture upon repeated readings.
The book starts at a stage when Richard Feynman was quite young; i.e. his pre-MIT days, on how his inquisitive mind made him try to understand how radios work. At one point he says that he was more interested in twiddling with the equipment in his home lab, over playing outside. His natural inclination to question everything, and trying to understand his surrounding in the simplest possible terms, appears to have served him very well in his more productive years. However I found his sentiments towards the use of (dy/dx) and f(x), a little difficult to concur - but I do grant, it hints of my age old acceptance of methods without questioning, against the fresh thinking of an ingenious young Feynman.
His keenness for efficiency as well as playing tricks against the tendency for conventional thinking is portrayed in the string bean incident and the missing door incident. His experiences and anecdotes of these era in particular suggest that he had great confidence of his abilities as well as a good awareness of his short comings (i.e. sports ). Am not sure if he received any encouraging to continue to do what he did best, or at least no hindrance to do as he wished. His sense of humour could've even been deemed annoying, in hindsight I reckon - e.g. the tipping the waitress incident.
Then comes the Princeton years, and how it could be compared to the University cultures of Oxbridge. A little issue I had, which I think is a necessary part given the nature of the book is that sometimes the details of an experiment setup etc., are hard to imagine through the mere descriptions in words.
His experimentation with hypnosis, that is him being a subject to hypnosis is an interesting anecdote. The fact that he knew that was being manipulated, and how he cannot stop being manipulated while even identifying that he should not oblige to the hypnotist, I found to be an interesting state.
How most people don't ask the most fundamental questions is a matter that crops up across the book - it could be the philosophers, the biologists or the physics students in Brazil - but it is quite apparent that for an inquisitive mind who wants to reach anywhere in his or her field, the lack of hesitancy to ask questions is possibly the most important of practices. Feynman admits, that some may think of him as relatively slow, when they first deal with him, but half way through, Feynman is usually in a better position to point out even the weaknesses of the others' premise. This is due to him having build up a solid base of understanding usually through the fundamental questions that others may have thought too trivial, or avoid, reluctant to show themselves as stupid, at first. Further the simplicity with which he, albeit with confidence, then a relative junior, held himself even when presenting an experiment to such giants as Einstein, Pauli and von Nuemann, is indicative of a quality that possibly contributed to his success. While fully aware of his abilities, the fact that he never took himself too seriously hints of the open mind that he always had towards everything about him, and life in general.
Speaking of his work during the time of the war, Feynman admits how the lieutenant from whom they tried to keep details of their work, revealed something that they have missed in the design. It is the experience of the domain that was needed there, and not the pure scientific knowledge.
One of the most important contributions of Feynman no doubt, was his work for the Manhattan project in the Los Alamos National lab, during world war II. Although there is the slightest semblance of regret for his contribution towards creating the nuclear bomb, he is quick to brush it off saying that it has brought in a status quo, of halted aggression, ( which I guess later developed to the cold war ). His work there as a theoretical physicist coincided with the latter stages of his first wife's confinement at a hospital with TB. I checked to see when the cure for TB was first tested on a human, and it was in 1949, half a decade or so too late for the late Mrs.Arlene Feynman, unfortunately. Arlene was his high school sweet heart, whom he married with the full knowledge of her fatal illness. Although this detail is not captured here, it is publicly available and shows another side of Feynman. She comes to be featured in these pages mainly due to censorship of letters that was active during the time. On the subject of "the bomb", it was disturbing to note they hadn't paid the necessary precaution that would've been essential for the separation of U235 and U238 at the facility which was to be used for the bomb. In fact Feynman hints that the people at Oakbridge wasn't even aware what exactly they were dealing with.
Feynman seems to have had a certain prejudice against psychiatrists, almost inferring a certain degree of stereotype, with regards to them. Of course he has had some bad experience with them, at the time of the draft.
After his experience in Los Alamos, Feynmann spent some time teaching in Cornell, and in the next section he shares some experience from this period, some of it amusing and others juicy. His first stint in Brazil was during this time too. However along side his relatively liberal life style of these times, it was here he did the fundamental work for which he received his Nobel award, later.
The last section of this book is titled "The World of Physicist". In this section, there are revealing sections about the depth of the Japanese culture - their modesty and the full extent of the use of their language with this trait, their hospitality etc. It was during his visit to a conference of Theoretical Physicists in Japan, and Feynman was to present his theory on liquid Helium. Round about here the topics that are presented albeit superficially ( how else could one talk about Beta decay etc. to us laymen ?), becomes challenging as it nears the time for his seminal work for which he received the Nobel award. However there are some lighter chapters as well, such as the one on him trying hand at drawing.
A chapter that I found quite interesting was Feynman's take on religion. He was from a Jewish background, and he speaks of an experience he had, while attending a conference on "The Ethics of Equality", where among the participants were a Jesuit priest harping on "The Fragmentation of Knowledge" (compared to the 13th century ), and a set of Rabbis looking to science give more validity for age old practices as mentioned in the Talmud. This chapter was refreshing as we too have a section who speak of a concrete knowledge as against more abstract sciences, which we claim is from a Jewish-Christian epistemology. Despite the argument that the Jewish culture promotes abstract thinking, it cannot be refused that with the expansion of knowledge, it's fragmentation was only a question of time, as it grew in depth under each of the verticals. To return to religion, Feynman, shares the views of certain Rabbis with respect to science, thus:
An event that we in Sri Lanka can relate to, is Feynman's experience in The State Curriculum Commission for the Board of Education, where some text books were being literally judged by their covers. It mayn't be for State Curriculum yet here ( hopefully - I could be wrong here ), but most definitely for Literature awards in our case. The canvassing by the publishers is a point to note.
The essay titled "Alfred Nobel's other mistake" talks about his experience with regards to his receiving of the Nobel award, and the problems of popularity and media it brought with it.
The concluding chapter of the book is on pseudo science and how scientists should be genuine and not cut corners especially towards laymen.
All in all, this book is a healthy combination of essays, biographical broadly, but one which helps us celebrate the life of a great man, a polymath, but also someone who didn't shy away from controversy. For example some of the takes he shares about females here would be criticised to the high heavens, in today's more politically sensitive landscape. My point of view is if it really did happen as he says it did, then recording it as it did happen is not something to shy away from - for this is a book by a scientist, who had explored many aspects of life. I digress here [ There was an article shared a couple of days back about how Bollywood cinema was being misogynist. It was an essay on a website which represents feminism, broadly. While some of our local academics too shared it ( they may or mayn't accept the view point ), I was thinking that till such time the portrayal was not a convolution or a distortion of real life to an unacceptable level, aren't we trying to artificially straight jacket art in the name of political righteousness by denying it? And to think that the same academics, elsewhere uphold larger distortions ( also on political themes) on cinema, literature etc. in the name art, and abstract representation of art ? ]
To come back to the book, please do read this, to see how great minds think, their genuineness in all circumstances, and maybe a little percentage of it can be applied to our lives too, however different our lot is. As far as biographies go, this must be one of the best page turners.
The book starts at a stage when Richard Feynman was quite young; i.e. his pre-MIT days, on how his inquisitive mind made him try to understand how radios work. At one point he says that he was more interested in twiddling with the equipment in his home lab, over playing outside. His natural inclination to question everything, and trying to understand his surrounding in the simplest possible terms, appears to have served him very well in his more productive years. However I found his sentiments towards the use of (dy/dx) and f(x), a little difficult to concur - but I do grant, it hints of my age old acceptance of methods without questioning, against the fresh thinking of an ingenious young Feynman.
His keenness for efficiency as well as playing tricks against the tendency for conventional thinking is portrayed in the string bean incident and the missing door incident. His experiences and anecdotes of these era in particular suggest that he had great confidence of his abilities as well as a good awareness of his short comings (i.e. sports ). Am not sure if he received any encouraging to continue to do what he did best, or at least no hindrance to do as he wished. His sense of humour could've even been deemed annoying, in hindsight I reckon - e.g. the tipping the waitress incident.
Then comes the Princeton years, and how it could be compared to the University cultures of Oxbridge. A little issue I had, which I think is a necessary part given the nature of the book is that sometimes the details of an experiment setup etc., are hard to imagine through the mere descriptions in words.
His experimentation with hypnosis, that is him being a subject to hypnosis is an interesting anecdote. The fact that he knew that was being manipulated, and how he cannot stop being manipulated while even identifying that he should not oblige to the hypnotist, I found to be an interesting state.
How most people don't ask the most fundamental questions is a matter that crops up across the book - it could be the philosophers, the biologists or the physics students in Brazil - but it is quite apparent that for an inquisitive mind who wants to reach anywhere in his or her field, the lack of hesitancy to ask questions is possibly the most important of practices. Feynman admits, that some may think of him as relatively slow, when they first deal with him, but half way through, Feynman is usually in a better position to point out even the weaknesses of the others' premise. This is due to him having build up a solid base of understanding usually through the fundamental questions that others may have thought too trivial, or avoid, reluctant to show themselves as stupid, at first. Further the simplicity with which he, albeit with confidence, then a relative junior, held himself even when presenting an experiment to such giants as Einstein, Pauli and von Nuemann, is indicative of a quality that possibly contributed to his success. While fully aware of his abilities, the fact that he never took himself too seriously hints of the open mind that he always had towards everything about him, and life in general.Speaking of his work during the time of the war, Feynman admits how the lieutenant from whom they tried to keep details of their work, revealed something that they have missed in the design. It is the experience of the domain that was needed there, and not the pure scientific knowledge.
One of the most important contributions of Feynman no doubt, was his work for the Manhattan project in the Los Alamos National lab, during world war II. Although there is the slightest semblance of regret for his contribution towards creating the nuclear bomb, he is quick to brush it off saying that it has brought in a status quo, of halted aggression, ( which I guess later developed to the cold war ). His work there as a theoretical physicist coincided with the latter stages of his first wife's confinement at a hospital with TB. I checked to see when the cure for TB was first tested on a human, and it was in 1949, half a decade or so too late for the late Mrs.Arlene Feynman, unfortunately. Arlene was his high school sweet heart, whom he married with the full knowledge of her fatal illness. Although this detail is not captured here, it is publicly available and shows another side of Feynman. She comes to be featured in these pages mainly due to censorship of letters that was active during the time. On the subject of "the bomb", it was disturbing to note they hadn't paid the necessary precaution that would've been essential for the separation of U235 and U238 at the facility which was to be used for the bomb. In fact Feynman hints that the people at Oakbridge wasn't even aware what exactly they were dealing with.
The people in Oak Ridge didn’t know anything about what it was to he used for; they just knew what they were trying to do. I mean the higher people knew they were separating uranium, but they didn’t know how powerful the bomb was, or exactly how it worked or anything. The people underneath didn’t know at all what they were doing. And the army wanted to keep it that way.During this time Feynman worked with such greats as Bohr and von Neumann. He attributes the following to von Neumann.
Richard P. Feynman. "Surely You're Joking, Mr Feynman!": Adventures of a Curious Character (Kindle Locations 1745-1747).
It is taken that Feynman was the only person to have witnessed the explosion of the bomb they made, given he was watching it through glass, whereas all others were looking at it through dark glasses - at an explosion 20 miles away.
von Neumann gave me an interesting idea: that you don’t have to be responsible for the world that you’re in. So I have developed a very powerful sense of social irresponsibility as a result of von Neumann’s advice. It’s made me a very happy man ever since. But it was von Neumann who put the seed in that grew into my active irresponsibility!
Richard P. Feynman. "Surely You're Joking, Mr Feynman!": Adventures of a Curious Character (Kindle Locations 1954-1957).
Feynman seems to have had a certain prejudice against psychiatrists, almost inferring a certain degree of stereotype, with regards to them. Of course he has had some bad experience with them, at the time of the draft.
After his experience in Los Alamos, Feynmann spent some time teaching in Cornell, and in the next section he shares some experience from this period, some of it amusing and others juicy. His first stint in Brazil was during this time too. However along side his relatively liberal life style of these times, it was here he did the fundamental work for which he received his Nobel award, later.
The last section of this book is titled "The World of Physicist". In this section, there are revealing sections about the depth of the Japanese culture - their modesty and the full extent of the use of their language with this trait, their hospitality etc. It was during his visit to a conference of Theoretical Physicists in Japan, and Feynman was to present his theory on liquid Helium. Round about here the topics that are presented albeit superficially ( how else could one talk about Beta decay etc. to us laymen ?), becomes challenging as it nears the time for his seminal work for which he received the Nobel award. However there are some lighter chapters as well, such as the one on him trying hand at drawing.
A chapter that I found quite interesting was Feynman's take on religion. He was from a Jewish background, and he speaks of an experience he had, while attending a conference on "The Ethics of Equality", where among the participants were a Jesuit priest harping on "The Fragmentation of Knowledge" (compared to the 13th century ), and a set of Rabbis looking to science give more validity for age old practices as mentioned in the Talmud. This chapter was refreshing as we too have a section who speak of a concrete knowledge as against more abstract sciences, which we claim is from a Jewish-Christian epistemology. Despite the argument that the Jewish culture promotes abstract thinking, it cannot be refused that with the expansion of knowledge, it's fragmentation was only a question of time, as it grew in depth under each of the verticals. To return to religion, Feynman, shares the views of certain Rabbis with respect to science, thus:
They weren’t interested in science at all! The only way science was influencing their lives was so they might be able to interpret better the Talmud! They weren’t interested in the world outside, in natural phenomena; they were only interested in resolving some question brought up in the Talmud.It is quite clear that this tendency of using science to interpret their own texts, and hence add credibility and importantly, longevity to their faiths is visible in almost all religions.
Richard P. Feynman. "Surely You're Joking, Mr Feynman!": Adventures of a Curious Character (Kindle Locations 4473-4475).
An event that we in Sri Lanka can relate to, is Feynman's experience in The State Curriculum Commission for the Board of Education, where some text books were being literally judged by their covers. It mayn't be for State Curriculum yet here ( hopefully - I could be wrong here ), but most definitely for Literature awards in our case. The canvassing by the publishers is a point to note.
The essay titled "Alfred Nobel's other mistake" talks about his experience with regards to his receiving of the Nobel award, and the problems of popularity and media it brought with it.
The concluding chapter of the book is on pseudo science and how scientists should be genuine and not cut corners especially towards laymen.
All in all, this book is a healthy combination of essays, biographical broadly, but one which helps us celebrate the life of a great man, a polymath, but also someone who didn't shy away from controversy. For example some of the takes he shares about females here would be criticised to the high heavens, in today's more politically sensitive landscape. My point of view is if it really did happen as he says it did, then recording it as it did happen is not something to shy away from - for this is a book by a scientist, who had explored many aspects of life. I digress here [ There was an article shared a couple of days back about how Bollywood cinema was being misogynist. It was an essay on a website which represents feminism, broadly. While some of our local academics too shared it ( they may or mayn't accept the view point ), I was thinking that till such time the portrayal was not a convolution or a distortion of real life to an unacceptable level, aren't we trying to artificially straight jacket art in the name of political righteousness by denying it? And to think that the same academics, elsewhere uphold larger distortions ( also on political themes) on cinema, literature etc. in the name art, and abstract representation of art ? ]
To come back to the book, please do read this, to see how great minds think, their genuineness in all circumstances, and maybe a little percentage of it can be applied to our lives too, however different our lot is. As far as biographies go, this must be one of the best page turners.
No comments:
Post a Comment