3 ms·
> He seems to have been in a grumpy gramps No -- he used the question to demonstrate the basic premises of physics -- that the "whys" can never end, as long as
by acqq 7y ago
> He seems to have been in a grumpy gramps
No -- he used the question to demonstrate the basic premises of physics -- that the "whys" can never end, as long as somebody is not "satisfied" with the answer, and that to even understand "how" needs some precondition to be useful in any way to the one who asked, and that otherwise it's just "cheating" or practically giving somebody false sense that he'll know something because the analogies popularly used are just wrong.
Like he said, the bigger marvel is that, that the same electromagnetic forces are what keeps us from falling through the floor. Or what keeps the apple hanging on the tree.
Or, only specific to the human uses, how the movement of water is transformed to supply remotely the electrical machines with the power.
But that's what nobody asks, because they don't "feel" it unusual. The magnets are just a small manifestation of the same forces that "feels" unusual to the people.
It's his answers to "philosophers" who earn the points asking "whys" which, from his point of view, are too wrong to ask, having a false context.
- foldr 7y agoEveryone understands that you can keep asking "why?". Four year old kids understand this. What the interviewer obviously wanted was an explanation of a particular physical phenomenon targeted at the level of someone without any background in physics. Everyone, Feynman included, has been in that position. It's quite wrong to suggest that physicists don't, or shouldn't, ask "why" questions. They do it all the time: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22why+does%22+physics&btnG= https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22w...
- acqq 7y ago> What the interviewer obviously wanted was an explanation of a particular physical phenomenon targeted at the level of someone without any background in physics. How do you know that? I would claim that it's what you expected and even if you received that (as quoted before!) you double down on showing the dissatisfaction in what preceded that explanation, namely, Feynman explaining that the "satisfaction" impression of every answer depends on the already existing knowledge of the person who asks. But the answer was completely honest: there aren't any intuitions about electromagnetic fields present in someone "without any background in physics" which would allow the decent (non-cheating) answer.