7 ms·

Maybe some mention of quantum information science / cosmology / biophysics. But it is probably ok to not include these things in an intro sequence. I am saying

Maybe some mention of quantum information science / cosmology / biophysics. But it is probably ok to not include these things in an intro sequence. I am saying this as someone that used these lectures to prepare for the physics Olympiad, then went on to a PhD in Physics, and is now a professor. I think tomes 1 and 2 are still awesome ways to study the given topics. I do not feel as strongly about tome 3, but I still do like it.

p-e-w 3y ago
This kind of demonstrates that at the fundamental level, physics has been stagnating for quite a while, no? Imagine, during the time the Feynman Lectures were created, trying to study using 60-year-old material. Utterly unthinkable. You wouldn't even know about neutrons. In fact, you would barely be able to understand what an atom is. You would be completely ignorant of quantum mechanics. Relativity would be cutting edge, with many important models not yet known. But today, despite immense research effort over decades, using some of the most expensive equipment ever built, there isn't much fundamentally new to add to the Lectures, except a few more particles and a couple new quantum phenomena.
- sn9 3y ago
  Has math not changed because freshman calculus hasn't changed in the same amount of time? Judging a field by what's taught to freshman is a poor metric for progress on the frontier.
- tornato7 3y ago
  You could say the same for many fields, even computer science: a textbook from the 1960s would cover data structures, compilers, filesystems, common algorithms and numerical methods, boolean algebra, etc. - not too different from what one would learn today. Scientists generally explore the biggest, most fundamental questions first, which ends up being foundational knowledge for students generations later. Most of the modern advances in physics have been past the undergraduate level.
  - p-e-w 3y ago
    Physics is centuries old though. Computer science is not. That physics changed so dramatically in the first half of the 20th century is certainly surprising, considering that the field already had a long history behind it.
    - mr_mitm 3y ago
      Precisely because physics is centuries old, you'd expect that the things we teach beginners are settled. We teach them even though we know they're wrong, but there is pedagogical value in teaching it this way. I doubt we'll be teaching quantum gravity to freshmen in 100 years (assuming we'll have it solved by then), they'll still learn classical mechanics first.
- adrianN 3y ago
  Newtonian mechanics is still sufficient for almost all the engineering needs we have today.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - hilbert42 3y ago
    What about electrical/EM, electronics, semiconductor and chemical engineering, SR and QM enter those fields?
    - krastanov 3y ago
      The EM and thermodynamics from 1899 is enough for most of these fields' day-to-day work. Even transistors which are inherently-quantum-mechanical need zero quantum mechanics for their application. You do need quantum mechanics to discover the transistors though. However, there were pedagogical discoveries since then. We have better mathematical notation / conventions / naming for some of these topics that makes them easier to teach today.
- adastra22 3y ago
  The lectures predate the standard model, so your assessment is incorrect. Fundamental physics has advised in the mean time. But should you expect advances in physics to affect an introductory physics resource? It's not like people learning general physics are exposed to quantum field theory in any case.
  - archgoon 3y ago
    [dead]
- mhh__ 3y ago
  There is a lot of material the lectures do not go anywhere near, they're for first years in modern terms at least.
- hulitu 3y ago
  > This kind of demonstrates that at the fundamental level, physics has been stagnating for quite a while, no? Yes just like computers. Since 70 years they still fetch instructions and execute them, no improvement in this field. /s
- lordnacho 3y ago
  That's good, isn't it? It means we've discovered the actual fundamentals of several areas. People still need to know how forces work, thermodynamics, that kind of thing. New areas build on those areas so we don't expect them in a course about the fundamentals. It would be concerning if every 20 years the lessons got completely turned upside down.
  - laratied 3y ago
    Exactly. No one complains about the lack of breakthroughs in geography.
    - mutant_glofish 3y ago
      Well, people complain about the unmapped areas of the ocean floor (the vast majority of it) all the time. [1] [1]: https://www.earthdate.org/episodes/our-unmapped-ocean https://www.earthdate.org/episodes/our-unmapped-ocean
  - mutant_glofish 3y ago
    > It means we've discovered the actual fundamentals of several areas. But there is some evidence that this is not the case. For example, quantum field theory and general relativity are not quite compatible. [1][2] The mechanism for charge formation in triboelectric effect (when you rub things together) isn't well-understood. [3][4] Turbulence still cannot be analyzed satisfactorily. [5] This last one is even mentioned in the Feynman Lectures [6]. Also, generally, I think we should be very skeptical of the claim that we live at the pinnacle of human achievement and the end of the history. It seems quite arrogant to me, and it's against the spirit of the Copernican principle. [1] https://www.npl.washington.edu/av/altvw204.html https://www.npl.washington.edu/av/altvw204.html (Renormalization: Dodging Infinities) [2]: https://arxiv.org/abs/1009.2157 https://arxiv.org/abs/1009.2157 (The Problem of Time in Quantum Gravity) [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Triboelectric_effect&oldid=1154952662 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Triboelectric_eff... [4]: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40820-020-0373-y https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40820-020-0373-y [5] https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/10/turbulence-the-oldest-unsolved-problem-in-physics/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/10/turbulence-the-oldes... [6]: "Finally, there is a physical problem that is common to many fields, that is very old, and that has not been solved. It is not the problem of finding new fundamental particles, but something left over from a long time ago—over a hundred years. Nobody in physics has really been able to analyze it mathematically satisfactorily in spite of its importance to the sister sciences. It is the analysis of circulating or turbulent fluids." (https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_03.html https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_03.html)
- dmbche 3y ago
  The rate of discovery in physics is pretty slow over the years - since it's a pretty old science (I'm being very broad) I think we have a skewed view of physics research because many discoveries were simply done by sharing between fields and generally global instantaneous communication/universal access to information - before we had the phone or the internet, good luck learning about as many things as you could in the 60's - or today! The last century was kind of science on steroids, since for the first time in history everyone could connect many others ideas - everyone suddenly was standing on the shoulders of all the giants the wanted. But at some point, we'll have went through everything there is to see up there, and we'll need to go down, and look for new heights. It's entirely possible that we've ran through the " low hanging fruit" of physics discoveries, as there are virtually no barriers between individuals and information since a good two decade I'd say, and sharing globally for about 100 years. Maybe sharing and learning from one another is not fertile anymore, and we need to support smaller quirkier experiments and fundamental research to discover more tidbits to connect and make new discoveries.
hilbert42 3y ago
"I do not feel as strongly about tome 3, but I still do like it." Is that because QM has moved on or is it now viewed from a somewhat different perspective and thus taught in slightly different ways?
- krastanov 3y ago
  I personally just did not use it as much, so I am not comfortable offering a review.
  - hilbert42 3y ago
    Thanks, that's as good a reason as any.
- Koshkin 3y ago
  Actually, the treatment of QM there is still quite modern, if more “physical” compared, say, to Susskind’s recent book.
lr1970 3y ago
> Maybe some mention of quantum information science ... Not quite "quantum information science" per se, but Feynman's "Lectures on Computation" (1996) provides fascinating insights into information theory as well as quantum physics in micro-chips. Again, as it is always the case with Richard Feynman, you will find lots of interesting non-trivial ideas in his books whether you are novice or expert.

p-e-w 3y ago

This kind of demonstrates that at the fundamental level, physics has been stagnating for quite a while, no? Imagine, during the time the Feynman Lectures were created, trying to study using 60-year-old material. Utterly unthinkable. You wouldn't even know about neutrons. In fact, you would barely be able to understand what an atom is. You would be completely ignorant of quantum mechanics. Relativity would be cutting edge, with many important models not yet known. But today, despite immense research effort over decades, using some of the most expensive equipment ever built, there isn't much fundamentally new to add to the Lectures, except a few more particles and a couple new quantum phenomena.

sn9 3y ago
Has math not changed because freshman calculus hasn't changed in the same amount of time? Judging a field by what's taught to freshman is a poor metric for progress on the frontier.
tornato7 3y ago
You could say the same for many fields, even computer science: a textbook from the 1960s would cover data structures, compilers, filesystems, common algorithms and numerical methods, boolean algebra, etc. - not too different from what one would learn today. Scientists generally explore the biggest, most fundamental questions first, which ends up being foundational knowledge for students generations later. Most of the modern advances in physics have been past the undergraduate level.
- p-e-w 3y ago
  Physics is centuries old though. Computer science is not. That physics changed so dramatically in the first half of the 20th century is certainly surprising, considering that the field already had a long history behind it.
  - mr_mitm 3y ago
    Precisely because physics is centuries old, you'd expect that the things we teach beginners are settled. We teach them even though we know they're wrong, but there is pedagogical value in teaching it this way. I doubt we'll be teaching quantum gravity to freshmen in 100 years (assuming we'll have it solved by then), they'll still learn classical mechanics first.
adrianN 3y ago
Newtonian mechanics is still sufficient for almost all the engineering needs we have today.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- hilbert42 3y ago
  What about electrical/EM, electronics, semiconductor and chemical engineering, SR and QM enter those fields?
  - krastanov 3y ago
    The EM and thermodynamics from 1899 is enough for most of these fields' day-to-day work. Even transistors which are inherently-quantum-mechanical need zero quantum mechanics for their application. You do need quantum mechanics to discover the transistors though. However, there were pedagogical discoveries since then. We have better mathematical notation / conventions / naming for some of these topics that makes them easier to teach today.
adastra22 3y ago
The lectures predate the standard model, so your assessment is incorrect. Fundamental physics has advised in the mean time. But should you expect advances in physics to affect an introductory physics resource? It's not like people learning general physics are exposed to quantum field theory in any case.
- archgoon 3y ago
  [dead]
mhh__ 3y ago
There is a lot of material the lectures do not go anywhere near, they're for first years in modern terms at least.
hulitu 3y ago
> This kind of demonstrates that at the fundamental level, physics has been stagnating for quite a while, no? Yes just like computers. Since 70 years they still fetch instructions and execute them, no improvement in this field. /s
lordnacho 3y ago
That's good, isn't it? It means we've discovered the actual fundamentals of several areas. People still need to know how forces work, thermodynamics, that kind of thing. New areas build on those areas so we don't expect them in a course about the fundamentals. It would be concerning if every 20 years the lessons got completely turned upside down.
- laratied 3y ago
  Exactly. No one complains about the lack of breakthroughs in geography.
  - mutant_glofish 3y ago
    Well, people complain about the unmapped areas of the ocean floor (the vast majority of it) all the time. [1] [1]: https://www.earthdate.org/episodes/our-unmapped-ocean https://www.earthdate.org/episodes/our-unmapped-ocean
- mutant_glofish 3y ago
  > It means we've discovered the actual fundamentals of several areas. But there is some evidence that this is not the case. For example, quantum field theory and general relativity are not quite compatible. [1][2] The mechanism for charge formation in triboelectric effect (when you rub things together) isn't well-understood. [3][4] Turbulence still cannot be analyzed satisfactorily. [5] This last one is even mentioned in the Feynman Lectures [6]. Also, generally, I think we should be very skeptical of the claim that we live at the pinnacle of human achievement and the end of the history. It seems quite arrogant to me, and it's against the spirit of the Copernican principle. [1] https://www.npl.washington.edu/av/altvw204.html https://www.npl.washington.edu/av/altvw204.html (Renormalization: Dodging Infinities) [2]: https://arxiv.org/abs/1009.2157 https://arxiv.org/abs/1009.2157 (The Problem of Time in Quantum Gravity) [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Triboelectric_effect&oldid=1154952662 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Triboelectric_eff... [4]: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40820-020-0373-y https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40820-020-0373-y [5] https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/10/turbulence-the-oldest-unsolved-problem-in-physics/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/10/turbulence-the-oldes... [6]: "Finally, there is a physical problem that is common to many fields, that is very old, and that has not been solved. It is not the problem of finding new fundamental particles, but something left over from a long time ago—over a hundred years. Nobody in physics has really been able to analyze it mathematically satisfactorily in spite of its importance to the sister sciences. It is the analysis of circulating or turbulent fluids." (https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_03.html https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_03.html)
dmbche 3y ago
The rate of discovery in physics is pretty slow over the years - since it's a pretty old science (I'm being very broad) I think we have a skewed view of physics research because many discoveries were simply done by sharing between fields and generally global instantaneous communication/universal access to information - before we had the phone or the internet, good luck learning about as many things as you could in the 60's - or today! The last century was kind of science on steroids, since for the first time in history everyone could connect many others ideas - everyone suddenly was standing on the shoulders of all the giants the wanted. But at some point, we'll have went through everything there is to see up there, and we'll need to go down, and look for new heights. It's entirely possible that we've ran through the " low hanging fruit" of physics discoveries, as there are virtually no barriers between individuals and information since a good two decade I'd say, and sharing globally for about 100 years. Maybe sharing and learning from one another is not fertile anymore, and we need to support smaller quirkier experiments and fundamental research to discover more tidbits to connect and make new discoveries.

hilbert42 3y ago

"I do not feel as strongly about tome 3, but I still do like it." Is that because QM has moved on or is it now viewed from a somewhat different perspective and thus taught in slightly different ways?

krastanov 3y ago
I personally just did not use it as much, so I am not comfortable offering a review.
- hilbert42 3y ago
  Thanks, that's as good a reason as any.
Koshkin 3y ago
Actually, the treatment of QM there is still quite modern, if more “physical” compared, say, to Susskind’s recent book.

lr1970 3y ago

> Maybe some mention of quantum information science ... Not quite "quantum information science" per se, but Feynman's "Lectures on Computation" (1996) provides fascinating insights into information theory as well as quantum physics in micro-chips. Again, as it is always the case with Richard Feynman, you will find lots of interesting non-trivial ideas in his books whether you are novice or expert.