Misspoke unfortunately, but it isn't minor.

The important insight into Feynman's character is that he loved her so much that he knowingly married a woman with a highly contagious respiratory disease which was fatal at the time. He put love above risk.

That letter broke my heart. You dead are so much better than anyone else alive...

Surely you're joking, right?

@@eshaanmandal5150 I hope he is...because it sounds really disappointing that 2 out of 100 people IN A PHYSICS CLASS know about Feynman...this shows that they went to study physics not by desire but by force...

Lol if Feynman isn't well known among physics students, I can't imagine who is!

@@aditimuthkhod1252 Figure it out, Einstein!

That’s so random, I live a mile away from OU lol

really someone who takes the inspiration to heart

I was wondering why "Mr. Sanderson" sounded malicious cool and badass, then I realised it rhymes with "Misterr Aaandersonnn"

He's aware he is a great teacher and he is intelligent but all of us also knows that and that is humbling enough.

@@omniyambot9876 u r the og boy

@@omniyambot9876 this guy is on the same step

Yes Tuberculosis.

That's not a minor correction - Doctors figured out how to cure TB about the same time she was dying of it but the cure didn't become available until several years later.

@@markcarey67 That is in fact a minor correction, what he is trying to correct is the affirmation "Feynman's first wife had polio", by saying that he is pretty sure that it was tuberculosis, not polio.

@@markcarey67 people still die of tuberculosis but just not written as such (say bacterial pneumonia)

*had covid

This guy .. really ... You don't know him ... Ok now you know him

😂😂

undoubtedly both are awesome ❤️❤️❤️

lol I doubt it

And still rocking it. 💙💙

So what you're saying is, he was more of a QED guy than a QED guy

@@higgsbosonberg4316 exactly

Which Feynman are you talking about.

Mercury disagrees

Good one! However, I wonder if it is still elliptical, just precesses?

Given Einstein's general relativity, is any planetary orbit an ellipse, or only a very close approximation?

@@BulentBasaran No need to summon general relativity for it to be an approximation... it's just a simplified model anyways.

@@losboston That's a contradiction in terms. But honestly, all orbits precess to some degree due to perturbations from other planets so it's kinda silly to treat mercury as the one exception.

Feynman actively cultivated that as part of his reputation. Wolfram talks about how he would work on a problem doing calculations all night and then once he got the answer he would work even harder to figure out the insightful approach by working backwards. Then he would give the impression that the insightful path in was the only way it ever made sense to him. While Wolfram appreciated it as entertainment, Gell-Mann spoke about it as annoying, and the showmanship was the main reason they never got along.

If memory served me right, he was placed first in Putnam Math Competition, which is notoriously difficult and the median score is almost always zero.

dont sht urself bruh

Yeah. When he and his adviser Wheeler released a paper with deep math in it, at least some of the physicists who read it thought Feynman did the math as they thought Wheeler couldn't do that deep math.

I saw him as a physics guy before I started my maths undergrad

@@Anonymous-wp7lm lol

Who?

@@The_Quaalude literally the person speaking in this clip. If the name is unknown to you, you might know him as 3Blue1Brown, although the voice is easily recognisable. He's a great math educator on KZfaq.

@@maleldil1 who's the other guy?

"In today's video, I want to show you something really cool in .", Grant Sanderson (3blue1brown).

This is a common exercise in first year problem sets.

@@appa609 ... now! This shows that 'common' differs from 'valueless' ;-)

HarDiMonPetit I agree it's cool. Just pointing out it's not that difficult.

@@appa609 its not that difficult at this point of time but isn't necessarily previously

@@appa609 integral calculus is not that difficult either but imagine being someone who made strides in it?

because it has nothing to do with the topic and isn't relevant

And why isn’t anyone talking about his wedding ring?!!

I knew this comment was going to be there somewhere!

Pause

@@kingplunger6033 lmao

I’ve encountered this problem in Engineering, but I think by no means it is slowing you down. I tried to imagine what the “learning curve” of someone who always tries to self-discover would look like. And it seemed to me like it resembles an exponential function of time, while a “reader” learns gradually, like a straight line with some slope to it, usually related to the time invested and the amount of info. Then it becomes obvious that the feeling of being “slowed down” by thinking things through is just a matter of the beginning, cause once your learning curves cross, they will never touch again. And I think Feynman figured it out, and he trusted the process to become who he is

I think it slows you down in the short term, but it offers better understanding in the long term

maybe start early and have that sense of self-awareness early would help and have a focus

Topped Putnam by a long margin btw

First I hear of it too. The guy was one of the most gifted calculators this world has ever seen, and that's how he's known to physicists.

Wow. That’s awesome. What was the topic of your dissertation?

@Shah Bhuiyan wow, take a chill pill bruh, I was just kidding, I love skateboarding and ping pong

@Shah Bhuiyan you are the edgy one here, just assuming that hes trying to be the superior guy

@Shah Bhuiyan why are you not answering huh? Dude was just joking and you attacked him clearly because you are an inferior human being that wants to elevate oneself by belittling others.

It seems to be fashionable for physicists to be arrogantly anti-philosophy, in their physics-beats-everything way. Which is stupid since there are important questions which are not scientifically answerable, which nevertheless can't easily be waved away. You need some kind of philosophy to get yourself out of bed in the morning.

@@anthonyflack5826 not really, I think it's down to a misconception about philosophy. I assumed that philosophy degrees were about keeping your mind open, exploring all sorts of schools of thoughts, and then debating (?) or comparing them. Maybe they are, I'm not sure and I haven't checked. But I think most people believe this is what a philosophy degree, or real philosophy, entails. What I would do when I was young instead was only pick out the schools of thought interesting to me, or ones that furthered my world view. And it seems that's also what most people do too (just a guess). I don't think philosophy is about picking and choosing, it's a lot harder than that. And people who study philosophy for philosophy's sake are very different from people who pick and choose a school of thought/write down their own way of seeing the world. That's what I assume lots of people claim they hate or dislike it. They don't dislike philosophizing to support their view of the world or challenge it in a direction it was already sort of swaying to, they hate actual philosophy because the act of philosophy for philosophy's sake doesn't interest them, and looking at schools of thought you weren't already interested in, or don't reflect your personality, feels boring to them.

@@anthonyflack5826 The issue is twofold: 1. Those questions for which science has no answer are either boring or out of scope (e.g. is this beautiful etc) 2. The questions which science can't answer, philosophy can't answer either. Physicists have a strong bias in that we have seen everything "intuitively obvious" or "rationally justifiable" crumble away before our very eyes by the realization that the world has no obligation to behave in a way that makes sense to us. It's perfectly natural and encouraged to be skeptical of an activity that by its very nature is unfettered from experimental verification. Would I go as far as some and decry philosophy as worthless? Not necessarily. It has been valuable in pointing the way to questions that can be useful to ask. But, and this is important, the ultimate goal of philosophy in this light is to melt away and disappear. To turn subjects that are the subject of philosophy into subjects of other fields that can actually be studied in a way that produces usable reliable knowledge. Natural philosophy stopped being natural philosophy and became physics, and that's a great success story for philosophy. Moral philosophy and ethics, on the other hand, remain philosophy even after thousands of years of intensive study and lack unambiguous answers to even the simplest problems. That's a great failure.

This is kind of misguided. He definitely clarified at some point in his life that he didn't like philosophy insofar as it was word games, or "rules about chmess." He clearly had no qualms about thinking deeply through things and was indeed an extremely philosophical person, as you say.

​@@isodoubIetTo say that the questions of "What is beauty?" one of the most profound and deeply human questions to ever be formulated is "boring" is perhaps the most embarassing thing someone could ever say. To say that the question that gripped Aristotle, Kant, Leibniz and others, all of them great scientists/mathematicians is boring is idiotic. You and all who think so are lowly to it! Philosophy can't answer what Science can't either? Science can't even prove its method to be adequate within its own system! What experiment will you devise to show that making experiments and analysing data is a way to procure the truth? You can't unless you appeal to circular reasoning. The scientific method is born out of philosophy and is only one way of getting to the truth next to many others.

Maybe that says more about you than about him..? ;)

@@PHMNABANEET_SHARMA maybe that says more about physics education in India than it does about him?

​@@somefuckstolemynick Feynman was a great physicist.

@@kugelblitz-zx9unand when have I claimed anything else?

@@somefuckstolemynick i said that bcuz maybe you wanted everyone who comments to say something about feynman.

It might not be optimal use of your time in general. Even Feynman and others like him will still read some things in the conventional way. The method described is just one often used tool for learning something well.

If you find anything about Feynman deplorable, my advice to you is to try to spend a smaller percentage of your life deploring things. Usually when you spend time hating other humans' flaws, you're making things worse, not better. I'm probably just picking on your choice of words here.

@@NanClaymore Isn't the opposite just as true? If you only ever look for the good you aren't looking at reality. SM makes that point that Feynman is human, like all of us.

@@NilsDougan you can recognize flaws without deploring. "Feynman is human, like all of us". Yes. And no, you don't need to deplore all of us.

Agreed, people are "round" characters, you do some great, some good, some bad, some evil. People try and look at only the actions of any person that fit in one of those categories then ignore the actions that fit into the other three.

@@NanClaymore Hmm. Perhaps like you said we're simply arguing semantic vocabulary but I absolutely deplore all human greed, including my own. Doesn't mean it's the only thing I think about when considering someone.

That's total bullshit. You simply didn't read Feynman's papers. He was perfectly willing to take mathematical leaps. His path integral, for instance, doesn't converge. To a mathematician the whole construction is ill-defined. It can still be made to work and part of his genius was to allow for such strange leaps of mathematical faith. A rigorous mathematician would have thrown the entire idea out in a minute.

Obviously physicists don't really care for rigor as much as mathematicians, but even with that in mind, Feynman was not even the physicist level of rigorous. He did some decent work, but is mostly famous for pop sci, and in the modern times, misogyny.

Yes, you can. Read his physics papers. Do not read his textbooks. They are total junk. They tell you one thing about him: he sucked at teaching, most likely because he didn't care.

@@schmetterling4477 Maybe you suck at learning

You should read the whole thing, search for it online.

I am looking for the same , anyone ?

Try Coursera classes on functional programming specialization. Or edX intro to functional programming.

hi NoName

That is utterly false. Physics is not mathematics and Feynman was the last person on Earth to use mathematics in physics as it is being used by mathematicians.

@@schmetterling4477 Well, I read "The Character of Physical Law" many years ago, and don't remember the exact wording. I've looked it up on Wikipedia - chapter 2 is called "The relation of mathematics and physics". If my memory serves me correctly, this chapter explains pretty much what I've written. That is not to say that Physics is Mathematics, and Feynman certainly tried to distill the physical reality from the Mathematical equations. But he did, as far as I recall, make that statement in that book, in that chapter, that Mathematics to Physics is not some "syntactic sugar" and you cannot reduce the mathematical equations through which physical laws are expressed into some non-mathematical model. Even when a gifted lecturer like Feynman explains Physics to non-mathematical persons, he does not make the presumption of "teaching Physics" because to Feynman, Theoretical Physics is about calculating the expected results of experiments, no more, no less.

@@urisimchoni3936 No, that is not what theoretical physics is about, either. :-)

@@schmetterling4477 kzfaq.info/get/bejne/pchznbJ1ytWwhqs.html That's what I was trying to express, Feynman does it better of course.

Not really. He was simply rambling all the time.

A lot of physicists make fun of pure mathematicians, and vice-versa. But their intimately related fields, so anyone sufficiently good at physics must know some pretty advanced math. And as a mathematician myself, I don't know that it's possible to understand profound far-reaching bits of math without liking them. So a bit of interdisciplinary good-natured ribbing is just to do with the slightly different mindsets inherent in the two persoectives

That iq test must be flawed.

His own assertion: "I am no genius. I love it and worked hard at it." It's positive obsession :-)

@@BulentBasaran A true genius might not know. A person who thinks themself one, likely has read many books. I was called a genius in college by friends who I thought were far more intelligent than myself. For about 4 years I discussed topics at the local coffeehouse with Ph.Ds, etc. Amazing how many shared time in the morning with a carpenter. 😁 One day, two friends in the 60s--- both professors and businessmen, told me this: "You are our teacher and we are your students." I was writing at night on messageboards; but I never shared my writings with anyone in the coffeehouse. They helped me be a better writer in a changing world.

Because beautiful and intuitive ideas can still be wrong without the rigor of mathematics to support it. It’s an unfortunate legacy from elementary school that every idea that pops into your head is considered valuable or right or creative. The physical world is a bit harsher. So yes Faraday needed Maxwell to give his ideas the bones they needed to stand tall.

@@aawiggins314159 I agree. I guess what I was getting at was that although physics basically is synonymous with mathematics, Faraday to me really exemplifies the importance of imaginative thought as well. If the mathematics are the bones as you rightly point out, creativity seems to be the flesh. Einstein also had a beautiful imagination and inner visions which preceded his famous equations. I have a soft spot for the especially creative scientists like Faraday and Einstein. The analytical approach is scientific to the bone, but it's the passion and imagination which FUELS the analysis of so many scientific giants like Darwin, Tesla, Einstein, Newton, Faraday, etc.

Alchemist Tongue Drums It does matter and helps drive us forward. 👨🏾‍💻📚⚛️

@@aawiggins314159 faraday was able to demonstrate most of his popular ideas experimentally. The major 1 that he intuitively felt but couldn't begin to proved was that of em waves, for the we have Maxwell to thank. I do agree with you that things have to make sense mathematically though.

cerebralassasin Sadly demonstrating things don’t always constitute what they might purport. Certainly interesting but we have made many errors connecting things that weren’t actually connected and this is only worse if there’s no framework that actually allows you to make testable predictions. Like you I admire Faradays experimental playfulness and it’s sad that he couldn’t present his ideas more rigorously but it was Maxwells character that helped put Faraday in the history books where he belongs.