[HN Gopher] When Feynman met Dirac (2020) ___________________________________________________________________ When Feynman met Dirac (2020) Author : jorgenveisdal Score : 176 points Date : 2021-04-05 10:25 UTC (12 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.cantorsparadise.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.cantorsparadise.com) | dzdt wrote: | Site seems to be hugged to death. Backup link? | wunderflix wrote: | The site is hosted on medium. I doubt that it can be hugged to | death? | ddeck wrote: | https://outline.com/KGVKhy | pseudolus wrote: | Great article with a number of well-known references to | biographies of Feynman. For those interested in Dirac, some | excellent biographies have emerged over the years including: "The | Strangest Man: The Hidden Life of Paul Dirac, Mystic of the Atom" | and "Dirac: A Scientific Biography ". [0][1]. | | [0] | https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B002LDM8QS/ref=dbs_a_def_r... | | [1] https://www.amazon.com/Dirac-Scientific-Biography-Helge- | Krag... | devgoldm wrote: | It's fascinating reading about giants of academia, that I've | personally never thought to link together, interacting and | disagreeing with one another in such a relatable way. | | I wonder if anyone's written about a younger Dirac and any | interactions he got into with his heros, and so on and so forth | back as far as possible? I'm sure there's an amazing story to be | told through following this "thread of knowledge" through time... | punnerud wrote: | Look at Jorgen Veisdals other submissions on HN; 95% is articles | he have written himself: | https://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=jorgenveisdal | | I think this is impressive compared to most users in here. | | Yes, this article is both written and submitted by Jorgen. | sebastialonso wrote: | It is impressive. | | To add information, Jorgen's Cantor Paradise is a paid | subscription (a very good one) with occasional free articles. | So what you identify as a prolific submission history can also | identified by others, as self-marketing. | iamgopal wrote: | When I read those papers, I feel, How much relaxed (less | stressed) one must be to create this. Current dopamine inducing | attention grabbing world makes it really difficult for such deep | studies. | wsowens wrote: | There were many attention grabbing things (Cold War escalation, | civil unrest, etc.) in the world when Feynman wrote those | papers. I can't find the exact clip, but I remember seeing an | interview where an older Feynman reflected on that time. He | described a sense of hopelessness and impending doom hanging | over him for years after his involvement with the Manhattan | Project. Here's a similar quote to that effect[1]: | ...I can't understand it anymore but I felt very strongly then. | I'd sat in a restaurant in New York, for example and I looked | at the buildings and how far away, I would think, you know, how | much the radius of the Hiroshima bomb damage was and so forth. | How far down there was down to 34th Street? All these | buildings, all smashed, and so on. And I got a very strange | feeling. I would go along and I would see people building a | bridge. Or, they'd be making a new road, and I thought, they're | crazy, they just don't understand, they don't understand. Why | are they making new things, it's so useless? | | Our times are certainly challenging, but I hope we can muster | the strength and focus to keep building as others did in the | past. | | 1. | https://books.google.com/books?id=WO9D_BaDDhkC&pg=PA91&lpg=P... | chevill wrote: | In addition to all of the craziness going on in the world at | the time his wife was hospitalized and dying of tuberculosis | while he was working on the Manhattan project. | munificent wrote: | There's a certain category of people who cope with stress | by becoming absorbed in work so that they can shut | everything else out. Those people likely do their best work | _because_ of the tragedies surrounding them. | chevill wrote: | There definitely is. I'm not sure if that was the case | with Feynman, but he sure did produce some great work | during this era. | | I used to be like that when I was in my 20s, but as I get | older if I get depressed it significantly reduces my | productivity. | hungryforcodes wrote: | I'm totally on board with this, and I've heard that quote | too. But I think the OP was talking more about how our | "distraction environment" today prevents us from having even | 5 minutes of continued focus, unless we go through herculean | efforts. Thus limiting our ability to do deep thinking, | create deep work and make deep choices. | | But for sure there were many EPIC distractions of a more | general nature in that time. | raziel2701 wrote: | Yeah but we're worse today. On top of all the impending doom | we have vastly superior weapons of mass distraction in our | hands and every computer/phone screen. Our attention spans | have decreased. | gnarbarian wrote: | You should read deep work. It's had a profound impact on how I | consume social media. | | https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/25744928-deep-work | | Behaviors related to smartphones, email, social media etc | should be evaluated by their holistic impact on our life In the | same way we do with alcohol, drug use, and other addictive | behaviors. | | The effect it's had on my state of mind is profoundly positive. | I don't even hear notifications anymore and I am far more | productive. | amirkdv wrote: | Nitpick worth exploring on your valid point about our times: | while stress can definitely be disruptive to deep cognitive | work, it's a very different neuro/physiological processes than | attention/focus (as you say: "attention grabbing world") | | One can be quite relaxed but not at all focused and vice versa. | Jolter wrote: | Anyone with a link that isn't behind an auth-wall? | aborsy wrote: | This comment is not very popular, especially in America, but | Feynman was by and large a showman. His most celebrated | publication is path integral approach. Dirac had a paper earlier | (known as Dirac's little paper), so did Norbert Wiener in a | different context, on this approach. They didn't pursue path | integrals, as they could not (and still people can't) make sense | of them rigorously. Feynman looked up that paper and expanded on | it. | | He also drew useful diagrams, but you know ... :) | elteto wrote: | He was definitely a showman, but Schwinger and Tomonaga were | definitely not. Being a larger-than-life character type does | not detract from his contributions. | EngrRavi wrote: | Oppenheimer's opinion of Feynman seems to have vastly | diminished after the Shelter Island and Pocono conferences. | According to Dyson [1]: | | "When after some weeks I had a chance to talk to Oppenheimer, I | was astonished to discover that his reasons for being | uninterested in my work were quite the opposite of what I had | imagined. I had expected that he would disparage my program as | merely unoriginal, a minor adumbration of Schwinger and | Feynman. On the contrary, he considered it to be fundamentally | on the wrong track. He thought adumbrating Schwinger and | Feynman to be a wasted effort, because he did not believe that | the ideas of Schwinger and Feynman had much to do with reality. | | I HAD KNOWN THAT HE HAD NEVER APPRECIATED FEYNMAN, but it came | as a shock to hear him now violently opposing Schwinger, his | own student, whose work he had acclaimed so enthusiastically | six months earlier. He had somehow become convinced during his | stay in Europe that physics was in need of radically new ideas, | that this quantum electrodynamics of Schwinger and Feynman was | just another misguided attempt to patch up old ideas with fancy | mathematics." | | [1] Dyson F. Disturbing the Universe. Henry Holt and Co, 1979 | ISBN 9780465016778. | | This quote and an earlier one I made are from Oliver Consa's | 2020 paper: "Something is rotten in the state of QED". | wunderflix wrote: | This all sounds an awful lot like a standard telenovela | drama. | da-bacon wrote: | If only. Dirac and Wiener did not understand the significance | of the action appearing where it did. Feynman gave it meaning. | An analogy for what you are saying is that Einstein _just_ | rederived Lorentz's equations. That's one of the most | interesting characteristics of physics, it's not just math and | computation, meaning is hugely significant. | | I'd also say the path integral is not what he is most known for | among practicing physicists, but that's another story (I | recommend "QED and the Men Who Made It: Dyson, Feynman, | Schwinger, and Tomonaga@). | wunderflix wrote: | So he was awarded the Nobel Prize for being a "showman"? | jorgenveisdal wrote: | Wouldn't be the first. Bob Dylan, Winston Churchill, Barack | Obama etc | sokoloff wrote: | It seems reasonable to hold Nobel Prizes in advancing | science to a different level than Nobel Prizes in | influencing people. Though both are valuable for society, | the latter essentially _must_ include elements of | showmanship. | ncmncm wrote: | Henry Kissinger | morelisp wrote: | There is a tendency for such awards to go to those in the top | 10% of both the field in question and the top 10% of ability | to sell themselves, rather than those in the top 1% of the | field in question. | nabla9 wrote: | That can be true for Literacy or Peace Nobel's but not for | physics. | | The amount of cynical consipratory thinking in HN horrifies | me. | morelisp wrote: | 10% is a drastic overestimate for Literature or Peace. I | would be shocked if Peace is better than random. | | Your optimism concerning the Nobels for sciences is | adorable. | ekianjo wrote: | Do you believe that all Nobel prizes are equivalent ? | aborsy wrote: | For contributions I noted in my comment. I wouldn't say he | didn't deserve it (he was a good popular expositor). | | You should not neglect the role of politics and presentation | in academia. | | As science became increasingly a valuable commodity, it | attracted a lot of people with perverse incentives: | politicians, administrators, research managers, status-hungry | individuals etc. I see what's happening and it's not pretty. | | Frankly, I think it's not a healthy environment and this | academic system would not last too long. Smart people will | leave, as they realize this has become an industry not | different from banking or any other, except the currency is | fame and reputation, and stakes are so low. It's no longer | like 1930s, and people like Feynman helped set the stage for | a new eta. | | And it's not surprising at all, once you learn that politics | and showmanship actually pay off. | auggierose wrote: | There are a lot of politicians, administrators and managers | in academia. To say that Feynman is responsible for them, | is pretty ridiculous. And to say that Feynman wasn't a | great physicist makes words basically meaningless. | morelisp wrote: | Without looking it up, can you name the other two people | who won the Nobel with him? Were they lesser physicists | than Feynman? If not, why so much focus on his life but | not theirs? | ThrowawayR2 wrote: | S. and T., didn't take half a second's thought. | | Being a showman doesn't mean that Feynman was _only_ a | showman. Indeed, one can hardly be an effective educator | without a strong touch of showmanship in presenting | ideas. | morelisp wrote: | You don't normally win a Nobel for being an effective | educator or communicator either - and nominally he | didn't. | madhadron wrote: | I have several friends who personally knew Feynman. He was a | problematic individual in many ways. One of them remembers | being in an elevator with his girlfriend, and Feynman getting | on the elevator and immediately hitting on her. Another recalls | being dragged along to crash parties at Caltech for free food. | That same one commented that, yes, he was super careful about | his legacy and all the stories published about him. | | But they spent time around him in a working context, and they | are all absolutely clear in their minds that, beyond the | showmanship, he was a genius. | WesolyKubeczek wrote: | Okay, I'll rephrase what I said in the flagged reply. | | Could you please rephrase what you wrote here, but without | using the word "problematic" when describing a person? Thank | you very much. | WesolyKubeczek wrote: | Here. You have used that word. | | PROBLEMATIC. | | You know, not "asshole". Not "womanizer". Not "arrogant" or | even "abrasive". Not "his feet stank". No. PROBLEMATIC. A | very nice umbrella term. Very vague. Very accusatory at the | same time. | | Can't wait for the news where reeducation facilities are | being built for the PROBLEMATIC individuals and measures | being taken so that no PROBLEMATIC individuals ever remain. | | Another problem is, who's going to be the ultimate arbiter of | who is PROBLEMATIC and who's not? | | (Oh, I probably am DEEPLY PROBLEMATIC by misvirtue of even | talking about this. Keep 'em downvotes coming, but I'd rather | see people eradicate this word from their vocabularies and | say instead things like, "some people had reasons to dislike | him". More, you know, honest that way.) | dang wrote: | Please don't take HN threads into flamewar. Getting | provoked by one word and making a flamewar reply out of it | is definitely not in the set of response patterns we want | here. We want the kind that lead to more interesting / less | predictable discussion. | | To do this requires resisting this sort of provocation in | oneself--i.e. waiting until the activation dies down, and | then either moving on to something else or finding a more | interesting response to share. More on that here: https://h | n.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor.... | | Also, please don't use allcaps for emphasis and please | don't go on about downvotes. These things are all in the | site guidelines--would you please review them | (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) and | stick to the rules when posting here? We'd appreciate it, | because we're trying to avoid the internet hell in which | everything becomes consumed by the never-ending flamewars. | jandrese wrote: | I've read Feynman's autobiography and at least half of the | stuff in it reads like someone embellishing the story to make | it more interesting. | | There are parts where he goes totally /r/redpill that would | get him in trouble today if he were still alive. | egocodedinsol wrote: | This comment may be unpopular because it's not tremendously | useful. | nabla9 wrote: | Feynman was a showman but he was also a good physicist. Not | among top 10 or 20 in the 20th century as many popular polls | put him, but still really good physicist. | | He had great teaching ability. That justifies his fame. Just | like Gilbert Strang deserves his fame. | matthewh806 wrote: | I would say its not a very popular comment because its | deliberately contrarian and not the full story. Yes, Feynman | was a showman (amongst many other things) but he was also a | truly gifted physicist. You can be both those things at the | same time. And he was. | | "Feynman looked up that paper and expanded on it", yes, science | doesn't happen in a vacuum? Standing on the shoulders of giants | etc | [deleted] | ElFitz wrote: | Not American, but I would argue that his greatest contributions | weren't necessarily in exploring the fundamental laws of | physics but in making physics more accessible, easier to | understand, and more pleasant to study. | | The fact he got his Nobel prize in part thanks to a way of | _representing_ interactions between particle is quite telling. | | His books, and even more so his BBC interview (have yet to dive | into the Physics lectures) completely changed my perspective on | science. | | I liked it, and wanted to love it, but watching him talk about | fire and photosynthesis finally made it all click together. | | Those weren't abstract formulas, or curious and amusing | concepts. All of it was deeply tied to everything around me, | and somehow managed to make it all much more fascinating. I | didn't know the formulas, or the exact rules, but I got a | general understanding of each of these processes and, feeling | like a child once again, _actually wanted_ to know more. | | It was suddenly so obvious, and yet... why did it take all this | time? And why couldn't anyone else help me realise that | earlier? | | I certainly could blame the French education system, which | isn't really fond of making itself likeable or giving meaning | to what it teaches, but still... it seems much more widespread | than that. | | So... I wouldn't be surprised if he is both directly and | indirectly responsible for many other physicists actually | getting into research and developing this _" intuition"_ that | comes with truly understanding. | | Edit: Also, his explanation is the first satisfying one I've | ever gotten to "What _is_ fire? " since I started asking the | question over a decade ago. | darkerside wrote: | I've found that my deepest understanding fire has come from | building communal fires time and again over the course of the | pandemic, seeing (and causing) the chain reaction grow from | nothing into a continuous reaction. | kevinwang wrote: | Although I wasn't around during the 50s, this comment seems | likely to be revisionist history to me. The article itself | quotes Oppenheimer as writing (unsolicited): "He is by all odds | the most brilliant young physicist here, and everyone knows | this." and 'Wigner said, "He is a second Dirac, only this time | human."' | | I wonder if perhaps this opinion of Feynman as a showman has | gotten more popular over the decades as Feynman and the | physicists who knew him passed away, and more and more of us | are exposed to him only through his lectures and books. (If | you'll excuse an aside: a bit like Bill Simmon's thesis on the | basketball greats Bill Russell vs. Chamberlain -- those of us | looking back on history, with only artifacts, may draw | conclusions that would be ridiculous at the time.) I don't know | if this is the case, but it's a fun speculation. | Radim wrote: | Your assessment, while phrased provocatively, isn't all that | controversial (except maybe in some pop-sci worship circles). | Feynman shone in popularizing physics, and physicists. | | Freeman Dyson, one of Feynman's closest friends (and a | prodigious scientist in his own right; died last year) | regularly described Feynman as a "fast calculator rather than a | particularly deep thinker". | | IIRC Dyson picked Fermi as the greatest physicist he'd ever met | - much to the dismay of reporters, who of course expected Dyson | to name his buddy Feynman :-) | morelisp wrote: | > Your assessment, while phrased provocatively, isn't all | that controversial (except maybe in some pop-sci worship | circles) | | HN is therefore likely a good place to remind people of | such... | EngrRavi wrote: | The following is Serge's account of Dyson's account of | Fermi's opinion of QED [1]: | | ''' "When Dyson met Fermi, he quickly put aside the graphs he | was being shown indicating agreement between theory and | experiment. | | His verdict, as Dyson remembered, was "There are two ways of | doing calculations in theoretical physics. One way, and this | is the way I prefer, is to have a clear physical picture of | the process you are calculating. The other way is to have a | precise and self-consistent mathematical formalism. You have | neither." | | When a stunned Dyson tried to counter by emphasizing the | agreement between experiment and the calculations, Fermi | asked him how many free parameters he had used to obtain the | fit. Smiling after being told "Four," Fermi remarked, "I | remember my old friend Johnny von Neumann used to say, with | four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can | make him wiggle his trunk." There was little to add." ''' | | [1] Segre G., Hoerlin B. The Pope of Physics: Enrico Fermi | and the Birth of the Atomic Age. Henry Holt and Co, 2016 ISBN | 9781627790055 | | This quote is from Oliver Consa's 2020 paper: "Something is | rotten in the state of QED". | hpcjoe wrote: | I recall that fitting example from undergrad physics. | Nowadays, with deep learning going on with billions of | parameters being fit, it probably makes somewhat more sense | to recall that bit of humor. | Radim wrote: | Since we're trading Dyson anecdotes, here's a similarly | awkward one, about how Dyson met Wolfgang Pauli for the | first time [0]: | | > _I remember the very first time I met [Pauli] at a | conference in Zurich. He was talking with a whole group of | people about Julian Schwinger, who had just come to | Switzerland. Schwinger was a brilliant young American who | had done some very fine work. He was a rival of Feynman; | they were the two geniuses then. Pauli was saying that | Schwinger told us all this stuff that actually made sense, | not like that nonsense Dyson has been writing. At that | point I came walking up with a friend of mine, Markus | Fierz, who was also a Swiss scientist. With a twinkle in | his eye, Fierz came up to Pauli and said, "Please allow me | to introduce you to my friend, Freeman Dyson." Pauli said, | "Oh that doesn't matter. He doesn't understand German." | Which of course I did. That was a good beginning and we | were friends right from the very first day._ | | [0] https://nautil.us/issue/43/heroes/my-life-with-the- | physics-d... | lalalandland wrote: | Murray Gell-Mann talks about Richard Feynman | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnMsgxIIQEE | adrian_b wrote: | I agree that his original contributions might not be so | important as believed by those who actually do not know them in | detail. | | On the other hand, as a child I have enjoyed very much the | Feynman Lectures on Physics, much more than most other similar | books. | | I am certainly very grateful to him, because his work had a | very positive influence on me, when I was young. | signa11 wrote: | are there similar books on lev landau ? | sn41 wrote: | Not a biography, but a collection of memorial articles and | reminisces: | | https://www.elsevier.com/books/landau-the-physicist-and-the-... | | Also, I found the autobiography by Sagdeev (one of the <50 who | finished the "Theoretical Minimum" of Landau) to have some nice | anecdotes about Landau: | | Roald Sagdeev, "The Making of a Soviet Scientist: My Adventures | in Nuclear Fusion and Space" | signa11 wrote: | thank you kindly! | AzzieElbab wrote: | such simpler times. nowadays one of them would be busy cancelling | the other. judging from the replies, some are tempted to do so | retroactively | racl101 wrote: | Feyman has some post mortem heat on him under the lens of | revisionism. Namely, as it pertains to his treatment of women. | | In short, some people think he was sexist at best and an abuser | of women at worst. | AzzieElbab wrote: | That is terrifying. I learned physics from his textbooks - | ussr samizdat. I googled allegations against him and all I | saw was a wall of vague text from a cardboard cut, predatory | sensationalists, all cross referencing each other | morelisp wrote: | > all I saw was a wall of vague text from a cardboard cut, | predatory sensationalists, all cross referencing each other | | I assure you his FBI file - | https://www.muckrock.com/foi/united-states-of- | america-10/fbi... - is not vague, predatory, | sensationalist, and does not cross-reference any discussion | you may find on the web today. | | _His ex-wife reportedly testified that on several | occasions when she unwittingly disturbed either his | calculus or his drums he flew into a violent rage, during | which time he attacked her, threw pieces of bric-a-brac | about and smashed the furniture._ | | Feynman's autobiographical writings about women are also | disgusting enough by modern standards. | | I don't understand why you would think having developed an | excellent physics course is incompatible with that (or vice | versa). | AzzieElbab wrote: | what do you think would be the worst, most shocking | revelation in your own 300pages long FBI file? especially | one that includes a deposition from a former spouse who | was seeking divorce settlement at the time, plus | depositions of everyone you broke up with? i can only | speak for myself, but my hypothetical file would have | made considerably more interesting read than feyman's | morelisp wrote: | You could take issue with the accuracy or provenance of | the file (which we can then discuss if you actually _do_ | rather than merely insinuate you _could_ ) but | nonetheless it is none of "vague text from a cardboard | cut, predatory sensationalists, all cross referencing | each other" which is what you originally claimed. | dang wrote: | " _Eschew flamebait. Don 't introduce flamewar topics unless | you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated | controversies and generic tangents._" | | https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html | [deleted] | BrandoElFollito wrote: | As an ex-physicist, these were the golden years of physics. | Studying and then doing your PhD at that time must have been | fascinating. | | Today's physics really bland. Either we look into some fantasy | worlds we will never test (quantum foam & co), or extremely niche | ones. | | My sons are fascinated by science and I am lightly driving them | towards biology (biophysics, bioinformatics, ...) because I feel | this is where the revolutionary changes happen and will happen. | leephillips wrote: | As a physicist, I would say that physics is still and will | always be beautiful and fascinating, but I also believe that | biology is where it is happening now. | BrandoElFollito wrote: | Physics IS beautiful and fascinating. I am so glad that I | studied that and went though a PhD. | | It is especially fascinating during the first 3 years, when | you slowly discover some unexpected links between the | disciplines. When I discovered Noether's theorem I was in | awe. | | Then it gest more and more abstract, drifting away from the | reality (I do not have QM here in mind but rather its | evolution). | | Thanks to the confinement we have in France due to COVID, I | had the opportunity to take over a part of the duties of the | National Education services :) Telling my children about | mechanics and all basic topics was awesome. I got over | excited several times and they had to cool me down. | | Physics will always be my first love, but the future is | elsewhere. | leephillips wrote: | "When I discovered Noether's theorem I was in awe." | | The same thing happened to me. Many years later, I thought | that it should be more popularly known, so I wrote this: | | http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/05/the-female- | mathematic... | | And now I am writing a book about it. | BrandoElFollito wrote: | This is really an interesting article. I will be watching | for the book as I also find that her works is really | unappreciated despite blowing student's minds when | learning about the theorem. | domnomnom wrote: | Why not computer science? | leephillips wrote: | Computer science is not science, it is mathematics. Great | stuff, but quite different stuff. | ur-whale wrote: | > Computer science is not science | | Disagree profoundly. | | And if perchance you got to that conclusion because you | believe you can't apply the scientific method to CS (as in: | formulate a theory about how the world "is", design an | experiment to test the theory, run the experiment, rinse, | repeat), you are mistaken: when dealing with systems of | exploding complexity (which is, btw and imo, what physics | is all about as well), this is a very fruitful attack | strategy. | BrandoElFollito wrote: | I think that the theoretical aspects of CS are | interesting, this is lots of math (especially crypto) and | lots of formal proofs (algorithms). | | Being able to predict how complex and long simulations | will be is great as well. | | BTW I think that "Computer Science" is interpreted | differently in different countries. In France for | instance we have _informatique_ which means "things with | computers" and usually is understood as "development" or | "system/network administration". _ | sudosysgen wrote: | As a francophone, is informatique not supposed to be | lexically close to other sciences in -ique to denote it | being closer to Computer Science in meaning? | | As the academie put it: "science du traitement de | l'information" | leephillips wrote: | I think you only think that you disagree. But I could be | completely wrong. | | The method that you describe is used in exploring | mathematical landscapes, including CS. But, still, some | people (like me) find it useful to distinguish between | mathematics (including CS) and science, by which we mean | empirical science. But I would agree strongly that the | boundary is very fuzzy. | sebastialonso wrote: | It seems in different countries (and universities) | Computer Science mean different things. | | In my country, Computer Science is exclusively | theoretical study of some areas of mathematics. You don't | go into CS to run experiments, just like in mathematics. | You go to study theorems and complexity theory. | | Anything related to the act of developing software is | called Software Engineering/Informatic Engineering. | Totally different things: as different as a mathematician | and a bridge builder. In the real world there's an | evident intersection between CS and SE, but in academia | (in my country), CS _is_ math. | zoolily wrote: | Computer science is a combination of fields, including | mathematics (theory of computation, cryptography), | empirical science (empirical software engineering, HCI, | etc.), and engineering. | Dudeman112 wrote: | Why computer science? | BrandoElFollito wrote: | They are not sufficiently interested in the theory of | computation for this to work out. | | They are more into applied science (applied to everyday | life). Theory of computation is certainly interesting, | though. | [deleted] | gerikson wrote: | I really need to re-read Gleick's "Genius". | drummojg wrote: | It's my favorite work of nonfiction. | zoolily wrote: | It might be more interesting to read a different Feynman | biography. I read Genius first, then Mehra's The Beat of a | Different Drum: The Life and Science of Richard Feynman, which | I liked better. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-04-05 23:01 UTC)