#Richard P Feynman

[molecoledigiorni]

Il problema non è che sei ignorante.

Il problema è che sei istruito quanto basta per credere a ciò che ti è stato insegnato, e non abbastanza istruito da mettere in dubbio qualcosa di ciò che ti è stato insegnato.

- Richard P. Feynman

[sononatanellepocasbagliata]

"Nell'affrontare una nuova situazione bisogna lasciare aperta la porta sull'ignoto, ammettere che c'è sempre la possibilità di non sapere esattamente come stanno le cose e come andranno."

-R. P. Feynman

[unfortunatetheorist]

Yes! This is REALLY far away from my usual type of post, but Oppenheimer was too good of a movie to not be mentioned. The BAFTA was truly well-deserved, and I'm sure this movie, like many others, will go down in history as one of the greatest of all time.

¬ Th3r3534rch1ngr4ph

[young-and-rackless]

Knowledge isn’t free, you have to pay attention

-Richard P Feynman

[dk-thrive]

You have no responsibility to live up to what other people think you ought to accomplish. I have no responsibility to be like they expect me to be. It's their mistake, not my failing.

— Richard P. Feynman, "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!": Adventures of a Curious Character (W.W. Norton, June 28, 2010) (via Whiskey River)

[entheognosis]

Our freedom to doubt was born out of a struggle against authority in the early days of science. It was a very deep and strong struggle: permit us to question - to doubt - to not be sure. I think that it is important that we do not forget this struggle and thus perhaps lose what we have gained.

Richard P. Feynman

[yooo-gehn]

لديّ صديق فنان كان يتبني أحيانًا وجهة نظر لا أتفق معها تمامًا. كان يُمسك بالوردة ويقول: "انظر كم هي جميلة"، فأؤيده. ثم يقول: "ألا ترى، أنا كفنان أستطيع أن أرى كم هي جميلة، ولكن أنت كعالِم تجرّدها من جمالها، حتى تفقد بهائها" وأنا أعتقد أنه غريب الأطوار بعض الشيء. أولاً، أعتقد أني أستطيع رؤية ما يراه من جمال، كما هو الحال مع الآخرين. وبرغم أني قد لا أكون مُرهف الحس من ناحية جمالية مثله، ولكنني أستطيع أن أُقدِّر جمال الوردة. وفي الوقت ذاته فإنني أستطيع أن أرى في الوردة الكثير مما لا يراه هو.

أستطيع أن أتخيل خلايا الوردة، والعمليات المعقدة التي تجري بداخلها، والتي تنطوي أيضًا على الجمال. أقصد أن الجمال لا يكمن فقط في بُعد ال��نتيمتر الواحد، بل هناك جمال في أبعاد أخرى، في البنية الداخلية للوردة، والعمليات التي تجري فيها. ماذا عن حقيقة تشكُّل ألوان الوردة بحيث تجذب الحشرات التي تلقحها؟ أنه أمر مثير، ومعناه أن الحشرات بإمكانها رؤية الألوان. وهذا يضيف سؤالاً: هل المخلوقات الأصغر لديها هذا الحس الجمالي؟ ولماذا هو جمالي؟ يا لها من أسئلة شيقة تضيفها المعرفة العلمية لإثارة وغموض ورهبة الوردة. ولهذا فإن العقلية العلمية تُثري التفكير، ولا أفهم كيف يمكنها أن تسلب منه شيئًا. ريتشارد ب. فينمان متعة اكتشاف الأشياء ***

I have a friend who's an artist and has sometimes taken a view which I don't agree with very well. He'll hold up a flower and say "look how beautiful it is," and I'll agree. Then he says "I as an artist can see how beautiful this is but you as a scientist take this all apart and it becomes a dull thing," and I think that he's kind of nutty. First of all, the beauty that he sees is available to other people and to me too, I believe. Although I may not be quite as refined aesthetically as he is… I can appreciate the beauty of a flower. At the same time, I see much more about the flower than he sees.

I could imagine the cells in there, the complicated actions inside, which also have a beauty. I mean it's not just beauty at this dimension, at one centimeter; there's also beauty at smaller dimensions, the inner structure, also the processes. The fact that the colors in the flower evolved in order to attract insects to pollinate it is interesting; it means that insects can see the color. It adds a question: does this aesthetic sense also exist in the lower forms? Why is it aesthetic? All kinds of interesting questions which the science knowledge only adds to the excitement, the mystery and the awe of a flower. It only adds. I don't understand how it subtracts.

Richard P. Feynman The Pleasure of Finding Things Out

ملحوظة: ترجمت المقطع الجميل ده بنفسي، لأن مع احترامي الكبير لمحاولة ترجمة الكتاب ده، لكن المترجمة كان عندها مشكلة في فهم تقسيم بعض الجمل، وإزاي علامات الترقيم نفسها جزء من المعنى، وأحيانا اختيارها للمفردات وتراكيب الجمل كان غريب أو مخطيء بشكل صريح.

[dreams-of-mutiny]

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”

― Richard P. Feynman

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

I have a friend who's an artist and has sometimes taken a view which I don't agree with very well. He'll hold up a flower and say "look how beautiful it is," and I'll agree. Then he says "I as an artist can see how beautiful this is but you as a scientist take this all apart and it becomes a dull thing," and I think that he's kind of nutty. First of all, the beauty that he sees is available to other people and to me too, I believe. Although I may not be quite as refined aesthetically as he is... I can appreciate the beauty of a flower.

At the same time, I see much more about the flower than he sees. I could imagine the cells in there, the complicated actions inside, which also have a beauty. I mean it's not just beauty at this dimension, at one centimeter; there's also beauty at smaller dimensions, the inner structure, also the processes. The fact that the colors in the flower evolved in order to attract insects to pollinate it is interesting; it means that insects can see the color. It adds a question: does this aesthetic sense also exist in the lower forms? Why is it aesthetic? All kinds of interesting questions which the science knowledge only adds to the excitement, the mystery and the awe of a flower. It only adds. I don't understand how it subtracts.

~Richard P. Feynman

(Book: The Pleasure of Finding Things Out)

[Philo Thoughts]

[mountain-sage]

I, A UNIVERSE OF ATOMS.

AN ATOM IN

THE UNIVERSE

- Richard P. Feynman

[briony-tallis]

Moreover, the memories of observers in the two galaxies would be operating in opposite directions. If you somehow succeeded in communicating something to someone in a time-reversed world, he would promptly forget it because the event would instantly become part of his future rather than of his past. "It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward," said Lewis Carroll's White Queen in one looking-glass,time-reversed (PT-reversed!) scene. Unfortunately, outside of Carroll's dream world, memory works only one way.

Can Time Go Backward? (1967), by Martin Gardner

[denimbex1986]

'Oppenheimer is not about science as much as it is about science. Confused?

That’s precisely the beauty of this Christopher Nolan film, released worldwide on July 21.

The meme fest on social media platforms not only pitted Oppenheimer against the other big release, Barbie, directed by Greta Gerwig, casual conversations put bets on which film would be more “for the intellectual”.

The film is cerebral not because it just looks at the science behind nuclear power, but because it dissects the powers that be with a clinical precision.

The “Father of Atomic Bomb”, too, was personally affected by his creation. The bomb, along with the “mock trial” that followed in the wake of unparalleled tragedy, made a shadow out of a brilliant, yet vulnerable scientific mind.

This review won’t go into the (complicated) science behind the atom bomb; rather, it is a peek into Nolan’s worldview – the bomb is 20th century Frankenstein – the quiet man-made horror that changed much of world politics.

Based on the 2005 book, American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer, by Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin, Nolan provides a peek inside the world of the Manhattan Project, and what unfolded after World War II ended. The non-linear format is a character study of the celebrated physicist.

We see three chapters of his life – his anxiety-ridden days as a student in Cambridge, eventual move to Göttingen, teaching at University of California (Berkeley) and Caltech leading to the Manhattan Project; the mock trial in the form of “security hearing” in 1954 to destroy the man who ensured Allied victory in 1945; and the 1959 hearing of Lewis Strauss, chairman of the United States Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), who was central to the development of nuclear weapons during and post war USA.

As the film progresses, major players are introduced to viewers. Among them, U.S. Army General Leslie Groves who recruited Oppenheimer, despite his “suspected” Communist ideology, to lead the Manhattan Project; fellow influential physicists Isidor Isaac Rabi, Edward Teller, David L. Hill, and Richard P. Feynman, to name a few; lover Jean Tatlock and wife Katherine (Kitty) Oppenheimer; Albert Einstein and US President Harry Truman, among others.

The architects of the Manhattan Project came together at a time when Nazi Germany was widely believed to be ahead in the nuclear race. Werner Heisenberg played a prominent role in Nazi Germany’s bid to build the atomic bomb.

World politics outside Los Alamos laboratory in New Mexico, built specifically for the project, also shaped the scientific minds trying to develop the atomic bomb.

Take for instance the depiction of the turbulent relationship between Oppenheimer and Edward Teller, the Hungarian-American “Father of the Hydrogen Bomb”. Though the H-bomb was speculative then, the “Super” (first prototype of the bomb) foreshadows the 1954 trial of Oppenheimer and the 1959 hearing of Strauss, who made it his mission to destroy the credibility of the man he once wanted to head the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton.

Quick paced, yet succinct, Nolan’s approach is philosophical.

Cillian Murphy becomes Oppenheimer in every frame… be it a young brilliant student to “Now I am become Death, the Destroyer of Worlds” and finally as a vocal critic against the use of nuclear power.

The scientists were aware of the global repercussions of the atomic bomb, yet justified that bombing Japan is the ‘lesser evil’ to save the world – a war that will end all wars – if the Allied Powers did not bomb the enemy, the Axis Alliance would. The interaction between Oppenheimer and Einstein constantly focused on their fear of “triggering a chain reaction”.

Running parallel to the plot is the pivotal narrative of what to do with the lab after the war.

While Oppenheimer wanted the land to be given to the native people, those who understood that the world had irrevocably changed because of “Little Boy” detonated over Hiroshima on August 6 and “Fat Man” over Nagasaki on August 9, took what they viewed to be the pragmatic approach, vouching for its continued existence.

Mention must be made of the “Trinity Test”, the first detonation of the bomb, under the US Army before dropping it on Japan, prior to the crucial Potsdam Conference held between July and August, 1945. This was done to see its possible deadly consequences.

The filmmaker gave us a glimpse of what happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, without showing the horror of what actually transpired.

It tied up with a later scene when Oppenheimer gave a ‘victory speech’ – as patriotic Americans cheered him, the American Prometheus was disturbed by visions – the brilliant background score by Swedish music composer, Ludwig Göransson, further heightened this sense of lingering dread.

The “closed room” mock trial of Oppenheimer (1954) opened up a can of worms – his naivete, evident. Through the machinations of Strauss (who he never quite saw eye to eye with), he was questioned for being sympathetic to the Communist cause.

Concerns of a suspected Russian spy at Los Alamos lab remained a constant thorn; ego clashes between the scientists gave Strauss the leverage to sow seeds of distrust among them; his personal life discussed in front of the committee – Tatlock (an American psychiatrist who committed suicide) and Kitty – both were members of the party.

For the uninitiated, this was the notorious Red Scare (McCarthyism) under the ruthless senator, Joseph McCarthy and FBI head, J. Edgar Hoover, when real and suspected “Commies” faced political repression and persecution in the form of phone tapping, blacklisting, fear mongering and rounding people up in mental asylums. The second world war ended, but it effectively led to the Cold War between USA and the Soviet Union.

Vengeance takes a toll on the angry. That Strauss revered yet nursed a patient grudge against Oppenheimer is Nolan’s gaze toward scientific progress. What lengths will technology go to for personal glory?

The public perception of Oppenheimer remains divided. Yet, this film gives a rare insight into his inner world, riddled with paradox, much like the science (likened to music) he listened to, unable to sleep as a tortured, brilliant student at Cambridge.

Is J. Robert Oppenheimer likeable? The answer depends on your worldview.

With the snake revealed, his conviction about the use of the atomic bomb and his humiliation after the war remains long after viewers leave theatres.

To watch Oppenheimer is to be acutely aware of time – the past shapes the future – what lessons from history have we willingly turned a blind eye to?'

[delilahbardishot]

"I...a universe of atoms...an atom in the universe."

-The Value of Science (Feynman 1955)

[postersbykeith]

[webweabings]

THE STARS KNOW EVERYTHING

“Dilbert”, by Scott Adam; // “Manfred”, by Lord George Gordon Byron; // Poem by Traci Brown; // “Delphi Complete Work of Ralph Waldo Emerson”, by Ralph Waldo Emerson; // “Kaddish and Other Poems: Poem Rocket”, by Allen Ginsberg; // “Pleasures, Objects and Advantages of Literature”, by Robert Aris Willmott; // “The Garden of Epicurus”, by Anatole France; // Poem by Chandrasekar Koneru; // Quote by Les Brown; // Quote by Vincent van Gogh; // “Love and Space Dust”, by David Jones; // Quote by Virgil; // Unknown; // “The Feynman Lectures on Physics: Astronomy”, Vol. 1, 3-6 by Richard P. Feynman; // Quote by Henry van Dyke; // “Twilight Hours: A legacy of verse”, by Sarah Williams; // Unknow; // “Poems, by Currer, Ellis and Acton”, by Emily Brontë

[entheognosis]

We absolutely must leave room for doubt or there is no progress and there is no learning. There is no learning without having to pose a question. And a question requires doubt. People search for certainty. But there is no certainty. People are terrified — 'how can you live and not know?' It is not odd at all. You only think you know, as a matter of fact. And most of your actions are based on incomplete knowledge and you really don't know what it is all about, or what the purpose of the world is, or know a great deal of other things. It is possible to live and not know.

Richard P. Feynman