What do you think?
Rate this book
Six Easy Pieces: The Fundamentals of Physics Explained
The six easiest chapters from Feynman's landmark work, Lectures on Physics-- specifically designed for the general, non-scientist reader.
144 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1994
About the author
Richard P. Feynman
345 books7,093 followersRichard Phillips Feynman was an American physicist known for the path integral formulation of quantum mechanics, the theory of quantum electrodynamics and the physics of the superfluidity of supercooled liquid helium, as well as work in particle physics (he proposed the parton model). For his contributions to the development of quantum electrodynamics, Feynman was a joint recipient of the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1965, together with Julian Schwinger and Sin-Itiro Tomonaga. Feynman developed a widely used pictorial representation scheme for the mathematical expressions governing the behavior of subatomic particles, which later became known as Feynman diagrams. During his lifetime and after his death, Feynman became one of the most publicly known scientists in the world.
He assisted in the development of the atomic bomb and was a member of the panel that investigated the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster. In addition to his work in theoretical physics, Feynman has been credited with pioneering the field of quantum computing, and introducing the concept of nanotechnology (creation of devices at the molecular scale). He held the Richard Chace Tolman professorship in theoretical physics at Caltech.
-wikipedia
See Ричард Фейнман
He assisted in the development of the atomic bomb and was a member of the panel that investigated the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster. In addition to his work in theoretical physics, Feynman has been credited with pioneering the field of quantum computing, and introducing the concept of nanotechnology (creation of devices at the molecular scale). He held the Richard Chace Tolman professorship in theoretical physics at Caltech.
-wikipedia
See Ричард Фейнман
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,430 reviews
June 16, 2012
There is not much more to be said about Richard Feynman’s impact on physics or science communication; the man is as bona-fide legend and as close to being a worshipable God as scientists can have. Six Easy Pieces is a collection of the ‘easiest’ six chapters from Richard Feynman’s most-celebrated text book The Feynman Lectures on Physics.
The ‘easy’ in the title, is, like our sense of time, all relative. The lectures, delivered in the early 60’s, were aimed at “the most intelligent in the class [freshman and sophomore physics students at Caltech, one of the most prestigious institutions in the world] and to make sure, if possible, that even the most intelligent student was unable to encompass everything…”
We, as the general reader, are more like the ‘secondary’ audience for the lectures, who for Feyman at the time were the students “for whom the extra fireworks are merely disquieting and who cannot be expected to learn the material in the lecture at all”. Such was Feynman’s power of exposition, however, you can follow the science, each chapter getting progressively more complicated and abstract, without ever feeling like you’re being left behind.
The first three chapters, on Atoms in Motion, Basic Physics, and the Relation of Physics to Other Sciences, were so good I read them twice. Their broad remit means they touch on lots of different things, with one astonishing idea thrown in after the other. Mind-body dualism from a physicists perspective: “When an animal learns something, it can do something different than it could before, and its brain cells must have changed too, if it is made out of atoms. In what way is it different?”
The final three chapters, on the Conservation of Energy, the Theory of Gravitation and Quantum behaviour are a little heavier, but no less interesting. There’s the occasional formula, which immediately starts the eyes glazing over, but, to the lay reader, they serve to remind you just how much of the book is mathematics translated into wonderful, approachable prose. I’ve read about things like Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle or the “double-slit” experiment, which showed that at the quantum level particles behave both waves and particles, many times before, but is actually the first time that I really *got it*. For that, I cannot recommend the book enough.
For those looking for more pop-physics in a similar vein, I can really recommend Why Does E=MC2 by Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw, Quantum by Manjit Kumar and Black Holes, Worm Holes and Time Machines by Jim Al-Khalili. Having now read Six Easy Pieces, I can see the obvious influence of Feynman on the not just their content but their delivery and style.
There are also three prefaces to the edition of the book I read. Paul Davies’ introduction and David Goldstein’s special preface set the backdrop to the book and the lectures. The most interesting preface is the one written by Feynman himself for the original edition, in which he talks about how he set about piecing the course together, who it was aimed at and why, and how ultimately he felt that he had let his students down in some way. It shows just how much thought he put into the lectures and just how much he cared about educating his students. In some way, as someone enjoys teaching and talking about science, I learnt a lot from these few pages as I did from the rest of the book.
Its 50 years since The Feynman Lectures on Physics were published. Our understanding of the universe, and particularly quantum mechanics, has moved on in leaps and bounds but at no point did Six Easy Pieces feel like it was out of date because Feynman’s timeless ways of explaining complicated physics in uncomplicated ways.
The ‘easy’ in the title, is, like our sense of time, all relative. The lectures, delivered in the early 60’s, were aimed at “the most intelligent in the class [freshman and sophomore physics students at Caltech, one of the most prestigious institutions in the world] and to make sure, if possible, that even the most intelligent student was unable to encompass everything…”
We, as the general reader, are more like the ‘secondary’ audience for the lectures, who for Feyman at the time were the students “for whom the extra fireworks are merely disquieting and who cannot be expected to learn the material in the lecture at all”. Such was Feynman’s power of exposition, however, you can follow the science, each chapter getting progressively more complicated and abstract, without ever feeling like you’re being left behind.
The first three chapters, on Atoms in Motion, Basic Physics, and the Relation of Physics to Other Sciences, were so good I read them twice. Their broad remit means they touch on lots of different things, with one astonishing idea thrown in after the other. Mind-body dualism from a physicists perspective: “When an animal learns something, it can do something different than it could before, and its brain cells must have changed too, if it is made out of atoms. In what way is it different?”
The final three chapters, on the Conservation of Energy, the Theory of Gravitation and Quantum behaviour are a little heavier, but no less interesting. There’s the occasional formula, which immediately starts the eyes glazing over, but, to the lay reader, they serve to remind you just how much of the book is mathematics translated into wonderful, approachable prose. I’ve read about things like Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle or the “double-slit” experiment, which showed that at the quantum level particles behave both waves and particles, many times before, but is actually the first time that I really *got it*. For that, I cannot recommend the book enough.
For those looking for more pop-physics in a similar vein, I can really recommend Why Does E=MC2 by Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw, Quantum by Manjit Kumar and Black Holes, Worm Holes and Time Machines by Jim Al-Khalili. Having now read Six Easy Pieces, I can see the obvious influence of Feynman on the not just their content but their delivery and style.
There are also three prefaces to the edition of the book I read. Paul Davies’ introduction and David Goldstein’s special preface set the backdrop to the book and the lectures. The most interesting preface is the one written by Feynman himself for the original edition, in which he talks about how he set about piecing the course together, who it was aimed at and why, and how ultimately he felt that he had let his students down in some way. It shows just how much thought he put into the lectures and just how much he cared about educating his students. In some way, as someone enjoys teaching and talking about science, I learnt a lot from these few pages as I did from the rest of the book.
Its 50 years since The Feynman Lectures on Physics were published. Our understanding of the universe, and particularly quantum mechanics, has moved on in leaps and bounds but at no point did Six Easy Pieces feel like it was out of date because Feynman’s timeless ways of explaining complicated physics in uncomplicated ways.
March 16, 2011
Note to reader: I am not within Feynman's target demographic...
So if anyone is familiar with Feynman's "claim to fame," it's basically the idea that he's the most brilliant Physicis teacher of the 20th century and his lectures are ingenius in both their presentation and method.
Now, I'm not the most science-inclined person out there. I've never taken even a preliminary physics course (and these lectures were intended for his intro Caltech class, so...). But I'm also not dumb as a rock, either.
With that said, I didn't understand much of this book. I could follow along vaguely and in general terms. But could I explain to someone else what gravitational energy is now? Definitely not. In fact, I can barely remember the different topics in the book now because of how little I actually retained about them.
For people who think this is going to be a magical book that will teach what were once almost mysteriously complicated ideas with wonderful simplicity - think again. You would never become truly knowledgeable on any of these topics with only this small of an overview. But, if you are scientifically inclined, it might at least be interesting and prompt you to take your learning further. It does get more technical than I thought it would. Although nowhere near as technical as the topics actually go.
All in all, I didn't really enjoy it. Which is why it's 3 stars. But I could see its merit for Physics students and it did bring to light various big questions about science in general, which is why it didn't get 2 or 1.
So if anyone is familiar with Feynman's "claim to fame," it's basically the idea that he's the most brilliant Physicis teacher of the 20th century and his lectures are ingenius in both their presentation and method.
Now, I'm not the most science-inclined person out there. I've never taken even a preliminary physics course (and these lectures were intended for his intro Caltech class, so...). But I'm also not dumb as a rock, either.
With that said, I didn't understand much of this book. I could follow along vaguely and in general terms. But could I explain to someone else what gravitational energy is now? Definitely not. In fact, I can barely remember the different topics in the book now because of how little I actually retained about them.
For people who think this is going to be a magical book that will teach what were once almost mysteriously complicated ideas with wonderful simplicity - think again. You would never become truly knowledgeable on any of these topics with only this small of an overview. But, if you are scientifically inclined, it might at least be interesting and prompt you to take your learning further. It does get more technical than I thought it would. Although nowhere near as technical as the topics actually go.
All in all, I didn't really enjoy it. Which is why it's 3 stars. But I could see its merit for Physics students and it did bring to light various big questions about science in general, which is why it didn't get 2 or 1.
February 1, 2021
Six Easy Pieces consists essentially of some of the initial lectures from the famous Feynman Lectures. The last chapter of this book, also taken from the lectures, is an introduction to quantum mechanics, namely the double-slit experiment. If you’ve never read anything from Feynman, here’s a good point to start.
This book is supposed to introduce the basic concepts of physics and is very easy to read. Feynman was a great teacher. His enthusiasm could captivate anyone, even in written words, and I always find myself listening to his enthusiastic voice inside my head. He was also famous for making scientific concepts understandable for anyone and you can very easily see his style here.
I had read the first Volume from the Feynman Lectures many years ago, so this was a nice read to get a reminding of how good they were. The best chapter of this book is definitely the last one, with Feynman demonstrating the double-slit experiment in a brilliant and accessible way. The only downside is that some of the things he mentions about particle physics might be a bit outdated. Otherwise, this is an excellent book.
This book is supposed to introduce the basic concepts of physics and is very easy to read. Feynman was a great teacher. His enthusiasm could captivate anyone, even in written words, and I always find myself listening to his enthusiastic voice inside my head. He was also famous for making scientific concepts understandable for anyone and you can very easily see his style here.
I had read the first Volume from the Feynman Lectures many years ago, so this was a nice read to get a reminding of how good they were. The best chapter of this book is definitely the last one, with Feynman demonstrating the double-slit experiment in a brilliant and accessible way. The only downside is that some of the things he mentions about particle physics might be a bit outdated. Otherwise, this is an excellent book.
June 4, 2013
This is one of those rare books whose title says everything that has to be said about it. In fact, the title sums up the book so well that I’ll only repeat it:
Six Easy Pieces: Essentials of Physics Explained by its Most Brilliant Teacher
September 6, 2013
I think that, when reading this book, you have to be familiar with physics and maths. There are a lot of books claiming to be for the neophytes in physics/maths/astrology etc. but, truth be told, there is little to be learned when in that position. Which is why people shouldn't consider this book as being no good just because they haven't reached the paradise of enlightment which was promised to them. Such a thing isn't possible. Not from a single book, as far as I know, and anyway, not from this one.
I've been studying both maths and physics for quite some time, but in the manner of a poorly prepared educational system, meaning the focus was more on solving problems and ingesting pages of theory and less on really understanding them. And Feynman's lessons really shed some light on the mess in my head. I can't claim I thoroughly understood everything in this book, but I surely enjoyed Feynman's way of following gradually to smaller scales what happens in an apparently simple process, until he reaches the "core" of it.
Also, you can't ignore his way of being even poetic at times, which is really why this book won my heart. I have a weakness for science being romanticized. And all ovations go to Richard Feynman for doing this so tactfully.
I've been studying both maths and physics for quite some time, but in the manner of a poorly prepared educational system, meaning the focus was more on solving problems and ingesting pages of theory and less on really understanding them. And Feynman's lessons really shed some light on the mess in my head. I can't claim I thoroughly understood everything in this book, but I surely enjoyed Feynman's way of following gradually to smaller scales what happens in an apparently simple process, until he reaches the "core" of it.
Also, you can't ignore his way of being even poetic at times, which is really why this book won my heart. I have a weakness for science being romanticized. And all ovations go to Richard Feynman for doing this so tactfully.
May 11, 2011
In these lectures, Feynman is very good at explaining some basic concepts for those fairly new to physics. For field theory, he uses the analogy of waves in a pool to show how motion in one place affects motion in a distant place. He says that matter goes straight unless acted upon by an external force, but we don't know why; that the earth is pulled toward the sun, as opposed to the earth moving around the sun; and that atoms are always in motion ("jigglings and wigglings of atoms") and that such movement increases with the application of heat.
Feynman stimulates some interesting issues and questions. Under the principle of conservation of energy, the overall amount of energy remains constant; only re-arrangement of energy/atoms occurs. Feynman states that in joining together, atoms "like certain particular partners, certain particular directions, and so on." In this way he explains why atom combinations (attraction) take particular forms and resist being something other than such forms. This 'integrity' at the quantum level suggests a 'social' context where atoms interact with each other for particular 'reasons' and that an 'inner character' lies at the heart of quantum physics, as opposed to randomness. Feynman also writes that atoms "want" and that "It is the job of physics to analyze why each one wants what it wants." "Want" is an interesting choice of words. He defines inertia by saying that "If something is moving, with nothing touching it and completely undisturbed, it will go on forever, coasting at a uniform speed in a straight line. (Why does it keep on coasting? We do not know, but that is the way it is.)" Does the reference to "coasting" mean that a body is passively carried along in space? If so, carried by what, and what is space?
Feynman says we don't really know what energy is, but does it involve a 'power' differential where matter and energy move to states of equilibrium? If this is so, then is this one way that gravity (differences in mass and distance) might have a parallel at the quantum level (weight of atoms as they combine or recombine)? Feynman writes that "all planets push and pull each other." If "pull" is attraction of bodies to each other, it's not clear what push means. For that matter, it's also not clear how "push and pull" relate to Einstein's spacetime curvature (oddly, Feynman discusses Einstein's relativity only briefly). Regarding push-pull (attraction-resistance) Feynman makes some suggestive comments when he states that "the force of electricity between two charged objects looks just like the law of gravitation...." In describing the earth's movement around the sun, Feynman says that the earth impinges "on more particles which are coming from its forward side than from its hind side." Does this mean that the earth "bunches up space" ("particles") as it moves through its orbit and is this related to the earth's gravity? Elsewhere, Feynman states that "the earth can be understood to be round merely because everything attracts everything else and so it has attracted itself together as far as it can!" Gravity is not some (mystical) force at the center of the earth, but a pulling of matter and energy inward, against itself, toward the center.
While this is all fun stuff to think about, these Feynman lectures do not enlighten much a lay person's understanding of the uncertainty principle, annhilation and antimatter, and absolute time. His last lecture on quantum behavior is particularly difficult. Feynman is at his best discussing the role of doubt and uncertainty in science. When he differs with the theories of the past or of his contemporaries, he seems respectful enough, saying that they are not wrong, but "a little wrong" or "incomplete." His footnote at the bottom of p. 59 directly challenges those who say wonder and awe are the province of poetry and religion, not science. He also blends life and non-life together when he says that "'Everything is made of atoms....there is nothing that living things do that cannot be understood from the point of view that they are made of atoms acting according to the laws of physics.'" This is Feynman at his best, and a good challenge for those attempting to put philosophy on a solid materialistic foundation.
Feynman stimulates some interesting issues and questions. Under the principle of conservation of energy, the overall amount of energy remains constant; only re-arrangement of energy/atoms occurs. Feynman states that in joining together, atoms "like certain particular partners, certain particular directions, and so on." In this way he explains why atom combinations (attraction) take particular forms and resist being something other than such forms. This 'integrity' at the quantum level suggests a 'social' context where atoms interact with each other for particular 'reasons' and that an 'inner character' lies at the heart of quantum physics, as opposed to randomness. Feynman also writes that atoms "want" and that "It is the job of physics to analyze why each one wants what it wants." "Want" is an interesting choice of words. He defines inertia by saying that "If something is moving, with nothing touching it and completely undisturbed, it will go on forever, coasting at a uniform speed in a straight line. (Why does it keep on coasting? We do not know, but that is the way it is.)" Does the reference to "coasting" mean that a body is passively carried along in space? If so, carried by what, and what is space?
Feynman says we don't really know what energy is, but does it involve a 'power' differential where matter and energy move to states of equilibrium? If this is so, then is this one way that gravity (differences in mass and distance) might have a parallel at the quantum level (weight of atoms as they combine or recombine)? Feynman writes that "all planets push and pull each other." If "pull" is attraction of bodies to each other, it's not clear what push means. For that matter, it's also not clear how "push and pull" relate to Einstein's spacetime curvature (oddly, Feynman discusses Einstein's relativity only briefly). Regarding push-pull (attraction-resistance) Feynman makes some suggestive comments when he states that "the force of electricity between two charged objects looks just like the law of gravitation...." In describing the earth's movement around the sun, Feynman says that the earth impinges "on more particles which are coming from its forward side than from its hind side." Does this mean that the earth "bunches up space" ("particles") as it moves through its orbit and is this related to the earth's gravity? Elsewhere, Feynman states that "the earth can be understood to be round merely because everything attracts everything else and so it has attracted itself together as far as it can!" Gravity is not some (mystical) force at the center of the earth, but a pulling of matter and energy inward, against itself, toward the center.
While this is all fun stuff to think about, these Feynman lectures do not enlighten much a lay person's understanding of the uncertainty principle, annhilation and antimatter, and absolute time. His last lecture on quantum behavior is particularly difficult. Feynman is at his best discussing the role of doubt and uncertainty in science. When he differs with the theories of the past or of his contemporaries, he seems respectful enough, saying that they are not wrong, but "a little wrong" or "incomplete." His footnote at the bottom of p. 59 directly challenges those who say wonder and awe are the province of poetry and religion, not science. He also blends life and non-life together when he says that "'Everything is made of atoms....there is nothing that living things do that cannot be understood from the point of view that they are made of atoms acting according to the laws of physics.'" This is Feynman at his best, and a good challenge for those attempting to put philosophy on a solid materialistic foundation.
September 16, 2017
Contains the best explanation for the uncertainty principle I have come across. Still trying to wrap my mind around quantum mechanics though.
March 31, 2021
Richard Feynman’s reputation as one of the 20th century’s great physicists is secure, and he was noted as one its foremost explainers and teachers. His reputation as a person, however, has taken some hits in recent years: misogyny, cruel practical jokes, and contemptuous dismissal of people he considered his intellectual inferiors. If you wish to hold his memory in high regard, you should avoid reading the things he says about women in his autobiography, and when he joined the committee investigating the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster the other members found him arrogant and difficult to work with (see: https://www.nytimes.com/1986/06/07/us...).
Nevertheless, his reputation rests on his physics work, and several generations of physicists have been inspired by his famous three volume Feynman Lectures on Physics from 1963. Six Easy Pieces collects six of those lectures, ones covering subjects that could be described mostly with analogies and anecdotes rather than relying on advanced math.
The first three chapters, Atoms in Motion, Basic Physics, and The Relation of Physics to Other Sciences, are excellent, informative, and make good use of examples. This is where Feynman makes one of his most famous analogies: “if an apple is magnified to the size of the earth, then the atoms in the apple are approximately the size of the original apple.” (p.5) But of course, atoms are mostly empty space, and later he explains that “If we had an atom and wished to see the nucleus, we would have to magnify it until the whole atom was the size of a large room, and then the nucleus would be a bare speck which you could just about make out with the eye, but very nearly all the weight of the atom is in that infinitesimal nucleus.” (p. 34)
Even people who have no interest at all in physics would enjoy these chapters for the insights they shed on the basic stuff of the universe, of everything that exists, including you and me.
The other three chapters, on the Conservation of Energy, the Theory of Gravitation, and Quantum Behavior, go a little deeper into the fundamentals of physics but are also illuminating, although I thought his discussion of the famous two-slit experiment got too far down in the weeds with its explanations of all the various permutations and the interference patterns.
The book is starting to show its age in some areas, and it is best when it sticks to timeless basic principles. Reading it made me think of Edward O. Wilson’s Consilience, which makes the point that today all science pivots on an understanding of basic physics: biology, chemistry, geology, cosmology and the others are incomprehensible without a thorough grounding in first principles. Feynman would have understood and endorsed this point, for he could see through surface appearances and down into the fundamental forces that bind the universe together.
Nevertheless, his reputation rests on his physics work, and several generations of physicists have been inspired by his famous three volume Feynman Lectures on Physics from 1963. Six Easy Pieces collects six of those lectures, ones covering subjects that could be described mostly with analogies and anecdotes rather than relying on advanced math.
The first three chapters, Atoms in Motion, Basic Physics, and The Relation of Physics to Other Sciences, are excellent, informative, and make good use of examples. This is where Feynman makes one of his most famous analogies: “if an apple is magnified to the size of the earth, then the atoms in the apple are approximately the size of the original apple.” (p.5) But of course, atoms are mostly empty space, and later he explains that “If we had an atom and wished to see the nucleus, we would have to magnify it until the whole atom was the size of a large room, and then the nucleus would be a bare speck which you could just about make out with the eye, but very nearly all the weight of the atom is in that infinitesimal nucleus.” (p. 34)
Even people who have no interest at all in physics would enjoy these chapters for the insights they shed on the basic stuff of the universe, of everything that exists, including you and me.
The other three chapters, on the Conservation of Energy, the Theory of Gravitation, and Quantum Behavior, go a little deeper into the fundamentals of physics but are also illuminating, although I thought his discussion of the famous two-slit experiment got too far down in the weeds with its explanations of all the various permutations and the interference patterns.
The book is starting to show its age in some areas, and it is best when it sticks to timeless basic principles. Reading it made me think of Edward O. Wilson’s Consilience, which makes the point that today all science pivots on an understanding of basic physics: biology, chemistry, geology, cosmology and the others are incomprehensible without a thorough grounding in first principles. Feynman would have understood and endorsed this point, for he could see through surface appearances and down into the fundamental forces that bind the universe together.
November 18, 2020
বিশ্বের ইতিহাসে সেরা শিক্ষকদের একজন রিচার্ড ফাইনম্যান। উনার বিষয় পদার্থবিজ্ঞান। সাধারণত দেখা যায়, যারা ভালো ও বড় মাপের বিজ্ঞানী তারা ভালো শিক্ষক নন, আবার যারা ভালো শিক্ষক তারা ভালো বিজ্ঞানী নন। যারা কোনো একটাতে ভালো তাদের প্রায়ই আবার রসিক নন কিংবা জ্ঞানের অন্যান্য দিকে বেশি একটা দক্ষতা রাখেন না। কিন্তু রিচার্ড ফাইনম্যান এসব দিক থেকে আলাদা। তিনি একধারে ভালো বিজ্ঞানী, ভালো শিক্ষক, ভালো রসিক, ভালো বোদ্ধা ও ভালো বন্ধু। বলা যায় সব্যসাচী ব্যক্তিত্ব।
ফাইনম্যানের মতো গবেষকরা সাধারণত পদার্থবিজ্ঞানের প্রাথমিক কোর্সগুলো করান না, করালে উচ্চতর কোর্স করান। সত্তরের দশকে ক্যালটেক কর্তৃপক্ষ অনুধাবন করলো আন্ডারগ্র্যাডের শুরুর দিকে শিক্ষার্থীরা পদার্থবিজ্ঞানের দারুণ দারুণ আকর্ষণ থেকে বঞ্চিত হচ্ছে। ততদিনে পদার্থবিজ্ঞান অনেক উন্নতির ধাপ অতিক্রম করে এসেছে, আর সেসব উন্নতির অনেকগুলোই হয়েছে ক্যালটেকের মধ্যে। এগুলো নিয়ে আলোচনা না হলে কোর্সটা সেকেলেই থেকে যাচ্ছে। তাই কর্তৃপক্ষ শরণাপন্ন হলেন ফাইনম্যানের কাছে, তিনি এমন একটা কোর্স নিয়ে দেবেন যেটা হবে খুব আধুনিক এবং পদার্থবিজ্ঞানের পাঠ্যক্রমের দৃষ্টিকোণে ঐতিহাসিক।
সেকালেই তার প্রত্যেকটা লেকচার ভিডিও করা হয়, তার লেখা প্রত্যেকটা ব্ল্যাকবোর্ড ছবি তুলে রাখা হয়। পুরো কোর্স সম্পন্ন হলে তার লেকচারগুলো নিয়ে প্রকাশ করা হয় The Feynman Lectures on Physics। যা খুব দ্রুত ইতিহাসবিখ্যাত হয়ে যায়। অনেক টেক্সট বই তার এই বইকে অনুসরণ করে। আমরা স্কুল কলেজে যে পদার্থবিজ্ঞান পড়েছি তার অনেক ধাঁচ, উদাহরণ এই বই থেকে নেওয়া। এত বছর হয়ে গেছে, তারপরেও এর আবেদন ম্লান হয়ে যায়নি। পদার্থবিজ্ঞানের সচেতন ছাত্র মাত্রই এই লেকচার কিনে ও পড়ে।
পদার্থবিজ্ঞান তো সকলেরই জন্য। ভিন্ন বিষয়ের হোক কিংবা ছোট ক্লাসের শিক্ষার্থী হোক তারা চাইলেই ফাইনম্যানের দেওয়া পদার্থবিজ্ঞানের স্বাদ উপভোগ করতে পারবে। তাই ফাইনম্যানের লেকচার থেকে সহজ ও সুন্দর ৬টি লেকচার নিয়ে আলাদা করে প্রকাশ করা হয়েছে একটি বই, নাম Six Easy Pieces। অনেকটা পপুলার ধাঁচের এই সংকলনও সমান বিখ্যাত।
বাংলাভাষী পাঠকদের জন্য এই বিশ্ববিখ্যাত সংকলনটির অনুবাদ করেছেন উচ্ছ্বাস তৌসিফ। প্রকাশ করেছে প্রথমা প্রকাশন। উচ্ছ্বাস অনেকদিন ধরেই বিজ্ঞানচিন্তা, Roar বাংলা সহ আরো কিছু মাধ্যমে লেখালেখি করছেন। উনার লেখা প্রায়ই পড়ি। বেশ ভালো লিখেন। ভালো বোঝেন। উনার লেখা পড়তেও বেশ আরাম, জোর করে নিজেকে ধরে রাখা লাগে না। সাবলীলতা আছে। 'সিক্স ইজি পিসেস' এর অনুবাদও চমৎকার হয়েছে। অতীব ক্ষুদ্র ও নগণ্য কিছু বাদে কোনো ত্রুটিই নেই অনুবাদে। তার পাশাপাশি প্রথমা প্রকাশনের যত্নশীল প্রুফরিডিং, বানান সতর্কতা ও মেক আপের কারণে এর গ্রহণযোগ্য বেড়েছে আরও। উচ্ছ্বাস আরো লিখুক, আরো দারুণ দারুণ জিনিস অনুবাদ করুক, ভালো কিছু উপহার দিক।
যারা পদার্থবিজ্ঞানের ছাত্র কিংবা যারা পদার্থবিজ্ঞান পছন্দ করে তাদের কাছে এই বই থাকা বাঞ্ছনীয়। আফসোস লাগে, আমি যখন স্কুলে/কলেজে পড়তাম তখন এসব বই ছিল না। এখন অনেক ভালো ভালো বই আছে বাংলায়। এখনকার শিক্ষার্থীদের ভাগ্য বেশ ভালো।
ফাইনম্যানের মতো গবেষকরা সাধারণত পদার্থবিজ্ঞানের প্রাথমিক কোর্সগুলো করান না, করালে উচ্চতর কোর্স করান। সত্তরের দশকে ক্যালটেক কর্তৃপক্ষ অনুধাবন করলো আন্ডারগ্র্যাডের শুরুর দিকে শিক্ষার্থীরা পদার্থবিজ্ঞানের দারুণ দারুণ আকর্ষণ থেকে বঞ্চিত হচ্ছে। ততদিনে পদার্থবিজ্ঞান অনেক উন্নতির ধাপ অতিক্রম করে এসেছে, আর সেসব উন্নতির অনেকগুলোই হয়েছে ক্যালটেকের মধ্যে। এগুলো নিয়ে আলোচনা না হলে কোর্সটা সেকেলেই থেকে যাচ্ছে। তাই কর্তৃপক্ষ শরণাপন্ন হলেন ফাইনম্যানের কাছে, তিনি এমন একটা কোর্স নিয়ে দেবেন যেটা হবে খুব আধুনিক এবং পদার্থবিজ্ঞানের পাঠ্যক্রমের দৃষ্টিকোণে ঐতিহাসিক।
সেকালেই তার প্রত্যেকটা লেকচার ভিডিও করা হয়, তার লেখা প্রত্যেকটা ব্ল্যাকবোর্ড ছবি তুলে রাখা হয়। পুরো কোর্স সম্পন্ন হলে তার লেকচারগুলো নিয়ে প্রকাশ করা হয় The Feynman Lectures on Physics। যা খুব দ্রুত ইতিহাসবিখ্যাত হয়ে যায়। অনেক টেক্সট বই তার এই বইকে অনুসরণ করে। আমরা স্কুল কলেজে যে পদার্থবিজ্ঞান পড়েছি তার অনেক ধাঁচ, উদাহরণ এই বই থেকে নেওয়া। এত বছর হয়ে গেছে, তারপরেও এর আবেদন ম্লান হয়ে যায়নি। পদার্থবিজ্ঞানের সচেতন ছাত্র মাত্রই এই লেকচার কিনে ও পড়ে।
পদার্থবিজ্ঞান তো সকলেরই জন্য। ভিন্ন বিষয়ের হোক কিংবা ছোট ক্লাসের শিক্ষার্থী হোক তারা চাইলেই ফাইনম্যানের দেওয়া পদার্থবিজ্ঞানের স্বাদ উপভোগ করতে পারবে। তাই ফাইনম্যানের লেকচার থেকে সহজ ও সুন্দর ৬টি লেকচার নিয়ে আলাদা করে প্রকাশ করা হয়েছে একটি বই, নাম Six Easy Pieces। অনেকটা পপুলার ধাঁচের এই সংকলনও সমান বিখ্যাত।
বাংলাভাষী পাঠকদের জন্য এই বিশ্ববিখ্যাত সংকলনটির অনুবাদ করেছেন উচ্ছ্বাস তৌসিফ। প্রকাশ করেছে প্রথমা প্রকাশন। উচ্ছ্বাস অনেকদিন ধরেই বিজ্ঞানচিন্তা, Roar বাংলা সহ আরো কিছু মাধ্যমে লেখালেখি করছেন। উনার লেখা প্রায়ই পড়ি। বেশ ভালো লিখেন। ভালো বোঝেন। উনার লেখা পড়তেও বেশ আরাম, জোর করে নিজেকে ধরে রাখা লাগে না। সাবলীলতা আছে। 'সিক্স ইজি পিসেস' এর অনুবাদও চমৎকার হয়েছে। অতীব ক্ষুদ্র ও নগণ্য কিছু বাদে কোনো ত্রুটিই নেই অনুবাদে। তার পাশাপাশি প্রথমা প্রকাশনের যত্নশীল প্রুফরিডিং, বানান সতর্কতা ও মেক আপের কারণে এর গ্রহণযোগ্য বেড়েছে আরও। উচ্ছ্বাস আরো লিখুক, আরো দারুণ দারুণ জিনিস অনুবাদ করুক, ভালো কিছু উপহার দিক।
যারা পদার্থবিজ্ঞানের ছাত্র কিংবা যারা পদার্থবিজ্ঞান পছন্দ করে তাদের কাছে এই বই থাকা বাঞ্ছনীয়। আফসোস লাগে, আমি যখন স্কুলে/কলেজে পড়তাম তখন এসব বই ছিল না। এখন অনেক ভালো ভালো বই আছে বাংলায়। এখনকার শিক্ষার্থীদের ভাগ্য বেশ ভালো।
May 11, 2011
If you have heard about the "weirdness" of quantum mechanics but don't know what the hype is all about, look no further than chapter six of this book. In chapter six, with his usual down-to-earth approach, Feynman describes one of the most famous experiments in physics (the double-slit experiment) and what it tells us about the way fundamental particles behave. He compares the behavior of "lumps" to the behavior of "waves" before moving on to the behavior of electrons... and the outcome might surprise you (it surprised early 20th-century physicists, too). This is a classic lesson in quantum mechanics taught by one of the classic teachers of physics. And there's no math required.
I only gave this book two stars because the other five lectures in this book aren't overly memorable and come nowhere near to being Feynman's greatest lessons. But chapter six alone makes this book worth picking up, especially if you want an introduction to wave-particle duality, the uncertainty principle, and the conundrum of quantum measurement that is accessible to the layperson but that also demands that you stretch your mind. It's a brief introduction that cuts to the essence of what is going on and, while giving you a decent grounding, will leave you ready to dig deeper and learn more.
I only gave this book two stars because the other five lectures in this book aren't overly memorable and come nowhere near to being Feynman's greatest lessons. But chapter six alone makes this book worth picking up, especially if you want an introduction to wave-particle duality, the uncertainty principle, and the conundrum of quantum measurement that is accessible to the layperson but that also demands that you stretch your mind. It's a brief introduction that cuts to the essence of what is going on and, while giving you a decent grounding, will leave you ready to dig deeper and learn more.
August 31, 2024
Deci il recomand pe dl Feynman, mai ales dupa experienta mai putin placuta cu ‘Scurta istorie a timpului’ in care, pe langa ca ordinea ideilor era haotica, lucrurile mai complexe nu erau explicate dar, multumesc ca mi s-a explicat legea gravitatiei ori de cate ori simteam ca as fi uitat-o.
Logica ideilor si analogiile clare au dat un fir rosu lectiilor si cum ii zice si titlul chiar e o carte recomandata celor care suntem incepatori si vrem sa aflam mai multe despre acest domeniu. Pe langa aceasta carte as recomanda si ‘The universe in your hand’ scrisa de elevul lui Hawking, in care se face apel la imaginatia cititorului si se porneste intr-o calatorie (mai mult sau mai putin) imaginara prin univers.
Logica ideilor si analogiile clare au dat un fir rosu lectiilor si cum ii zice si titlul chiar e o carte recomandata celor care suntem incepatori si vrem sa aflam mai multe despre acest domeniu. Pe langa aceasta carte as recomanda si ‘The universe in your hand’ scrisa de elevul lui Hawking, in care se face apel la imaginatia cititorului si se porneste intr-o calatorie (mai mult sau mai putin) imaginara prin univers.
July 11, 2018
so this book (if you were at all interested) is a collection of the six 'most basic' lectures delivered by richard feynman when he taught caltech 1st year physics undergrads in the early 1960s. feynman is famously an excellent communicator and very good at explaining physics-y things and coming up with analogies. honestly though, i was a little disappointed.
admittedly, i thought the chapter on quantum behaviour (6) was *fantastic*, and probably the best and most thorough explanation i've come across. the maths was a little elusive and unexplained, but that didn't bother me too much as i'm sure i'll learn about it in time & it's not necessary to understand what's going on. but i would definitely recommend this chapter (which you can read online for free - http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.ed...) to anyone to wants to understand quantum behaviour. + i did also enjoy the first two chapters in the book as well, which were on atoms in motion and basic physics.
the rest of the book, however, was quite meh. the chapter on the relationship between physics and other sciences (3) was often very vague and seemed to be stating the obvious a lot of the time, although i did find it quite interesting in places (for instance the section on geology and biology, even if the latter seemed to drag on a bit). chapter (4) which was on conservation of energy was pretty confusing sometimes and otherwise pretty unmemorable.
so, pretty hit and miss... 2.5 stars?
admittedly, i thought the chapter on quantum behaviour (6) was *fantastic*, and probably the best and most thorough explanation i've come across. the maths was a little elusive and unexplained, but that didn't bother me too much as i'm sure i'll learn about it in time & it's not necessary to understand what's going on. but i would definitely recommend this chapter (which you can read online for free - http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.ed...) to anyone to wants to understand quantum behaviour. + i did also enjoy the first two chapters in the book as well, which were on atoms in motion and basic physics.
the rest of the book, however, was quite meh. the chapter on the relationship between physics and other sciences (3) was often very vague and seemed to be stating the obvious a lot of the time, although i did find it quite interesting in places (for instance the section on geology and biology, even if the latter seemed to drag on a bit). chapter (4) which was on conservation of energy was pretty confusing sometimes and otherwise pretty unmemorable.
so, pretty hit and miss... 2.5 stars?
October 11, 2019
Apparently these are the 6 "easiest to understand" (despite the inclusion of quantum mechanics!") of the Feynman lectures. Some of them flit too much from one thing to another; I'm sure they were interesting as lectures but they are not the ideal way to read about a topic. However, the way Feynman explains certain concrete idea is really interesting; in particular the chapter on quantum mechanics is good and easy to follow. I'm on the fence as to whether to read the full set of lectures.
March 25, 2016
Bu kitabın da Alfa Bilim dizsinden yeni çeviriyle baskısı var. Eski çeviride çok fazla hata vardı.
Feynman Physics Lecture'daki ilk bölümleri kapsayan bu kitap fizik bilmeyenler için çok güzel bir giriş kitabı. Bu arada Feynman Physics Lecture'ların 3 cildinin de çevrilmekte olduğunu bildirim :-)
Kerem Cankoçak
Feynman Physics Lecture'daki ilk bölümleri kapsayan bu kitap fizik bilmeyenler için çok güzel bir giriş kitabı. Bu arada Feynman Physics Lecture'ların 3 cildinin de çevrilmekte olduğunu bildirim :-)
Kerem Cankoçak
February 24, 2024
Nu cred că poți vorbi despre această carte fără să vorbești despre Richard Feynman.
Deși poate nu-i la fel de cunoscut ca Einstein sau Oppenheimer, e unul din cei mai interesanți fizicieni. Nu țin minte cum am dat peste autobiografia sa, "Vă țineți de glume, domnule Feynman!', dar țin minte că a fost una din primele carti pe care le-am citit cu drag (cred că trebuie să o recitesc și să scriu și acolo un review).
Pe langa munca lui in fizică cuantică e cunoscut și pentru 'Feynman technique', dar și pentru modul în care reușea să explice și cele mai complexe concepte din fizică, și nu numai. Bill Gates o spune foarte fain: "Feynman e cel mai bun profesor pe care nu l-am avut". Iar această calitate se vede in carte.
Aici sunt câteva lecții din cursurile lui de fizică, cursuri pe care le-a facut pentru a face fizica cât mai captivantă pentru studenți. Fiind un student care abia și-a luat examenul la fizică, pot să spun că multe dintre lucrurile explicate aici au fost mult mai ușor de înțeles. Asta datorită modului în care Feynman ia exemple din viața reală, le explică modul de funcționare, iar apoi aplică tot ce ți-a prezentat și, voila, acum știi ce-i energia cinetică (și multe altele). Desigur, sunt și concepte mai avansate, cum ar fi fizica cuantică, care sunt mai greu de înțeles.
Overall, e o carte foarte bună dacă ai și cea mai mică înclinație spre fizică.
Deși poate nu-i la fel de cunoscut ca Einstein sau Oppenheimer, e unul din cei mai interesanți fizicieni. Nu țin minte cum am dat peste autobiografia sa, "Vă țineți de glume, domnule Feynman!', dar țin minte că a fost una din primele carti pe care le-am citit cu drag (cred că trebuie să o recitesc și să scriu și acolo un review).
Pe langa munca lui in fizică cuantică e cunoscut și pentru 'Feynman technique', dar și pentru modul în care reușea să explice și cele mai complexe concepte din fizică, și nu numai. Bill Gates o spune foarte fain: "Feynman e cel mai bun profesor pe care nu l-am avut". Iar această calitate se vede in carte.
Aici sunt câteva lecții din cursurile lui de fizică, cursuri pe care le-a facut pentru a face fizica cât mai captivantă pentru studenți. Fiind un student care abia și-a luat examenul la fizică, pot să spun că multe dintre lucrurile explicate aici au fost mult mai ușor de înțeles. Asta datorită modului în care Feynman ia exemple din viața reală, le explică modul de funcționare, iar apoi aplică tot ce ți-a prezentat și, voila, acum știi ce-i energia cinetică (și multe altele). Desigur, sunt și concepte mai avansate, cum ar fi fizica cuantică, care sunt mai greu de înțeles.
Overall, e o carte foarte bună dacă ai și cea mai mică înclinație spre fizică.
May 15, 2025
„Шест достъпни урока“ на Ричард Файнман е сборник от лекции, които представят основни концепции на физиката по ясен и увлекателен начин. Файнман успява да направи сложните теми разбираеми и интересни за широката публика, като подчертава важността на любопитството и критичното мислене в научното познание. Книгата е ценен ресурс както за студенти, така и за всеки, който иска да се докосне до красотата на физиката и метода на научното изследване. Тя отразява уникалния стил и дух на един от най-великите учители на XX век.
October 26, 2016
4.5/5 stars
I picked up this book several months ago and then dropped it despite nearly finishing it due to the complexity of the last chapter: Quantum Behavior. This by no means implies that the book is difficult as a whole.
I thoroughly enjoyed the first three chapters: Atoms in Motion, Basic Physics, and the Relations of Physics to Other Sciences. The method he chose to explain the concepts in these chapters was elegant and easy to understand. He compared our understanding the law of physics to watching a game of chess played by the gods (not personal gods) and we humans as observers knowing nothing about the chess rules. However, I have difficulty with understanding quantum mechanics when he started involving mathematic equation, which I particularly have no formal education. I might as well come back to this chapter once I have a better understanding of mathematics.
Overall, I would recommend "Six Easy Pieces" to anyone who is interested in science, physics especially, to check it out. You might have already known the concepts, but you'll be amazed by his styles.
I picked up this book several months ago and then dropped it despite nearly finishing it due to the complexity of the last chapter: Quantum Behavior. This by no means implies that the book is difficult as a whole.
I thoroughly enjoyed the first three chapters: Atoms in Motion, Basic Physics, and the Relations of Physics to Other Sciences. The method he chose to explain the concepts in these chapters was elegant and easy to understand. He compared our understanding the law of physics to watching a game of chess played by the gods (not personal gods) and we humans as observers knowing nothing about the chess rules. However, I have difficulty with understanding quantum mechanics when he started involving mathematic equation, which I particularly have no formal education. I might as well come back to this chapter once I have a better understanding of mathematics.
Overall, I would recommend "Six Easy Pieces" to anyone who is interested in science, physics especially, to check it out. You might have already known the concepts, but you'll be amazed by his styles.
May 18, 2021
“You know, the most amazing thing happened to me tonight... I saw a car with the license plate ARW 357. Can you imagine? Of all the millions of license plates in the state, what was the chance that I would see that particular one tonight? Amazing!”
I have read few other popular science books, and it's still the same case. It's hard to understand. Some things are easy peasy, some are not so easy (no pun intended). But it's not Richard's fault. He rather did a great job of investing readers into the book! Examples made me think like a true scientist. Like, how that thing can go in that? How it ended up there? Is there any other possibilities? Why it happened like that?
Topics were exhilarating (Dr. Stone reference)! I was, as always, delighted to understand the nature of world. Realizing that there is so much more under the plain face of our world is the first step of appreciating it!
Masterpiece, Richard Feynman! 😍💖
I have read few other popular science books, and it's still the same case. It's hard to understand. Some things are easy peasy, some are not so easy (no pun intended). But it's not Richard's fault. He rather did a great job of investing readers into the book! Examples made me think like a true scientist. Like, how that thing can go in that? How it ended up there? Is there any other possibilities? Why it happened like that?
Topics were exhilarating (Dr. Stone reference)! I was, as always, delighted to understand the nature of world. Realizing that there is so much more under the plain face of our world is the first step of appreciating it!
Masterpiece, Richard Feynman! 😍💖
January 13, 2020
A really lucid introduction to physics—lecture style.
August 16, 2023
Not so easy.
December 11, 2023
کتاب خوبی بود
نیمه اول کتاب رو بیشتر دوست داشتم
نیمه دوم یکم شبیه کلاس درس شد که باعث میشه یکم جذابیت کتاب کم شه و کند پیش بره.
نیمه اول کتاب رو بیشتر دوست داشتم
نیمه دوم یکم شبیه کلاس درس شد که باعث میشه یکم جذابیت کتاب کم شه و کند پیش بره.
May 8, 2026
That last chapter was a scrumptiously, richly baked chocolate cake with a delightfully irresistible, gooey centre
Still Water:
"Newton personified the gentleman scientist - well connected, devoutly religious, unhurried, and methodical in his work. His style of doing science set the standard for two hundred years. In the first half of the twentieth century Albert Einstein replaced Newton as the popular scientist icon. Eccentric, dishevelled, Germanic, absent-minded, utterly absorbed in his work, and an archetypal abstract thinker, Einstein changed the way that physics is done by questioning the very concepts that define the subject."
"Only by adopting the highest standards of mental discipline can most physicist make progress. Yet Feynman appeared to ride roughshod over this strict code of practice and pluck new results like ready-made fruit from the Tree of Knowledge. The Feynman style owed a great deal to the personality of the man. In his professional and private life he seemed to treat the world as a hugely entertaining game. The physical universe presented him with a fascinating series of puzzles and challenges, and so did his social environment. A lifelong prankster, he treated authority and the academic establishment with the same sort of disrespect he showed for stuffy mathematical formalism."
"If you are going to be a physicist, you will have a lot to study: two hundred years of the most rapidly developing field of knowledge that there is... Surprisingly enough, in spite of the tremendous amount of work that has been done for all this time it is possible to condense the enormous mass of results to a large extent - that is, to find laws which summarise all our knowledge"
"If, in some cataclysm, all of scientific knowledge were to be destroyed, and only one sentence passed on to the next generations of creatures, what statement would contain the most information in the fewest words? I believe it is the atomic hypothesis that all things are made of atoms - little particles that move around in perpetual motion, attracting each other when they are a little distance apart, but repelling upon being squeezed into one another. In that one sentence, you will see, there is an enormous amount of information about the world, if just a little imagination and thinking are applied."
"Helium merely decreases the atomic motions as much as it can, but even at absolute zero there is still enough motion to keep it from freezing. Helium, even at absolute zero, does not freeze, unless the pressure is made so great as to make the atoms squash together. If we increase the pressure, we can make it solidify."
"Why do we see no change? Because just as many molecules are leaving as are coming back! In the long run “nothing happens.” If we then take the top of the vessel off and blow the moist air away,
replacing it with dry air, then the number of molecules leaving is just the same as it was before, because this depends on the jiggling of the water, but the number coming back is greatly reduced be cause there are so many fewer water molecules above the water. Therefore there are more going out than coming in, and the water evaporates. Hence, if you wish to evaporate water turn on the fan! Here is something else: Which molecules leave? When a molecule leaves it is due to an accidental, extra accumulation of a little bit more than ordinary energy, which it needs if it is to break away
from the attractions of its neighbours. Therefore, since those that leave have more energy than the average, the ones that are left have less average motion than they had before. So the liquid gradually cools if it evaporates. Of course, when a molecule of vapor comes from the air to the water below there is a sudden great attraction as the molecule approaches the surface. This speeds up the incoming molecule and results in generation of heat. So when they leave they take away heat; when they come back they generate heat. Of course when there is no net evaporation the result is nothing—the water is not changing temperature. If we blow on the water so as to maintain a continuous preponderance in the number evaporating, then the water is cooled. Hence, blow on soup to cool it!
"What do we mean by “understanding” something? We can imagine that this complicated array of moving things which constitutes “the world” is something like a great chess game being played by the gods, and we are observers of the game. We do not know what the rules of the game are; all we are allowed to do is to watch the playing. Of course, if we watch long enough, we may eventually
catch on to a few of the rules. The rules of the game are what we mean by fundamental physics."
"From the point of view of basic physics, the most interesting phenomena are of course in the new places, the places where the rules do not work—not the places where they do work! That is the way in which we discover new rules."
"all the weight of the atom is in that infinitesimal nucleus. What keeps the electrons from simply falling in? This principle: If they were in the nucleus, we would know their position precisely, and the uncertainty principle would then require that they have a very large (but uncertain) momentum, i.e., a very large kinetic energy. With this energy they would break away from the nucleus. They make a compromise: they leave themselves a little room for this uncertainty and then jiggle with a certain amount of minimum motion in accordance with this rule. (Remember that when a crystal is cooled to absolute zero, we said that the atoms do not stop moving, they still jiggle. Why? If they stopped moving, we would know where they were and that they had zero motion, and that is against the uncertainty principle. We cannot know where they are and how fast they are moving, so they must be continually wiggling in there!)"
"What are the nuclei made of, and how are they held together? It is found that the nuclei are held together by enormous forces. When these are released, the energy released is tremendous compared with chemical energy, in the same ratio as the atomic bomb explosion is to a TNT explosion, because, of course, the atomic bomb has to do with changes inside the nucleus, while the explosion of TNT has to do with the changes of the electrons on the outside of the atoms. "
"Thus most chemical reactions do not occur, because there is what is called an activation energy in the way. In order to add an extra atom to our chemical requires that we get it close enough that some rearrangement can occur; then it will stick. But if we cannot give it enough energy to get it close enough, it will not go to completion it will just go partway up the “hill” and back down again.
However, if we could literally take the molecules in our hands and push and pull the atoms around in such a way as to open a hole to let the new atom in, and then let it snap back, we would have found another way, around the hill, which would not require extra energy, and the reaction would go easily. Now there actually are, in the cells, very large molecules, much larger than the ones whose changes we have been describing, which in some complicated way hold the smaller molecules just right, so that the reaction can occur easily. These very large and complicated things are called enzymes"
"A poet once said, “The whole universe is in a glass of wine.” We will probably never know in what sense he meant that, for poets do not write to be understood. But it is true that if we look at a glass of wine closely enough we see the entire universe. There are the things of physics: the twisting liquid which evaporates depending on the wind and weather, the reflections in the glass, and our imagination adds the atoms. The glass is a distillation of the earth’s rocks, and in its composition we see the secrets of the universe’s age, and the evolution of stars. What strange array of chemicals are in the wine? How did they come to be? There are the ferments, the enzymes, the substrates, and the products. There in wine is found the great generalization: all life is fermentation. Nobody can discover the chemistry of wine without discovering, as did Louis Pasteur, the cause of much disease. How vivid is the claret, pressing its existence into the consciousness that watches it! If our small minds, for some convenience, divide this glass of wine, this universe, into parts—physics, biology, geology, astronomy, psychology, and so on—remember that nature does not know it! So let us put
it all back together, not forgetting ultimately what it is for. Let it give us one more final pleasure: drink it and forget it all!"
"It was first measured by Cavendish with an apparatus which is schematically indicated in Fig. 5-13. This first demonstrated the direct force between two large, fixed balls of lead and two smaller balls of lead on the ends of an arm supported by a very fine fiber, called a torsion fiber. By measuring how much the fiber gets twisted, one can measure the strength of the force, verify that it is inversely proportional to the square of the distance, and determine how strong it is. Thus, one may accurately determine the coefficient G in the formula"
"As we move the detector around, the rate at which the clicks appear is faster or slower, but the size (loudness) of each click is always the same. If we lower the temperature of the wire in the gun the
rate of clicking slows down, but still each click sounds the same. We would notice also that if we put two separate detectors at the backstop, one or the other would click, but never both at once. (Except that once in a while, if there were two clicks very close together in time, our ear might not sense the separation.) We conclude, therefore, that whatever arrives at the backstop arrives in “lumps.” All the “lumps” are the same size: only whole “lumps” arrive, and they arrive one at a time at the backstop. We shall say: “Electrons always arrive in identical lumps.”"
"How can such an interference come about? Perhaps we should say: “Well, that means, presumably, that it is not true that the lumps go either through hole 1 or hole 2, because if they did, the probabilities should add. Perhaps they go in a more complicated way. They split in half and . . .” But no! They cannot, they always arrive in lumps . . . “Well, perhaps some of them go through 1, and then they go around through 2, and then around a few more times, or by some other complicated path . . . then by closing hole 2, we changed the chance that an electron that started out through hole would finally get to the backstop . . .” But notice! There are some points at which very few electrons arrive when both holes are open, but which receive many electrons if we close one hole, so closing one hole increased the number from the other. Notice, however, that at the centre of the pattern, P12 is more than twice as large as P1 + P2. It is as though closing one hole decreased the number of electrons which come through the other hole. It seems hard to explain both effects by proposing that the electrons travel in complicated paths. It is all quite mysterious. And the more you look at it the more mysterious it seems. Many ideas have been concocted to try to explain the curve for P12 in terms of individual electrons going around in complicated ways through the holes. None of them has succeeded. None of them can get the right curve for P12 in terms of P1
and P2"
"in such a way that one can tell which hole the electron went through, and at the same time not disturb the pattern. It was suggested by Heisenberg that the then-new laws of nature could only be consistent if there were some basic limitation on our experimental capabilities not previously recognized. He proposed, as a general principle, his uncertainty principle, which we can state in terms of our experiment as follows: “It is impossible to design an apparatus to determine which hole the electron passes through, that will not at the same time disturb the electrons enough to destroy the interference pattern.” If an apparatus is capable of determining which hole the electron goes through, it cannot be so delicate that it does not disturb the pattern in an essential way. No one has ever found (or even thought of) a way around the uncertainty principle. So we must assume that it describes a basic characteristic of nature."
"We would like to emphasize a very important difference between classical and quantum mechanics. We have been talking about the probability that an electron will arrive in a given circumstance. We have implied that in our experimental arrangement (or even in the best possible one) it would be impossible to predict exactly what would happen. We can only predict the odds! This would mean, if it were true, that physics has given up on the problem of trying to predict exactly what will happen in a definite circumstance. Yes! Physics has given up. We do not know how to predict what would happen in a given circumstance, and we believe now that it is impossible, that the only thing that can be predicted is the probability of different events. It must be recognized that this is a retrenchment in our earlier ideal of understanding nature. It may be a backward
step, but no one has seen a way to avoid it."
Still Water:
"Newton personified the gentleman scientist - well connected, devoutly religious, unhurried, and methodical in his work. His style of doing science set the standard for two hundred years. In the first half of the twentieth century Albert Einstein replaced Newton as the popular scientist icon. Eccentric, dishevelled, Germanic, absent-minded, utterly absorbed in his work, and an archetypal abstract thinker, Einstein changed the way that physics is done by questioning the very concepts that define the subject."
"Only by adopting the highest standards of mental discipline can most physicist make progress. Yet Feynman appeared to ride roughshod over this strict code of practice and pluck new results like ready-made fruit from the Tree of Knowledge. The Feynman style owed a great deal to the personality of the man. In his professional and private life he seemed to treat the world as a hugely entertaining game. The physical universe presented him with a fascinating series of puzzles and challenges, and so did his social environment. A lifelong prankster, he treated authority and the academic establishment with the same sort of disrespect he showed for stuffy mathematical formalism."
"If you are going to be a physicist, you will have a lot to study: two hundred years of the most rapidly developing field of knowledge that there is... Surprisingly enough, in spite of the tremendous amount of work that has been done for all this time it is possible to condense the enormous mass of results to a large extent - that is, to find laws which summarise all our knowledge"
"If, in some cataclysm, all of scientific knowledge were to be destroyed, and only one sentence passed on to the next generations of creatures, what statement would contain the most information in the fewest words? I believe it is the atomic hypothesis that all things are made of atoms - little particles that move around in perpetual motion, attracting each other when they are a little distance apart, but repelling upon being squeezed into one another. In that one sentence, you will see, there is an enormous amount of information about the world, if just a little imagination and thinking are applied."
"Helium merely decreases the atomic motions as much as it can, but even at absolute zero there is still enough motion to keep it from freezing. Helium, even at absolute zero, does not freeze, unless the pressure is made so great as to make the atoms squash together. If we increase the pressure, we can make it solidify."
"Why do we see no change? Because just as many molecules are leaving as are coming back! In the long run “nothing happens.” If we then take the top of the vessel off and blow the moist air away,
replacing it with dry air, then the number of molecules leaving is just the same as it was before, because this depends on the jiggling of the water, but the number coming back is greatly reduced be cause there are so many fewer water molecules above the water. Therefore there are more going out than coming in, and the water evaporates. Hence, if you wish to evaporate water turn on the fan! Here is something else: Which molecules leave? When a molecule leaves it is due to an accidental, extra accumulation of a little bit more than ordinary energy, which it needs if it is to break away
from the attractions of its neighbours. Therefore, since those that leave have more energy than the average, the ones that are left have less average motion than they had before. So the liquid gradually cools if it evaporates. Of course, when a molecule of vapor comes from the air to the water below there is a sudden great attraction as the molecule approaches the surface. This speeds up the incoming molecule and results in generation of heat. So when they leave they take away heat; when they come back they generate heat. Of course when there is no net evaporation the result is nothing—the water is not changing temperature. If we blow on the water so as to maintain a continuous preponderance in the number evaporating, then the water is cooled. Hence, blow on soup to cool it!
"What do we mean by “understanding” something? We can imagine that this complicated array of moving things which constitutes “the world” is something like a great chess game being played by the gods, and we are observers of the game. We do not know what the rules of the game are; all we are allowed to do is to watch the playing. Of course, if we watch long enough, we may eventually
catch on to a few of the rules. The rules of the game are what we mean by fundamental physics."
"From the point of view of basic physics, the most interesting phenomena are of course in the new places, the places where the rules do not work—not the places where they do work! That is the way in which we discover new rules."
"all the weight of the atom is in that infinitesimal nucleus. What keeps the electrons from simply falling in? This principle: If they were in the nucleus, we would know their position precisely, and the uncertainty principle would then require that they have a very large (but uncertain) momentum, i.e., a very large kinetic energy. With this energy they would break away from the nucleus. They make a compromise: they leave themselves a little room for this uncertainty and then jiggle with a certain amount of minimum motion in accordance with this rule. (Remember that when a crystal is cooled to absolute zero, we said that the atoms do not stop moving, they still jiggle. Why? If they stopped moving, we would know where they were and that they had zero motion, and that is against the uncertainty principle. We cannot know where they are and how fast they are moving, so they must be continually wiggling in there!)"
"What are the nuclei made of, and how are they held together? It is found that the nuclei are held together by enormous forces. When these are released, the energy released is tremendous compared with chemical energy, in the same ratio as the atomic bomb explosion is to a TNT explosion, because, of course, the atomic bomb has to do with changes inside the nucleus, while the explosion of TNT has to do with the changes of the electrons on the outside of the atoms. "
"Thus most chemical reactions do not occur, because there is what is called an activation energy in the way. In order to add an extra atom to our chemical requires that we get it close enough that some rearrangement can occur; then it will stick. But if we cannot give it enough energy to get it close enough, it will not go to completion it will just go partway up the “hill” and back down again.
However, if we could literally take the molecules in our hands and push and pull the atoms around in such a way as to open a hole to let the new atom in, and then let it snap back, we would have found another way, around the hill, which would not require extra energy, and the reaction would go easily. Now there actually are, in the cells, very large molecules, much larger than the ones whose changes we have been describing, which in some complicated way hold the smaller molecules just right, so that the reaction can occur easily. These very large and complicated things are called enzymes"
"A poet once said, “The whole universe is in a glass of wine.” We will probably never know in what sense he meant that, for poets do not write to be understood. But it is true that if we look at a glass of wine closely enough we see the entire universe. There are the things of physics: the twisting liquid which evaporates depending on the wind and weather, the reflections in the glass, and our imagination adds the atoms. The glass is a distillation of the earth’s rocks, and in its composition we see the secrets of the universe’s age, and the evolution of stars. What strange array of chemicals are in the wine? How did they come to be? There are the ferments, the enzymes, the substrates, and the products. There in wine is found the great generalization: all life is fermentation. Nobody can discover the chemistry of wine without discovering, as did Louis Pasteur, the cause of much disease. How vivid is the claret, pressing its existence into the consciousness that watches it! If our small minds, for some convenience, divide this glass of wine, this universe, into parts—physics, biology, geology, astronomy, psychology, and so on—remember that nature does not know it! So let us put
it all back together, not forgetting ultimately what it is for. Let it give us one more final pleasure: drink it and forget it all!"
"It was first measured by Cavendish with an apparatus which is schematically indicated in Fig. 5-13. This first demonstrated the direct force between two large, fixed balls of lead and two smaller balls of lead on the ends of an arm supported by a very fine fiber, called a torsion fiber. By measuring how much the fiber gets twisted, one can measure the strength of the force, verify that it is inversely proportional to the square of the distance, and determine how strong it is. Thus, one may accurately determine the coefficient G in the formula"
"As we move the detector around, the rate at which the clicks appear is faster or slower, but the size (loudness) of each click is always the same. If we lower the temperature of the wire in the gun the
rate of clicking slows down, but still each click sounds the same. We would notice also that if we put two separate detectors at the backstop, one or the other would click, but never both at once. (Except that once in a while, if there were two clicks very close together in time, our ear might not sense the separation.) We conclude, therefore, that whatever arrives at the backstop arrives in “lumps.” All the “lumps” are the same size: only whole “lumps” arrive, and they arrive one at a time at the backstop. We shall say: “Electrons always arrive in identical lumps.”"
"How can such an interference come about? Perhaps we should say: “Well, that means, presumably, that it is not true that the lumps go either through hole 1 or hole 2, because if they did, the probabilities should add. Perhaps they go in a more complicated way. They split in half and . . .” But no! They cannot, they always arrive in lumps . . . “Well, perhaps some of them go through 1, and then they go around through 2, and then around a few more times, or by some other complicated path . . . then by closing hole 2, we changed the chance that an electron that started out through hole would finally get to the backstop . . .” But notice! There are some points at which very few electrons arrive when both holes are open, but which receive many electrons if we close one hole, so closing one hole increased the number from the other. Notice, however, that at the centre of the pattern, P12 is more than twice as large as P1 + P2. It is as though closing one hole decreased the number of electrons which come through the other hole. It seems hard to explain both effects by proposing that the electrons travel in complicated paths. It is all quite mysterious. And the more you look at it the more mysterious it seems. Many ideas have been concocted to try to explain the curve for P12 in terms of individual electrons going around in complicated ways through the holes. None of them has succeeded. None of them can get the right curve for P12 in terms of P1
and P2"
"in such a way that one can tell which hole the electron went through, and at the same time not disturb the pattern. It was suggested by Heisenberg that the then-new laws of nature could only be consistent if there were some basic limitation on our experimental capabilities not previously recognized. He proposed, as a general principle, his uncertainty principle, which we can state in terms of our experiment as follows: “It is impossible to design an apparatus to determine which hole the electron passes through, that will not at the same time disturb the electrons enough to destroy the interference pattern.” If an apparatus is capable of determining which hole the electron goes through, it cannot be so delicate that it does not disturb the pattern in an essential way. No one has ever found (or even thought of) a way around the uncertainty principle. So we must assume that it describes a basic characteristic of nature."
"We would like to emphasize a very important difference between classical and quantum mechanics. We have been talking about the probability that an electron will arrive in a given circumstance. We have implied that in our experimental arrangement (or even in the best possible one) it would be impossible to predict exactly what would happen. We can only predict the odds! This would mean, if it were true, that physics has given up on the problem of trying to predict exactly what will happen in a definite circumstance. Yes! Physics has given up. We do not know how to predict what would happen in a given circumstance, and we believe now that it is impossible, that the only thing that can be predicted is the probability of different events. It must be recognized that this is a retrenchment in our earlier ideal of understanding nature. It may be a backward
step, but no one has seen a way to avoid it."
January 29, 2015
فقط متاسفم که چرا این کتاب را زودتر نخواندم، دوره دبیرستان یا حتی لیسانس. دو فصل فوق العاده خواندنی کتاب از دید من فصل مکانیک کوانتمی و ارتباط فیزیک با علوم دیگر است که بعد از ۵۰ سال و پیشرفت زیستشناسی، شیمی و نوروساینس همچنان مباحث مطرح شده فاینمن درست است. این فصل میتواند دید خوبی به یک دانشجو (حتی شاید دانش آموز) بدهد که حتی بتواند رشته تخصصی آیندهش را تغییر دهد! با این که فصلهای مربوط به اتمها در حرکت و نظریه گرانش با زبان ساده و جذاب بیان شدهاند، اما فصل درخشان این کتاب توضیح ساده نظریه کوانتمی ورفتار موج-ذره الکترونهاست. اصل عدم قطعیت هایزنبرگ و «تاثیر مشاهدهگر بر نتیجه آزمایش» با چند آزمایش ساده و قابل فهم بیان میشود. خود فاینمن میگوید در درسهای بعدی این بحث را ادامه میدهیم، اما متاسفانه قطعه ششم کتاب به پایان رسیده است!
June 5, 2011
I think it is very rare for someone to be not only brilliant but also a wonderful teacher. Feynman has a very clear and direct style of imparting information. I just love it. Not quite as good as his autobiographical one but still very good.
December 16, 2014
molto interessante. UN bel ripasso generale totale globale di fisica/chimica. Aver avuto un prof così alle superiori :)
January 8, 2025
I first encountered Richard Feynman through his 'Fun To Imagine' series as a teenager (the series is fully available on YouTube). He has a talent for making complex physics immediately accessible, and the series is definitely worth your the time—if not for what he says, then for the way he says it.
This book covers six fundamental concepts: atomic motion, basic physics, physics' relationship to other sciences, energy conservation, gravitation, and quantum behavior—all explained in Feynman's characteristic conversational style.
While the book succeeds in explaining these topics, some extremely well (like the final chapter 'quantum behaviour'), its lecture-based content sometimes works against its mass-market aims. The 'Basic Physics' chapter exemplifies this issue: it rushes from basic electromagnetism straight into an extensive list of quantum particles (strangeness, leptons, mesons, etc.) merely to conclude that "This, then, is the horrible condition of physics today." It's a bit of dramatic flair, and while that approach might work well in a lecture, in book form it feels more like a missed opportunity (and wasted space!).
Explanations, too, sometimes feel poorly written, using terms before they are defined. Again, it is a defect of more casual speech or a lecture that does not translate well to a book.
I would have loved to have liked this book more. This particular experience won't stop me from continuing to read through the rest of his works.
3/5
This book covers six fundamental concepts: atomic motion, basic physics, physics' relationship to other sciences, energy conservation, gravitation, and quantum behavior—all explained in Feynman's characteristic conversational style.
While the book succeeds in explaining these topics, some extremely well (like the final chapter 'quantum behaviour'), its lecture-based content sometimes works against its mass-market aims. The 'Basic Physics' chapter exemplifies this issue: it rushes from basic electromagnetism straight into an extensive list of quantum particles (strangeness, leptons, mesons, etc.) merely to conclude that "This, then, is the horrible condition of physics today." It's a bit of dramatic flair, and while that approach might work well in a lecture, in book form it feels more like a missed opportunity (and wasted space!).
Explanations, too, sometimes feel poorly written, using terms before they are defined. Again, it is a defect of more casual speech or a lecture that does not translate well to a book.
I would have loved to have liked this book more. This particular experience won't stop me from continuing to read through the rest of his works.
3/5
March 27, 2022
Feynman era tan bueno que hasta en los temas más trillados de la física conseguía encontrar un enfoque diferente, novedoso, fresco. Aquí nos habla de seis temas "sueltos" (los átomos y su movimiento, la relación de la física con otras ciencias, la gravitación, la mecánica cuántica, un poco de física básica y la conservación de la energía) y en cada uno nos va dejando ideas maravillosas. Los libros están destinados al lego en la materia. Si es tu única fuente de aproximación a estos temas, acabarás con ideas muy avanzadas pero algo esotéricas. Para mí son el perfecto complemento a una introducción más clásica al tema por parte de otro autor.
April 21, 2022
Feynman might be the finest example of how a clear understanding yields simple and precise explanations.
March 21, 2024
i think Isaac newton became one with me by the end of this
May 15, 2014
In the early 1960s the renown physicist, Richard Feynman, delivered introductory courses on physics to first and second year undergraduate students at Caltech, in the USA. His lectures were very popular at the time and whilst aimed at undergraduates, it wasn't uncommon for graduate physics students to infiltrate his classes; the one thing Feynman could be assured of was a full house each time he came to teach this course. The lectures, after some editing, were published in three large volumes. To provide a flavour of the overall series, this book extracts just six from the collection and, as the title of this book suggests, these are regarded as being six of the easier ones to understand. They're entitled "Atoms in motion", "Basic physics, "The relation of physics to other sciences", "Conservation of energy", "The theory of gravitation" and "Quantum behaviour". (There is a companion volume published under the title "Six not-so-easy pieces" but I've not attempted to read that.)
I was attracted to this book not so much by the subject matter, but more by my interest in Feynman himself. He has a solid reputation for being an inspirational teacher and I was keen to see how he managed to achieve this. I was expecting him to take a different strategy from the norm and I wasn't disappointed. To illustrate what I mean, in his lecture on the atom he didn't follow the conventional approach of describing the structure of atoms and building up from there, yet by the end of the talk his students would have heard a physicist's explanation of why blowing on a bowl of soup cools it down. His approach to teaching was so different to what is usually done.
Understandably, given the date of the lectures, there have been major developments in physics, and science in general, since the lectures were first presented. For instance, the talk on nuclear physics is very out of date because the make-up of protons and neutrons was not understand at that time to the extent that it is now. Likewise, the lecture covering the links between physics and biology pre-dates the discovery of the genetic code. Therefore, it is pointless reading this book to gain an understanding of the latest theories. Nevertheless, not everything has changed in 50 years and some lectures are as relevant today as they were then. For example, the lecture on the conservation of energy was wonderfully presented, especially the section on potential energy where Feynman used illustrated examples to explain the conservation of potential energy in reversible machines. On the other hand, I felt he made heavy weather of his account of the two slit experiment in his lecture on quantum mechanics and I've read much better explanations elsewhere. To a marked extent Feynman did over complicate much of his material but this is to expected since his stated intention was to teach to slightly beyond the level of the brightest students in each class; of course, whether or not this was the best strategy is open to debate.
Overall, this book of six "easy" lectures provides remarkable insight into Feynman's style of teaching. He comes across as someone who knew his subject matter inside out, who had boundless energy and complete self-confidence, and who wanted to stretch the minds of his students.
I was attracted to this book not so much by the subject matter, but more by my interest in Feynman himself. He has a solid reputation for being an inspirational teacher and I was keen to see how he managed to achieve this. I was expecting him to take a different strategy from the norm and I wasn't disappointed. To illustrate what I mean, in his lecture on the atom he didn't follow the conventional approach of describing the structure of atoms and building up from there, yet by the end of the talk his students would have heard a physicist's explanation of why blowing on a bowl of soup cools it down. His approach to teaching was so different to what is usually done.
Understandably, given the date of the lectures, there have been major developments in physics, and science in general, since the lectures were first presented. For instance, the talk on nuclear physics is very out of date because the make-up of protons and neutrons was not understand at that time to the extent that it is now. Likewise, the lecture covering the links between physics and biology pre-dates the discovery of the genetic code. Therefore, it is pointless reading this book to gain an understanding of the latest theories. Nevertheless, not everything has changed in 50 years and some lectures are as relevant today as they were then. For example, the lecture on the conservation of energy was wonderfully presented, especially the section on potential energy where Feynman used illustrated examples to explain the conservation of potential energy in reversible machines. On the other hand, I felt he made heavy weather of his account of the two slit experiment in his lecture on quantum mechanics and I've read much better explanations elsewhere. To a marked extent Feynman did over complicate much of his material but this is to expected since his stated intention was to teach to slightly beyond the level of the brightest students in each class; of course, whether or not this was the best strategy is open to debate.
Overall, this book of six "easy" lectures provides remarkable insight into Feynman's style of teaching. He comes across as someone who knew his subject matter inside out, who had boundless energy and complete self-confidence, and who wanted to stretch the minds of his students.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,430 reviews