Science and Inquiry discussion

One of the books we will be reading for February 2019 is Genius: The Life and Science of Richard Feynman by James Gleick. Please use this thread to post questions, comments, and reviews, at any time.

I've read "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!": Adventures of a Curious Character which I thoroughly enjoyed. I look forward to reading a biography of Feynman. Such an interesting person.

Katy wrote: "I've read "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!": Adventures of a Curious Character which I thoroughly enjoyed. I look forward to reading a biography of Feynman. Such an interesting p..."

Based on the reviews, it looks like this book has quite a different tone than Adventures. The autobiography is more about Dick's crazy fun antics. Genius is more of a serious straight-up biography. I hope, though, that this book doesn't lose any of the flavor of Feynman's larger-than-life personality. Personally, after reading The Making of the Atomic Bomb, I'm curious to read about his time at Los Alamos. Let's see if this book lives up to its expectations!

Joel wrote: "...Personally, after reading The Making of the Atomic Bomb, I'm curious to read about his time at Los Alamos ..."

Me too. Very interested to see that time from a bit of a different perspective.

I'll try if I get it... I just finished Gleick's "the information" the other day, such an awesome read... He's a great author...

Started it.

There are points where Gleick indulges his more lyrical side, which makes my eyes roll. For example, there's this:

"The dome of the sky streched upward. The arcs of the sun and moon crossed directly ahead, rising and falling with the season. He could splash his heels in the surf and recognize a line thay formed the tripartite boundary between Earth, sea, and air..."

Just tell me he liked to visit the beach, for heaven's sake! It's this sort of writing that turned me off of his book Chaos: Making a New Science.

But overall, I think the biography genre suits Gleick well. He isn't too bad even when it comes to the science, but he tends to veer into the kind of writing quoted above when he tries to analogize to explain deeper concepts.

I'm reading this book along with No Ordinary Genius: The Illustrated Richard Feynman by Christopher Sykes. It's a good companion. It's got pictures, interviews, excerpts of lectures and lots of good material about Feynman's life.

My wife is from Cedarhurst and I've visited Central Avenue and Far Rockaway many times. It's nice to read about an area I know fairly well. Too bad it's not MIT I know better ;)

Pg. 45:

"Summer brought a salty heat to Far Rockaway, the wind rising across the beaches. The asphalt shimmered with refractive air. In the winter, snow fell early from low, grey clouds; then dazzling white hours would pass, the sky too bright to see clearly. Free and impudent times--Richard lost himself in his notebooks..."

Grrr... Stop wasting my time. I'm remembering now why I didn't look like Chaos: Making a New Science.

Pg. 14, Hans Bethe's gleeful prodding: "Don't you know how to square the numbers near 50?"

Cool! Think about it.

1936
2025
2116
2209
2304
2401
2500
2601
2704
2809
2916
3025
3136

Just finished it.

Missing a bit of the magic of Feynman's own "autobiography", but fills in a lot of the factual information missing from those books and Feynman's interviews and lectures. It's best read as a companion to all the other material available on Feynman. Gleick does an impressive job presenting the science and philosophy of Feynman.

I'm also listening to Isaacson's book 'Einstein' now and I see so many similarities between the two characters: their skepticism of the scientific establishment; their desire to understand how things "really" works; a distrust of mathematical formalism without intuitive understanding, yet an advanced faculty with mathematical tools and tricks; their attitude towards women; their ambivalence for publicity; somewhat contradictory political views...

But there are some differences between the two: Einstein was deeply cultured and philosophical, while Feynman dispised pretension; Feynman didn't like music except of the percussive variety, while Einstein was a pretty decent violin player; Einstein loved to socialize with everyone, while Feynman had no patience for those he considered unintelligent; Feynman was an atheist and completely ignored his Jewish identity, while Einstein believed in "Spinoza's God" and embraced his Jewishness.

By and by, it's interesting to be reading the two in parallel. The author's styles are also somewhat comparable, though I find Isaacson is more presumptuous about reading into his subject's minds, and Gleick revels more in esoteric topics.