Talk:Richard Feynman

Cargo Cult Science

Before this goes any farther, should Feynman's coinage of "cargo cult science" be in the lead? I say no: it's already in the main article and isn't important enough for a mention in the lead. Anon 84 says yes: I honestly don't understand hir reasoning at all. What say the good editors of Wikipedia, yay or nay? --Gimme danger 22:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It's just one thing he did, 33 years ago. I was there. But it doesn't need to be in the lead. Dicklyon 22:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

You were there!!? Truly I lived too late. Would you mind reverting? I'm leaning on the 3RR right now.--Gimme danger 22:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the talk was memorable, even with all the other things on our minds, but I had no idea it would become famous and historic. Dicklyon 22:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

RNA Tie Club

Feynman was part of Gamow's RNA Tie Club. Does anyone know what Feynman's contributions to/with the club were? What was Feynman's purpose in the club? --159.178.247.101 (talk) 17:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Name Pronunciation

The main article states pronunciation as fɑɪnmən, but the IPA page does not list ɑɪ as a vowel combination. I believe it should be faɪnmən instead. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chris Purves (talk • contribs) 15:32:46, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

Good catch! --Kjoonlee 14:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC) I am not good with grammar, but I think your right:)Bazookafox1 (talk) 19:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Superconductivity

I changed the phrases "forever eluded" to "eluded" and "later solved" to "solved"; Feynman was actually on the track to the solution but BCS got there first, *while* he was still working on superconductivity (so not "later"). 137.82.188.68 03:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The source for the above comments is the article "Richard Feynman and Condensed Matter Physics" by David Pines, in the 1989 Physics Today Feynman memorial issue; I think the Gleick biography also mentions that Feynman wrote a note to himself before going on a trip that indicated he was focussing in on the phonon interaction that is at the heart of the BCS theory. 137.82.188.68 20:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Arista Honor Society link

I checked this link - it leads to an unrelated article on a record label with a similar name. Is it a candidate for changing back to ordinary text, or is the society significant enough to have an article of its' own? Autarch 19:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The Diagram

I have heard that Feynman himself referred to the Feynman diagram as "the diagram", with emphasis on "the", implying that it's the most (or even the only) important diagram. Indeed this article says that you can model "all of physics" with the Feynman diagram. Does anyone know if this is true, and can find a citation? — PhilHibbs | talk 21:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

This is untrue. You cannot model "all of physics" with any known theory or diagram. --159.178.247.101 (talk) 17:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

My thought on the matter is that people knew about the Diagram already, they knew it was Feynman's, and finally Feynman knew that his reputation preceded him. Thus the joke. But that's just me; I wasn't there.202.123.56.201 (talk) 09:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Parallel Processing

The fragment of this Richard Feynman article:

In the late 1970s, according to "Richard Feynman and the Connection Machine", Feynman played a critical role in developing the first parallel processing computer and finding innovative uses for it in numerical computing and building neural networks, as well as physical simulation with cellular automata (such as turbulent fluid flow), working with Stephen Wolfram at Caltech.[24]

is misleading, unclear, and dubious. It makes a false impression on a layman that the Connection Machine was build in the 1970s, and that it was the very first parallel processing computer, which is totally false on both accounts. If this statement is more or less left in the article then the name of that first par. proc. comp. should be explicitly given, plus respective proper sources. -- Wlod (talk) 10:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is all garbled. I was tempted to delete it entirely but perhaps the person responsible wants to fix it themself. Feynman didn't work with Wolfram at Caltech on the Connection Machine -- this occurred later, in the mid-1980s (when Wolfram was at the Institute for Advanced Study), when both were consulting for Thinking Machines Corp. There may be some confusion here with the Caltech Cosmic Cube parallel-computer project in which Wolfram's Ph.D. supervisor Geoffrey C. Fox played a leading role. 137.82.188.68 (talk) 04:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Challenger disaster

This fragment:

Feynman discovered that the 1 in 105 figure was reached by the highly dubious method of attempting to calculate the probability of failure of every individual part of the shuttle, and then adding these estimates together. This method is erroneous by standard probability theory: the correct way to calculate such risk is to subtract each individual factor's failure risk from unity and then multiply all differences. The product will be the net safety factor and the difference between it and unity, the net risk factor.

is messed up and should be fixed or simplified by removing the not so necessary technical details. -- Wlod (talk) 10:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, in fact this kind of calculation overvalues the probability of failure. The true risk is never higher than sum of probabilities of failure of each part. The engineers of NASA overvalued the risk in this way, so their failure is somewhere else. 83.5.211.142 (talk) 03:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The statement that Feynman thought that the 1 in 10-to-the-5 meant that NASA should therefore expect to have daily launches for 274 years without failure is probably incorrect. That many days is certainly around 274 years, but if half of those days go by without a failure, the later days will be marked by increasing likelyhood of failure above 1 to 1. Similarly, I shouldn't expect to roll a six-sided die six times before I would roll a 1! Even so, no failure on daily flights for only 137 years is a tall order as well. I think he meant that NASA thought they could go 274 years with the probability of 1 failure therein. Fred Canavan, Glen Rock, New Jersey

As of this writing, the section 'challenger disaster' is identical to the section 'Role of Richard Feynman' in the article Rogers Commission. Suggest removal of content and linking instead. The following (as it appears with the image) seems sufficient:

"Feynman served on the presidential commission investigating the 1986 Challenger disaster. He concluded that NASA management's space shuttle reliability estimate was fantastically unrealistic. He warned in his appendix to the commission's report: "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." HonoluluMan (talk) 12:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

This statement is misleading:

Feynman devoted the latter half of his book 'What Do You Care What Other People Think?' to his experience on the Rogers Commission, straying from his usual convention of brief, light-hearted anecdotes to deliver an extended and sober narrative.

In fact, that book and the previous book, 'Surely You're Joking Mr. Feynman', were not written by Feynman himself, even though they're written in the first person. They were written by Ralph Leighton (edited by Edward Hutchings), from stories Feynman told in his drum circle. Therefore, it is disingenuous to call it Feynman's book, or to imply that devoting half the book to the Rogers Commission was entirely his idea. 76.171.4.148 (talk) 18:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)Kagedtiger

Food-fight?

It was at Cornell, that the famous food-fight incident occurred (as highlighted in Feynman's book "Surely you're joking Mr. Feynman").

I don't think I remember this food-fight. Could someone check, please? --Kjoonlee 10:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I reverted it. I think I read something about a dish thrown into the air, not about food being thrown at people. --Kjoonlee 12:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

His Death

Why is there nothing in this article about his death? It's certainly relevant. -Kingoomieiii (talk) 03:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I suspect it is because his biography isn't as widespread or popular as his own writing. I do know he had abdominal cancer, but not much else. --Kjoonlee 12:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The part where his cancer is mentioned has been clearly copied from somewhere else. It reads: "The day after he died, a letter arrived for him from the Soviet government giving him authorization to travel to Tuva. During this period he discovered that he had a form of cancer, but, thanks to surgery, he managed to hold it off."

That quote is from the book Tuva or Bust!. K8 fan (talk) 18:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Which period are they talking about? The period after his death? Can anyone correct this and indicate when did Feynmann discover he had cancer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dukeofalba (talk • contribs) 17:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, really change this, I read that sentence over and over again before realizing that it was the sentence, not me, that was wrong! Specifically: Does the "During this period, he discovered that he had a form of cancer, but, with surgery, managed to forestall it." sentence belong there at all? I think not, and i therefore remove it now, and hopefully someone can make a "end of life" or "Cancer" portion of this article later! //Niffe —Preceding undated comment added 10:42, 21 December 2010 (UTC).

Use of irregular and archaic Romanisation spelling for Japanese names

Not sure why or who did this but spelling "Sin-Itiro Tomonaga" in this way is out of whack. I lived there for 16 years and rarely encountered this way of spelling--usually used in the early part of the 20th and the later part of the 19th centuries. It is not used by public or private agencies or individuals and this has been the case for generations. The proper spelling is "Shinichiro Tomonaga" and to be accurate it should be spelled Tomonaga Shinichiro. So, who ever did this, you have not provided an accurate edit. --Malangthon (talk) 22:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

That's how Tomonaga-san himself spells it, most probably. --Kjoonlee 17:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's the reason, probably. I've seen that name spelt in Kunreithat way even in sources which normally use Hepburn romanization. (Also, the spelling Shinichiro is misleading, suggesting that the "ni" is one mora, normally I would spell that "Shin'ichirō". But let's spell it the way he spells it, and his article uses in the title.) --A r m y 1 9 8 7 ! !  12:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

(Note that Sin-Itiro isn't standard Kunrei either — that would be Sin'itirô.) --A r m y 1 9 8 7 ! !  23:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

xkcd reference?

Is this really necessary? I like the xkcd series a great deal but his appearance in one of their comics seems trivial to his legacy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.145.63.2 (talk) 21:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter

This book is not on the list of books? even though it has a wikipedia page of its own. Holy bazooka 04:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Tone

Doesn't anyone else think this article sounds more like a fan page than an encyclopedia entry? I noticed sentences like "It is not surprising that both these engaging people [Feynman and Lederberg] should be friends," and the entire paragraph on his interaction with Niels Bohr is just written poorly; it sounds apocryphal and there's no evidence for it. I adore the guy too, but shouldn't this article be more professional? Disagree without berating me plz. Seijihyouronka (talk) 05:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Richard Feynman/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This article is undergoing a review as part of the Good Article sweeps performed by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I am in the process of reviewing the article and should have a complete review posted within a day or two. A quick glance reveals a few concerns that will need to be addressed:

1. The lead section is too long. It should be a maximum of four paragraphs. This could be fixed by joining the fourth and fifth paragraphs.
2. Much of the article is unreferenced, including quotations and entire paragraphs. It will need to be thoroughly referenced in order to remain listed as a Good Article.
3. The picture of the stamp doesn't have an adequate fair use rationale. Neither does the book picture (FeynmanLecturesOnPhysics.jpg). I don't believe that a fair use claim could be made for the book, because it doesn't provide commentary on any aspect of the surrounding text.
4. The description page for the infobox image should have a link to the original source.
5. The Further reading section is far too long. There is no need to list that many sources, so it should be trimmed quite a bit.
6. Some of the book references are missing page numbers.
7. Some of the web references are missing information (eg. access dates).

These will all need to be addressed, and editors can begin addressing them now. There is no need to wait for the full review. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm now delisting this article as a GA, as it does not meet the criteria, and there are no signs that it will in the near future. I've attempted to clean up the article a bit, and have also left tags where further clean-up is needed.

• The lead is now four paragraphs, but still does not summarize the article, and contains unhelpful digressions and statements of opinion. It needs to be rewritten.
• The article fails to meet WP:V and WP:RS by a mile. There are very few reliable secondary sources and the reader might wonder whether much of the text was sourced from Feynman's own anecdotes and interviews.
• Undue weight is given to the (almost entirely unsourced) section on the Challenger disaster.
• I have moved most of the further reading to a "bibliography" section per WP:LAYOUT, but it still needs to be cleaned up.

Good luck to anyone interested in improving the article. Geometry guy 20:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

students=

I think for doctoral students the policy is we only include those with a WP article, but I am subject to correction here. A notable person normally has many students, some of whom turn out much less notable than he. The documentation for Curtwright is reliable enough, though, if we do usually add them all. [1]

Undergraduate Thesis

I was hoping to find something about his undergraduate thesis. His 1939 paper, written when he was an undergraduate, is a cornerstone of the quantum mechanics of molecules. There is a link to the Hellmann–Feynman theorem, but some biographical background would be interesting. And maybe add it to the list of selected scientific works Tono-bungay (talk) 03:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Did he play on "Fool in the Rain"?

See the discussion at Talk:Fool in the Rain#Surely you're joking!. -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 20:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

LSD

The article stated that Feynman sidestepped the issue of LSD in Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman but, having just read mention of it last night, I decided to look it up. It's in the "O Americano, Outra Vez" part, on p. 205 of the ISBN 0393316041 version, and the full paragraph reads "I never drank ever again, since then. I suppose I really wasn't in any danger, because I found it very easy to stop. But that strong feeling that I didn't understand frightened me. You see, I get such fun out of thinking that I don't want to destroy this most pleasant machine that makes life such a big kick. It's the same reason that, later on, I was reluctant to try experiments with LSD in spite of my curiosity about hallucinations." Johnofjack (talk) 18:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Notes and references

Hi, the notes and references should be split, now that we can use <ref> tags for both. Gapless playback has some examples you could use. (That was just the first example that came to mind.) --Kjoonlee 23:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't find footnote #1 in the article. Its listed at the bottom but the first note I see in the article is #2. --76.31.242.174 (talk) 05:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

footnote #1 is in the infobox, which I see on the upper right side of the page; look for 'religious stance'. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 11:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The complaint at the Manhattan Project heading - most of this info is in Surely You're Joking. I'm too lazy to go through and ref everything, since I didn't put in any of this info. There should be some easier way to do refs, I always have to copy my old ones and edit them, etc. Trudyjh (talk) 17:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Jewish descent more important than Polish or Russian?

The references clearly state three sources of descent -- Jewish, Polish and Russian. Yet the moderators only allow "Jewish Scientist" category, not "Russian Scientist" or "Polish Scientist". Are "Jewish scientists" more relevant to Feynman than others? His religion is clearly stated as "Atheism", and ethnicity is triple, what is the reason? 58.247.200.219 (talk) 14:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

We both know the reason for this.

ID photo not representative of the man the public knows

I think it should be replaced. 74.64.121.56 (talk) 17:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The article has photos of a younger and an older Feynmann. That seems good enough to me. CosineKitty (talk) 21:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with 74.64.121.56. A more representative photo should be at the top. Trudyjh (talk) 17:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Out of context quotation and religious stance

Feynman was not an atheist, he was more likely agonist. The reference that was provided to support his being athesit is realy peculiar-I can't even call it a source and the interpretation was made by the one who provide it.--Gilisa (talk) 11:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

In Genius, p221 of the hard cover, James Gleick said he did not believe in God, when talking about his anger at his fathers funeral. He refused to repeat the Kaddish and "exploded in anger" at the hypocrisy because both his parents were atheists (p219). Ywaz (talk) 16:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

You can see for yourself here: James Gleick (1993). Genius. Random House. ISBN 9780679747048. Javaweb (talk) 12:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)Javaweb

Education

"By 15, he had learned differential and integral calculus."

As does every schoolchild. Why is this even mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.240.64 (talk) 14:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Fortunately for you this is Wikipedia, so truth simply doesn't matter.

Every schoolchild learns first year calculus? Your comment sucks and is wrong, which is why it sucks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.176.15 (talk) 08:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I am doing a report for school on Richard FeynmanBazookafox1 (talk) 19:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

In the 1930's, every schoolchild did not, see the following article: What Is Happening to Mathematics Education? James R. Smart Peabody Journal of Education, Vol. 35, No. 6 (May, 1958), pp. 328-334 Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwassman (talk • contribs) 17:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Is this a joke? Most people don't learn calculus, and those that do usually do it a few years later. 67.191.9.59 (talk) 12:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Is what a joke? Do you mmean the fact, or 78.16.240.64's comment, or 69.171.176.15's comment, or Bazookafox1's comment, or Smart's book?

Anyway, whatever. The fact that Feynman had learned calculus by the age of 15 is no joke. It is a notable and sourced fact, so it is mentioned in the article. DVdm (talk) 13:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Teaching duties as a motivation?

I just saw this edit, which dramatically changes the meaning of the parenthetical remark. Which is correct, if either? Does anybody have a specific quote from a book to back this up? I know Feynman was fondly remembered by many of his students, so I doubt he hated teaching. I do seem to recall reading in one of his books that he felt like he wasn't as good a teacher as his students thought he was. CosineKitty (talk) 16:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The later edit is correct. He goes on at length in Surely You're Joking about the importance of teaching, to make himself feel useful when he isn't making any progress in Physics itself. Trudyjh (talk) 17:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

This source "(QED and the men who made it: Dyson, Feynman, Schwinger, and Tomonaga", page 405) says that "... he would spend half of every academic year in the Department of Physics at the university and the other half as a member of the Institute, free of any teaching duty.". I propose we take this version on board. DVdm (talk) 13:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Bacteriophage lambda

There is a contradiction between this article and Bacteriophage lambda. This one claims that Richard Feynman was the one who discovered bacteriophage lambda whereas the article Bacteriophage lambda claims that it was Esther Lederberg. Which is correct? Frotz (talk) 20:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

No contradiction. This article mere says Feynman was a friend of Lederberg. Materialscientist (talk) 01:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Oops. I don't know how I managed to miss that. Frotz (talk) 05:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

BBC Radio 4 programme on Feynman

Details here [2]. Available to 'listen again' in some territories for five days. 86.134.91.184 (talk) 14:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Bit of "free spirit" in lead

I think that this recently removed sentence accurately reflects the general view of Feynman. I propose we keep it, perhaps with a different cite? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Feynman&action=historysubmit&diff=386317226&oldid=386316464 A13ean (talk) 14:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

List of Jewish Nobel laureates

Feynman is included in the List of Jewish Nobel laureates, which list is defined by reference to ethnicity, not religion. A link from this article to this list (under the "See also" section) was recently deleted, but has now been restored. Would any discussion as to the inclusion/exclusion of Feynman in the list or the inclusion/exclusion of the link to the article containing the list please be carried on here or here, on the Discussion page for the List. Davshul (talk) 07:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The above is not a reason for why this biography would benefit from adding List of Jewish Nobel laureates to "See also". A discussion on some other (non policy) page cannot establish what should happen on this page. Johnuniq (talk) 07:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Legacy- quote from 1969...

The quote from Feyerabend (the last quote on the page) is from 1969, so it doesn't exactly relate to Feynman's legacy. I don't see how the quote really has anything to do with Feynman's legacy anyway, even if it had been written within the last twenty years.137.111.13.200 (talk) 05:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Quotes

There seems to be no place for quotes, which may be just as well, since there are probably so many. But one I thought profound was (and would vote to place here), "The rules that describe nature seem to be mathematical. This is not result of the fact that observation is the judge, and it is not a characteristic necessity of science that it be mathematical. It just turns out that you can state mathematical laws, in physics at least, which work to make powerful predictions. Why nature is mathematical is, again, a mystery." - The Meaning of It All Student7 (talk) 19:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Introductory paragraph

The relevance of Lederberg is limited and does not belong in the article's first paragraphs. -98.210.150.163 (talk) 05:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Painter/artist

Nowhere in the article is his painting mentioned. He used the pseudonym "Ofey". Check out this page: http://www.museumsyndicate.com/artist.php?artist=380 He also describes his painting career in detail in the book "Surely you're joking, Mr. Feynman!": http://www.utwente.nl/mb/iscm/staff/academic/Rothengatter/readings/richard_feynman_surely_youre_j.pdf 84.209.121.30 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC).