Yes, that’s Ralph Leighton, all right (presuming you mean the younger guy on the left).
Wayne
And that is why Feynman was the greatest physical mind of our time. Never mind the physics stuff, what a badass. I couldn’t help but drum along at my desk with a big stupid grin on my face.
Secret of genius? Let go. Let it all go for the orange juice… and wile out drumming a sick beat.
Just imagine the advances in physics that might have been made had he been provided the OJ he so desperately needed.
andyo
Thank you so much! I have become more of a fan of RF the person than RF the physicist lately (mostly because I understand none of it), after reading his books of personal stories. This was excellent. By the way, Sean I just saw your talk at the Beyond Belief II conference… you got another faithful reader (though I occasionally browsed around anyway). It also was excellent.
Bernhard
Inspired by the video, I found the Ralph Leighton’s webstore (http://www.lulu.com/TuvaMuch), where one can download the whole album “Safecracker Suite: Drumming and Storytelling by Richard Feynman” for a small fee. Very nice and special!
My favorite Feynman story is connected with his behavior in seminars. As is well known, he was intensely obnoxious and rude to virtually all speakers; it was his way of venting over the fact that he had not made any important contributions for many years. However, in what should be a warning for all those pathetic losers who go out of their way to be nasty at seminars, Feynman eventually had his comeuppance, as related here http://ysfine.com/feynman/
by someone who was there:
“But there was someone who gave Feynman a taste of his own medicine. The Norwegian-American physicist Ivar Giaever once suffered through a lecture with Feynman. Two years later, he came back to Caltech to give another lecture. This time, however, Giaever not only answered Feynman to the point, but made him look stupid. Obviously, he had done a good job of preparing ahead, deliberately slipping in remarks to provoke Feynman – who walked straight into his trap. Everyone in the lecture hall could feel how stunned Feynman was. ”
How I wish I could have been there! It would be a partial recompense for the hours I wasted reading his sophomoric books and suffering through the obviously mendacious stories he and his groupies told about his sex life.
my impression is that even as self-centered, attention-basking Feynman was, it was not too obnoxious because he was funny and subversive. I think pomposity set him off. Whenever there was an opportunity to stage a nutty mischief he did not hesitate.
string theorist
Dear yahoo,
People are people, including great physicists. Its just that good (theoretical) physicists are (usually) impervious to the usual things that trigger pettiness in “normal” people. They get their validation not from cars or money, but from feeling smarter than their peers, having their work cited by others, recognized for their contributions, etc.
So yes, Feynman was quite possibly as petty as anybody else about the things that TRULY mattered to him.
That said, what is your point? (You have two posts hating on Feynman in this thread.) That Feynman should not get the attention he gets? Why not? He *was* a stellar physicist, he also *was* a great expositor of science, and he *was* also a colorful character. Besides, he was funny. If we were to be penalized for our pettiness, we would have to just collectively give up as a species. Its what we do DESPITE our pettiness and attention-whoring that matters. Why should our heroes be flawless? Isn’t it better to be inspired by another person’s greatness than to use their pettiness as an excuse for staying mediocre? Because there will _always_ be pettiness.
Its YOUR mistake that you imagined Fenyman to be larger than life when you “wasted [hours] reading his sophomoric books”. I am always puzzled by this white-to-black switch that people have when they realize their heroes were not truly superhuman. I mean, wasn’t that obvious from the start?
I was as much into Feynman idolatry as the next aspiring physicist, but eventually I abandoned it as I learned more about the guy. He was a human being like the rest of us, and idolatry is usually not a good stance toward anybody. He had his flaws when it came to personal relations and a certain form of selfishness. He was also a genius physicist and a terrific explainer and, more than one person has testified, the most charismatic person you would ever meet. It’s possible for someone to be admired for their good qualities even when we understand their less good ones.
Physicists tend to go overboard with their Feynman worship, especially here at Caltech. But this is a great clip of a guy having fun, just enjoy it.
We used Feynman’s text books when I was reading physics for my first degree.
That was back in the early 1960s. Coincidentally, he also motivated me to learn some lockpicking skills, opening doors etc etc.;-)
Never could drum like that though 🙁
Yahoo
String theorist said: “That Feynman should not get the attention he gets? Why not? He *was* a stellar physicist, he also *was* a great expositor of science, and he *was* also a colorful character.”
So was Schroedinger; in fact, S outranks Feynman on all those counts. Why don’t we see pimply MIT undergrads worshipping him? The Feynman cult enshrines all of the worst things about academic life as a physicist: in particular the notion that you can get away with being an obnoxious bully by hiding behind the claim that you are just debunking “pompousness”. In reality, of course, Feynman was himself a pompous ass of the first order, and a first-class phony to boot: witness all that nauseating crap about “not really wanting” the Nobel.
Recently I was at a conference. After a nice talk by a young person, I saw the speaker being accosted by a famous physicist who introduced himself by saying, “You don’t really *believe* all that crap do you?” Charming. And you can bet that he privately considers himself a Feynmannian exploder of pomposity, despite himself giving a self-congratulatory talk about the [to everyone else imperceptible] successes of his ancient hobby-horse. In short: if young people really need idols [why, exactly?] then let them choose someone who set a reasonably civilized example, one that might restrain rather than encourage the inner Feynman. [No, I don’t think anyone should emulate Schroedinger’s sex life either, though at least *he* didn’t concoct stories, carefully constructed and broadcast with the intention that they should be repeated, about his adventures in that direction.]
String Theorist
Dear yahoo, I am not contesting your claim that Feynman was, especially later in his life ..ummm… an insecure biaatch. My point was that there are other things one could focus on about him. The Feynman cult is bad not because of “Feynman”, but because of “cult”.
Schroedinger could never appeal to the public imagination like Feynman did, even they both were great as physicists. You seem upset by that asymmetry. Me, I am okay with it and don’t quite understand what is bothering you so much.
Also, I am not sure how much I agree with the idea of finding a “civilized example, one that might restrain rather than encourage the inner Feynman”. First off, there is no human that does not have a few *serious* flaws when under the microscope. Good and bad cut not *between* individuals, but *through* them. So its better to be the not-so-blind follower of many, than to be the blind follower of one.
Secondly, I do think that a certain irreverence (which is what the myth of Feynman symbolizes to many – he is certainly not respected for being obnoxious) is precisely what one needs in modern academia. Imagine a scenario where the young person in your story was NOT thrown off by the comment, and could come back with “No, sir, not at all! Only *some* of that crap!”. Now wouldn’t that be a romantic ending? 🙂
Bullies thrive on weakness. Eliminating weakness, by actively trying to eliminate the heirarchical structure of science, is empowerment. Eliminating the bully, which is what you are rooting for, is a much harder problem in a free society.
ST
Elliot
As an former undergrad at Caltech, I can attest that Feynman did not “concoct” those stories.
e.
nano
String theorist said: “That Feynman should not get the attention he gets? Why not? He *was* a stellar physicist, he also *was* a great expositor of science, and he *was* also a colorful character.”
So was Schroedinger; in fact, S outranks Feynman on all those counts.
On “all” of those counts? Specifically the “great expositor of science” part? I do think (quoting Schwinger) Feynman was indeed the premier intuitionist of the time.
As string theorist noted, the wrong part of “feynman idolatory” is the idolatory part. Everyone has a different style of doing physics and a different personality: contrast Feynman with Witten or Maldacena.
QuantumSingularity
Witten and Maldacena are string theorists, not physicists ^^
Schroedinger could never appeal to the public imagination like Feynman did, even they both were great as physicists. You seem upset by that asymmetry. Me, I am okay with it and don’t quite understand what is bothering you so much.
What is bothering me is that the asymmetry is based not on physics or expository talent but on personality. I fear that you underestimate F’s influence as an *example*: I see mini-Feynmans, just like him with one small exception [ absence of talent], all over the place. But I take your other points; I’m not claiming that F was unique [cf Gell-Mann].
Elliot: sorry, the stories as I hear them bear an uncanny resemblance to the fantasy world of the canonical sex-starved male undergrad at MIT or Caltech. Furthermore, I have met an amazing number of obscure elderly professors who claim to have accompanied Feynman in his campaigns of conquest; to the degree, indeed, that Feynman’s pub crawls must have resembled a Viking raid, with a cast of thousands, if all of these reminiscences are true. Which they obviously ain’t.
Raising the infliction of vicarious embarrassment to an art form.
You can rupture my eardrums now, thanks.
Is that Ralph Leighton?
Yes, that’s Ralph Leighton, all right (presuming you mean the younger guy on the left).
And that is why Feynman was the greatest physical mind of our time. Never mind the physics stuff, what a badass. I couldn’t help but drum along at my desk with a big stupid grin on my face.
Secret of genius? Let go. Let it all go for the orange juice… and wile out drumming a sick beat.
Wayne
That was wonderful. I think it actually brought tears to my eyes.
Pingback: Sr. Feynman quer um suco de laranja. « n-Dimensional
Pingback: Feynman’s lectures about orange juice « LoBlog
Just imagine the advances in physics that might have been made had he been provided the OJ he so desperately needed.
Thank you so much! I have become more of a fan of RF the person than RF the physicist lately (mostly because I understand none of it), after reading his books of personal stories. This was excellent. By the way, Sean I just saw your talk at the Beyond Belief II conference… you got another faithful reader (though I occasionally browsed around anyway). It also was excellent.
Inspired by the video, I found the Ralph Leighton’s webstore (http://www.lulu.com/TuvaMuch), where one can download the whole album “Safecracker Suite: Drumming and Storytelling by Richard Feynman” for a small fee. Very nice and special!
My favorite Feynman story is connected with his behavior in seminars. As is well known, he was intensely obnoxious and rude to virtually all speakers; it was his way of venting over the fact that he had not made any important contributions for many years. However, in what should be a warning for all those pathetic losers who go out of their way to be nasty at seminars, Feynman eventually had his comeuppance, as related here
http://ysfine.com/feynman/
by someone who was there:
“But there was someone who gave Feynman a taste of his own medicine. The Norwegian-American physicist Ivar Giaever once suffered through a lecture with Feynman. Two years later, he came back to Caltech to give another lecture. This time, however, Giaever not only answered Feynman to the point, but made him look stupid. Obviously, he had done a good job of preparing ahead, deliberately slipping in remarks to provoke Feynman – who walked straight into his trap. Everyone in the lecture hall could feel how stunned Feynman was. ”
How I wish I could have been there! It would be a partial recompense for the hours I wasted reading his sophomoric books and suffering through the obviously mendacious stories he and his groupies told about his sex life.
my impression is that even as self-centered, attention-basking Feynman was, it was not too obnoxious because he was funny and subversive. I think pomposity set him off. Whenever there was an opportunity to stage a nutty mischief he did not hesitate.
Dear yahoo,
People are people, including great physicists. Its just that good (theoretical) physicists are (usually) impervious to the usual things that trigger pettiness in “normal” people. They get their validation not from cars or money, but from feeling smarter than their peers, having their work cited by others, recognized for their contributions, etc.
So yes, Feynman was quite possibly as petty as anybody else about the things that TRULY mattered to him.
That said, what is your point? (You have two posts hating on Feynman in this thread.) That Feynman should not get the attention he gets? Why not? He *was* a stellar physicist, he also *was* a great expositor of science, and he *was* also a colorful character. Besides, he was funny. If we were to be penalized for our pettiness, we would have to just collectively give up as a species. Its what we do DESPITE our pettiness and attention-whoring that matters. Why should our heroes be flawless? Isn’t it better to be inspired by another person’s greatness than to use their pettiness as an excuse for staying mediocre? Because there will _always_ be pettiness.
Its YOUR mistake that you imagined Fenyman to be larger than life when you “wasted [hours] reading his sophomoric books”. I am always puzzled by this white-to-black switch that people have when they realize their heroes were not truly superhuman. I mean, wasn’t that obvious from the start?
Cheers,
string theorist
wow… i haven’t seen that clip in YEARS.
i’m feeling a little thirsty now… i wonder if we have any orange juice…?
It would be a partial recompense for the hours I wasted reading his sophomoric books
I find it interesting that you used the plural, “books.” Once the first sophomoric book disgusted you, why did you read the second?
I was as much into Feynman idolatry as the next aspiring physicist, but eventually I abandoned it as I learned more about the guy. He was a human being like the rest of us, and idolatry is usually not a good stance toward anybody. He had his flaws when it came to personal relations and a certain form of selfishness. He was also a genius physicist and a terrific explainer and, more than one person has testified, the most charismatic person you would ever meet. It’s possible for someone to be admired for their good qualities even when we understand their less good ones.
Physicists tend to go overboard with their Feynman worship, especially here at Caltech. But this is a great clip of a guy having fun, just enjoy it.
We used Feynman’s text books when I was reading physics for my first degree.
That was back in the early 1960s. Coincidentally, he also motivated me to learn some lockpicking skills, opening doors etc etc.;-)
Never could drum like that though 🙁
String theorist said: “That Feynman should not get the attention he gets? Why not? He *was* a stellar physicist, he also *was* a great expositor of science, and he *was* also a colorful character.”
So was Schroedinger; in fact, S outranks Feynman on all those counts. Why don’t we see pimply MIT undergrads worshipping him? The Feynman cult enshrines all of the worst things about academic life as a physicist: in particular the notion that you can get away with being an obnoxious bully by hiding behind the claim that you are just debunking “pompousness”. In reality, of course, Feynman was himself a pompous ass of the first order, and a first-class phony to boot: witness all that nauseating crap about “not really wanting” the Nobel.
Recently I was at a conference. After a nice talk by a young person, I saw the speaker being accosted by a famous physicist who introduced himself by saying, “You don’t really *believe* all that crap do you?” Charming. And you can bet that he privately considers himself a Feynmannian exploder of pomposity, despite himself giving a self-congratulatory talk about the [to everyone else imperceptible] successes of his ancient hobby-horse. In short: if young people really need idols [why, exactly?] then let them choose someone who set a reasonably civilized example, one that might restrain rather than encourage the inner Feynman. [No, I don’t think anyone should emulate Schroedinger’s sex life either, though at least *he* didn’t concoct stories, carefully constructed and broadcast with the intention that they should be repeated, about his adventures in that direction.]
Dear yahoo, I am not contesting your claim that Feynman was, especially later in his life ..ummm… an insecure biaatch. My point was that there are other things one could focus on about him. The Feynman cult is bad not because of “Feynman”, but because of “cult”.
Schroedinger could never appeal to the public imagination like Feynman did, even they both were great as physicists. You seem upset by that asymmetry. Me, I am okay with it and don’t quite understand what is bothering you so much.
Also, I am not sure how much I agree with the idea of finding a “civilized example, one that might restrain rather than encourage the inner Feynman”. First off, there is no human that does not have a few *serious* flaws when under the microscope. Good and bad cut not *between* individuals, but *through* them. So its better to be the not-so-blind follower of many, than to be the blind follower of one.
Secondly, I do think that a certain irreverence (which is what the myth of Feynman symbolizes to many – he is certainly not respected for being obnoxious) is precisely what one needs in modern academia. Imagine a scenario where the young person in your story was NOT thrown off by the comment, and could come back with “No, sir, not at all! Only *some* of that crap!”. Now wouldn’t that be a romantic ending? 🙂
Bullies thrive on weakness. Eliminating weakness, by actively trying to eliminate the heirarchical structure of science, is empowerment. Eliminating the bully, which is what you are rooting for, is a much harder problem in a free society.
ST
As an former undergrad at Caltech, I can attest that Feynman did not “concoct” those stories.
e.
On “all” of those counts? Specifically the “great expositor of science” part? I do think (quoting Schwinger) Feynman was indeed the premier intuitionist of the time.
As string theorist noted, the wrong part of “feynman idolatory” is the idolatory part. Everyone has a different style of doing physics and a different personality: contrast Feynman with Witten or Maldacena.
Witten and Maldacena are string theorists, not physicists ^^
Pingback: Gotta Have My Orange Juice « Virginia Hughes
String theorist said:
Schroedinger could never appeal to the public imagination like Feynman did, even they both were great as physicists. You seem upset by that asymmetry. Me, I am okay with it and don’t quite understand what is bothering you so much.
What is bothering me is that the asymmetry is based not on physics or expository talent but on personality. I fear that you underestimate F’s influence as an *example*: I see mini-Feynmans, just like him with one small exception [ absence of talent], all over the place. But I take your other points; I’m not claiming that F was unique [cf Gell-Mann].
Elliot: sorry, the stories as I hear them bear an uncanny resemblance to the fantasy world of the canonical sex-starved male undergrad at MIT or Caltech. Furthermore, I have met an amazing number of obscure elderly professors who claim to have accompanied Feynman in his campaigns of conquest; to the degree, indeed, that Feynman’s pub crawls must have resembled a Viking raid, with a cast of thousands, if all of these reminiscences are true. Which they obviously ain’t.
Pingback: Orange Juice « Superconformal Brook