Ричард Фейнман цитаты

страница 2

Неподтверждённые цитаты

Неподтверждённые цитаты

Реальная цитата:* Доктор Хониккер любил говорить, что, если ученый не умеет популярно объяснить восьмилетнему ребенку, чем он занимается, значит, он шарлатан.
писатель Курт Воннегут, роман "Колыбель для кошки", 1963. Перевод Р. Райт-Ковалевой.
Эта цитата восходит к утверждению французского математика Жергонна (1771-1859): Нельзя хвастаться тем, что ты сказал последнее слово в какой-либо теории, если не можешь объяснить ее несколькими словами первому встречному на улице. "On ne peut se flatter d’avoir le dernier mot d’une théorie, tant qu’on ne peut pas l’expliquer en peu de paroles à un passant dans la rue."
Вариант: Если вы учёный, квантовый физик, и не можете в двух словах объяснить пятилетнему ребёнку, чем вы занимаетесь, — вы шарлатан.
Источник: http://lib.ru/INOFANT/WONNEGUT/cat.txt_with-big-pictures.html
Источник: М. Рузе. Роберт Оппенгеймер и атомная бомба. Сокр. пер. с франц. Т.Е.Гнединой u A.H.Соколова. - М., 1963 http://hirosima.scepsis.ru/library/lib_89.html
Источник: https://books.google.ru/books?id=rLY7AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA115&lpg=PA115&dq=gergonne+%22passant+dans+la+rue%22&source=bl&ots=jZCdmoKG2V&sig=PCqxzeVGkSS4bCWrRBf8u3so4t4&hl=ru&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj23_qUlbDQAhVCCCwKHYhaCNwQ6AEINTAF#v=onepage&q=gergonne%20%22passant%20dans%20la%20rue%22&f=false

Science is only useful if it tells you about some experiment that has not been done; it is no good if it only tells you what just went on.
Фейнман Р., лекции «Характер физических законов» (1964), гл. 7
Подтверждённые цитаты
Вариант: Цитата = Ведь наука приносит пользу только тогда, когда говорит вам о еще не поставленных экспериментах. Она никому не нужна, если позволяет судить лишь о том, что известно из опыта, что только что произошло.

Публичная речь, произнесенная на осеннем заседании Государственной Академии Наук в 1955 году.

Эта цитата восходит к утверждению французского математика Жергонна (1771-1859).

Неподтверждённые цитаты

Неподтверждённые цитаты

Неподтверждённые цитаты

I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.
Фейнман Р., лекции «Характер физических законов» (1964), гл. 6
Существует несколько вариантов этой цитаты. Вариант: «Если вам кажется, что вы понимаете квантовую теорию… то вы не понимаете квантовую теорию.»
Подтверждённые цитаты
Вариант: Цитата = Думаю, я смело могу сказать, что квантовой механики никто не понимает.
Источник: Ричард Докинз, «Бог как иллюзия» (2006) // пер. с англ. Н. Смелковой. — М: КоЛибри (Иностранка), 2008. — гл. 10.

Неподтверждённые цитаты

и что этот вопрос может означать.
Неподтверждённые цитаты

Неподтверждённые цитаты

Неподтверждённые цитаты

Неподтверждённые цитаты

&quot; Cargo Cult Science http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm&quot;, adapted from a 1974 Caltech commencement address; also published in Surely You&#x27;re Joking, Mr. Feynman!, p. 345 <br class="br">Контексте: All experiments in psychology are not of this [cargo cult] type, however. For example there have been many experiments running rats through all kinds of mazes, and so on — with little clear result. But in 1937 a man named Young did a very interesting one. He had a long corridor with doors all along one side where the rats came in, and doors along the other side where the food was. He wanted to see if he could train rats to go to the third door down from wherever he started them off. No. The rats went immediately to the door where the food had been the time before.The question was, how did the rats know, because the corridor was so beautifully built and so uniform, that this was the same door as before? Obviously there was something about the door that was different from the other doors. So he painted the doors very carefully, arranging the textures on the faces of the doors exactly the same. Still the rats could tell. Then he thought maybe they were smelling the food, so he used chemicals to change the smell after each run. Still the rats could tell. Then he realized the rats might be able to tell by seeing the lights and the arrangement in the laboratory like any commonsense person. So he covered the corridor, and still the rats could tell.He finally found that they could tell by the way the floor sounded when they ran over it. And he could only fix that by putting his corridor in sand. So he covered one after another of all possible clues and finally was able to fool the rats so that they had to learn to go to the third door. If he relaxed any of his conditions, the rats could tell.Now, from a scientific standpoint, that is an A-number-one experiment. That is the experiment that makes rat-running experiments sensible, because it uncovers the clues that the rat is really using — not what you think it&#x27;s using. And that is the experiment that tells exactly what conditions you have to use in order to be careful and control everything in an experiment with rat-running.I looked into the subsequent history of this research. The next experiment, and the one after that, never referred to Mr. Young. They never used any of his criteria of putting the corridor on sand, or of being very careful. They just went right on running rats in the same old way, and paid no attention to the great discoveries of Mr. Young, and his papers are not referred to, because he didn&#x27;t discover anything about rats. In fact, he discovered all the things you have to do to discover something about rats. But not paying attention to experiments like that is a characteristic of cargo cult science.

Источник: QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter (1985), p. 10

remarks (2 May 1956) at a Caltech YMCA lunch forum http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/49/2/Religion.htm <br class="br">Контексте: Western civilization, it seems to me, stands by two great heritages. One is the scientific spirit of adventure — the adventure into the unknown, an unknown which must be recognized as being unknown in order to be explored; the demand that the unanswerable mysteries of the universe remain unanswered; the attitude that all is uncertain; to summarize it — the humility of the intellect. The other great heritage is Christian ethics — the basis of action on love, the brotherhood of all men, the value of the individual — the humility of the spirit.<br>These two heritages are logically, thoroughly consistent. But logic is not all; one needs one&#x27;s heart to follow an idea. If people are going back to religion, what are they going back to? Is the modern church a place to give comfort to a man who doubts God — more, one who disbelieves in God? Is the modern church a place to give comfort and encouragement to the value of such doubts? So far, have we not drawn strength and comfort to maintain the one or the other of these consistent heritages in a way which attacks the values of the other? Is this unavoidable? How can we draw inspiration to support these two pillars of western civilization so that they may stand together in full vigor, mutually unafraid? Is this not the central problem of our time?

Rogers Commission Report (1986)
Контексте: The acceptance and success of these flights is taken as evidence of safety. But erosion and blow-by are not what the design expected. They are warnings that something is wrong. The equipment is not operating as expected, and therefore there is a danger that it can operate with even wider deviations in this unexpected and not thoroughly understood way. The fact that this danger did not lead to a catastrophe before is no guarantee that it will not the next time, unless it is completely understood. When playing Russian roulette the fact that the first shot got off safely is little comfort for the next. The origin and consequences of the erosion and blow-by were not understood. They did not occur equally on all flights and all joints; sometimes more, and sometimes less. Why not sometime, when whatever conditions determined it were right, still more leading to catastrophe?
In spite of these variations from case to case, officials behaved as if they understood it, giving apparently logical arguments to each other often depending on the "success" of previous flights.

(From a 1963 letter to his wife Gweneth, written while attending a gravity conference in Communist-era Warsaw.)
"Letters, Photos, and Drawings," p. 90-91
What Do You Care What Other People Think? (1988)
Контексте: The real question of government versus private enterprise is argued on too philosophical and abstract a basis. Theoretically, planning may be good. But nobody has ever figured out the cause of government stupidity — and until they do (and find the cure), all ideal plans will fall into quicksand.

volume I; lecture 3, "The Relation of Physics to Other Sciences"; section 3-4, "Astronomy"; p. 3-6
The Feynman Lectures on Physics (1964)
Контексте: Poets say science takes away from the beauty of the stars — mere globs of gas atoms. Nothing is "mere". I too can see the stars on a desert night, and feel them. But do I see less or more? The vastness of the heavens stretches my imagination — stuck on this carousel my little eye can catch one-million-year-old light. A vast pattern — of which I am a part... What is the pattern, or the meaning, or the why? It does not do harm to the mystery to know a little about it. For far more marvelous is the truth than any artists of the past imagined! Why do the poets of the present not speak of it? What men are poets who can speak of Jupiter if he were a man, but if he is an immense spinning sphere of methane and ammonia must be silent?

Sir Douglas Robb Lectures, University of Auckland (1979); lecture 1, &quot;Photons: Corpuscles of Light&quot; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLQ2atfqk2c&amp;t=24m2s <br class="br">Контексте: There&#x27;s a kind of saying that you don&#x27;t understand its meaning, &#x27;I don&#x27;t believe it. It&#x27;s too crazy. I&#x27;m not going to accept it.&#x27;… You&#x27;ll have to accept it. It&#x27;s the way nature works. If you want to know how nature works, we looked at it, carefully. Looking at it, that&#x27;s the way it looks. You don&#x27;t like it? Go somewhere else, to another universe where the rules are simpler, philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy. I can&#x27;t help it, okay? If I&#x27;m going to tell you honestly what the world looks like to the human beings who have struggled as hard as they can to understand it, I can only tell you what it looks like.

remarks (2 May 1956) at a Caltech YMCA lunch forum http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/49/2/Religion.htm <br class="br">Контексте: In this age of specialization men who thoroughly know one field are often incompetent to discuss another. The great problems of the relations between one and another aspect of human activity have for this reason been discussed less and less in public. When we look at the past great debates on these subjects we feel jealous of those times, for we should have liked the excitement of such argument. The old problems, such as the relation of science and religion, are still with us, and I believe present as difficult dilemmas as ever, but they are not often publicly discussed because of the limitations of specialization.

"Afterthoughts," p. 217-218
What Do You Care What Other People Think? (1988)
Контексте: The only way to have real success in science, the field I’m familiar with, is to describe the evidence very carefully without regard to the way you feel it should be. If you have a theory, you must try to explain what’s good and what’s bad about it equally. In science, you learn a kind of standard integrity and honesty.

"On the Philosophical Problems in Quantizing Macroscopic Objects"(ca. 1962-1963) as quoted by Morinigo, Wagner, & Hatfield, Feynman Lectures on Gravitation (2002)
Контексте: This is all very confusing, especially when we consider that even though we may consistently consider ourselves to be the outside observer when we look at the rest of the world, the rest of the world is at the same time observing us, and that often we agree on what we see in each other. Does this then mean that my observations become real only when I observe an observer observing something as it happens? This is a horrible viewpoint. Do you seriously entertain the idea that without the observer there is no reality? Which observer? Any observer? Is a fly an observer? Is a star an observer? Was there no reality in the universe before 109 B. C. when life began? Or are you the observer? Then there is no reality to the world after you are dead? I know a number of otherwise respectable physicists who have bought life insurance.

Rogers Commission Report (1986)
Контексте: The acceptance and success of these flights is taken as evidence of safety. But erosion and blow-by are not what the design expected. They are warnings that something is wrong. The equipment is not operating as expected, and therefore there is a danger that it can operate with even wider deviations in this unexpected and not thoroughly understood way. The fact that this danger did not lead to a catastrophe before is no guarantee that it will not the next time, unless it is completely understood. When playing Russian roulette the fact that the first shot got off safely is little comfort for the next. The origin and consequences of the erosion and blow-by were not understood. They did not occur equally on all flights and all joints; sometimes more, and sometimes less. Why not sometime, when whatever conditions determined it were right, still more leading to catastrophe?
In spite of these variations from case to case, officials behaved as if they understood it, giving apparently logical arguments to each other often depending on the "success" of previous flights.

Part 5: "The World of One Physicist", "But Is It Art?", p. 261
Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman! (1985)
Контексте: I wanted very much to learn to draw, for a reason that I kept to myself: I wanted to convey an emotion I have about the beauty of the world. It's difficult to describe because it's an emotion. It's analogous to the feeling one has in religion that has to do with a god that controls everything in the whole universe: there's a generality aspect that you feel when you think about how things that appear so different and behave so differently are all run "behind the scenes" by the same organization, the same physical laws. It's an appreciation of the mathematical beauty of nature, of how she works inside; a realization that the phenomena we see result from the complexity of the inner workings between atoms; a feeling of how dramatic and wonderful it is. It's a feeling of awe — of scientific awe — which I felt could be communicated through a drawing to someone who had also had this emotion. It could remind him, for a moment, of this feeling about the glories of the universe.

Rogers Commission Report (1986)
Контексте: Let us make recommendations to ensure that NASA officials deal in a world of reality in understanding technological weaknesses and imperfections well enough to be actively trying to eliminate them. They must live in reality in comparing the costs and utility of the Shuttle to other methods of entering space. And they must be realistic in making contracts, in estimating costs, and the difficulty of the projects. Only realistic flight schedules should be proposed, schedules that have a reasonable chance of being met. If in this way the government would not support them, then so be it. NASA owes it to the citizens from whom it asks support to be frank, honest, and informative, so that these citizens can make the wisest decisions for the use of their limited resources.
For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.

Источник: QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter (1985), p. 10

Rogers Commission Report (1986)
Контексте: Let us make recommendations to ensure that NASA officials deal in a world of reality in understanding technological weaknesses and imperfections well enough to be actively trying to eliminate them. They must live in reality in comparing the costs and utility of the Shuttle to other methods of entering space. And they must be realistic in making contracts, in estimating costs, and the difficulty of the projects. Only realistic flight schedules should be proposed, schedules that have a reasonable chance of being met. If in this way the government would not support them, then so be it. NASA owes it to the citizens from whom it asks support to be frank, honest, and informative, so that these citizens can make the wisest decisions for the use of their limited resources.
For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.

letter to Koichi Mano (3 February 1966); published in Perfectly Reasonable Deviations from the Beaten Track: The Letters of Richard P. Feynman (2005), p. 198, 201<br>also quoted by Freeman Dyson in &quot;Wise Man&quot; http://www.nybooks.com/articles/18350, The New York Review of Books (20 October 2005) <br class="br">Контексте: The worthwhile problems are the ones you can really solve or help solve, the ones you can really contribute something to. … No problem is too small or too trivial if we can really do something about it. You say you are a nameless man. You are not to your wife and to your child. You will not long remain so to your immediate colleagues if you can answer their simple questions when they come into your office. You are not nameless to me. Do not remain nameless to yourself — it is too sad a way to be. Know your place in the world and evaluate yourself fairly, not in terms of the naïve ideals of your own youth, nor in terms of what you erroneously imagine your teacher&#x27;s ideals are.

The Value of Science (1955)
Контексте: Of course if we make good things, it is not only to the credit of science; it is also to the credit of the moral choice which led us to good work. Scientific knowledge is an enabling power to do either good or bad — but it does not carry instructions on how to use it. Such power has evident value — even though the power may be negated by what one does with it.I learned a way of expressing this common human problem on a trip to Honolulu. In a Buddhist temple there, the man in charge explained a little bit about the Buddhist religion for tourists, and then ended his talk by telling them he had something to say to them that they would never forget — and I have never forgotten it. It was a proverb of the Buddhist religion:To every man is given the key to the gates of heaven; the same key opens the gates of hell.What then, is the value of the key to heaven? It is true that if we lack clear instructions that enable us to determine which is the gate to heaven and which the gate to hell, the key may be a dangerous object to use.But the key obviously has value: how can we enter heaven without it?

The Value of Science (1955)
Контексте: The scientist has a lot of experience with ignorance and doubt and uncertainty, and this experience is of very great importance, I think. When a scientist doesn’t know the answer to a problem, he is ignorant. When he has a hunch as to what the result is, he is uncertain. And when he is pretty darn sure of what the result is going to be, he is still in some doubt. We have found it of paramount importance that in order to progress we must recognize our ignorance and leave room for doubt. Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty — some most unsure, some nearly sure, but none absolutely certain. Now, we scientists are used to this, and we take it for granted that it is perfectly consistent to be unsure, that it is possible to live and not know. But I don’t know whether everyone realizes this is true. Our freedom to doubt was born out of a struggle against authority in the early days of science. It was a very deep and strong struggle: permit us to question — to doubt — to not be sure. I think that it is important that we do not forget this struggle and thus perhaps lose what we have gained.

The Character of Physical Law (1965)
Контексте: …Dirac discovered the correct laws for relativity quantum mechanics simply by guessing the equation. The method of guessing the equation seems to be a pretty effective way of guessing new laws. This shows again that mathematics is a deep way of expressing nature, and any attempt to express nature in philosophical principles, or in seat-of-the-pants mechanical feelings, is not an efficient way.

volume II; lecture 1, "Electromagnetism"; section 1-6, "Electromagnetism in science and technology"; p. 1-11
The Feynman Lectures on Physics (1964)
Контексте: From a long view of the history of mankind — seen from, say, ten thousand years from now — there can be little doubt that the most significant event of the 19th century will be judged as Maxwell's discovery of the laws of electrodynamics. The American Civil War will pale into provincial insignificance in comparison with this important scientific event of the same decade.

&quot; Cargo Cult Science http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm&quot;, adapted from a 1974 Caltech commencement address; also published in Surely You&#x27;re Joking, Mr. Feynman!, p. 342 <br class="br">Контексте: We&#x27;ve learned from experience that the truth will come out. Other experimenters will repeat your experiment and find out whether you were wrong or right. Nature&#x27;s phenomena will agree or they&#x27;ll disagree with your theory. And, although you may gain some temporary fame and excitement, you will not gain a good reputation as a scientist if you haven&#x27;t tried to be very careful in this kind of work. And it&#x27;s this type of integrity, this kind of care not to fool yourself, that is missing to a large extent in much of the research in cargo cult science.

Источник: No Ordinary Genius (1994), p. 251-252, from interview in &quot;The Pleasure of Finding Things Out&quot; (1981): video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEwUwWh5Xs4&amp;t=45m21s<br>(Also in book The Pleasure of Finding Things Out (1999) p. 23.) <br class="br">Контексте: People say to me, &quot;Are you looking for the ultimate laws of physics?&quot; No, I&#x27;m not. I&#x27;m just looking to find out more about the world and if it turns out there is a simple ultimate law which explains everything, so be it; that would be very nice to discover. If it turns out it&#x27;s like an onion with millions of layers and we&#x27;re just sick and tired of looking at the layers, then that&#x27;s the way it is!… And therefore when we go to investigate we shouldn’t pre-decide what it is we are trying to do except to find out more about it… My interest in science is to simply find out more about the world.

as quoted by K.C. Cole, Sympathetic Vibrations: Reflections on Physics as a Way of Life (1985)

statement (1959), quoted in Genius: The Life and Science of Richard Feynman (1992) by James Gleick, p. 372

Rejoinder when told that he couldn't talk about physics, because "nobody [at this table] knows anything about it."
Part 5: "The World of One Physicist", "Alfred Nobel's Other Mistake", p. 310.
Quoted in Handbook of Economic Growth (2005) by Philippe Aghion and Steven N. Durlauf.
Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman! (1985)

Part 5: "The World of One Physicist", "The 7 Percent Solution", p. 255
Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman! (1985)

&quot; Cargo Cult Science http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm&quot;, adapted from a 1974 Caltech commencement address; also published in Surely You&#x27;re Joking, Mr. Feynman!, p. 343 <br class="br">Вариант: The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool.

Источник: No Ordinary Genius (1994), p. 28

Источник: QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter (1985), p. 9