Skip to main content

The Quotable Feynman - Richard Feynman (Ed. Michelle Feynman) ***

If you asked people who did physics degrees in my generation - or who were working physicists for that matter - to name their favourite physicist, while there might have been a few dissenters going for, say, Fred Hoyle, the vast bulk would say Richard Feynman. (I honestly don't know if it's the same for young physicists now - it would be interesting to find out.) The reason I mention Hoyle is that the two shared a lot of characteristics. Neither of them sounded like a physicist. Both were, to a degree, iconoclastic. And both came up with delightful quotes. So given all that, it should be no surprise that we get here a collection of Feynman's best snippets, edited by his daughter Michelle.
This isn't the first book of this kind - there was also The Ultimate Quotable Einstein, and like Einstein, Feynman was both a brilliant physicist who was able to see the world differently and a master of the witty remark, often pithy and pungent, each managing to get to the heart of their particular areas of science in a few words. I don't suppose this book will do as well as the Einstein one because Feynman is less well known to the public in general - but in the physics community it will be lapped up.
The collection was certainly fun to dip into, and with sections on everything from nature to philosophy and humour to war it has plenty of range. However, I have a couple of problems with this as a book. The first is that this kind of thing can become a hagiography, and having prefaces by cellist Yo Yo Ma and TV scientist Brian Cox made it seem even more so that this was the case. In a sense, a daughter is not necessarily the best person to edit a collection like this. Because the book cried out for a section labelled 'Things he got wrong'. Feynman himself would have cheerfully admitted that this a major route to getting to better answers and there are bound to be some quotes that were heartily adrift from later developments, whether in his own field or others.
My other issue is quite what to do with the book as a reader. I have made the attempt to read it through for this review, but frankly, even with a man of Feynman's wit, there are only so many snippets out of context that you can read without getting bored. I think it would have been better to have stripped out all but the best quotes and given each a page of context to make it more interesting. Given the volume as it is, the main use I would have thought it had was a dictionary of quotations. I often dig out the Oxford Dictionary of Scientific Quotations when writing, and it's poor on Feynman (just 7 entries) - so having another 500 is, in theory, excellent.
I say 'in theory' because the publishers have made an attempt to shoot themselves in the foot. In the front material they comment 'Requests for permission to reproduce material from this work should be sent to Permissions, Princeton University Press.' (I wonder if I should have asked permission to reproduce that?) But that takes away about the only real point of having the book. In practice, I don't think they can get away with this on anything other than items that aren't themselves quotes from other books, TV appearances etc, such as personal letters and notes, as quoting publicly available sources has long been accepted without permission. But even so it leaves a bad taste in the mouth. Poor move, Princeton University Press.


Paperback 

Kindle 
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
Review by Brian Clegg

Comments

  1. Excellent review. I really like the idea of taking a quote and then spending a page or three putting it into a proper context. I can't think of anyine I'd rather have do that than you Brian. Put it on the list!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Roger Highfield - Stephen Hawking: genius at work interview

Roger Highfield OBE is the Science Director of the Science Museum Group. Roger has visiting professorships at the Department of Chemistry, UCL, and at the Dunn School, University of Oxford, is a Fellow of the Academy of Medical Sciences, and a member of the Medical Research Council and Longitude Committee. He has written or co-authored ten popular science books, including two bestsellers. His latest title is Stephen Hawking: genius at work . Why science? There are three answers to this question, depending on context: Apollo; Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, along with the world’s worst nuclear accident at Chernobyl; and, finally, Nullius in verba . Growing up I enjoyed the sciencey side of TV programmes like Thunderbirds and The Avengers but became completely besotted when, in short trousers, I gazed up at the moon knowing that two astronauts had paid it a visit. As the Apollo programme unfolded, I became utterly obsessed. Today, more than half a century later, the moon landings are

Space Oddities - Harry Cliff *****

In this delightfully readable book, Harry Cliff takes us into the anomalies that are starting to make areas of physics seems to be nearing a paradigm shift, just as occurred in the past with relativity and quantum theory. We start with, we are introduced to some past anomalies linked to changes in viewpoint, such as the precession of Mercury (explained by general relativity, though originally blamed on an undiscovered planet near the Sun), and then move on to a few examples of apparent discoveries being wrong: the BICEP2 evidence for inflation (where the result was caused by dust, not the polarisation being studied),  the disappearance of an interesting blip in LHC results, and an apparent mistake in the manipulation of numbers that resulted in alleged discovery of dark matter particles. These are used to explain how statistics plays a part, and the significance of sigmas . We go on to explore a range of anomalies in particle physics and cosmology that may indicate either a breakdown i

Splinters of Infinity - Mark Wolverton ****

Many of us who read popular science regularly will be aware of the 'great debate' between American astronomers Harlow Shapley and Heber Curtis in 1920 over whether the universe was a single galaxy or many. Less familiar is the clash in the 1930s between American Nobel Prize winners Robert Millikan and Arthur Compton over the nature of cosmic rays. This not a book about the nature of cosmic rays as we now understand them, but rather explores this confrontation between heavyweight scientists. Millikan was the first in the fray, and often wrongly named in the press as discoverer of cosmic rays. He believed that this high energy radiation from above was made up of photons that ionised atoms in the atmosphere. One of the reasons he was determined that they should be photons was that this fitted with his thesis that the universe was in a constant state of creation: these photons, he thought, were produced in the birth of new atoms. This view seems to have been primarily driven by re