Tetragrammaton with Rick Rubin - UNEXPECTED CONVERSATION: Richard Feynman
Episode Date: November 30, 2024In this episode, Rick connects with Richard Feynman, the brilliant physicist and Nobel Prize winner. Known for his groundbreaking contributions to quantum mechanics, Feynman’s work continues to insp...ire curiosity and innovation in science. ------ Thank you to the sponsors that fuel our podcast and our team: Athletic Nicotine https://www.athleticnicotine.com/tetra Use code 'TETRA' ------ Sign up to receive Tetragrammaton Transmissions https://www.tetragrammaton.com/join-newsletter
Transcript
Discussion (0)
Tetragrammaton.
I've always been rather very one sided about the science, and when I was younger, I concentrated
almost all my effort on it.
I didn't have time to learn, and I had not much patience with what's called the humanities,
even though in the university there were humanities that you had to take.
I tried my best to avoid somehow to learn anything and to work at it.
It's only afterwards when I've gotten older and I'm more relaxed that I've spread out
a little bit.
I've learned to draw and I read a little bit, but I'm really still a very one-sided person
and don't know a great deal.
I have a limited intelligence and I've used it in a particular direction.
You're really missing out.
Art has so much potential to stimulate the mind.
Tell me about your family.
Tell me about your father.
Yes.
Well, we had the Encyclopedia Britannica at home.
Even when I was a small boy, he used to sit me on his lap and read to me from the
Encyclopedia Britannica. And we would read, say, about dinosaurs. And maybe it would be
talking about the brontosaurus or something. And they would say something like, this thing
is 25 feet high and the head is six feet across, you see, and so we'd stop always and say,
let's see what that means.
That would mean that if he stood in our front yard, he would be high enough to put his head through the window.
But not quite because the head is a little bit too wide and would break the window as it came by.
Everything we'd read would be translated into some reality so that I learned to do that.
And everything I read I tried to figure out what it really means, what it's really saying.
So it was very exciting and interesting to think that there was animals of such magnitude.
I wasn't frightened that there would be one coming in my window as a consequence of this,
I don't think.
But I thought it was very, very interesting and that they all died out. And at that time, nobody knew why.
I'm not sure if we know why now or even if they ever existed,
but it is interesting to think about. Tell me more about your childhood.
We used to go to the Catskill Mountains. We lived in New York and the Catskill Mountains is a place where people went in the summer.
And there was a big group of people there, but the fathers would all go back to New York to work
during the week and only come back over on the weekend. And on the weekends when my father came,
he would take me for walks in the woods and would tell me various things about interesting things
that were going on in the woods, which I'll explain in a minute. But the other mothers seems, of course, thought that was wonderful and that their
other father should take their sons for a walk. So they tried to work on them, but
they didn't get anywhere at first. And they wanted my father to take all the
kids, but he didn't want to because he had a special relationship to me.
It's great that you and your father were so close.
Yeah. So it ended up that the other fathers
had to take their children for walks the next weekend.
And the next Monday, when they were all back to work,
we were, all the kids were playing in the field.
And one kid said to me,
"'See that bird?
"'What kind of a bird is that?'
And I said,
"'I haven't the slightest idea what kind of a bird it is
He says it's a brown-throated thrush or something. He says your father doesn't tell you anything
But it was the opposite my father had taught me looking at a bird. He says
Do you know what that bird is? It's a brown-throated thrush, but in Portuguese
It's a hunter a bear in Italian a chewed to the Piquita
He says in Chinese is a chung on top in Japanese a put out a toko that you etc In Portuguese it's a hontrapero. In Italian a ciutera picchietta.
He says in Chinese it's a chongongtong.
In Japanese a patata corretcia, et cetera.
He says now you know all the languages you want to know
what the name of that bird is.
And when you're finished with all that,
he says you'll know absolutely nothing whatever
about the bird.
You only know about humans in different places
and what they call the bird.
Now he says let's look at the bird and what it's doing.
So he didn't just put names on things,
but inspired you to think about what was going on.
He had taught me to notice things.
And one day when I was playing with
what we call an express wagon, which is a little wagon,
which has a railing around it for children to play with
that they can pull around.
It had a ball in it. I remember this. It had a ball in it.
And I pulled the wagon and I noticed something about the way the ball moved.
So I went to my father and I said,
Say, Pop, I noticed something.
When I pull the wagon, the ball rolls to the back of the wagon.
It rushes to the back of the wagon. And when I'm pulling along and I suddenly stop, the ball rolls to the back of the wagon. It rushes to the back of the wagon.
And when I'm pulling along and I suddenly stop, the ball rolls to the front of the wagon.
I said, why is that?
And he said, that he says, nobody knows.
He said, the general principle is that things that are moving try to keep on moving.
And things that are standing still tend to stand still unless you push on them hard. And he says, this tendency is called inertia, but nobody knows why it's true.
That's a deep understanding.
He doesn't give me a name.
He knew the difference between knowing the name of something and knowing something, which
I learned very early.
So before you even knew it, you were interested in physics.
What else did your dad say?
If you look close, you'll find the ball does not rush to the back of the wagon,
but it's the back of the wagon that you're pulling against the ball,
that the ball stands still.
As a matter of fact, from the friction, it starts to move forward really,
and doesn't move back.
So I ran back to the little wagon and set the ball up again
and pulled the wagon from under it and looking sideways and seeing indeed he was right.
The ball never moved backwards in the wagon when I pulled the wagon forward.
It moved backward relative to the wagon, but relative to the sidewalk, it was moved forward
a little bit.
It's just the wagon caught up with it.
So that's the way I was educated by my father, those kind of examples and discussions.
With no pressure, just lovely, interesting discussion.
That's great that your dad was such a great teacher.
Were there any other influences around you
that you could learn from when you were a kid?
My cousin at that time was three years old,
he was in high school,
and was having considerable
difficulty with algebra and had a tutor.
I was allowed to sit in the corner while a tutor would try to teach my cousin algebra.
I said to my cousin, I said, what are you trying to do?
I hear him talk about X.
He said, well, you know, two X plus seven is equal to 15.
He said, and you're trying to find out what X is.
I said, you mean four.
He says, yeah, but you did it with arithmetic.
You have to do it by algebra.
And that's why my cousin was never able to do algebra
because he didn't understand how he was supposed to do it.
I learned algebra fortunately by not going to school.
I know in the whole idea was to find out what x was and it didn't make any
Difference how you did it. There's no such a thing as
You don't do it by arithmetic you do it by algebra
That was a false thing that they had invented in school so that the children who have to study algebra can all pass it
They had invented a set of rules which if you followed them without thinking
Could produce the answer subtract seven from both side if you have a
Multiplier divide both sides by the multiply and so on a series of steps by which you could get the answer if you did
Understand what you were trying to do you learn to actually solve problems not just apply a formula. Mm-hmm
There was a series of math books
Which was starts arithmetic for the practical man and then algebra for the practical man and then trigonithmetic for the Practical Man, and then Algebra for the Practical Man,
and then Trigonometry for the Practical Man.
And I learned Trigonometry for the Practical Man from that.
Soon forgot it again because I didn't understand it very well.
But they were going to get the series coming out, and the library was going to get Calculus
for the Practical Man.
And I knew by this time, by reading the encyclopedia, that calculus was an important subject,
and it was an interesting one.
And I ought to learn it.
I was older now.
I was perhaps 13.
And then the calculus book finally came out.
And I was so excited.
And I went to the librarian to take it out.
And she looks at me and she says, you're just a child.
What are you taking this
book out for? This book is one of the few times in my life I lied. I said it was for
my father, he said. So I took it home and I learned calculus from it. And I tried to
explain it to my father and he'd start to read the beginning of it, and he found it confusing.
That bothered me a little bit.
I didn't know that he was so limited, you know.
He didn't understand.
And I thought it was relatively simple and straightforward that he didn't understand
it.
So that was the first time I knew I had learned more in some sense than he.
Well, I don't know if you had learned more, but you somehow were able to see through the problems
in a way that your dad couldn't.
What else did your dad teach you about?
Well, one of the things that my father taught me, besides physics, whether it was correct
or not, was disrespect for certain kinds of things.
Like what?
For example, when I was a little boy in a Rodeo Gravure, that's a printed picture,
and newspapers first came out in the New York Times, he used to sit me again on his knee
and he'd open a picture and there was a picture of the Pope with everybody bowing in front
of him.
And he'd say, now look at these humans, he'd say.
Here is one human standing here and all these others are bowing.
Now, what is the difference?
This one is the pope, another one, maybe he hated the pope anyway.
And he'd say, the difference is epaulettes, of course, not in the case of the pope.
Maybe it was a general.
It was always the uniform, the position.
But this man has the same human problems.
He eats dinner like anybody else.
He goes to the bathroom.
He has the same kind of problems as everybody.
He's a human being. Why are they all bowing to him?
Only because of his name and his position.
Because of his uniform.
Not because of something he especially did.
Or his honor or something like that.
He, by the way, was in the uniform business.
So he knew what the difference was when the man with the uniform off and the uniform on.
It's the same man for him.
So he was wary of authority and he taught you to be wary of authority.
Do you think he was proud of you?
He was happy with me, I believe.
Once though, when I came back from MIT and been there a few years,
he said to me, no, he said, you become educated about these things.
And there's one question I've always had that I've never really understood very well.
And I'd like to ask you now that you've studied this to explain it to me.
And I asked him what it was.
And then he said that he understood that when an atom made a transition from one state to
another, it emits a particle of light called a photon.
I said, that's right. from one state to another. It emits a particle of light called a photon.
I said, that's right.
He says, well, now, is the photon in the atom ahead of time
that it comes out, or is there no photon in start with?
I said, there's no photon in it, just
that the electron makes a transition that comes out.
He said, well, then where does it come from,
and how does it come out?
So I said, of course, I couldn't answer him.
The view is that photons' I couldn't answer him. The view is
that photons numbers aren't conserved, they're just created by the motion of
the electron. I couldn't try to explain it to him something like that the sound
that I'm making now wasn't in me. It's not like my little boy said when he was
just little one day he started the toy to talk and he suddenly said that he could
no longer say a certain word. The word was cat because his word bag has run out of the
word cat. So there's no word bag that you have inside that you use up the words as they
come out. You just make them as they go along. And in the same sense, there was no photon
bag in an atom.
And when the photons came out,
they didn't come from somewhere,
but I couldn't do much better.
He was not satisfied with me in that respect,
and I never was able to explain any of the things
that he didn't understand.
It's funny, it sounds like he might've understood photons
better than you.
So he was unsuccessfully sent me through all these
universities in order to find out these
things and never did find out.
Why did you get involved in the atomic program?
Well it was a completely different kind of a thing.
It would mean that I would have to stop the research in what I was doing, which is my
life's desire to take time off to do this, which I felt I should do in order
to protect civilization, if you want.
Okay?
So that was what I had to debate with myself.
My first reaction, I didn't want to get interrupted in my normal work to do this odd job.
There was also the problem, of course, of any moral thing involving war.
I didn't want to have much to do with that, but it kind of scared me when I realized what
the weapon would be, which I realized.
And since it might be possible, there was nothing that I knew that indicated that if
we could do it, they couldn't do it.
And therefore, it was very important to try to cooperate.
In retrospect, do you have any qualms about being involved?
With regard to moral questions, I do have something I would like to say about it, because the original reason to start the project,
which I had, which was the Germans were a danger. Started me on a process of action, which was to try to develop the system in Princeton,
then at Los Alamos to try to make the bomb work.
All kinds of attempts to redesign, to make it a worse bomb or whatever and so on and
all working all this time to see if we could make it go.
And so it was a project in which we all worked very very hard and all cooperating together
With any project like that you continue to work trying to get success
Having decided to do it
But what I did immorally I would say
Was not to remember the reason that I said I was doing it so that when the reason changed
Which was the Germany was defeated,
not the single thought came to my mind at all about that.
That that meant now that I have to reconsider why I'm continuing to do this.
I simply didn't think, okay?
Once you've decided to work on a project and you're trying to solve a puzzle,
you're enthralled by the puzzle.
So you're in the puzzle.
I can understand you not second guessing
why you're doing the puzzle once you've accepted doing the puzzle,
even if the situation changed.
How did it feel when you made progress on the puzzle?
On reaction, I remember perhaps I was blinded by my own reaction.
There was a very considerable elation and excitement.
And there was quite a parties and people got drunk and it would make a tremendously interesting
contrast of what was going on in Los Alamos at the same time as what was going on in Hiroshima. I was involved with this happy thing and also drinking and drunk and sitting on the hood
of a jeep and playing drums and excitement running all over Los Alamos at the same time
as the people were dying and struggling in Hiroshima. human. store counters. Not the aggressive buzz that leaves you jittery, but a careful calibration
of clean energy and focused clarity. Athletic nicotine, the lowest dose tobacco-free nicotine
available. Made entirely in the USA. No artificial sweetness, just pure purposeful elevation.
Athletic nicotine is a performance nootropic. Athletic nicotine is a tool for shifting mindsets.
Athletic nicotine is a partner in pursuit of excellence.
Slow release, low dose, gradual lift, sustained energy, soft landing, inspired results.
Athletic nicotine, more focus, less static. Athletic nicotine, more clarity, less
noise. Athletic nicotine, more accuracy, less anxiety. Athletic nicotine, from top athletes
pushing their limits to artists pursuing their vision. Athletic Nicotine offers the lift you've been looking for.
Learn more at athleticnicotine.com slash tetra and experience next level performance
with Athletic Nicotine.
Warning, this product contains nicotine.
Nicotine is an addictive chemical. When did it change from the celebration of the success to realizing the real world consequences?
I had a very strong reaction after the war of a peculiar nature.
It may be from just the bomb itself and it may be for some other psychological reasons
I had just lost my wife or something.
But I remember being in New York with my mother in a restaurant right after, immediately, and thinking
about New York. And I knew how big the bomb in Hiroshima was, how big an area it
covered and so on. And I realized from where we were, I off 59th Street, to drop
one at 34th Street. And that would spread all the way out there and all these
people would be killed and all the things would be killed. And that wasn't only one bomb available, but it was easy to continue to make them.
And therefore, that things were sort of doomed.
Because already it appeared to me, very early, earlier than to others who were more optimistic,
that international relations and the way people were behaving was no different than it had
ever been before
and that it was just going to go out the same way as any other thing
and I was sure it was going to therefore to be used very soon.
So I felt very uncomfortable and thought, really believed, that it was silly.
I would see people building a bridge and I would say they don't understand.
I really believed that it was senseless to make anything, because it would all be destroyed
very soon anyway.
That they didn't understand that.
And I had this very strange view of any construction that I would see.
I would always thought how foolish they are to try to make something.
It sounds like you were really hopeless.
You viewed it in a global way.
Yes.
I was really in a kind of depressive condition.
How do you think you changed after this experience?
Well, they expected me to be wonderful to offer me
a job like this.
And I wasn't wonderful.
And therefore, I realized a new principle,
was I'm not responsible
what other people think I'm able to do. I don't have to be good because they think I'm
going to be good. And somehow or other, I could relax about this. And I thought to myself,
I haven't done anything important. Well, I'm never going to do anything important. But
I used to enjoy physics and mathematical things things and because I used to play with it
It was never very important, but I used to do things for the fun of it
So I decided I'm gonna do things only for the fun of it
Yeah
And only that afternoon or I was eating lunch
Some kid threw up a plate in the cafeteria
Which has a blue medallion on the plate, the Cornell sign in the cafeteria, and as he threw up the plate
and it came down, it wobbled and the blue thing went around like this.
And I wondered, it seemed to me the blue thing went around faster than the wobble, and I
wondered what the relation was between the two.
See, I was just playing, no importance at all.
So I played around with the equations of motion of rotating things. And I found out that if the wobble is small,
the blue thing goes around twice as fast as the wobble goes around.
And then I tried to figure out if I could see why that was directly from
Newton's laws instead of through the complicated equations.
And I worked that out for the fun of it.
And then I went to Hans Bethe and I said,
hey, by the way, I show you something amusing.
And I explained this to him. And he said to me, that's very amusing and interesting. He said, hey, by the way, I show you something amusing. And I explained this to him.
And he said to me, that's very amusing and interesting.
He said, but what is the use of it?
What I said, that doesn't make any, it has any use.
I'm just doing it for the fun of it.
That sounds great.
You reconnected with the thing
that first connected you to physics, the fun.
It didn't mean anything.
It didn't have to be for anything.
It was for the joy of knowledge, the joy of understanding.
That's what we're here for.
Well, and then Bob Wilson, who was the head of the nuclear lab there,
the same Bob Wilson, had some kind of instinct or something,
because it was at the same day or other that he called me
and he told me that when they hire a professor at the university,
it's their responsibility what the professor does and it's their risk.
And if he doesn't do anything or he doesn't accomplish anything, it's not his thing to
worry about that.
They're taking a risk to put them in the environment and I should do whatever I want, amuse myself
or whatever I want.
So with that double combination, I could relax. Somehow I was
getting out from some psychological problem and I relaxed and started to play it, as I
said, with the rotation.
That sounds great. It sounds like you had an inclination of going back to your roots
of why you loved it and then an administrative source came to you and supported your position.
This rotation led me to a similar problem of the rotation of the spin of an electron
according to Dirac's equation, and that just led me back into quantum electrodynamics,
which is the problem I've been working on, and I kept continuing now to play with it
in the relaxed fashion I had originally done, and everything is just like taking a cork out of a bottle.
Everything just poured out.
By the way, in a very short order, work the things out for which I later won a Nobel Prize.
What's interesting about that is that you were working in the practical to get to the
theoretical.
You didn't start in the theoretical and work to the practical. So much of what we see now is taking the theoretical at face value without consideration for the
practical.
Well, what I essentially did, and also was done independently by two other people, also
independent Tomonaga in Japan and Schwinger, was to figure out how to analyze, how to control, and discuss
the original theory of quantum theory of electricity in the 19th and that has been written in 1928,
how to interpret it so as to avoid the infinities, to make calculations in which there were sensible
results which have since turned out to be an exact agreement
with every experiment that's been done so far, so that in quantum electrodynamics we
have a theory which fits experiment in every detail where it's applicable, not involving
nuclear forces, for instance.
And it was the work that I did in 1947 to figure out how to do that for which I won the Nobel Prize.
How did it feel to win the Nobel Prize? I said I don't know anything about the
Nobel Prize. I don't understand what it's all about or what's worth what and if
the people in the Swedish Academy decide that X, Y, or Z wins the Nobel Prize, then so be it.
I won't have anything to do with the Nobel Prize.
It seems like you're more interested in the work than the acclaim.
I don't like honors.
I'm appreciated for the work that I did, and for people who appreciate it,
and I notice other physicists use my work.
I don't need anything else.
I don't think there's any sense to
anything else. I don't see that it makes any point that someone in the Swedish Academy
decides that this work is noble enough to receive a prize. I've already got the prize.
The prize is the pleasure of finding a thing out, the kick in the discovery, the observation other people use it. Those are the real things. The honors
are unreal to me. I don't believe in honors. It bothers me. Honors bothers me. Honors is
epaulettes. Honors is uniforms. My pop-up brought me up this way. I can't stand it. It hurts
me. When I was in high school, one of the first honors I got was to be a member
of the Arrester, which is a group of kids who got good grades. Well, everybody wanted
to be a member of the Arrester. And when I got into the Arrester, I discovered that what
they did in their meetings was to sit around and to discuss who else was worthy to join
this wonderful group that we are?
Okay, so we sat around trying to decide who it was
who would get to be allowed into the Sarasota.
This kind of thing bothers me psychologically for one or another reason.
I don't understand myself.
It's because you don't want to put yourself over other people.
You see people as people. We're all the same. We're all one.
I had trouble with when I became a member
of the National Academy of Science,
and I had ultimately to resign,
because there was another organization,
most of whose time was spent in choosing
who was illustrious enough to join,
to be allowed to join us in our organization,
including such questions as,
we physicists have to stick together
because there's a very good chemist
that they're trying to get in, and we haven't got enough room for so stick together because there's a very good chemist
that they're trying to get in
and we haven't got enough room for so-so.
What's the matter with chemists?
The whole thing was rotten
because the purpose was mostly
to decide who could have this honor.
Okay, I don't like honors.
It sounds like people who are focused on that
live for that and not the work.
One way that's kind of a fun analogy to try to get some idea of what we're doing in trying
to understand nature is to imagine that the gods are playing some great game like chess,
let's say a chess game, and you don't know the rules of the game, but you're allowed
to look at the board, at least from time to time, and in a little corner perhaps.
And from these observations, you try to figure out what the rules are of the game, what the
rules of the pieces moving.
You might discover after a bit for example that when there's only one bishop around on
the board that the bishop maintains its color.
Later on you might discover the law for the bishop as it moves on a diagonal, which would
explain the law that you understood before that it maintains its color.
That would be analogous to we discover one law and then later find a deeper understanding
of it.
Then things can happen.
Everything's going good.
You've got all the laws.
It looks very good.
Then all of a sudden some strange phenomenon occurs in some corner.
So you begin to investigate that, to look for it.
It's castling, something you didn't expect it.
We're always, by the way, in a fundamental physics, always trying to investigate that to look for it. It's castling, something you didn't expect it. We're always, by the way, in a fundamental physics, always trying to investigate those things in which
we don't understand the conclusions. We're not trying to check all the time our conclusions.
After we've checked them enough, we're okay. The thing that doesn't fit is the thing that's the
most interesting. That sounds like what's most exciting. Yeah, part that doesn't go according
to what you expected. Also we
could have revolutions in physics after you've been noticed that the bishops
maintain their color and they go along the diagonals and so on for such a long
time and everybody knows that that's true. Then you suddenly discover one day
in some chess game that the bishop doesn't maintain its color, it changes
its color. Only later do you discover there's a new possibility that the bishop doesn't maintain its color. It changes its color. Only later do you discover the new possibility
that the bishop is captured and that a pawn went all the way
down to the Queen's end to produce a new bishop.
That can happen, but you didn't know it.
And so it's a very analogous to the way our laws are.
They sometimes look positive, they keep on working,
and all of a sudden some little gimmick
shows that they're wrong.
And then we have to investigate the conditions under which this bishop change of color happened
and so forth and gradually learn the new rule that explains it more deeply.
So it sounds like we have to hold all of these ideas loosely enough
to allow the thing that doesn't fit to show itself and teach us what we don't know, we don't know.
Unlike the chess game though, in the case of the chess game, the rules become more complicated
as you go along. But in the physics, when you discover new things, it looks more simple.
It appears on the whole to be more complicated because we learn about a greater experience.
That is, we learn about more particles and new things.
And so the laws look complicated again.
So the reason it looks complicated is because we don't see enough of the picture to see
how simple it actually is.
But if you realize all the time what's kind of wonderful, it is as we expand our experience
into wilder and wilder regions of experience, Every once in a while we have these integrations
in which everything is pulled together in a unification,
which it turns out to be simpler than it looked before.
That sounds like a great revelation.
When you find out it's simpler than you thought it was.
If you're interested in the ultimate character of the physical world,
or the real complete world.
And at the present time our only way to understand that is through a mathematical type of reasoning.
Then I don't think a person can fully appreciate or in fact can appreciate much of these particular
aspects of the world, the great depth and character of the universality of the laws the
relationships of things without an understanding of
Mathematics I find that surprising. I I don't know any other way to do it We don't know any other way to describe it accurately and well or to see the interrelationships without without it
So I don't think a person who hasn't developed some mathematical sense is capable of fully appreciating this aspect of the world.
Don't misunderstand me, there are many, many aspects of the world that mathematics is unnecessary for, such as love,
and which are very delightful and wonderful to appreciate and that we've ordered mysterious about.
And I don't mean to say that the only thing in the world is physics, but you were talking about physics and if that's what you're talking about, then to not know
mathematics is a severe limitation in understanding the world. I wonder if there's some version of
physics where knowing mathematics is a limitation. Well what I'm working on in physics right now is
a special problem which we've come up against and I can't describe what it is
You know that everything's made out of atoms
We've got that far already and most people know that already and that the atom has a nucleus with electrons going around the behavior of the
Electrons on the outside is now completely the laws for it are well understood as far as we can tell in this quantum
now completely the laws for it are well understood as far as we can tell in this quantum electrodynamics that I told you about.
And after that was evolved, then the problem was how does the nucleus work?
How are the particles interact?
How do they hold together?
One of the byproducts was to discover fission and to make a bomb.
But it investigated the forces that hold the nuclear particles together.
It was a long task.
At first it was thought that was an exchange of some sort of particles inside which were invented
by Yukawa called pions. And it would be predicted that if you would hit protons against the
proton is one of the particles in a nucleus against the nucleus, it would knock out such
pions and sure enough such particles came out. Not only pions came out, but other particles
and we began to run out of names,
the kaons and sigmas and lambdas and so on.
These are all called hadrons now.
And as we increased the energy,
the reaction got more and more different kinds
until there were hundreds of different kinds of particles.
Then the problem was, of course, during all this,
this period is from 1950 up toward the present,
was to find the pattern behind it.
And there seemed to be very many interesting relations among the particles.
Until a theory was evolved to explain these patterns, that all of these particles were
really made of something else.
They were made of a thing called quarks.
And that three quarks, for example, would form a proton.
Proton is one of the particles in nucleus,
another one is a neutron.
The quarks came in a number of varieties.
In fact, at first only three were needed
to explain all the hundreds of particles.
And the different kinds of quarks,
they were called U-type, D-type, S-type.
Two U's in a D made a proton,
two D's in a U made a neutron.
If they were moving a different way inside, there were some other particles and so on.
I see.
Then the problem came, what is exactly the behavior of the quarks and what holds them together?
And a theory was thought of, which is a very simple analogy to quantum electrodynamics,
a very close analogy to quantum electrodynamics
Not exactly the same but very close in which the quarks are like the electron and the photons which go between electrons Which makes them attract each other electrically were called gluons the mathematics was very similar, but a few terms slightly different
The difference in the the form of the equations that were guessed at were guessed by principles,
by such beauty and simplicity that isn't arbitrary. It's very, very determined. What is arbitrary
is how many different kinds of quarks there are, but not the character of the force between
them. Now, unlike electrodynamics, there's a thing in electrodynamics, two electrons
can be pulled apart as far as
you want. As a fact, when they're very far away, the force is weakened. If this were
true and if these were made out of quarks, you would have expected that when you hit
things together hard enough, the quarks would come out. But instead of that, when you do
an experiment with enough energy that quarks could come out, instead of that you found
a big jet, that is all particles going about the same direction, of the old hadrons, no quark.
And the theory, it was clear that what was required was that when the quark comes out,
it kind of makes these new pairs of quarks and they come in little groups and make hadrons.
The question is why is it so different than electrodynamics?
How do these small terms, these little terms that are different in the equation produce
such different effects, entirely
different effects.
In fact, it was very surprising to most people that this would really come out.
At first, you would think the theory was wrong, but the more it's studied, the more clear
it became that it's very possible that these extra terms would produce these effects.
Now we're in a position that's different in history than any other time in physics.
It's always different.
We have a theory, a complete and definite theory,
of all of these head runs, and we have an enormous
number of experiments and lots and lots of details.
Now why can't we test the theory right away
to find out if it's right or wrong?
Because what we have to do is calculate
consequences of the theory.
If this theory is right, what should happen?
And does that happen?
When this time the difficulty is in the first step. If the theory is right, what should happen is very hard to figure out.
The mathematics needed to figure out what the consequences of this theory are have turned out to be at the present time
insuperably difficult, all right? And therefore obvious to what my problem is. My problem is to try to
develop a way of getting numbers out of this theory to test it really carefully,
not just qualitatively. Does it look like I might give the right result? So what
did you do? Well, I spent a few years trying to invent mathematical
things that would permit me to solve the equations and I didn't get anywhere. And
then I decided that in order to do that I must first understand more or less how
the answer probably looks. It's hard to explain this very well but I have to get
a qualitative idea of how the phenomena works rather before I can get a good
quantitative idea.
In other words, people didn't even understand roughly how it worked.
That sounds like a really healthy way to go about it.
You're not relying on the math to understand it.
The math explains the phenomena, but the phenomena doesn't follow the math.
The math follows the phenomena. And so I've been working most recently,
last year or two, on understanding roughly how it works,
not quantitatively yet, with the hope that in the future,
that rough understanding can be refined into a precise mathematical way,
an algorithm, to get from the theory to the particles.
You see, we're in a funny position.
It's not that we're looking for the theory.
We've got the theory.
A good candidate.
But in the step in science that we
need to compare the theory to experiment,
by seeing what the consequences are and checking them,
we're stuck in seeing what the consequences are.
And it's my aim.
It's my desire to see if I can work out a way to work out what the consequences of this theory are.
It's kind of a crazy position to be in, to have a theory that you can't work out the consequences of.
I can't stand it. I have to figure it out someday, maybe.
That sounds really exciting. And it sounds like it might take some time.
Yeah. To do the kind of high, real good physics work, you do need absolute solid lengths of time. Yeah. To do the kind of high real good physics work you do need
absolute solid lengths of time. It's when you're putting ideas together which are
vague and hard to remember. I get this feeling very much like building those
houses of cards where you're putting together on each of the cards is shaky
and if you forget one of them the whole thing collapses again you don't know how
you got there and you have to build them up again and if you forget one of them, the whole thing collapses again. You don't know how you got there, and you have to build them up again.
And if you're interrupted and kind of forget half the idea of how the cards went together,
you've got cards being different type parts of the ideas, ideas of different kinds that
have to go together to build up the idea, the main point.
You put this stuff together, it's quite a tower, and it's easy to slip.
It needs a lot of concentrating.
That is solid time to think.
And if you've got a job in administrating anything like that,
then you don't have the solid time.
Do you have a way to notate the ideas as they're happening
so that if you lose your train of thought,
you can get back to where you were?
So I have invented another myth for myself, that I'm irresponsible.
I'm actively irresponsible, I tell everybody.
I don't do anything. If anybody asks me to be on a committee to take care of admissions,
no, I'm irresponsible. I don't give a damn about the students.
Of course I give a damn about the students, but I know that somebody else will do it.
And I take the view, let George do it.
A view which you're not supposed to take, okay?
Because then that's not right to do it.
But I do that because I like to do physics
and I wanna see if I can still do it.
And so I'm selfish, okay?
I wanna do my physics.
So you have a single point of focus
and until you get to the solution that you're looking for, nothing is going
to get in your way.
What are your thoughts on the best way to teach?
All those students are in the class.
Now you ask me, how should I best teach them?
Should I teach them from the point of view of the history of science, from the applications,
from the...
My theory is that the best way to teach is to have no philosophy, is to be chaotic and confused
in the sense that you use every possible way of doing it.
That's the only way I can see to answer it, so as to catch this guy or that guy on different
hooks as you're going off.
That during the time when the fellow who was interested in history is being bored by the
abstract mathematics, on the other hand the fellow who likes the abstractions is being
bored another time by the history. If you can do it so you don't bore them all all the
time, perhaps you better off. I really don't know how to do it.
Maybe there isn't one right way. It does sound like different people respond to different
kinds of feedback.
I don't know how to answer this question of different kinds of minds with different kinds
of interests.
What hooks them on?
What makes them interested?
How do you direct them to become interested?
One way is by a kind of force.
You have to pass this course.
You have to take that examination.
It's a very effective way.
Many people go through schools that way.
It's maybe the more effective way.
I'm sorry.
After many, many years of trying to teach and trying all different kinds of methods,
I really don't know how to do it.
I got a chick when I was a boy,
my father telling me things,
so I tried to tell my son things that were interesting
about the world.
When he was very small, I used to rock him to bed,
when he goes to bed, I tell him stories,
and I'd make up story about little people
that were about so high, would walk along, and would go on picnics and so on.
They lived in the ventilator and they'd go through these woods which had great big long
tall blue things like trees but without leaves and only one stalk and they were all and they
had to walk between them and so on.
And he'd gradually catch on.
That was the rug, the nap of the rug, the blue rug.
And he loved this game because I would describe
all these things from an odd point of view.
And he liked to hear the stories.
And we got all kinds of wonderful things.
He even went into a moist cave
where the wind kept going in and out.
It was coming in cool and went out warm and so on.
He was inside the dog's nose that they went.
And then of course I could tell him all about physiology
by this way and so on. He loved that. And then of course I could tell him all about physiology
by this way and so on.
He loved that.
And so I told him lots of stuff and I enjoyed it
because I was telling him stuff that I liked
and he had fun when he would guess what it was and so on.
And then I have a daughter and I tried the same thing.
Oh, my daughter's personality was different.
She didn't want to hear this story.
She wanted the story that was in the book,
repeat it again and read to her. She wanted me to read to her't want to hear this story. She wanted the story that was in the book, repeated again, and Ray read to her.
She wanted me to read to her, not to make up story.
That's a different personality.
And so if I were to say a very good method for teaching children about science is to
make up these stories of little people who it doesn't work at all on my daughter.
It happened to work on my son, okay?
What do you think of the social sciences?
Because of the success of science, there is a kind of a, I think a kind of pseudo-science that
social science is an example of a science which is not a science.
Really?
They don't do scientific, they follow the forms.
You gather data, you do so and so and so forth but
they don't get any laws they don't have found on anything they haven't gone
anywhere yet maybe someday they will but it's not very well developed but what
happens is even more mundane level we get experts on everything that sound
like they're sort of scientific experts. They're not scientific.
They sit at a typewriter and they make up something like...
Give me an example.
Oh, food grown with fertilizer that's organic is better for you
than food grown with fertilizers that's inorganic.
It may be true, may not be true,
but it hasn't been demonstrated one way or the other.
But they'll sit there on the typewriter and make up all this stuff
as if it's science science and they become an expert
on foods, organic foods, and so on. There's all kinds of myths and pseudoscience
all over the place. Now, I might be quite wrong. Maybe they do know all this thing,
but I don't think I'm wrong. See, I have the advantage of having found out how hard
it is to get to really know something, how careful you have to be about checking the
experiments, how easy it is to make mistakes and fool yourself. I know what it is to get to really know something. How careful you have to be about checking the experiments.
How easy it is to make mistakes and fool yourself.
I know what it means to know something.
And therefore, I see how they get their information.
And I can't believe that they know it.
They haven't done the work necessary.
I haven't done the checks necessary.
I haven't done the care necessary.
I have a great suspicion that they don't know
that this stuff is, and they're intimidating people,
but I think so.
I don't know the world very well, but that's what I think.
It's very difficult to know what to trust these days.
If you expected science to give all the answers
to the wonderful questions about what we are,
where we're going, what the meaning of the universe is,
and so on, then I think you could easily become disillusioned and then look
for some mystic answer to these problems.
How a scientist can take a mystic answer, I don't know because the whole spirit is to
understand, well never mind that, I don't understand that, but anyhow.
The way I think of what we're doing is we're exploring, we're trying to find out as much
as we can about the world.
People say to me, are you looking for the ultimate laws of physics?
No, I'm not.
I'm just looking to find out more about the world.
And if it turns out there is a simple ultimate law that explains everything, so be it.
That would be very nice to discover.
If it turns out it's like an onion with millions of layers and we're just sick and tired of
looking at the layers, then that's the way it is.
But whatever way it comes out, it's nature is there
and she's gonna come out the way she is.
And therefore, when we go to investigate it,
we shouldn't pre-decide what it is we're trying to do
except to find out more about it.
So nature is never wrong.
If you said, but your problem is,
why do you find out more about it?
If you thought that you were trying to find out
more about it because you're gonna get an answer to some deep philosophical question, you may be wrong.
It may be that you can't get an answer to that particular question by finding out more
about the character of nature.
But my interest in science is to simply find out about the world.
And the more I find out, the better it is.
Like to find out.
That sounds like a reasonable goal.
There are very remarkable mysteries about the fact that we're able to do so many more
things than apparently animals can do, and other questions like that.
But those are mysteries I want to investigate without knowing the answer to them.
And there are so many things that animals can do that we can't.
And so altogether, I can't believe the special stories that have been made up about our relationship
to the universe at large, because they seem to be too simple, too local, too provincial.
The earth, it came to the earth.
One of the aspects of God came to the earth, mind you.
And look at what's out there.
How can it?
It isn't in proportion.
Anyway, it's no use arguing.
I can't argue it.
I'm just trying to tell you why the scientific views that I do have some effect on my beliefs.
And also another thing has to do with the question of how do you find out if something
is true?
And if you have all these theories of the different religions, have all different theories
about the thing, then you begin to wonder.
Once you start doubting,
just like you're supposed to doubt,
you ask me, is the science true?
We say, no, no, we don't know what's true.
We're trying to find out.
Everything is possibly wrong.
Start out understanding religion
by saying everything is possibly wrong.
Let us see.
As soon as you do that,
you start sliding down an edge,
which is hard to recover from.
And so, with the scientific view,
well, my father's view that we should look to see what's true and what may not
be true, once you start doubting, which I think to me is a very fundamental part
of my soul, is to doubt and to ask. And when you doubt and ask, it gets a little
harder to believe. So you're saying, don't trust, verify.
You see, one thing is I can live with doubt
and uncertainty and not knowing.
I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing
than to have answers which might be wrong.
I think there's so much we don't know,
and the arrogance of thinking we know more than we do
can really get us into trouble.
I have approximate answers and possible beliefs and different degrees of certainty about different
things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything.
And many things I don't know anything about, such as whether it means anything to ask why
we're here and what the question might mean.
I might think about it a little bit.
If I can't figure it out, then I go to something else.
But I don't have to know an answer.
I don't have to.
I don't feel frightened by not knowing things.
Wow.
By being lost in the mysterious universe
without having any purpose, which is the way it really is
as far as I can tell, possibly.
It doesn't frighten me. frightening. Tetragrammaton is a podcast.
Tetragrammaton is a website. Tetragrammaton is a whole world of knowledge.
What may fall within the sphere of Tetragrammaton?
Counterculture? Tetragrammaton.
Sacred geometry? Tetragrammaton.
The Avant-Garde? Tetragrammaton.
Generative art? Tetragrammaton. The Tarot? Tetragrammaton. The Avant-Garde. Tetragrammaton. Generative art. Tetragrammaton.
The Tarot. Tetragrammaton. Out of print music. Tetragrammaton.
Biodynamics. Tetragrammaton. Graphic design. Tetragrammaton. Mythology and magic. Tetragrammaton.
Obscure film. Tetragrammaton. Beach culture. Tetragrammaton.
Well, yeah, oh well.
Tetragrammaton. Off the grid living. Tetragrammaton. Well, yeah, oh well. Tetragrammaton.
Off the grid living.
Tetragrammaton.
Alt spirituality.
Tetragrammaton.
The canon of fine objects.
Tetragrammaton.
Muscle cars.
Tetragrammaton.
Ancient wisdom for a new age.
Yes.
Ah well.
Upon entering, experience the artwork of the day.
Ah well. Take a breath. and see where you are drawn.