←back to thread

95 points atomicnature | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.202s | source
Show context
stared ◴[] No.45081360[source]
I am not sure if I agree with the list. I mean, one red flag is the frequent mention of Landau & Lifshitz. It is considered a "standard textbook", but I feel it stuck there by inertia. There are quite a few choices of both less boring and more insightful.

(Back when I was reading such stuff, 20 years ago, the Feynman Lectures provided orders magnitude more insight. And fun.)

replies(3): >>45081701 #>>45082538 #>>45083825 #
nathan_compton ◴[] No.45083825[source]
I dislike Feynman, frankly. So many of his weird hand-wavy metaphorical descriptions of shit obscure more than clarify the really important elements of the physics.

To name an example: Feynman is the source of the popular idea that in special relativity we can think of a particle as having a constant 4-vector with length c and that movement changes the direction of the four vector into the spatial directions, thus "slowing" the speed through time.

This is a very strange way of thinking about this stuff because the entire point of special relativity is that there is no objective state of affairs about velocity at all. It's meaningless to talk about the velocity of a single particle because velocity is a relative quantity. Also, I'm just generally suspicious of all this "hyperbolic rotation" stuff. I mean its true as far as the mathematical structure is concerned, but most of the time metaphors which try to get us to think of a minkowski space as being a lot like a normal 4d euclidean space confuse us or at least hide the real interesting structure, which is that in a minkowski space much of the 4d structure implied by a set of events is redundant. That is, spacetime is less than space and time together, not more.

replies(1): >>45084112 #
1. srean ◴[] No.45084112[source]
In a way Feynman was also the 3b1b of his generation. He was very good at coming up with and communicating with visual metaphors. To the laypeople at the receiving end, these give a strong illusion of understanding.

That's ok if you are not going to compute or design or build anything with it. But they are very inadequate when it is time to shut up and compute.

Feynman (and I am sure) Grant Sanderson could/can operate at a virtuoso level at both the visual imagery and the compute layers. But their popularity with the masses is because of the visual imagery they could conjure up.

On the other hand for those who can already compute for themselves, the metaphors can be a big help for building intuition as long they think in the same style.