Are the Feynman Lectures on Physics books good?

[shogunultra]

Im pretty much a physics amateur, I actualll study medicine, but now I am pursuing physics as something of an intensive hobby. I really like to be able to understand the universe a little bit more with everything I learn. This new love for physics is due to the Feynman lectures, they are great books, they teach you how to see the world from a physical point of view.

They teach you nothing about math, absolutely nothing, you will understand what an integral is, but you will not learn anything about calculating one. Combine Feynman with a good advanced book about Calculus that also has exercises.

The way I do it, I've actually put Feynman aside now because I want to learn techniques, I use calculus books and physics textbooks.

Always remember that nothing can really replace well thought out exercises.

 

[mathwonk]

this thread reminds me of the deep question: do little brown bears go poo poo in the woods?

i.e. the answer to this question is: yes, and that's it for this thread. the thread should have been closed after post 21, since there is nothing else to add.

 

[mariam]

mariam

do anyone of you have the video lectures of Feynman or a web-link to these?

 

[loom91]

I recall an eye opening experience as a student, reading Feynman doing a calculation, of a planetary orbit I believe, by "integral calculus". As a math major I had just had an honors course where of a function on an interval was defined as integrable if for every epsilon, there were upper and lower step functions for f whose simple integrals differed by epsilon, and I could not calculate anything.

To my shock, Feynman showed that an integral is essentially just a process of adding things up, and he proceeded to compute, or maybe approximate, one with his bare hands.

I thought, gee, is it that simple?

Surely you can't be serious?!? That a definite integral is (at least its elementary definition) actually a summation process and the various techniques of calculating it (including Integration by parts and by substitution) are taught in 11/12 grade! Or perhaps you meant something else?

In fact, the Lebinz notation for integrals (the elongated S) comes from the initial letter of summation. It is my (probably inaccurate) understanding that in modern approaches integration is defined as the inverse of the exterior derivative rather than the limit of an infinite sum, so we have actually moved away from the initial summation concept. Still, the summation approach is easier and is thus used to introduce integral calculus.

Molu

 

[quasi426]

do anyone of you have the video lectures of Feynman or a web-link to these?

http://www.vega.org.uk/video/subseries/8

This is a link of his lectures in U of Aukland explaining quantum electrodyanmics to a general audience.

 

[BryanP]

I would say they are good books for what they offer. Feynman presents a relatively unorthodox method of teaching the subject (in context to how I learned Physics at my school at least) so I found it pretty difficult to grasp some things at first.

However, when I worked at Borders bookstore, this was the first thing I picked up (all three volumes) with my store discount and it's probably one of best sets I've picked up so far.

I think the best way would be to actually just go through it and decide for yourself if it's good for you. It's pretty easy to see the distiction between the F Lectures and physics textbooks you'd use today IMO.

 

[Helical]

Are these worth reading too someone who has little knowledge of physics and is still in high school? Would these be a step up from most "pop" physics books.
Thanks

 

[BryanP]

Are these worth reading too someone who has little knowledge of physics and is still in high school? Would these be a step up from most "pop" physics books.
Thanks

I personally would say its tedious for a HS student. Just take a peek at one if it's not wrapped in plastic and look at how the material is presented.

 

[Daverz]

The idea that Feynman's Lectures won't help you do problems is tendentious nonsense. Just from dim memory I remember his discussion of small oscillations being very useful for problem solving. Also the simple stat mech chapters were really helpful. The chapter on radiation was helpful, and it's nice to be able to do useful calculations on that before having to wait for the second semester of junior E&M. I still use his method for doing cross products. I'd look up more, but my paperback copy fell apart from usage long ago.

 

[chroot]

Tendetious? You may be aware that the books are based on the Feynman lectures, a pedagogical experiment back in the 60's in which Feynman tried teaching his Caltech students in a very unorthodox manner. It was focused not on the nuts and bolts of solving problems, but on the grand view of physics as a whole, as seen by a remarkable physicst.

Even the preface of the Feynman Lectures reads "But even in his view, the pedagogical endeavor did not succeed... But even when he thought he was explaining things lucidly to freshmen or sophomores, it was not really they who would benefit most from what he was doing... If the purpose in giving The Feynman Lectures on Physics was to prepare a roomful of undergraduate students to solve examinations problems in physics, he cannot be said to achieved his goal."

This is the reason the Feynman methodology has never been repeated: it wasn't very good at helping students learn to solve problems on their own.

Bottom line? If you're a freshman trying to boost your grades or prepare for your curriculum, Feynman is a terrible choice. Sure, it has a few clever methods here and there, but Halliday and Resnick, or even the Schaum's outlines, will much more directly benefit your studies.

- Warren

 

[courtrigrad]

The same thing holds for calculus, in my opinion. Using Apostol, Courant, or Spivak for a standard course won't help you solve problems. Stewart, Finney, or Strang will help a student solve problems. Apostol,Courant, and Spivak are more for theory/proofs. That's why I like to use a combination of books from different groups (i.e. Apostol and Strang).

 

[Daverz]

Tendetious? You may be aware that the books are based on the Feynman lectures, a pedagogical experiment back in the 60's in which Feynman tried teaching his Caltech students in a very unorthodox manner. It was focused not on the nuts and bolts of solving problems, but on the grand view of physics as a whole, as seen by a remarkable physicst.

Even the preface of the Feynman Lectures reads "But even in his view, the pedagogical endeavor did not succeed...

Yeah, I imagine it was pretty hard going without a textbook, trying to keep up with Feynman while taking notes. At one time one could get a red large format paperback with problems from the first year. This was full of some very tough problems, way above the level of the simplified Resnick & Halliday edition and even somewhat above the level of the full multi-volume Resnick & Halliday. So I have to wonder if the problems were pitched too hard, even for Caltech students.

However, I've also read that it was an exaggeration to say that the lectures were a failure, and that students did not drift away in the large numbers claimed. I can't track down the reference now.

And any pedagogical failure a the time says nothing about the value of the lectures as supplemental reading for motivation and inspriation before taking a course out of a traditional textbook. These books have continuously been in print since the 1960s, and were popular long before the Feynman cult got going. To say they have will not help one solve any problems is just silly. They are constantly used and referred to by students and working physicists.

 

[dimachka]

if you want to solve problems identical to ones you've seen before but with the numbers changed or other useless changes like that, you don't need the feynman lectures.

If on the other hand, you want to truly understand physics and have intuition that let's you tackle problems you have not seen solved before, then there is simply no substitute for the feynman lectures out there. And by the way, almost all of the lectures are available in audio form as well on the net so you can listen to feynman lecture while reading the lecture notes, truly educational and inspiring.

 

[Daverz]

I thought I heard somewhere that the lectures were also filmed. Anyone know anything about this?

 

[dimachka]

Were they really videotaped? I would be extremely interested in this, I'm a huge feynman lectures fan. I feel they have taught me a lot.

 

[^_^physicist]

Feynman's works are magnificant; however, I never did get around to owning the 1st and 3rd books in the set (they are always costly). The first text, in my opinion was not of that much use, it has moments but I generally did not enjoy it so much.

The second book (E&M) on the other hand was excellent. I loved, and still love every minute of it. I bought it my senior year of high school and found it exceedingly useful when attempting to gain a better grasp on the topics in Halliday and Resnick when studying for the AP Physics C exam.

In my modern physics course, my professor frequently would steal sections from the third volume.

Overall, the books are great. And as a suppliment are perhaps one of the best around, in my humble opinion. But I didn't like the first volume...but that could just be me.

 

[Daverz]

I find volume 1 much more useful than you do. Particularly the material on waves, kinetic theory, and stat mech. It's the volume I'd give a new physics student.

Prices on the "definitive" edition are not bad, around $30 per volume, if you get the individual volumes from Amazon Marketplace.

 

[mathwonk]

actually the volumes 1 and 3 are the ones in which feynman makes his most distinctive contribution to the exposition of physics. as he himself says, volume 2 (E&M) is so standardized that he was unable to think of much in the way of innovation.

 

[^_^physicist]

I guess I will take another look at the 1st and 3rd volumes.

Still I love the 2nd volume (although he did standardize it, his approach is was quite useful for studying).

 

[Ki Man]

i went to the bookstore and although i didnt find the volumes (or maybe they were the volumes but i didn't notice) and i got 6 easy pieces and 6 not so easy pieces. any recommendations on reading?

 

[jfierro]

i went to the bookstore and although i didnt find the volumes (or maybe they were the volumes but i didn't notice) and i got 6 easy pieces and 6 not so easy pieces. any recommendations on reading?

Yes, don't read out loud as this is slower. Don't move your mouth when you read, simply think it in your mind, this will also save time. If you don't understand something it may be a good idea to go back a few paragraphs. Don't read when tired or hungry. Have fun.

 

[hitmeoff]

So would you guys say that the PBS series "THe MEchanical Universe" might be more appropriate for the T.S. to review? I always found that series to be extremely helpful, mainly because its visual. I also always loved the back stories of the giants of Physics. When I took lower-div E and M I had some trouble understanding it, but the series really helped me out to understand the material.

Haven't read the Feynman Lectures, though I do have them on my comp. Maybe I should check them out this summer as I review my lower div physics.

 

[lrl4565]

Is all the material up to date? Does he teach any currently incorrect concepts?

 

[Daverz]

Is all the material up to date? Does he teach any currently incorrect concepts?

The basics of the subject haven't changed much at all since the 60s. Some things are done a bit eccentrically (relativity with no metric, for example), but I can't think of anything that is wrong or harmful.