How to prepare for the Feynman Lectures

[Biscuit]

I'm in the 11th grade and have little education of college level mathematics. I individually find myself studying one section of it but hardly have a grasp. I really want to read the Feynman Lectures to further my education of physics, but as I read over the pdf it looks like there is a lot of mathematics that I don't understand. Is there anything I can read or videos that I can watch to make the Feynman Lectures understandable? If not, are there any books that you recommend to a beginner? As of right now I am reading In Search of Schrodinger's Cat, and so far it makes sense/I already know it.

 

[newjerseyrunner]

I've never read the Feynman Lectures so I downloaded a PDF too. Good lord that's a lot of words and notation. Forget reading it, have Mr. Feynman himself give you the narrative, part of what made his great was that he was a great orator. A lot of what made him a good teacher would be lost in a PDF.

 

[Biscuit]

I've never read the Feynman Lectures so I downloaded a PDF too. Good lord that's a lot of words and notation. Forget reading it, have Mr. Feynman himself give you the narrative, part of what made his great was that he was a great orator. A lot of what made him a good teacher would be lost in a PDF.

Well It's rated one of the best books to just give a very strong general education on physics, do you know of something easier that can be kind of parallel to that. Also I need a credit for my English class. I was going to read the book any ways but it would be nice to kill 2 birds with one stone (self-study and English credit). I will definitely check out his lecture videos though they seem interesting.

 

[newjerseyrunner]

Hmm... A brief history of time perhaps? E=mc^2 in the only equation in it.

Or perhaps if you got the oration from Feynman and got to see what he drew on his blackboards first, the PDF may make more sense.

 

[Biscuit]

Hmm... A brief history of time perhaps? E=mc^2 in the only equation in it.

Or perhaps if you got the oration from Feynman and got to see what he drew on his blackboards first, the PDF may make more sense.

I will be looking into this thank you for your help :)

 

[KiggenPig]

Feynman does a fantastic job of explaining the conceptual stuff, but you really have to have a general knowledge of the math behind everything if you wish to truly understand what's going on.

 

[Biscuit]

Feynman does a fantastic job of explaining the conceptual stuff, but you really have to have a general knowledge of the math behind everything if you wish to truly understand what's going on.

I wish I had the time to study the mathematics but between school and my CCP classes there is just no possible way. I have to wait till I graduate :/, also I have heard people do love the way Feynman explains stuff.

 

[KiggenPig]

They're still great to read even if it's a little over your head. Just slowly work at learning the maths bit by bit, even if it takes some time.

 

[Geofleur]

I was pretty well prepared mathematically (I'd had Calcs 1-4, Linear Algebra, and differential equations) and the Feynman lectures were still tough for me as an undergraduate. At the same time, I learned a lot from reading them. It's a useful skill to be able to read things that you don't completely understand and not quit or get frustrated. These are books that you can keep coming back to again and again for your whole life, getting something worthwhile each time.

Perhaps it's also worth mentioning that, because there is lots of space in the margins of the printed versions, you can fill them with your own examples and "missing steps". It's one of my favorite active learning strategies.

 

[Student100]

Well It's rated one of the best books to just give a very strong general education on physics, do you know of something easier that can be kind of parallel to that. Also I need a credit for my English class. I was going to read the book any ways but it would be nice to kill 2 birds with one stone (self-study and English credit). I will definitely check out his lecture videos though they seem interesting.

Lectures on physics won't give you a strong general education in physics, they're best read after completing the freshman/sophomore series in physics. Which is my recommendation for how to prepare for them- wait until you've got a bit of physics under your belt.

The books have no problem sets, that should be a dead giveaway they aren't meant to be used in that manner.

I'm in the 11th grade and have little education of college level mathematics. I individually find myself studying one section of it but hardly have a grasp. I really want to read the Feynman Lectures to further my education of physics, but as I read over the pdf it looks like there is a lot of mathematics that I don't understand. Is there anything I can read or videos that I can watch to make the Feynman Lectures understandable? If not, are there any books that you recommend to a beginner? As of right now I am reading In Search of Schrodinger's Cat, and so far it makes sense/I already know it.

You're reading pop science, there's no magic video online to help you understand the math in FL or any other book(if only there was!), and you won't learn physics from the sort of books you're reading. The best advice I have is to study hard in school now, take AP classes (physics and calc) if available, build a strong foundation and then study physics in university.

 

[KiggenPig]

That's a good point. I haven't opened them in a while, but I remember reading them relentlessly before I knew basic calculus. If you find physics fascinating they are exciting to read.

 

[Biscuit]

Lectures on physics won't give you a strong general education in physics, they're best read after completing the freshman/sophomore series in physics. Which is my recommendation for how to prepare for them- wait until you've got a bit of physics under your belt.

The books have no problem sets, that should be a dead giveaway they aren't meant to be used in that manner.
You're reading pop science, there's no magic video online to help you understand the math in FL or any other book(if only there was!), and you won't learn physics from the sort of books you're reading. The best advice I have is to study hard in school now, take AP classes (physics and calc) if available, build a strong foundation and then study physics in university.

I wouldn't say I'm reading pop science, I took a lot of the lectures that Yale puts up online and dedicated a lot of days trying to understand the Lyapunov exponent within chaos theory, but as I dove deeper I just decided that I should wait for someone to put these lessons together for me as opposed to just trying to get ahead and for now I will just read and learn what I can.

 

[Biscuit]

I was pretty well prepared mathematically (I'd had Calcs 1-4, Linear Algebra, and differential equations) and the Feynman lectures were still tough for me as an undergraduate. At the same time, I learned a lot from reading them. It's a useful skill to be able to read things that you don't completely understand and not quit or get frustrated. These are books that you can keep coming back to again and again for your whole life, getting something worthwhile each time.

Perhaps it's also worth mentioning that, because there is lots of space in the margins of the printed versions, you can fill them with your own examples and "missing steps". It's one of my favorite active learning strategies.

I understand what you mean by trying to read material that you quite don't understand. Thank you for this comment I will take this into consideration.

 

[atyy]

You must understand college-level mathematics before tackling the Feynman lectures, eg. https://www.amazon.com/dp/0071626476/?tag=pfamazon01-20.

It would also be helpful to have college-level physics before reading the Feynman lectures. You can use any standard text like Halliday and Resnick, Ohanian and Markert, Young and Freedman etc.

 

[Biscuit]

You must understand college-level mathematics before tackling the Feynman lectures, eg. https://www.amazon.com/dp/0071626476/?tag=pfamazon01-20.

It would also be helpful to have college-level physics before reading the Feynman lectures. You can use any standard text like Halliday and Resnick, Ohanian and Markert, Young and Freedman etc.

Would you recommend that I read these now or should I finish high school first, and is this just an example of what I would need or all I would need.

 

[Student100]

I wouldn't say I'm reading pop science, I took a lot of the lectures that Yale puts up online and dedicated a lot of days trying to understand the Lyapunov exponent within chaos theory, but as I dove deeper I just decided that I should wait for someone to put these lessons together for me as opposed to just trying to get ahead and for now I will just read and learn what I can.

Search of Schrodinger's Cat is pop science.

Would you recommend that I read these now or should I finish high school first, and is this just an example of what I would need or all I would need.

Obviously your first goal should be to finish high school with the best grades/foundation you can get. If you have time, then studying physics and mathematics from textbook's couldn't hurt! Just don't put to much stock in books like Search of Schrodinger's Cat or E=mc^2. You aren't learning physics from them.

To make a silly analogy, just make sure you don't lose sight of the ground for the horizon. The ground is your foundation that gets you to the horizon.

 

[atyy]

Would you recommend that I read these now or should I finish high school first, and is this just an example of what I would need or all I would need.

It is not all you need, but it will help you get started. You should make sure your school work is all in order, and you can start on these "college level" things any time as your hobby. In some parts of the world, they are considered high school mathematics.

 

[Biscuit]

Search of Schrodinger's Cat is pop science.
Obviously your first goal should be to finish high school with the best grades/foundation you can get. If you have time, then studying physics and mathematics from textbook's couldn't hurt! Just don't put to much stock in books like Search of Schrodinger's Cat or E=mc^2. You aren't learning physics from them.

To make a silly analogy, just make sure you don't lose sight of the ground for the horizon. The ground is your foundation that gets you to the horizon.

I know it's pop science but what I meant to say is that I don't always read pop science. Also, I'm doing great in high school (3.9) and I am taking college classes at my local university, I was just a bit curious as of what is out there for me that wouldn't be a waste of my time but also improve my understanding for college. Try to remember this was mostly about picking out a book for an English assignment that was followed by personal enjoyment and betterment. Thank you for your insight though.

 

[Entanglement]

You need to give us more information about you so we can help.
What kind of classes are you taking at your local university and what textbooks are you using? Tell us about your background in math.

 

[Biscuit]

You need to give us more information about you so we can help.
What kind of classes are you taking at your local university and what textbooks are you using? Tell us about your background in math.

Sorry I didn't see this thread getting this deep, happy to provide though. I'm taking Psychology and Sociology in one semester and then I'm going to try and take 2 more in the 2nd and maybe 1 or 2 over the summer these classes aren't really for my education on physics they are the general education classes so by the time I graduate I can hopefully dive into classes that actually matter to me. I'm not going to go to the university I am right now after I graduate, my high school only offers me to go to one of 2 colleges. I would assume that my textbooks are irrelevant since I'm not taking any mathematics courses. As for my background in math, I am in CP pre-calculus so I'm like one step above my grades normal but one step below the advanced (could easily be in advanced but I got placed in 4th grade). I have a 105 in my class and find it very easy. I try to teach myself out of school but lately since I started the college classes I find little to no time between homework and studying for the ACT. As of right now I just know like a couple things that my high school class doesn't which is disappointing because I was like a year or more ahead at one point.

 

[Entanglement]

Sorry I didn't see this thread getting this deep, happy to provide though. I'm taking Psychology and Sociology in one semester and then I'm going to try and take 2 more in the 2nd and maybe 1 or 2 over the summer these classes aren't really for my education on physics they are the general education classes so by the time I graduate I can hopefully dive into classes that actually matter to me. I'm not going to go to the university I am right now after I graduate, my high school only offers me to go to one of 2 colleges. I would assume that my textbooks are irrelevant since I'm not taking any mathematics courses. As for my background in math, I am in CP pre-calculus so I'm like one step above my grades normal but one step below the advanced (could easily be in advanced but I got placed in 4th grade). I have a 105 in my class and find it very easy. I try to teach myself out of school but lately since I started the college classes I find little to no time between homework and studying for the ACT. As of right now I just know like a couple things that my high school class doesn't which is disappointing because I was like a year or more ahead at one point.

It was mentioned above that you should graduate from high school with the best foundation in math and physics. Sign up for AP physics and AP calculus, if your school offers it. If it does not, I think you can take physics and calculus classes at a local university or community college. You should have been doing that instead of taking sociology/psychology classes since you're saying that you are short in time right now. Put in extensive work outside the classroom, do a lot of physics and calculus self studying. You have to mainly focus on physics and math, if your really want to major in physics when you go to college. The Feynman Lectures aren't easy to read. Many physics majors don't start reading them until they are juniors or seniors. Some start reading them after they graduate. You still have plenty time to read them. You should get your self busy building a strong foundation in basic physics and calculus right now. My last advice is that you shouldn't consume much of your time reading Pop - Sci books.

 

[codelieb]

Dear Biscuit,

The students who took Phys 1 and Phys 2 at Caltech, the courses Feynman taught in 1961-63, were freshman and sophomores, so they were a little older than you are when they began. Also, I might add, they were amongst the brightest kids in math/science in the US, as Caltech has extremely high entrance standards. All of these students had studied mathematics through trigonometry; some had studied calculus, but most were taking calculus for the first time concurrently with Phys 1. The course consisted of three parts: lectures (for which attendance was optional), recitation sections where homework and tests were assigned and discussed, and labs (both of the latter being mandatory).

The reason there are no exercises in FLP is because the exercises were published separately, and they have recently been republished, complete with answers, as Exercises for The Feynman Lectures on Physics. Whoever wrote FLP is not intended for teaching basic physics on the basis that it lacks exercises doesn't know what they are talking about. People who claim that FLP isn't appropriate as a textbook tend to come in two flavors: those who are not sufficiently talented or hard-working to follow the book, and those who are parroting what other people say about it. Those who are able and willing to read FLP with comprehension appreciate it much more. I recently attended the 50th reunion of Caltech's 1965 Alumni where I met many of Feynman's students, and though some of them found the course difficult, most realized they were having a privileged experience, and all of them felt they had gained a good basic physics education from it. Of course they also learned a lot in the recitation sections and labs. You can't learn physics just by reading (or listening to) lectures. You have to work on solving physics problems - lots of them - and lab work is also very important, even for someone planning to be a theoretician. So... getting back to your original question: you need to know the calculus in order to understand (most of) FLP. There are some instructions on basic differentiating and integrating in the book, but not enough, really. So, I suggest you tackle the calculus, and get reasonably good at solving calculus problems, before tackling FLP. If you have further questions you may write to me directly.Michael A. Gottlieb
Editor, The Feynman Lectures on Physics New Millennium Edition
---
mg@feynmanlectures.info
www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu

P.S. In the book Feynman's Tips on Physics you can find three "remedial" lectures on problem-solving that Feynman gave shortly before his Phys 1 students' were administered their first final exam. In these lectures Feynman discusses the mathematics one needs to know for his course, and also shows how to solve a bunch of elementary physics problems, which you might find helpful.

 

[Biscuit]

It was mentioned above that you should graduate from high school with the best foundation in math and physics. Sign up for AP physics and AP calculus, if your school offers it. If it does not, I think you can take physics and calculus classes at a local university or community college. You should have been doing that instead of taking sociology/psychology classes since you're saying that you are short in time right now. Put in extensive work outside the classroom, do a lot of physics and calculus self studying. You have to mainly focus on physics and math, if your really want to major in physics when you go to college. The Feynman Lectures aren't easy to read. Many physics majors don't start reading them until they are juniors or seniors. Some start reading them after they graduate. You still have plenty time to read them. You should get your self busy building a strong foundation in basic physics and calculus right now. My last advice is that you shouldn't consume much of your time reading Pop - Sci books.

I see your point but wouldn't it make more sense to finish my gen ed in high school at my local university then take the classes that are important to me at a school that is considered better at teaching the classes. I doubt this, but let's say I will get accepted into Cal Tech shouldn't I finish the classes that are less relevant to Cal Tech's strong point (psych and soc) in high school and then start my physics and math courses once I go to Cal Tech? Or should I just finish pre-calc this year, take calculus and basic physics over the summer, and then AP calculus and physics during my senior year. I would like to mention that the pop science books are only for my English reading at this point. Also thank you for your input I really appreciate this.

 

[Entanglement]

Generally, if you want to major in physics, you must graduate from high school with at least a strong foundation in basic physics and basic mathematics—trig, algebra and geometry. But if you want to go to a competitive school like Caltech, you shouldn't just take normal physics and math classes. You should also take AP calculus and AP physics. I doubt that anyone gets accepted at Caltech without taking AP in physics and calculus. Many Caltech students even go beyond AP classes through self-studying before starting college. Most of them master calculus before college. However, whether you'll attend a competitive school or not, I think you should make full use of what your school offers. If your school offers AP physics and calculus, take them without the slightest hesitation. Although AP classes are not necessary, unless you are going to attend a competitive school, they are extremely advantageous. Their benefits can't be overemphasized.

 

[Student100]

People who claim that FLP isn't appropriate as a textbook tend to come in two flavors: those who are not sufficiently talented or hard-working to follow the book, and those who are parroting what other people say about it. Those who are able and willing to read FLP with comprehension appreciate it much more. ...

You can't learn physics just by reading (or listening to) lectures. You have to work on solving physics problems - lots of them - and lab work is also very important, even for someone planning to be a theoretician.

How many universities use FLP as an introductory physics textbook? Obviously the feeling extends beyond those who aren't sufficiently talented, or those parroting what others say. The fact that it isn't used as an introductory text- or that it is ill suited to that task- doesn't mean people don't appreciate them. In fact, that's my whole point, a greater comprehension of the lectures will occur after someone has already learned the basic mechanics of solving problems- which is my own personal experience.

 

[KiggenPig]

As much as I love the Lectures, they certainly don't replace textbooks.

 

[ogg]

I've always wanted to read through the FLP and a year or so ago it became available on line. My Gosh, was I disappointed. It is obsolete, it STILL contains an amazing number of errors, it lacks problem sets and solutions. It would be a mistake for anybody to use it as anything but a historical account of undergraduate physics circa 1963, imho. I really respect Dr Feynman and his accomplishments, but I wouldn't recommend using his FLP as a basis for learning Physics. There are better and more palatable books, written at various levels of detail (and various levels of mathematics), which you can buy at Amazon (or find at your school or local library). Let's see, some of his blunders include his discussion of the Pawl and Rachet's thermodynamics, his claim that (all) solids are crystalline, his extensive discussion of mesons as "elementary" particles (when we now know (50 years later) that they're composed of quarks), his discussion on our inability to "see" atoms (we can image (the biggest of ) them now days.), and the list goes on and on. It has historical value, but I wouldn't even suggest its use as a second (back-up) textbook for a student studying physics. Despite his great take on lots of the material, its just too out of date to be anything but perhaps a tertiary source (to be read once you've already learned the material), imho. If you want to learn physics, start with a high school physics book, then move on to a college level book. The math requirements for a college freshman only requires algebra, generally, and without that you'll be lost. Differential calculus and then some integral calculus (Feynman requires almost none of the latter) is about as sophisticated as it gets. You can't learn physics without learning the math, nor can you learn it without doing a significant number of probems. Feynman provides little opportunity to do either, and is obsolete to boot. Postscript: I know some will view the above as Heresy, and my own conclusion saddens me. On balance, I wouldn't recommend it as a starting point.

 

[vela]

It was mentioned above that you should graduate from high school with the best foundation in math and physics. Sign up for AP physics and AP calculus, if your school offers it. If it does not, I think you can take physics and calculus classes at a local university or community college. You should have been doing that instead of taking sociology/psychology classes since you're saying that you are short in time right now.

Don't bother with the AP classes if you can take calculus and physics at a local university or college. I think your choice to take general-education classes to get them out of the way is fine.