MIT Press The Character of Physical Law, with New Foreword

The reason I bought this book was that, when I studied an specific energe conservation issue, the article suggested that only this book refered the question. One of my favorite questions by Prof. Feynman is "Tell me, where does this energy come from." It was in his "lectures on physics" book on precession dynamics. No textbook refered the energy. Prof. Feynman admitted in his "surly joking" book, how he was disappointed at students who are only good at getting high marks on exams. "Energy conservation law" is fundamental issue in physics. He started this book on gravitation. Newtonian idea of "force at distance", the force by "local field", and minimum action of Lagrangean, and different theorems all give exactly the same results. We are naturally tempted, by analogy with or contrast to mathematics, to establish which are the axioms and which are the theorems. Fantastic job isn't is. Prof. Feyman extended his work to electromagnetism, thermodynamics etc. Again conservation and symmetry are so important ideas. "Past and Future" time symmetry is more fantastic, isn't is? We arrived at Quantum mechanics, and found that we were even unable to understand the experimental results. By the "Interectual Carnot cycle"(my invention), "Guess, Experiments, and Camparison", how much new ideas could we derive? How could we keep on the "right plank" on physics? Finally, Prof. Feynman gives his own idea about particle physics. Muon is the special. In my highschool day, the physics teacher came in the class room in solemn countenance, and keep on and on walking in the room murmuring "...space is NOT symmetric,.. NO, impossible,.. absurd, ridiculous, ..." and went out from the class without giving any lecture. Decades later I understood the issue and had a respectable sympathy to my old teacher. My fellow lay physicists, let's enjoy "the perpetual torment."

This is yet another book that attempts to convey the essence of physics to common people. After explaining exactly why it can't be done, arguing that you'll never get it, Feynman goes right ahead and does it anyway.For each topic, you get a feel for his goal in covering a topic. He explains gravity, yes, to explain gravity, but also because by explaining it he can also convey what essential properties gravity has that other laws have.He also explains the difference between fundamental laws and the consequences of those laws. That the individual laws are reversible, but that probability is responsible for the arrow of time. He spends a lot of time showing the difficult relationship between the basic laws (which are reversible) and the irreversibility of events. Both are characteristics of the physical universe but the latter is not a fundamental law. The latter is a logical outcome of them.So there's a hierarchy, which goes; fundamental laws like gravity at the ground level, consequences of them like irreversibility and surface tension at one level up, organic chemistry further up, then eventually concepts like tree, frog, man, pain, beauty, good and evil - each at a higher level, but based upon the levels below them, and difficult to fully predict using only the laws of the lower levels. The levels can be extended up and down. Below gravity is the unification theory of everything. Above good and evil are love, politics, etc.And then he asks, of the extremes on this hierarchy, the fundamental laws and the most abstract concepts, which is closest to God? After asking for patience with his religious reference, he spends little time before revealing his belief that the question is flawed. To understand God is to understand how the levels interrelate; how the fundamental laws were "chosen" so that they would lead to the unfolding of all the beautiful complexity that we see around us.Is this what you want to learn? Why else do we read these books than to attempt to gain a bit more insight into the eternal questions. Most authors that tackle the nature of the universe have a theological axe to grind (the need for God or not) and can't hide it. This book did more on this topic, with fewer pages, while offending me the least because of any theological bias (either way), than anything I've read before.

I bought this book because I had the impression from reviews that it was accessible and the concepts clearly explained. However, I have found this not to be the case. I imagine it would be different, if you had some prior knowledge of the subject, but I couldn't recommend this book to anyone whose base line is as low as mine. I have found myself resorting to google for clearer and more precise explanations, which has been helpful.

This was a late discovery for me amongst Richard Feynman's books, and it's something of an oddity. Like all the books with his name on, this wasn't a case of Feynman sitting down to write a book; he never wrote a single book - in this case it's a transcription of a set of lectures Feynman gave at Cornell University which were broadcast in the UK by the BBC.What the great physicist sets out to do is to explore the nature of physical laws. Where this works best (and he would probably have hated this suggestion) is where he was at his most philosophical. In the first lecture he explored just what was meant by physical laws and this is genuinely interesting stuff, especially as it's something we rarely give much thought to.After that he goes on to cover specific areas, with lectures on gravity, maths, conservation, symmetry, the arrow of time and probability, before pulling things together in a final lecture on the search for new laws. For me these chapters don't work quite as well in book form, partly because we miss the visual aspects of Feynman's talks, and partly because they are perhaps a little too summary for the topics covered. The other slight problem with specifics is that inevitably some of the content (from the 1960s) is quite dated - particularly in the 'new laws' section, where he covers particle physics at a point before quarks and when the particle zoo seemed out of control. It's interesting from a historical perspective of what the understanding was like at the time, but it's not an ideal way to find out about particle physics.Overall, an essential if you want to have a complete picture of Feynman's output, and fascinating in that opening chapter, but not the best of the Feynman books.

Great explanations!