-
I decided when I was asked to do this
-
that what I really wanted to talk about
was my friend, Richard Feynman.
-
I was one of the fortunate few
that really did get to know him
-
and enjoyed his presence.
-
And I'm going to tell you
about the Richard Feynman that I knew.
-
I'm sure there are people here
who could tell you
-
about the Richard Feynman they knew,
-
and it would probably be
a different Richard Feynman.
-
Richard Feynman was a very complex man.
-
He was a man of many, many parts.
-
He was, of course, foremost,
a very, very, very great scientist.
-
He was an actor. You saw him act.
-
I also had the good fortune
to be in those lectures,
-
up in the balcony.
-
They were fantastic.
-
He was a philosopher.
-
He was a drum player.
-
He was a teacher par excellence.
-
Richard Feynman was also a showman,
-
an enormous showman.
-
He was brash, irreverent.
-
He was full of macho,
a kind of macho one-upmanship.
-
He loved intellectual battle.
-
He had a gargantuan ego.
-
But the man had, somehow,
-
a lot of room at the bottom.
-
And what I mean by that
is a lot of room, in my case --
-
I can't speak for anybody else,
but in my case --
-
a lot of room for another big ego.
-
Well, not as big as his,
-
but fairly big.
-
I always felt good with Dick Feynman.
-
It was always fun to be with him.
-
He always made me feel smart.
-
How can somebody like that
make you feel smart?
-
Somehow he did.
-
He made me feel smart.
He made me feel he was smart.
-
He made me feel we were both smart,
-
and the two of us could solve
any problem whatever.
-
And in fact, we did sometimes
do physics together.
-
We never published a paper together,
-
but we did have a lot of fun.
-
He loved to win,
-
win these little macho games
we would sometimes play.
-
And he didn't only play them with me,
but with all sorts of people.
-
He would almost always win.
-
But when he didn't win, when he lost,
-
he would laugh and seem
to have just as much fun
-
as if he had won.
-
I remember once he told me a story
-
about a joke the students played on him.
-
I think it was for his birthday --
-
they took him for lunch
-
to a sandwich place in Pasadena.
-
It may still exist; I don't know.
-
Celebrity sandwiches was their thing.
-
You could get a Marilyn Monroe sandwich.
-
You could get a Humphrey Bogart sandwich.
-
The students went there in advance,
-
and arranged that they'd all order
Feynman sandwiches.
-
One after another, they came in
and ordered Feynman sandwiches.
-
Feynman loved this story.
-
He told me this story,
and he was really happy and laughing.
-
When he finished the story, I said to him,
-
"Dick, I wonder what
would be the difference
-
between a Feynman sandwich
and a Susskind sandwich."
-
And without skipping a beat at all,
-
he said, "Well, they'd be about the same.
-
The only difference is a Susskind
sandwich would have a lot more ham."
-
"Ham" as in bad actor.
-
(Laughter)
-
Well, I happened to have been
very quick that day,
-
and I said, "Yeah,
but a lot less baloney."
-
(Laughter)
-
(Applause)
-
The truth of the matter
-
is that a Feynman sandwich
had a load of ham,
-
but absolutely no baloney.
-
What Feynman hated worse
than anything else
-
was intellectual pretense --
-
phoniness,
-
false sophistication, jargon.
-
I remember sometime during the mid-'80s,
-
Dick and I and Sidney Coleman
would meet a couple of times
-
up in San Francisco --
at some very rich guy's house --
-
up in San Francisco for dinner.
-
And the last time the rich guy invited us,
-
he also invited a couple of philosophers.
-
These guys were philosophers of mind.
-
Their specialty was the philosophy
of consciousness.
-
And they were full of all kinds of jargon.
-
I'm trying to remember the words --
-
"monism," "dualism,"
categories all over the place.
-
I didn't know what those meant, neither
did Dick or Sydney, for that matter.
-
And what did we talk about?
-
Well, what do you talk about
when you talk about minds?
-
There's one obvious thing to talk about:
-
Can a machine become a mind?
-
Can you build a machine
-
that thinks like a human being
that is conscious?
-
We sat around and talked about this --
we of course never resolved it.
-
But the trouble with the philosophers
-
is that they were philosophizing
-
when they should have been
science-ophizing.
-
It's a scientific question, after all.
-
And this was a very, very
dangerous thing to do
-
around Dick Feynman.
-
(Laughter)
-
Feynman let them have it --
both barrels, right between the eyes.
-
It was brutal; it was funny --
ooh, it was funny.
-
But it was really brutal.
-
He really popped their balloon.
-
But the amazing thing was --
Feynman had to leave a little early;
-
he wasn't feeling too well,
so he left a little bit early.
-
And Sidney and I were left there
with the two philosophers.
-
And the amazing thing
is these guys were flying.
-
They were so happy.
-
They had met the great man;
-
they had been instructed by the great man;
-
they had an enormous amount of fun
-
having their faces shoved in the mud ...
-
And it was something special.
-
I realized there was something
just extraordinary about Feynman,
-
even when he did what he did.
-
Dick -- he was my friend;
I did call him Dick --
-
Dick and I had a little bit of a rapport.
-
I think it may have been a special
rapport that he and I had.
-
We liked each other;
we liked the same kind of things.
-
I also like the intellectual macho games.
-
Sometimes I would win,
mostly he would win,
-
but we both enjoyed them.
-
And Dick became convinced at some point
-
that he and I had
some kind of similarity of personality.
-
I don't think he was right.
-
I think the only point
of similarity between us
-
is we both like to talk about ourselves.
-
But he was convinced of this.
-
And the man was incredibly curious.
-
And he wanted to understand
what it was and why it was
-
that there was this funny connection.
-
And one day, we were walking.
-
We were in France, in Les Houches.
-
We were up in the mountains, 1976.
-
And Feynman said to me, "Leonardo ..."
-
The reason he called me "Leonardo"
is because we were in Europe,
-
and he was practicing his French.
-
(Laughter)
-
And he said, "Leonardo,
-
were you closer to your mother
or your father when you were a kid?"
-
I said, "Well, my real hero was my father.
-
He was a working man,
-
had a fifth-grade education.
-
He was a master mechanic,
and he taught me how to use tools.
-
He taught me all sorts of things
about mechanical things.
-
He even taught me the Pythagorean theorem.
-
He didn't call it the hypotenuse,
-
he called it the shortcut distance."
-
And Feynman's eyes just opened up.
-
He went off like a lightbulb.
-
And he said that he had had
-
basically exactly the same
relationship with his father.
-
In fact, he had been convinced at one time
-
that to be a good physicist,
-
it was very important to have had
that kind of relationship
-
with your father.
-
I apologize for the sexist
conversation here,
-
but this is the way it really happened.
-
He said he had been absolutely
convinced that this was necessary,
-
a necessary part of the growing up
of a young physicist.
-
Being Dick, he, of course,
wanted to check this.
-
He wanted to go out and do an experiment.
-
(Laughter)
-
Well, he did.
-
He went out and did an experiment.
-
He asked all his friends
that he thought were good physicists,
-
"Was it your mom or your pop
that influenced you?"
-
They were all men,
-
and to a man, every single
one of them said,
-
"My mother."
-
(Laughter)
-
There went that theory,
down the trash can of history.
-
(Laughter)
-
But he was very excited
that he had finally met somebody
-
who had the same experience
with his father
-
as he had with his father.
-
And for some time, he was convinced
this was the reason we got along so well.
-
I don't know. Maybe. Who knows?
-
But let me tell you a little bit
about Feynman the physicist.
-
Feynman's style --
no, "style" is not the right word.
-
"Style" makes you think
of the bow tie he might have worn,
-
or the suit he was wearing.
-
It's something much deeper than that,
-
but I can't think of another word for it.
-
Feynman's scientific style
was always to look for the simplest,
-
most elementary solution
to a problem that was possible.
-
If it wasn't possible,
you had to use something fancier.
-
No doubt, part of this
was his great joy and pleasure
-
in showing people that he could
think more simply than they could.
-
But he also deeply believed,
he truly believed,
-
that if you couldn't explain
something simply,
-
you didn't understand it.
-
In the 1950s, people
were trying to figure out
-
how superfluid helium worked.
-
There was a theory.
-
It was due to a Russian
mathematical physicist.
-
It was a complicated theory;
-
I'll tell you what it was soon enough.
-
It was a terribly complicated theory,
-
full of very difficult
integrals and formulas
-
and mathematics and so forth.
-
And it sort of worked,
but it didn't work very well.
-
The only way it worked
-
is when the helium atoms
were very, very far apart.
-
And unfortunately,
-
the helium atoms in liquid helium
are right on top of each other.
-
Feynman decided, as a sort
of amateur helium physicist,
-
that he would try to figure it out.
-
He had an idea, a very clear idea.
-
He would try to figure out
-
what the quantum wave function
of this huge number of atoms looked like.
-
He would try to visualize it,
-
guided by a small number
of simple principles.
-
The small number of simple principles
were very, very simple.
-
The first one was that when
helium atoms touch each other,
-
they repel.
-
The implication of that is that
the wave function has to go to zero,
-
it has to vanish when the helium
atoms touch each other.
-
The other fact
is that in the ground state --
-
the lowest energy state
of a quantum system --
-
the wave function is always very smooth;
-
it has the minimum number of wiggles.
-
So he sat down --
-
and I imagine he had nothing more
-
than a simple piece
of paper and a pencil --
-
and he tried to write down,
and did write down,
-
the simplest function
that he could think of,
-
which had the boundary conditions
-
that the wave function
vanish when things touch
-
and is smooth in between.
-
He wrote down a simple thing --
so simple, in fact,
-
that I suspect a really smart
high-school student
-
who didn't even have calculus
-
could understand what he wrote down.
-
The thing was, that simple thing
that he wrote down
-
explained everything that was known
at the time about liquid helium,
-
and then some.
-
I've always wondered
whether the professionals --
-
the real professional helium physicists --
-
were just a little bit
embarrassed by this.
-
They had their super-powerful technique,
-
and they couldn't do as well.
-
Incidentally, I'll tell you
what that super-powerful technique was.
-
It was the technique of Feynman diagrams.
-
(Laughter)
-
He did it again in 1968.
-
In 1968, in my own university --
I wasn't there at the time --
-
they were exploring
the structure of the proton.
-
The proton is obviously made
of a whole bunch of little particles;
-
this was more or less known.
-
And the way to analyze it was,
of course, Feynman diagrams.
-
That's what Feynman diagrams
were constructed for --
-
to understand particles.
-
The experiments that were going on
were very simple:
-
you simply take the proton,
-
and you hit it really sharply
with an electron.
-
This was the thing
the Feynman diagrams were for.
-
The only problem was that
Feynman diagrams are complicated.
-
They're difficult integrals.
-
If you could do all of them,
you would have a very precise theory,
-
but you couldn't --
they were just too complicated.
-
People were trying to do them.
-
You could do a one-loop diagram.
Don't worry about one loop.
-
One loop, two loops --
maybe you could do a three-loop diagram,
-
but beyond that, you couldn't do anything.
-
Feynman said, "Forget all of that.
-
Just think of the proton
-
as an assemblage, a swarm,
of little particles."
-
He called them "partons."
-
He said, "Just think of it as a swarm
of partons moving real fast."
-
Because they're moving real fast,
-
relativity says the internal
motions go very slow.
-
The electron hits it suddenly --
-
it's like taking a very sudden
snapshot of the proton.
-
What do you see?
-
You see a frozen bunch of partons.
-
They don't move,
-
and because they don't move
during the course of the experiment,
-
you don't have to worry
about how they're moving.
-
You don't have to worry
about the forces between them.
-
You just get to think of it
as a population of frozen partons."
-
This was the key to analyzing
these experiments.
-
Extremely effective.
-
Somebody said the word
"revolution" is a bad word.
-
I suppose it is,
so I won't say "revolution,"
-
but it certainly evolved very, very deeply
our understanding of the proton,
-
and of particles beyond that.
-
Well, I had some more
that I was going to tell you
-
about my connection with Feynman,
-
what he was like,
-
but I see I have exactly half a minute.
-
So I think I'll just finish up by saying:
-
I actually don't think
Feynman would have liked this event.
-
I think he would have said,
"I don't need this."
-
But ...
-
(Laughter)
-
How should we honor Feynman?
-
How should we really honor Feynman?
-
I think the answer
is we should honor Feynman
-
by getting as much baloney
out of our own sandwiches
-
as we can.
-
Thank you.
-
(Applause)