Richard Feynman

I believe that we must attack these things in which we do not believe. Not attack by the method of cutting off the heads of the people, but attack in the sense of discuss. I believe that we should demand that people try in their own minds to obtain for themselves a more consistent picture of their own world; that they not permit themselves the luxury of having their brain cut in four pieces or two pieces even, and on one side they believe this and on the other side they believe that, but never try to compare the two points of view. Because we have learned that, by trying to put the points of view that we have in our head together and comparing one to the other, we make some progress in understanding and in appreciating where we are and what we are. And I believe that science has remained irrelevant because we wait until somebody asks us questions or until we are invited to give a speech on Einstein’s theory to people who don’t understand Newtonian mechanics, but we never are invited to give an attack on faith healing, or on astrology — on what is the scientific view of astrology today.

The worthwhile problems are the ones you can really solve or help solve, the ones you can really contribute something to.... No problem is too small or too trivial if we can really do something about it.

With quantum physics, who needs drugs?

Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, "But how can it be like that?" because you will get "down the drain", into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that.

So I got a great reputation for doing integrals, only because my box of tools was different from everybody else’s, and they had tried all their tools on it before giving the problem to me.

"Electrons, when they were first discovered, behaved exactly like particles or bullets, very simply. Further research showed, from electron diffraction experiments for example, that they behaved like waves. As time went on there was a growing confusion about how these things really behaved — — waves or particles, particles or waves? Everything looked like both.

This growing confusion was resolved in 1925 or 1926 with the advent of the correct equations for quantum mechanics. Now we know how the electrons and light behave. But what can I call it? If I say they behave like particles I give the wrong impression; also if I say they behave like waves. They behave in their own inimitable way, which technically could be called a quantum mechanical way. They behave in a way that is like nothing that you have seen before. Your experience with things that you have seen before is incomplete. The behavior of things on a very tiny scale is simply different. An atom does not behave like a weight hanging on a spring and oscillating. Nor does it behave like a miniature representation of the solar system with little planets going around in orbits. Nor does it appear to be somewhat like a cloud or fog of some sort surrounding the nucleus. It behaves like nothing you have seen before.

There is one simplication at least. Electrons behave in this respect in exactly the same way as photons; they are both screwy, but in exactly in the same way….

The difficulty really is psychological and exists in the perpetual torment that results from your saying to yourself, "But how can it be like that?" which is a reflection of uncontrolled but utterly vain desire to see it in terms of something familiar. I will not describe it in terms of an analogy with something familiar; I will simply describe it. There was a time when the newspapers said that only twelve men understood the theory of relativity. I do not believe there ever was such a time. There might have been a time when only one man did, b

Physics is like sex: sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it.

I want you to think of an arrow in another way... Here is an arrow... Now if we multiply, you have to think in a different way than for adding. There's an arrow... and imagine there's a [different] standard arrow... always horizontal and has unit length, that's the standard unit arrow. Now suppose I have a second arrow and I want to multiply them... [W]hat do I mean by multiplying? ...Let me first describe this [first] arrow [number 1] ...compare it to the standard arrow and ask for the relation... You can turn... and shrink it. So an arrow describes... how much I have to shrink the standard, and how much I have to rotate it to get the arrow I want. Now multiplication of arrows means that you do these rotations and shrinkings in succession. ...Now if I take this arrow [#2] ...this red [arrow #3] is the product [of arrow #1 and arrow #2].... It bears the same geometric relationship to the purple arrow [#2] as the blue one [arrow number 1] bears to the black one [standard arrow]. In other words it's supposed to be turned the same degree and shrunk the same degree as the blue one [arrow #2] is to the black [standard] one. In other words this [arrow #1] is to that [standard arrow], as this [arrow #3] arrow is to that [arrow #2].

The fact that you are not sure means that it is possible that there is another way someday.

And then there's a kind of saying that you don't understand it, meaning "I don't believe it. It's too crazy. It's the kind of thing, I'm just... I'm not going to accept it."... This kind, I hope you'll come along with me, and you'll have to accept it, because it's the way nature works. If you want to know the way nature works... We looked at it, carefully... That's the way it looks! You don't like it? Go somewhere else... to another universe where the rules are simpler, philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy. I can't help it! OK? If I'm going to tell you honestly what the world looks like to... human beings who have struggled as hard as they can to understand it, I can only tell you what it looks like, and I cannot make it innocent. ...I'm not going to simplify it, eh? I'm not going to fake it. I'm not going to... tell you it's something like a ball bearing on a spring. It isn't.

The remark which I read somewhere, that science is all right as long as it doesn't attack religion, was the clue I needed to understand the problem. As long as it doesn't attack religion it need not be paid attention to and nobody has to learn anything. So it can be cut off from society except for its applications, and thus be isolated. And then we have this terrible struggle to try to explain things to people who have no reason to want to know. But if they want to defend their own point of view, they will have to learn what yours is a little bit. So I suggest, maybe correctly and perhaps wrongly, that we are too polite.

It is a part of the adventure of science to try to find a limitation in all directions and to stretch the human imagination as far as possible everywhere. Although at every stage it has looked as if such an activity was absurd and useless, it often turns out at least not to be useless.

I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy — and when he talks about a nonscientific matter, he will sound as naive as anyone untrained in the matter.

The first one has to do with whether a man knows what he is talking about, whether what he says has some basis or not. And my trick that I use is very easy. If you ask him intelligent questions — that is, penetrating, interested, honest, frank, direct questions on the subject, and no trick questions — then he quickly gets stuck. It is like a child asking naive questions. If you ask naive but relevant questions, then almost immediately the person doesn't know the answer, if he is an honest man.

That’s what they’re very good at — making decisions. I thought it was very remarkable how a problem of whether or not information as to how the bomb works should be in the Oak Ridge plant had to be decided and could be decided in five minutes. So I have a great deal of respect for these military guys, because I never can decide anything very important in any length of time at all. In five minutes he said, “All right, Mr. Feynman, go ahead.