[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 15 KB, 269x312, feynman.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6525836 No.6525836[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

For the mathematicians and physicists of /sci/, was Feynman truly as great as people say?

I've been watching some of his lectures and interviews and he seems like a really hyperintelligent mind and a colourful character besides. A pretty cool guy.

>> No.6525847

He was an E.Witten of his age he invented new math techniques, one of his breakthroughs enabled solving single-handedly in a few hours with better results a problem that previously needed a team of scientists to calculate for weeks if not months

>> No.6525852

Mathfag

I don't know about anything that he's contributed to my field, so not really.

>> No.6525866

>>6525836
read his autobiography: Surely you're joking, Mr. Feynman.

Its a fucking top tier book.

>> No.6525915

he was the most charasmatic and well spoken physicist like ever. thats not to say he didn't contribute, he did, but he's known for his charisma

>>6525866
secound this

>> No.6525918

>>6525836
he was probably the next candidate for genius, after einstein and bohr. His fans are the most obnoxious fuckheads on earth, but yes, he was brilliant.

>> No.6525927

>>6525836

only had IQ of 125 == not genius

>> No.6525948

>>6525927
Only a North Korean can believe in authorities with this fapping mentality. Christ, what an asshole.

>> No.6525972

>>6525927
>be me
>test into the Danish chapter of Mensa
>never contributed to the building of The Bomb
>not an icon in my field
>not even a fraction of his achievments, really

something tells me your application of that metric is flawed...

>> No.6526564

>>6525927
>be Mensa
>redefine genius as very high IQ
>we genius now

>> No.6526568

>>6525836
>For the mathematicians and physicists of /sci/, was Feynman truly as great as people say?
This question shouldn't need to be asked. It's like asking, "was Einstein really that great and important as a physicist?"

Feynman made huge contributions to physics. Probably the most important thing he contributed was the concept of path integrals and functional integrals, which are used extensively in modern physics (specifically, quantum field theory and everything beyond that).

>> No.6526573

I would fuck Richard Feynmann, no homo. He was sexy as fuck.

Witty, charismatic, smart, creative. Man, he was the perfect man. No homo.

Read his book "Surely you're Joking", it's a 10./10 book, srs.

>> No.6526577

>>6526568
>Probably the most important thing he contributed was the concept of path integrals and functional integrals
And, you know, the theory of Quantum Electrodynamics.

>> No.6526581

>>6525927
Individual IQ has little meaning. You need sample sizes.

>> No.6526587

>>6525927
I often use Feynmann's IQ as an example of why IQ is a flawed measurement. Feynmann was clearly an intelligent man who could see things other men could not.

Intelligence is an abstract concept, to limit it to the result of a short test is a tragedy,

>> No.6526588

>>6526587
>Intelligence is an abstract concept
It's not abstract, it's just shitty.

>> No.6526602

If my history serves right

Planck, then
Bohr & Broglie, then,
Schrodinger, then
Heisenberg, then
von Neumann, then
Dirac, then
Feynman & Schwinger, then
Dyson, then

>> No.6526607

>>6526602
Assuming this is supposed to be chronological order,

>Schrödinger then Heisenberg
Wrong.

>> No.6526617

>>6525836
>For the mathematicians and physicists of /sci/, was Feynman truly as great as people say?

He was a great, and I mean GREAT, educator and popularizer of science.

When most physicists were introverts/eggheads/autists, he was an extrovert and didn't hide it.

But he was not that great of a physicist.

>> No.6526618

>>6526588
In my view, "intelligence" is largely a matter of opinion. People on this board will generally view problem solving and mathematical ability to be more important than artistic ability, hence people on this board may view a mathematician to be more intelligent than an artist. This is due to the fact that we would put more weighting in math than artistic ability in a test for intelligence.

The danger with IQ is that many people view it as an accurate and reliable measure of intelligence, despite the fact that people often disagree on the definition of intelligence.

None the less, I view Feynmann's achievements and life as an example of why IQ is flawed.

>> No.6526623

>>6526617
>But he was not that great of a physicist.
gr8 b8 m8 but 2l8 I'd r8 it 0/8

>> No.6526626

>>6526618
>In my view, "intelligence" is largely a matter of opinion.

Then your opinion is worthless and goes against mainstream science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainstream_Science_on_Intelligence

>> No.6526631

>>6526626
>contributions from a wide array of psychologists.
>psychologists
>Psychology
>Real science

Social science is not science. Consensus is not evidence.

>> No.6526634

>>6526626
I'm not the person you replied to, but
"intelligence" does not have a consistent definition. In some cases, it's easy to tell which is the more intelligent of two people, but it's not always so simple.

>> No.6526642

>>6526634
I claim that the only indicator of who is more intelligent is age.

The older person always, regardless of anything, seems more intelligent

>> No.6526646

>>6526642
>I claim that the only indicator of who is more intelligent is age.
is... is this supposed to be bait?

>> No.6526650

>>6526646
even if the younger person is more knowledgable, or quick to correct the senior, the senior will always seem wiser.

>> No.6526668

There is a nice documentary about the Rogers Commission and Feynman's role in it.

>> No.6526939

>>6526650
Your opinion is dumb.

>> No.6526977
File: 26 KB, 500x500, 500px-SpearmanFactors.svg.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6526977

Do any of you fuckers even Intelligence? This is what an IQ test measures, this is what "intelligence" refers to in upwards of 65% of cases: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_intelligence#General_intelligence_factor_or_g Pic related is for you dolts too lazy to actually click that link; each little blob is a factor that contributes to overall intelligence, note that the big blob, g, overlaps with all of them. That is what IQ tests measure.

>>6526587
>I often use Feynmann's IQ as an example of why IQ is a flawed measurement. Feynmann was clearly an intelligent man who could see things other men could not.

>Intelligence is an abstract concept, to limit it to the result of a short test is a tragedy,

IQ is meant to measure fluid intelligence; the ability to "figure things out". It may not fully characterize intelligence, but it is a meaningful and useful measurement. Read the wiki article I linked.

>>6526618
>In my view, "intelligence" is largely a matter of opinion. People on this board will generally view problem solving and mathematical ability to be more important than artistic ability, hence people on this board may view a mathematician to be more intelligent than an artist. This is due to the fact that we would put more weighting in math than artistic ability in a test for intelligence.

On what grounds do you claim that "artistic ability" merits consideration for intelligence? Being skilled at a task doesn't make you smart.

>The danger with IQ is that many people view it as an accurate and reliable measure of intelligence, despite the fact that people often disagree on the definition of intelligence.

>None the less, I view Feynmann's achievements and life as an example of why IQ is flawed

IQ isn't flawed, if you would fucking take two minutes to Google what an IQ test is you wouldn't be spouting such nonsense: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ#General_factor_.28g.29

>> No.6526982

>>6526977
You know what's another way to measure intelligence? How much someone contributed to theoretical physics.
This is what Feynman did, despite having a rather average IQ.
And this is what many people with IQs could not do.

Care to explain?

>> No.6526990

>>6525836

>Richard D. Feynman Thread
>D.

wat

>> No.6526994

>>6526977
how, exactly, is an IQ score meaningful or useful?

>> No.6527000

>>6526618

> people on this board may view a mathematician to be more intelligent than an artist.

I get your point, but I don't agree with that assessment. Artistic genius is absolutely something to be respected. A great writer is about a thousand times more intelligent than some useless biologist, for example.

>> No.6527003

>>6526977

>On what grounds do you claim that "artistic ability" merits consideration for intelligence? Being skilled at a task doesn't make you smart.

What the fuck are you saying? I'm an engineer, but you're retarded if you think art is about "being skilled at a task."

>> No.6527005

>>6527000
I can't tell whether this is bait or not...

>> No.6527012

>>6527005

Last part is a cheap shot, rest is a real opinion.

>> No.6527062

>>6526982
Did you even read my post, fucktard? IQ measures general intelligence, relative to the population. It is not the end-all be-all of what makes someone smart. IQ is ONE FACTOR OF INTELLIGENCE. Having a high IQ means that, in general, you are better at everything than your average peer. IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THOSE WITH HIGHER IQs ARE ALWAYS BETTER AT EVERYTHING THAN THOSE WITH LOWER IQs.

Furthermore, 125 isn't a "rather average" IQ, it means Feynman was generally more gifted than more than 94% of the population. http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/IQtable.aspx

I don't mean to be an asshole, but holy shit! Can you at least SKIM the wikipedia article before you attempt to discuss the topic?

>>6526994
IQ is a general predictor of success; people with higher IQs are in general more likely to succeed at anything and everything they do.

>>6527003
>What the fuck are you saying? I'm an engineer, but you're retarded if you think art is about "being skilled at a task."
How is it not? Art is having the creativity to come up with interesting concepts and the skill to execute them. Being creative alone doesn't make you brilliant.

>> No.6527066

>>6527062
>IQ measures general intelligence, relative to the population. It is not the end-all be-all of what makes someone smart.
Exactly, that's what I've been trying to say the whole time. So why are you arguing in the first place?

>> No.6527070

>>6527066
IQ being less than a total descriptor of overall intelligence makes it neither useless nor meaningless.

>> No.6527073

>>6527062

>How is it not? Art is having the creativity to come up with interesting concepts and the skill to execute them. Being creative alone doesn't make you brilliant.

You left out the creativity part in your last comment, but I can agree this definition. Creativity doesn't make you brilliant, but it is strongly associated with intelligence.

>> No.6527102

>>6526618
>I view Feynmann's achievements and life as an example of why IQ is flawed.

He was about two standard deviations above average intelligence at the least. That's intelligent.

>> No.6527107
File: 859 KB, 500x1125, fineman.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6527107

>>6525836

>mfw this thread had potential

>> No.6527133

>>6525836
Feynman was a fantastic physicist but his talents were not well rounded. Most of the things he said that weren't to do with physics were total rubbish.

>> No.6527194

he's only so well known because he's the only semi decent AMERICAN physicist

>> No.6527198

>>6527194
What are you talking about? Most of the great physicists and scientists of the last century (including Einstein) were American.

>> No.6527199

>>6527198
LOL

>> No.6527225
File: 81 KB, 640x480, 1926.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6527225

>>6527198
...

>>6527107
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKTSaezB4p8

>>6525852
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feynman%E2%80%93Kac_formula

>> No.6527228

>>6527225
>>6527199
http://historykicksass.wordpress.com/2013/05/10/einstein-becomes-an-american-citizen-1940/
LOL

P.S. Captcha called you msifirm peasant

>> No.6527232

>>6527228
>american citizen =/= ethnic american

where you grow up, what language you speak and by what people you're surrounded with determines where you're from

Einstein wasn't American and he made all his important findings before even going there
stop taking credit, lard ass

it's like I said, Feynman is the ONLY semi decent American physicist

>> No.6527234

>>6527232
the ethnic americans are dead.
America is a country of immigrants.

> where you grow up, what language you speak and by what people you're surrounded with determines where you're from
where you choose to live is your country.

>> No.6527236

>>6527198
American ignorance at its finest, gentlemen.

>> No.6527242

Wasn't he that guy with the low IQ who only had a special talent for physics while being a retard everywhere else?

>> No.6527249

>>6527242
He was a Putnam fellow, played the bongo drums, and got laid erryday, implying you do

>muh IQ

>> No.6527275

>>6527249
Is playing the bongo drums considered an intellectual activity now? Does it require high intelligence?

>> No.6527281

>>6527275
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIDLcaQVMqw

>> No.6527283

>>6527232
>it's like I said, Feynman is the ONLY semi decent American physicist

Gibbs, Compton, E O Lawrence, P W Anderson, Bardeen, Millikan etc.

>> No.6527286

Who the fuck actually thinks IQ is worth a shit? I swear there are just two really fucking mad Mensa members on /sci/ that need to rationalize the fact that they paid to be a member.

>> No.6527363

>>6527232
"ethnic American" means nothing. Unless you're native American, you or your family immigrated here. Citizenship is sufficient to be counted as an American.

>>6527286
>Who the fuck actually thinks IQ is worth a shit?
Are you trying to say that IQ as a metric is worthless, or that having a high IQ is worthless? Your statement is rather vacuous if you don't qualify what you mean by "worth".

>> No.6527372

>>6527286

I'm extremely self-conscious and depressed about my intellectual abilities, or lack thereof I should say. I'm pretty sure I have a low IQ as I always did poorly in school, and am in general slow to grasp new concepts and wrap my head around things. This has essentially crippled me in a sense that I can't get any work done to improve my current situation because I'm constantly reminded of my mental deficits. So, I've been stagnating for 3 years now living off unemployment. Becoming aware of my shortcomings and the fact that there's nothing I can do about it was the instigation and is the root cause of my depression.

It's not about working hard in life, it's all luck. People are slaves to their own genetics; the majority just haven't realized this or are afraid to accept it.

>> No.6527381

>>6525836
feynman is a good read for undergrads. he is making up for the cool physics teacher you never had.

>> No.6527385

>>6526568
>"was Einstein really that great and important as a physicist?"
good goyim, dont ask questions.

>> No.6527386 [DELETED] 

>>6526573
im a grill btw x3 ti-hi!

>> No.6527387

>>6526977
>each little blob is a factor that contributes to overall intelligence, note that the big blob, g, overlaps with all of them.
*muh blobs*

>> No.6527390

>>6527372
>I'm extremely self-conscious and depressed about my intellectual abilities, or lack thereof I should say.
yes keep writing in a stuck up language

>> No.6527398

>>6527372
>Becoming aware of my shortcomings and the fact that there's nothing I can do about it was the instigation and is the root cause of my depression.
You are depressed because you have decided that there's nothing you can do about your shortcomings, not because you have shortcomings. Everyone has flaws, you must persevere and continue to do your best despite them. This:
>It's not about working hard in life, it's all luck. People are slaves to their own genetics; the majority just haven't realized this or are afraid to accept it.
Is the most toxic belief you can have. Unless you change that, you will always be depressed. Your actions DO have consequences, there is NO SUCH THING as fate, if you take responsibility for your life and your actions you will find that your life has purpose and you will not be depressed.

These changes don't happen overnight though, they take time. You cannot just decide to not be depressed or feel that way, but you CAN decide to change your outlook on life, you CAN decide to try your hardest, and with time you WILL feel better.

Two things you can do that can help make you smarter:
1) SLOW THE FUCK DOWN. Relax, consider your options before making decisions. Try to list all of the reasons for and against a decision before you decide. Oftentimes people will overlook important information that they already know because they're too hasty.

2)ATTENTION TO DETAIL. Try this exercise: take two similar objects, set a timer, and spend like 10 minutes writing down all the differences between these two objects. If possible, pick two things that you cannot tell apart (two socks, two cans of soda, etc.) Take the time to really look at whatever you've chosen, and pay attention to every little detail. Eventually you'll become more perceptive and you'll notice differences more quickly.

>> No.6527432

>>6527062
>getting this mad
MENSA sucks ass, hate to break it to you.

>> No.6527446
File: 14 KB, 200x212, visit.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6527446

>>6527228
>LOL
I don't want to get involved in any useless fight here, but saying
>Most of the great physicists and scientists of the last century (including Einstein) were American.
and then backing that up by saying he got the American citizenship at some point after his 30s (which I was fully aware of) is completely besides the point. I don't know how it is in the US, but soccer players get legal workarounds to get the citizenship on a fast track, just to switch from one national team to another, all the time. It's somewhat a farce. I read "some weeks ago, I read the Boston marathon was won by an American this year, the first time in >XX years." and when I checked it he was of Kenyan descent or something, so
>wow
I don't care for nationalities, but proudly claiming Einstein was an American, when in fact he grew up in central Europe, lived there half of his life and then moved oversees because of WWII... you can do that, formally, but it misses the point of saying "American physicist". He got a German education, and even did his work there.

>> No.6527464

>>6527062
>Having a high IQ means that, in general, you are better at everything than your average peer.
>IQ is a general predictor of success; people with higher IQs are in general more likely to succeed at anything and everything they do.
>everything

No. It measure your vocabulary, logical abilities and shit like that, related to abstract intelligence.
It doesn't mean you have more chances to be success at FUCKING EVERYTHING. Just scholar domains.
See also the relationship between IQ test and cultural background, flynn effect, and IQ training.

>> No.6527484
File: 287 KB, 550x400, 1399041276738.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6527484

I went to a psychiatrist and part of it was an IQ test involving colorful shapes and realizing the next picture in a pattern. I got 120 though I had been a NEET dropout for more than a year.

I'm going for math am I fucked

>> No.6527488

>>6527363
Really? That's how pathetic your country is? That you need to use a technicality like citizenship, to say Einstein was american. What an an absolute faggot.

>> No.6527498

>>6527432
But I paid $99.00 pa, and since I have such a high IQ, it must have been a good decision.

>> No.6527579

>>6525836
Well he wasn't exceptionally smart, but he had a slightly different way of thinking from most other people, which allowed him to have a few intuitions that no one else had had yet. Similarly to Einstein

>> No.6527733

>>6527446
I will concede that calling Einstein simply "American" ignores many of the most significant times in his life.

He was German-American.

>>6527464
>No. It measure your vocabulary, logical abilities and shit like that, related to abstract intelligence
>It doesn't mean you have more chances to be success at FUCKING EVERYTHING. Just scholar domains.
No, it's literally, by definition, everything. From the wiki article, on the basis for g-factor and IQ tests:
>[The British psychologist Charles Spearman in 1904] observed that children's performance ratings across seemingly unrelated school subjects were positively correlated, and reasoned that these correlations reflected the influence of an underlying general mental ability that entered into performance on all kinds of mental tests.
>He suggested that all mental performance could be conceptualized in terms of a single general ability factor and a large number of narrow task-specific ability factors.
>Spearman named it g for "general factor"...
>In any collection of IQ tests, by definition the test that best measures g is the one that has the highest correlations with all the others.

Seriously, how do people with a supposed interest in science come here and prefer to post "IQ SUQS" and "U JUST BUTTMAD ABOUT MENSA" over taking five minutes to educate themselves?
>According to Schmidt and Hunter, "for hiring employees without previous experience in the job the most valid predictor of future performance is general mental ability."[80] The validity of IQ as a predictor of job performance is above zero for all work studied to date, but varies with the type of job and across different studies, ranging from 0.2 to 0.6.[84] The correlations were higher when the unreliability of measurement methods was controlled for.[34] While IQ is more strongly correlated with reasoning and less so with motor function,[85] IQ-test scores predict performance ratings in all occupations

>> No.6527753

>>6527733
Let me reiterate since there seem to be a large number of Anons in the audience who seem allergic to reading:

>[The British psychologist Charles Spearman in 1904] observed that children's performance ratings across seemingly unrelated school subjects were positively correlated, and reasoned that these correlations reflected the influence of an underlying general mental ability that entered into performance on all kinds of mental tests.
He proposed g to be the general intelligence factor.

>In any collection of IQ tests, by definition the test that best measures g is the one that has the highest correlations with all the others.

>While IQ is more strongly correlated with reasoning and less so with motor function,[85] IQ-test scores predict performance ratings in all occupations.

What IQ DOES NOT PREDICT:
-whether you're a genius
-whether someone is a well-rounded human being
-whether someone is a good person or not
-how naive someone might be
-etc etc.

what IQ does predict:
-general aptitude & ability

People with high IQs do better on more tests than their peers. They do not necessarily have the highest scores in any particular category, but those with the highest IQs have the highest sum of all scores.

>> No.6527929

>>6527733
>He was German-American.
he was swiss

>> No.6527964

>>6527488
He's right though. The only people who believe in an "American ethnicity" or "American race" are /pol/esmokers. Dudes running Chinatowns are just as American as anyone else even if they don't speak English very much in their day to day life or observe the same customs and beliefs as certain other Americans. It's the same with Mexico.

Canada seems to be a little different, they believe in a "mosaic" instead of a melting pot. To them there's the British Canadians that define Canada and then everyone else is a foreigner.

>> No.6527992

Yes, let's continue arguing about famous physicists,
instead of actually learning physics, which would be a far greater homage to them.

>> No.6528007
File: 315 KB, 540x2923, feynman.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6528007

>>6525836

>> No.6528030

>>6525852
He developed the theory of path integrals, which is used in topological quantum field theories to produce diffeomorphism invariants of 4-dimensional manifolds, and of knots.
This was not something he developed himself, but could not have happened without his mathematical theory of functional integration.

>> No.6528323
File: 113 KB, 1033x410, pussy destroyer.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6528323

>>6526990

Richard "Dick" Feynman

>> No.6528508

>invented path integrals
>invented quantum computing
>cofounded the most precise theory in physics yet
>started the field of nanotechnology
Any one of those would have made him great.

>> No.6528512

>>6527283
Weinberg

>> No.6529336

>>6525866
>>6525915

Read here:
http://www.chem.fsu.edu/chemlab/isc3523c/feyn_surely.pdf

>> No.6529342 [DELETED] 

>>6527964

JIDF detected.

>> No.6529344

>>6529342
/pol/esmokers gonna shitpost

>> No.6529345 [DELETED] 

>>6529344

Nice dubs kike, but check these trips.

>> No.6529493

Dirac > Feynman

>> No.6529494

>>6525915
No. He is known for the fucking QED. Only uninitiated plebs and untermensch know him only for "his charisma" and no one cares about those people.

>> No.6529511

>>6528030
>functional integration
Ok, so I can't be assed to look this up, but I'm pretty sure stochastic integrals were considered before Feynman pulled his (usually ill-defined) path-integral out of his arse.

In particular, the Wiener integral, which describes the free theory, was happened upon by Wiener, not Feynman. Feynman then generalized the procedure to interacting theories, in a formal fashion that has yet to be given a rigorous formulation. In low dimensions, others have given a rigorous interpretation to the Feynman integral by relating it to Euclidian field theories (see for instance the book by glimm and jaffe). The Feynman integral remains more or less ill-defined in most physically relevant settings.

>> No.6529513

>>6529511
In conclusion, he may have been good, but he is usually vastly overrated, mostly by undergrad physics students.

>> No.6529514

Feynman could rightly be called a Grand Master of Thermodynamics.

>> No.6530056

>>6526617

>But he was not that great of a physicist

This, my lovelies, is what is called a "troll"