<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<TITLE>Message</TITLE>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.5730.11" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><SPAN class=656142011-07032007><FONT face=Arial>Bryan:</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=656142011-07032007><FONT face=Arial>> <FONT
face="Times New Roman">Can I ask where that is
from?</FONT><BR></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=656142011-07032007><FONT face=Arial>It's from an interview I
did with Feynman for OMNI Magazine in 1979</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=656142011-07032007><FONT face=Arial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=656142011-07032007><FONT face=Arial>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-pagination: none"><FONT
face="Times New Roman"><SPAN><SPAN class=656142011-07032007>"</SPAN>Are physical
theories going to keep getting more abstract and mathematical? Could there be
today a theorist like Faraday in the early nineteenth century, not
mathematically sophisticated but with a very powerful intuition about
physics? <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-pagination: none"><FONT
face="Times New Roman"><B style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"><I
style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial"></SPAN></I></B></FONT> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-pagination: none"><FONT><FONT
face="Times New Roman"><B style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"><I
style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial"><SPAN
class=656142011-07032007>"</SPAN>Feynman</SPAN></I></B><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial">: I'd say the odds are
strongly against it. For one thing, you need the math just to understand what's
been done so far. Beyond that, the behavior of subnuclear systems is so strange
compared to the ones the brain evolved to deal with that the analysis has to be
very abstract. To understand ice, you have to understand things that are
themselves very unlike ice. Faraday's models were mechanical -- springs and
wires and tense bands in space -- and his images were from basic geometry. I
think we've understood all we can from that point of view; what we've found in
this century is different enough, obscure enough, that further progress
will require a lot of math.<SPAN
class=656142011-07032007>"</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></P><BR></FONT></SPAN></DIV></BODY></HTML>