Atdtda[4]: p. 97-99: 5 paragraphs and a camera eye

[Monte Davis]

Bryan:
> Can I ask where that is from?

It's from an interview I did with Feynman for OMNI Magazine in 1979
 
"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 mathe-matically sophisticated but with a very powerful
intuition about physics? 

 

"Feynman: 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
under-stand ice, you have to understand things that are themselves very
unlike ice. Fara-day'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
cen-tury is different enough, obscure enough, that further progress will
require a lot of math."


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20070307/86fef50a/attachment.html>