
Feynman's Nobel Ambition - DanielRibeiro
http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~kilcup/262/feynman.html
======
kamaal
This is why sometimes the best way to solve a problem is not to directly solve
the problem, but just make an attempt to discover more about the problem.

The best example to study to in this case is the P Vs NP problem. I never
understood how people can spend years trying to prove P=NP or P=!NP. Unless
you already know the answer to question, to begin with a goal to prove it
either way is not a wise way to achieve a solution to such a problem. If you
try to discover more about this problem you likely to get to a result faster
than than the actual proof simply because you can't prove/disprove what is not
already proved/disproved. You can only hope to 'discover' a result.

So many times playing around, having fun and trying to discover things for
sheer curiosity is likely to lead to more fascinating results.

~~~
johnbender
I've found that the application of formalism to most any problem I have in my
head takes me down paths I hadn't considered. Said another way, forcing a
problem into a straight jacket tends to squeeze out the interesting bits.

------
JulianWasTaken
I'm in the middle of reading Surely You're Joking Mr. Feynman (again) and I
must say there are many more short little anecdotes that leave you with the
same giddy smile as this one.

In case it bears repeating yet again to anyone who hasn't read it, read it!

~~~
goostavos
Absolutely seconded! I love that book so much. I frequently give copies of it
as gifts in hopes that people will get half as much joy out of it as I have.

His writing style is just so infectious.

------
chj
> .. and just like I read the Arabian Nights for pleasure, I'm going to play
> with physics, whenever I want to, without worrying about any importance
> whatsoever ...

Gold.

------
plg
Yeah it's a cool story. However be careful of affirming the consequent
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent>) ... just because
Feynman won the nobel prize because he decided to "play" for a while to
reinvigorate his interest in Physics, doesn't mean that if you play for a
while it will also result in something useful.

edit: upon reflection I'm not sure this is actually the "affirming the
consequent" fallacy after all ... but I think the point is made nevertheless.
Steve Jobs took a calligraphy class. Later he built Apple using some ideas
from that. This doesn't mean if you take a calligraphy class you will go on to
do something useful with it.

~~~
Xcelerate
> just because Feynman won the nobel prize because he decided to "play" for a
> while to reinvigorate his interest in Physics, doesn't mean that if you play
> for a while it will also result in something useful.

This is awfully negative. I think most people on HN are smart enough to
realize that the chances of winning a Nobel prize are very small; it doesn't
need continual restatement.

I do like Feynman's attitude. I get the impression that many (not all) of
today's physicists take themselves way too seriously. Looking up the old
saying: "Academic politics is the most vicious and bitter form of politics,
because the stakes are so low."

~~~
niggler
"I think most people on HN are smart enough to realize that the chances of
winning a Nobel prize are very small; it doesn't need continual restatement."

I think few on HN realize that the chances of building a very successful
company is very small ...

~~~
devcpp
I think most of us realize it. But we also realize that the reward is so large
that it counters the small probability to make a pretty high expectancy, above
a regular programmer salary.

Let's say one startup out of the, say, ten thousand of serious startups
founded every year will make it. For simplicity's sake, let's say that its
founder will be a billionaire and the others will ALL gain their money back
and then declare bankruptcy. Then 10^9/10^4=100000, which is better than most
programmers' payout for that year.

TL;DR: It's improbable but it's worth it.

------
timothybone
Here's the full book available free online:
<http://www.chem.fsu.edu/chemlab/isc3523c/feyn_surely.pdf>

------
gregpilling
I like the article. I find myself doing math problems all the time just for
fun, I am glad that I am not the only one. Of course, I have not solved
anything that would ever win me a Nobel prize. But I had fun. One day my 9
year old son and I derived Pi with approximations and a calculator, and my kid
likes calculating geometry now. Better than watching TV all day.

------
sp332
Paula Scher gave a TED talk that expands on this idea a bit more.
<http://www.ted.com/talks/paula_scher_gets_serious.html> Edit: Her point isn't
so much about taking a break and doing something different, but that it's
important to maintain the sense of play.

------
kokey
I wish more people would play with working out plate wobbles than World of
Warcraft.

