
Watch: Richard Feynman on why he can't tell you how magnets work - dnt404-1
http://www.sciencealert.com/watch-richard-feynman-on-why-he-can-t-tell-you-how-magnets-work
======
wtallis
I've always been puzzled by the fact that so many people see Feynman coming
across as a jerk or something like that in this clip. I think it's because
ordinary everyday English language doesn't have a good way to tell someone
that their _question_ is wrong—that it's assuming something it shouldn't, and
the assumption is what should be questioned instead. It's curious that even
when asking for new knowledge, people can be affronted by the implication that
they don't know what they're talking about. Physics is hardly the only field
where you learn that the everyday understanding is an oversimplification, and
a beginner being misled by those oversimplifications has no reason to be
embarrassed.

~~~
chm
To me Feynman was acting like a jerk at that moment. He was aware of who was
interviewing him and should have acted accordingly. He knew what the purpose
of the interview was, and who the audience would be. He could have simply
stated that the question can be answered with varying degrees of
sophistication, but an ultimate "why" is not to be found.

The journalist was in no way pretending to have any physics knowledge nor was
he insinuating anything. He asked a totally reasonable question and wanted
Feynman to talk about magnets, not rant about how there's no ultimate answer
to a "why" question.

Feynman was being arrogant and patronizing when he shouldn't have been. Just
search for "why" on this[1] page and see if he himselfs asks "why" questions.

[1]:[http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_01.html](http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_01.html)

EDIT: Alright, this turned into a tiring argument about who's right or wrong,
when in this context it's a non-issue. People react differently to his sermon,
end of the question. Is Feynman right about "why" questions? I think so. Was
it necessary to make the point as he did when he did? I don't think so.

And please stop making assumptions about me. I'm all for discussion, but you
need not assume anything, just as I reciprocate. You have no idea who I am,
and nor I you, but we can still talk!

~~~
qrendel
I always had the same impression of that response. The basic philosophical
point he's making instead of explaining magnetism to a lay-audience is known
as the Munchhausen trilemma[1], essentially answering a completely different
and unrelated question he'd prefer to pontificate on instead. He could
certainly have given the interviewer an answer to the question that was
actually asked, and have still used it to make the point about the infinite
regress of "why."

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_Trilemma](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_Trilemma)

~~~
simoncion
Please understand that I mean no offence.

> He could certainly have given the interviewer an answer to the question that
> was actually asked, and have still used it to make the point about the
> infinite regress of "why."

Did you watch the clip in its entirety? If you did, you'd know that there's a
few minute Socratic lead-up on the nature of the difficulty of answering "why"
questions, followed by an audience-appropriate answer to the interviewer's
question about magnetism. The answer includes what could be read as an apology
for being unable to completely answer the interviewer's question.

If you _haven 't_ watched the clip in its entirety, you really owe it to
yourself to go watch it. It won't take long, the whole thing is less than ten
minutes. :)

~~~
qrendel
Meh, I'm not sure it's worth continuing the debate over, honestly. But yes,
I've watched the clip before, and have now watched it again. While he does
give an answer at around 5:30, it's a pretty small part of the response. Imo,
there are _many_ possible ways to explain why a magnetic force is felt to a
lay-audience, even touching on more advanced aspects like magnetism as a
relativistic by-product of moving charges or dipole moments created by
orbiting electrons. It's not like he didn't also write entire books for lay-
audiences, the same as so many other physicists from Einstein to Tegmark have.
I'd really rather not get into a huge conflict about the tactfulness of his
answer, though. Cool, he decided to explain the infinite regress. Oh, some
people found his tone or approach patronizing, and thought he could have taken
the time to go into more detail about magnets instead. Difference of opinion.

Also, at the risk of being controversial: the clip is less valuable if you
already know more about magnetism than he explains in the video, and if you're
already familiar with the regressive argument. I like Feynman, have read
several of his books and am planning on reading the Gleick biography when I
can get around to it, but a lot of the love for this seems to come as much
from that it's him saying it as much as what is actually said. On the other
hand, perhaps I'm just biased because I see these clips getting reposted
somewhere or another every so often, and it loses its magic eventually.

In Feynman's defense, the BBC audience the show was created for was probably
less sophisticated than the 2015 HN audience, and since it has become such a
popular clip, he clearly did something right. :)

~~~
wtallis
> _Imo, there are many possible ways to explain why a magnetic force is felt
> to a lay-audience, even touching on more advanced aspects like magnetism as
> a relativistic by-product of moving charges or dipole moments created by
> orbiting electrons._

That wouldn't have been a correct answer. In permanent magnets, most of the
dipole moment comes from electron spin, not angular momentum. Angular momentum
alone can't produce a permanent magnet.

------
karmakaze
That was great. Feynman not explaining a thing is so much better than most
explanations in general.

~~~
dclowd9901
Does he usually seem drunk when he's explaining things?

~~~
lambda
I wouldn't characterize the way he was acting as seeming drunk. Rather, he
seemed animated, probably because this is stuff he so deeply cares about.

------
dpflan
Great Feynman clip. It's very difficult to not feel his underlying passion and
curiosity. As an add, I enjoy this animated short of Feynman elaborating on
the intersection of art and science:

Richard Feynman - _Ode To A Flower_ \-
[https://vimeo.com/55874553](https://vimeo.com/55874553)

------
jsilence
Louis CK on the same topic:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4u2ZsoYWwJA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4u2ZsoYWwJA)

~~~
zzleeper
Completely OT but was that the reason they divorced? Video was from 2007 and
Wiki says they broke up in 2008

------
benmarks
A fantastic mind with such an ability to relate the otherwise un-relatable.
"Six Easy Pieces" is an accessible read if you find this interesting.

------
DonGateley
The importance of his answer and the care with which he framed it comes at the
very end of the clip. Without specifying a context he cannot answer the
question. Leading up to that one is made to understand that without limiting
the question to a particular context, an infinite regress is unavoidable.
Brilliant, well articulated point that most people don't think about.

------
infocollector
2015: Is there a better answer to this question ? :)

~~~
wtallis
The Bohr-van Leeuwen theorem [1] pretty much says there won't ever be. You
will always have to explain some QM first, and that precludes a short answer.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr%E2%80%93van_Leeuwen_theor...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr%E2%80%93van_Leeuwen_theorem)

