Feynman vs. Gell-Mann – Material World
Another serious issue underlying the post was that following the earlier Unlike many others Gell-Mann was never swayed by the Feynman. I was invited by Murray Gell-Mann after he had heard a lecture of mine on luncheon seminar where everyone had a chance of presenting his problems and solutions. At that time and various current algebra relations]. The hydrogen atom. It went so far as to prompt Feynman's wife to comment on how she avoided for who he was speaking to sometimes led to trouble, which is often highlighted in Feynman was always attempting to catch Gell-Mann making a.
I felt a mild adrenaline jolt when I saw Gell-Mann walk in my direction and, quite by accident, sit down across from me.
In the mid s, some scientists at Purdue University were arguing that Galileo had got it wrong: A feather and a brick dropped inside a vacuum would not land simultaneously after all. A fifth force of nature — beyond gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces — would cause some objects to accelerate faster than others.
Wilford had called Gell-Mann to ask his opinion of what might conceivably have been a monumental discovery. After subjecting Wilford to a five- or ten-minute oration on everything that was wrong with science-writing today, Gell-Mann tried to dissuade him from writing the piece.
Feynman and Gell-Mann
No one had heard of these scientists, Murray told him. Their analysis was shaky and would doubtlessly turn out wrong. As I listened to Gell-Mann tell the story, I could empathize with the frustration Wilford must have felt. Right or wrong, the fact that some card-carrying physicists were publishing this theory — now long forgotten — in Physical Review Letters was certainly newsworthy. Getting a quote from Gell-Mann would help put the story in perspective.
- Fire in the Mind
Looking for a good quote, Wilford apparently did what any of us might have done: Murray Gell-Mann, a theoretical physicist at the California Institute of Technology, said that if the conclusions of the study were correct, it was fair to speculate on the existence of a fifth force. However, their approaches to physics were quite different.
Dirac was interested in mathematical formulas with esthetic appeal. On the other hand, Feynman was interested in observing what is happening in the world and fill in mathematical formulas as needed. Feynman's parton picture is one of his brilliant observations. Yet, this is valid in the infinite-momentum system and lacks Lorentz covariance. Thus, it is fun to look into the possibility of making it covariant by filling in mathematical formulas from Dirac's papers.
One way to do is to observe that both Dirac and Feynman were quite fond of harmonic oscillators because they satisfy Dirac's need for mathematical beauty, and also Feynman's need to fill in mathematical formulas readily available. Dirac never liked the present form of quantum mechanics based on probabilistic interpretation. On the other hand, he held the view that,if we accept this interpretation, this form of quantum mechanics should be consistent with Lorentz covariance.
Dirac published the following papers on this subject.
Murray Gell-Mann - Wikiquote
London A, London A In his effort to combine quantum mechanics with relativity, Feynman first considered waves propagating in the Lorentz-covariant world, resulting in Feynman diagrams. How about standing waves? Feynman considered harmonic oscillators. Feynman would have liked to give a covariant description his parton picture, but left this problem as a homework problem for younger physicists.
He wrote the following provocative papers on this subject.
D 3, It is gratifying to note that both Dirac and Feynman used harmonic oscillators to develop their ideas. Those three principles need not be assumed as separate metaphysical postulates.
Instead, they are emergent properties of the fundamental laws of physics. TED talk on beauty and truth in physics —video timecode 14m28s March You don't need something more to get something more. That's what emergence means. Life can emerge from physics and chemistry plus a lot of accidents.
The human mind can arise from neurobiology and a lot of accidents, the way the chemical bond arises from physics and certain accidents. Doesn't diminish the importance of these subjects to know they follow from more fundamental things plus accidents. If I have seen further than others, it is because I am surrounded by dwarfs. As quoted in "Wilson vs Watson: The blessing of great enemies" by Amanda Gefter in New Scientist 10 September ; this is a play upon the famous statement by Isaac Newton: Yet a great deal of recent writing about quantum mechanics has done just that.