Hooter: A serious follow up to his first book sharing anecdotes on his life expecially the probe on the Challenger failure

Richard Feynman has always been a curious character right from my school days when I landed my hands on his "Surely you must be joking Mr Feynman" - a Sheldon Cooper in real life to an extent when you talk about IQ and higher EQ than Sheldon for sure. The way he shares his perspectives on various aspects of life and his interactions with the world at large make for interesting reading with the candour he affords to show. Really disheartening to hear of his first love but how he continues to trudge along through life. The inside look into the whole process of a presidential probe on one of the biggest scientific disasters of that time gives unique insights to the process and the thoughts behind it. As a Feynman fanboy, this was a good read into one of the scientific luminaries of the 20th Century.

BUENÍSIMO. Me gustó todavía más que el libro anterior, que aunque también es excelente, a veces se siente un poco fanfarrón. La forma de hablar del autor (aunque haya sido transcrito por otros) sigue siendo tan sencilla y genial... que dan ganas, dan ganas de seguir la propia pasión y hacer cosas.

Dan ganas de todo.

La primera parte de este libro es sencillamente ESPECTACULAR... la historia de su primera mujer, sus primeros intentos con la ciencia... es simplemente demasiado buena. Solo las cartas familiares me aburrieron un poquitín.

La segunda parte también me gustó, pero quizá sea un poco árida para los que no son tan fan ni de la ciencia ni de las políticas relativas. Es sobre por qué falló el Challenger y cómo Feynman colaboró en la comisión de "arreglo" y, al estilo de Asimov, mezcla lo humano con lo divino, porque habla tanto de los métodos descubrimientos duros, como de las personas y cosas cotidianas. Y con gracia.

La tercera también habla de ciencia, y es una preciosidad. Cortita, casi necesaria. Esa la recomiendo absolutamente, y no solo a los que gustan de estos temas. Es otro recordatorio más sobre cómo el conocimiento es capaz de llevarnos tanto a la construcción como a la destrucción, por ser "como una llave que puede abrir el cielo y también el infierno", y esta vez desde la perspectiva de alguien que, desgraciadamente, ayudó a crear la bomba atómica, y que es capaz de comentarlo con autocrítica (Feynman).

En conclusión, cinco estrellas redondas y brillantes. Para mí.

রিচার্ড ফাইনম্যান কিভাবে একজন নামকরা বিজ্ঞানী হয়ে উঠলেন?
তিনি এর পেছনে তার বাবার অবদানের কথা স্বীকার করেন। তিনি যখন ভূমিষ্ঠও হননি তখন তার বাবা তার মাকে বলেছিল, যদি ছেলে হয় তবে সে হবে একজন বিজ্ঞানী (ফাইনম্যানের বোনও কিন্তু একজন পদার্থবিদ তবে এক্ষেত্রে তার বিখ্যাত ভাইয়ের অবদান বেশী)।
তিনি যখন একেবারে ছোট তখন তার পিতা তার সাথে বাথরুমের টাইলস দিয়ে ডমিনো খেলতেন। ডমিনোগুলোকে তিনি ছোট ফাইনম্যানকে এভাবে সাজাতে দিতেন, দুইটি সাদা এরপর একটি নীল, আবার দুইটি সাদা তারপর আরেকটি নীল। তার মা এসব দেখে বলত, leave the poor child alone. if he wants to put a blue tile, let him put a blue tile. কিন্তু পিতার উত্তর ছিল, No, i want to show him what patterns are like and how interesting they are.
আরেকটু বড় হলে তার পিতা এনসাইক্লোপেডিয়া ব্রিটানিকা পড়ে শুনাতেন। একবার যখন টাইরেনোসরাস রেক্স সম্পর্কে পড়ছিলেন তখন হঠাৎ বই বন্ধ করে বললেন, This dinosaur is twenty five feet high and its head is six feet across. Now, lets see what that means. That would mean that if it stood in our front yard, it would be tall enough to put his head through our window up here. But its head would be too wide to fit in the window. ফাইনম্যান বলেন, যে সেখান থেকে তিনি এই অভ্যাসটি আয়ত্ত করেছেন - everything i read i try to figure out what it really means, what it's really saying.
একবার ফাইনম্যান খেলনার গাড়ির ভেতরে ছোট বল রেখে খেলা করছিলেন। তিনি লক্ষ্য করলেন, যখন গাড়িটিকে ধাক্কা দেওয়া হয় তখন বলটি পেছনে চলে আসে আবার থামবার সময় সেটি ঠিক সামনের দিকে গড়িয়ে আসে। তিনি বাবার কাছে ছুটে গেলেন এর কারন জানার জন্য। বাবা কিন্তু শুধু, এটা inertia, বড় হলে শিখতে পারবে - এই বলে শেষ করে দেন নি। তার উত্তর ছিল, That, nobody knows. The general principle is that things which are moving tend to keep on moving and things which are standing still tend to stand still, unless you push them hard. This tendency is called inertia, but nobody knows why its true.

ফাইনম্যান এরকম কিছু উদাহরণ টেনে বলেন, Thats the way i was educated by my father, with those kinds of examples and discussions: no pressure - just lovely, interesting discussion. It has motivated me for the rest of my life, and makes me interested in all the sciences. It happens i do physics better.

ফাইনম্যানের পিতা নিশ্চয়ই খুব বড় ধরণের স্কলার ছিলেন - এটা মনে হতে পারে। কিন্তু তিনি ছিলেন একজন সাধারণ সেলসম্যান।

ফাইনম্যানের নাসার একটি প্রজেক্টে কাজ করা নিয়ে আলেকপাত করা হয়েছে বইটির একটা বিশাল অংশ জুড়ে। যেটা পড়তে খানিকটা বিরক্তির উদ্রেক হতে পারে। তবে যেটা বোঝা যায়, নাসাকে নিয়ে সবসময় যে কন্সপিরেসী থিওরি দাড় করানো হয় তার আসলেই একটা কারণ আছে। ফাইনম্যান একজন নোবেল বিজয়ী বিজ্ঞানী এবং খোদ আমেরিকান হয়েও নাসার ভেতরকার কাজকর্ম নিয়ে কম ঝামেলায় পড়েন নি।

সবশেষে, সমাজ জীবনে বিজ্ঞানে গুরুত্ব (আশির্বাদ না অভিশাপ) য়ে তিনি কিছু কথা বলেন (মনে রাখতে হবে, এটমিক বোমা বানানের প্রজেক্ট (লস আলামস এ) কিন্তু ফাইনম্যান একজন সক্রিয় কর্মী ছিলেন)।
একবার হনলুলুতে বেড়াবার সময় এক প্যাগোডায় বৌদ্ধ ভিক্ষুকের কাছে তিনি একটি proverb শুনেন যেটি এরকম,

n   প্রত্যেক মানুষের কাছে একটি চাবি দেওয়া আছে যা দ্বারা স্বর্গের দরজা খোলা যায়। কিন্তু সেই একই চাবি নরকের দরজাও খুলতে পারে। তাই সঠিক জ্ঞান না থাকলে সেই চাবিটি কিন্তু একটি বিপদজনক জিনিস। n

ফাইনম্যান বলেন, বিজ্ঞান হল সেই চাবি। যার অবশ্যই একটি মূল্য আছে। শুধু চাবিহীন নির্দেশনা যেমন মূল্যহীন, তেমনি নির্দেশনা ব্যতিত চাবিরও মূল্য ভয়াবহ।

তবে ফাইনম্যানের আত্মজীবনীর জন্য  এই বইটি  highly recommendable.

Why why why didn't I read this before? I wish I read it back in school.

To every man is given the key to Heaven. The same key opens the gates of Hell.

This book contains essays as dictated to Ralph Leighton when Prof. Richard Feynman had cancer towards the end of his life. Feynman himself is the central character in these essays. The book is in two parts. The first part begins with an essay that is a tribute to his father, who encouraged him to question everything. Another one is a magnificent tribute to Feynman’s first wife, Arlene. There are a few letters written by well-known physicists like Freeman Dyson and Hans Bethe. In the second part, we find a detailed report on the Challenger Shuttle disaster in 1986. The book concludes with an inspiring speech Feynman gave on the ‘value of science’.

The essay titled ‘What do you care what other people think?’ is the book’s most poignant. Feynman married Arlene, his high-school sweetheart and first love, despite the prognosis of her brief life because of tuberculosis. For fear of the disease’s transmission, they don’t even kiss. The book takes its title from a statement Feynman made while helping Arlene with her lessons when she was studying philosophy, long before she even started dating him. All the boys in school wanted Arlene, the most beautiful girl in her class. This chapter shows the deep effect Arlene had on Feynman’s life though she died young, aged 26. Nowadays, we use the word ‘soulmates’ often as a cliche. Feynman and Arlene were true soulmates in life, despite the word’s rarity in those days. Feynman was just 27 years old when Arlene died. However, he takes a philosophical stance and avoids asking, ‘Why do I deserve this?’ or ‘why did God do this to me?’. He acknowledges the unknowable nature of these things. He accepts that his situation was merely life’s accident. Feynman does not even cry when Arlene dies. About a month later, he walks past a departmental store in Oak Ridge and notices a pretty dress and thinks, ‘Arlene would like that’. Then it hits him and he breaks down.

On a visit to Athens in 1980-81, Feynman finds the Greeks viewing their past with reverence. They study Greek archaeology even in elementary school for six years, up to ten hours a week. It seemed like ancestor worship to him, emphasizing how wonderful the ancient Greeks were. He felt they do not appreciate how much modern man has advanced with his experimental science, mathematics, Renaissance art, etc. They put the current age down and feel intimidated by the achievements of their great ancestors. We might find similar lamentations in other communities with a long history and tradition. I have heard Indians and the Chinese make similar comparisons with their own ‘great past’.

In the piece titled ‘Getting Ahead’, Feynman visits Port of Spain in Trinidad. He hires a taxi to tour the poorest parts of the city. The taxi driver, who was Afro-Caribbean, takes him to an East-Indian neighbourhood. Drawing attention to a man sitting in front of an empty house, he reveals that the man’s son was studying medicine in Maryland. Afterwards, he takes Feynman to another house where two women live. He explains that the women pooled their savings to buy a sewing machine, and now they make a living by doing all the tailoring work for the neighborhood. After the tour, the driver asks Feynman, “Now, professor, these Indians are poor, often poorer than us blacks. But they are getting somewhere, somehow. One man has sent his son to college and the women have built a tailoring business. But how come my people aren’t getting anywhere? Tell me why”. Feynman says he does not know the answer, but the driver would not accept it, coming from a professor. Feynman speculates that the enduring tradition of Indian life, shaped by religion and philosophy, continues to thrive among East Indians in Trinidad, even a century after their arrival. Perhaps it tells them building for the future is important in life. He tells the driver his people also may have had such a tradition, but might have lost it through conquest and slavery. Feynman writes in humility that he was not sure if his answer was correct, but it was the best guess he could make.

The second half of the book is all about Feynman’s experience in serving on the Presidential Commission, which inquired into the 1986 Challenger Space Shuttle disaster. During the investigation, he notes a clear lack of communication in NASA between the managers and those below, which was at the root of the crisis. He explains it as a historical offshoot. NASA’s moon mission in the 1960s caused both enthusiasm and anxiety because of the uncertainty of success. So, everyone worked together. When someone had a big technical problem, everyone knew about it and took part in solving it.

When the moon project was over, thousands of scientists, engineers, and technicians remained with NASA in Huntsville, Cape Kennedy, and Houston. What can NASA do with them? It cannot fire them all after they had executed a successful project. To prolong its existence, NASA needed to convince Congress that only NASA possesses the expertise to execute certain projects. Hence, it became necessary to exaggerate the shuttle’s economy, frequency of flights, safety, and scientific discoveries to justify the project. Meanwhile, lower down the hierarchy, the engineers and techies were saying, “No, no, we cannot make that many flights and we cannot do it for that kind of money”. Those wanting project approval from Congress do not want to hear it. In order to be ‘honest’ when they address Congress, they decline to hear these objections. A culture develops that blocks information at the bottom reaching the top. Feynman sums up the communication problems in the Shuttle disaster as follows: Because exaggeration at the top was inconsistent with reality at the bottom, communication in the Shuttle project suffered and ultimately jammed. That is perhaps why the higher-ups were unaware of the critical O-ring and seal problems. In conclusion, Feynman says reality must take precedence over public relations for a technology to succeed because you cannot fool Nature.

The last chapter in the book reproduces the transcript of a public address Prof. Feynman gave in 1955 at the National Academy of Sciences on the ‘value of science’. We often hear the charge that science will benefit society more if scientists apply themselves to solving difficult social problems instead of spending time on less esoteric, scientific ones. Feynman, with characteristic candour, says social problems are much harder than scientific ones and scientists don’t get anywhere thinking about them. They have no magic formula to solve them. Instead, he talks about the intrinsic value of science in society.

Scientific knowledge enables both good and bad. It does not carry instructions on how to use it. Feynman recalls a Buddhist proverb he heard from a monk in a temple in Honolulu. “Every man receives the key to heaven’s gates; the same key opens the gates of hell”. We may think the key is a dangerous object because we don’t know which is the gate to heaven and which is for hell. But the key still has value. Without it, how can we enter heaven? Despite its potential for horror, science remains valuable for its ability to create good.

Another value of science is that it brings us intellectual enjoyment through reading, learning, and thinking. It is an important value. Scientific imaginations are more marvelous than that of poets and dreamers in history. Nature’s imagination is far greater than man’s. Science imagines the world as a spinning ball in space, held together by a mysterious force for billions of years. Contrast this with the unscientific view. It is a world atop an elephant, supported by a swimming tortoise in a boundless sea. (Here, Feynman refers to a common theme in Hindu, indigenous American, and Chinese mythologies).

The scientist has a lot of experience with ignorance, doubt, and uncertainty. This is of great importance. To progress, we must recognize our ignorance and leave room for doubt. Scientific knowledge is just a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty. Some, we are almost sure, some mostly unsure, but none absolutely certain. Our freedom to doubt was born out of a struggle against authority in the early days of science. It’s fine to not know, doubt, or be unsure. We must not forget this struggle as it is our responsibility to society. If we suppress all discussion, all criticism, proclaiming, “this is the answer. Man is saved”, we condemn humanity to the chains of authority. Man has done it before, a lot of times in history.

The book concludes with these philosophical musings. Feynman’s insatiable curiosity shines brightly in this collection of essays, showcasing his irreverence, inquisitiveness, and humanity. It is a refreshing, enjoyable and concise read.

What Do You Care What Other People Think? Further Adventures of a Curious Character by Richard Feynman (with contributions by Ralph Leighton) (Hall 1988) (Biography). This is the second autobiographical volume by the Nobel Prize-winning physicist. It mainly recounts his work with NASA when he discovered the engineering errors that caused the shuttle Challenger to explode. My rating: 7/10, finished 1989.

The book contains a number of -- mostly unrelated -- stories or essays, of which three of them stood out for me.

The first tells about Feyman's youth and how his relationship with school friend Arlene developed, whom he eventually married until she passed away at a young age. Here we get to know how young Richard discovered his scientific interest thanks to his father. It is then when he learned that there are two types of knowledge, actually knowing something and knowing the name of something. Feyman wants to understand something at the core, a feature which is later demonstrated throughout the book. We also learn about some of his core values, honesty and openness, both intellectually and in interpersonal relationships, which was heartbreakingly reflected in his relationship with Arlene.

A second story involves his role on the Commission to investigate the Challenger disaster in 1986. This one is fairly long but shades an interesting light on how Feynman helped to uncover how not only technical problems but mainly management and hierarchy problems contributed to the Challenger disaster. Both his curiosity and guts were famously demonstrated during a public press conference where he dropped an O-ring into a glass of ice-water to reveal the cause of technical problems.

A third and final part covers Feynman's reflections on the value of science, given during a public address at the 1955 autumn meeting of the National Academy of Sciences. During this address, Feynman stresses how science and scientific thinking lead to continuous progress for humanity. Science enables us to do things and produce things. However, these things can be good or bad and science does not carry instructions on how to use these things as it is only an enabler. This lack of instructions imply a kind of meaninglessness. Indeed, despite all scientific discoveries, humanity still did not figure out the meaning of life, if any. The scientific method of trial-and-error, however, and its focus on recognizing ignorance, accepting uncertainty, and leaving room for doubt can guide humanity here. Since we accepted that we don't know how we should govern ourselves, a system known as democracy was developed by which new ideas could be developed and tried out; a system where doubt and discussion are essential to progress into the unknown. This, according to Feynman, remains our responsibility -- to do what we can, learn what we can, improve the solutions, and pass them on to the future. We don't have all the answers now, so freedom of thought should prevail over authority, preventing future generations from being confined to the limits of our present imagination.

His address carries important lessons for our generations. For instance, it is this intellectual discovery and honesty which made us realize that the Earth is not flat nor the center of the universe. It is also this scientific approach which should make us admit some of the most urgent current problems humanity faces like climate change.

All three stories are related in describing what a remarkable person Feynman was. They showcase Feynman's intellectual curiosity and enjoyment, his focus to judge the idea, and not the one who put it, and above all his simply fun and exciting character, not caring what other people think.

“Why make yourself miserable saying things like, "Why do we have such bad luck? What has God done to us? What have we done to deserve this?" - all of which, if you understand reality and take it completely into your heart, are irrelevant and unsolvable. They are just things that nobody can know. Your situation is just an accident of life.”

“We have found it of paramount importance that in order to progress we must recognize our ignorance and leave room for doubt. Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty—some most unsure, some nearly sure, but none absolutely certain.”

Way back in my teens I got hold of "Surely You must be joking, Dr.Feynman" and it changed my perspective on science and physicists. Buoyed by Mr.Feynman's curiosity and sense of humour, that was a book I would have recommended to everyone I met as a safe reco. This book, after almost 20 years, made me fall in love with this man's philosophy yet again!

The first part of the book deals with Dr.Feynman's childhood and the relationship with his first wife Arline. The chapters brim with his intelligence and curiosity. Later, when Arline falls sick, we see a very human struggle to accept the situation for a logical brain which makes him endearing. There we get to hear through Arline "What do you care what others think?" so many times that you think it started defining his personality.

The second part of letters to his family members when he travelled or one letter about him were entertaining and made you miss that medium. The next section is a detailed investigation of the failure of Challenger shuttle of which Feynman was drafted into a commission. Root cause analysis 101, this episode which was a case study in engineering. However Feynman's curiosity and unwillingness to put up with red tapes stands out in this narrative.

The audacity of the man would sure have made him a risk on any commission. The investigation at NASA and his candid stance on the behind the scenes politics makes him out to be the ideal role model. Not to mention, the humor he manages to bring into a tense investigation.

This is a definite read for those who have read and enjoyed "Surely You..". To savor a bit more of the crazy workings of a brilliant mind.

Its not about writing style or just a grand adventure, its about a character. Feyman has it, few people in history had it. I would give the book 4,5 stars but my admiration for him pushed me to give it 5.

Well, i had my own indelible journey with him written in my mind. Starting now as 1st of Feb 2016 and go backward:
- Finished the book, the large emphasis is placed on Feyman's ''suicidal journey'' with Washington investigation of Challenger disaster 1986. I do enjoy them but not as much as his life journey and the end where he philosophized about life and science.

-A few months ago,Moving Bodies provided me a glimpse into Feyman's life. The story of a brilliant scientist who loved his wife so much that they both knew she was gonna die from tuberculosis but still got married and had their contented mortal time together.. moved me to tears.

- Then lucky me, in Project Management class i took, each student has to analyze 2 cases: Challenger 86 and Denver Airport 90-95, the reports are long and arduous. Ofcourse, Challenger is much more interesting for me although until now i still have no ideas about technical details described in Shuttle design and failure. The problem of NASA and contracting company Thiokol can be dumbed down (for me) to some basic points: risk management system, politics, media and technical.

- 'Here and there' exposure to Mr.Feyman: science Q&A (Feyman's diagram on particle physics, philosophy of science), recorded Feyman's lectures...

One point he and many other scientists mentioned: The imagination of nature is far far greater than human's. I am compelled to find out what this really means even though heard it, thought about it many times.

Anyone who can get me to listen to hours of physics speeches and stories, and chuckle while doing so, deserves a 5 star rating. The title comes from something he once told his first wife to get her to do something she was timid about trying. She used it several times reversely on him. Those stories were particularly endearing.

The longest part is about his participation in the team who investigated the Challenger shuttle explosion. Even though that part was reasonably technical it was fascinating. The epilogue deals with a speech he gave in 1955 called The Importance of Science. It is a shame that we are still needing to convince people of the importance of science and how it should drive decisions 65 years later.

I will listen to this again.

I did not really like the more famous joking book but thought I should give the man a second chance.
Now, this is less funny but I did like it a bit more. First of all, to get the complete story of his first marriage made the man much more of a human being. I am still not sure he was a guy one would really want to have as an acquaintance.

The largest part of the book deals with the commission he was on to investigate the Challenger disaster. This is important. Maybe a bit too detailed. What I take from the story is how there are different explanations on different levels. We have the O-ring, we have Feynman’s conclusion that the problem was top-down vs. bottom-up. My conclusion is that after the Apollo mission the space shuttle project was under-ambitious. We landed on the moon, how can we not manage to get a shuttle working? In August 69 they should have said get to Mars within 15 years. And they would have made it.