Introducing the path integral-formulation of quantum mechanics:
Richard P. Feynman, The Principles of Least Action in Quantum Mechanics, PhD thesis (1942), reprinted in Brown 2005 [doi:10.1142/9789812567635_0001]
Richard Feynman, Space-Time Approach to Non-Relativistic Quantum Mechanics, Rev. Mod. Phys. 20 (1948) 367 [doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.20.367, pdf, pdf]
reprinted with historical commentary in:
and the first monograph on the subject:
Richard Feynman, Albert R. Hibbs, Quantum Mechanics and Path Integrals, New York: McGraw-Hill (1965)
Daniel F. Styer, Richard Feynman, Albert R. Hibbs, Quantum Mechanics and Path Integrals: Emended Edition, Dover (2010) [ISBN:0486477223, pdf]
Precursor discussion leading to the formulation of quantum electrodynamics:
Early discussion of quantum computation:
Richard Feynman, Simulating physics with computers, Int J Theor Phys 21 (1982) 467–488 [doi:10.1007/BF02650179]
“because nature isn’t classical, dammit, if you want to make a simulation of nature, you’d better make it quantum mechanical”
and quantum gates/quantum circuits:
Richard Feynman, The value of science, Engineering and Science, Volume XIX, Dec. 1955 (pdf), reproduced as Chapter 6 in Feynman 1999
Richard Feynman, What Is and What Should Be the Role of Scientific Culture in Modern Society, Galileo Symposium 1964, Italy, recorded as Chapter 4 in Feynman 1999
Richard Feynman, What is Science?, speech at 15th annual meeting of the National Science Teachers Association, New York City (1966), reprinted in The Physics Teacher 7 6 (1969) 313-320 [doi:10.1119/1.2351388, webpage]
Richard Feynman, What Do You Care What Other People Think?, W.W. Norton, 1988 (Wikipedia entry)
Richard Feynman, edited by J. Robbins, The Pleasure of Finding Things Out – The Best Short Works of Richard P. Feynman, Perseus Books 1999 (pdf)
From Feynman 1955:
Of all its science’s many values, the greatest must be the freedom to doubt
We have found it of paramount importance that in order to progress we must recognize the ignorance and leave room for doubt. Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degree of certainty - some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain.
Now, we scientists are used to this, and we take it for granted that it is perfectly consistent to be unsure – that it is possible to live and not know. But I don’t know whether everyone realizes that this is true.
Our freedom to doubt was born of a struggle against authority in the early days of science. It was a very deep and strong struggle. Permit us to question – to doubt, that’s all – not to be sure.
And I think it is important that we do not forget the importance of this struggle and thus perhaps lose what we have gained. Here lies a responsibility to society.
This is not a new idea; this is the idea of the age of reason. that we should arrange a system by which new ideas could be developed, tried out, tossed out, more new ideas brought in; a trial and error system. the openness of the possibilities was an opportunity, and that doubt and discussion were essential to progress into the unknown.
if we suppress all discussion, all criticism, saying “This is it, boys, man is saved!” we would doom man for a long time to the chains of authority, confined to the limits of our present imagination. It has been done so many times before.
It is our responsibility as scientists, knowing the great progress that is the fruit of freedom of thought, to proclaim the value of this freedom, to teach how doubt is not to be feared but welcomed and discussed, and to demand this freedom as our duty to all incoming generations.
From Feynman 1964 (from this page and the next):
Now the next subject I really consider the most important and the most serious. And that has to do with the question of uncertainty and doubt.
We absolutely must leave room for doubt or there is no progress and there is no learning. There is no learning without having to pose a question. And a question requires doubt. People search for certainty. But there is no certainty.
From Feynman 1966:
Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.
When someone says, “Science teaches such and such,” he is using the word incorrectly. Science doesn’t teach anything; experience teaches it. If they say to you, “Science has shown such and such,” you might ask, “How does science show it? How did the scientists find out? How? What? Where?”
It should not be “science has shown” but “this experiment, this effect, has shown.” And you have as much right as anyone else, upon hearing about the experiments – but be patient and listen to all the evidence – to judge whether a sensible conclusion has been arrived at.
From Feynman 1988 (here):
Have no respect whatsoever for authority; forget who said it and instead look at what he starts with, where he ends up, and ask yourself, “Is it reasonable?”
Last revised on August 28, 2024 at 17:20:25. See the history of this page for a list of all contributions to it.