> On the Sunday Feynman was up at his usual hour (nine a.m.), and we went down to the physics building, where he gave me another two-hour lecture of miscellaneous discoveries of his. One of these was a deduction of Maxwell’s equations of the electromagnetic field from the basic principles of quantum theory, a thing which baffles everybody including Feynman, because it ought not to be possible.
Physics stackexchange discussion of this [1].
That includes a link to a 2001 paper, "Feynman's derivation of Maxwell equations and extra dimensions" [2].
Murray Gell-Mann described it completely: first, he wrote down the question, then he thought very hard, then he wrote down the answer. Feynman was acutely aware of the very different ways in which people internally model things - something that was, no doubt, heavily reinforced by the initial reception of Feynman diagrams at the Shelter Island Conference - so he didn't place any special importance on his own internal "sketching" models when describing things to others. (If anything, he probably viewed them about the same way he viewed Maxwell's mechanical model of electromagnetism - a useful thinking tool for someone who happened to think best in a particular mode, but ultimately nonsensical.) If he couldn't think of at least a couple of alternative ways of coming to the same answer, he usually left it as a sort of exercise for the student.
> In the evening I mentioned that there were just two problems for which the finiteness of the theory remained to be established; both problems are well-known and feared by physicists, since many long and difficult papers running to fifty pages and more have been written about them, trying unsuccessfully to make the older theories give sensible answers to them. When I mentioned this fact, Feynman said, “We’ll see about this,” and proceeded to sit down and in two hours, before our eyes, obtain finite and sensible answers to both problems. It was the most amazing piece of lightning calculation I have ever witnessed, and the results prove, apart from some unforeseen complication, the consistency of the whole theory. The two problems were the scattering of light by an electric field, and the scattering of light by light.
> On the third day of the journey a remarkable thing happened; going into a sort of semistupor as one does after forty-eight hours of bus riding, I began to think very hard about physics, and particularly about the rival radiation theories of Schwinger and Feynman. Gradually my thoughts grew more coherent, and before I knew where I was, I had solved the problem that had been in the back of my mind all this year, which was to prove the equivalence of the two theories. Moreover, since each of the two theories is superior in certain features, the proof of equivalence furnished a new form of the Schwinger theory which combines the advantages of both. This piece of work is neither difficult nor particularly clever, but it is undeniably important if nobody else has done it in the meantime. I became quite excited over it when I reached Chicago and sent off a letter to Bethe announcing the triumph. I have not had time yet to write it down properly, but I am intending as soon as possible to write a formal paper and get it published. This is a tremendous piece of luck for me, coming at the time it does. I shall now encounter Oppenheimer with something to say which will interest him, and so I shall hope to gain at once some share of his attention. It is strange the way ideas come when they are needed. I remember it was the same with the idea for my Trinity Fellowship thesis.
> My tremendous luck was to be the only person who had spent six months listening to Feynman expounding his new ideas at Cornell and then spent six weeks listening to Schwinger expounding his new ideas in Ann Arbor. They were both explaining the same experiments, which measure radiation interacting with atoms and electrons. But the two ways of explaining the experiments looked totally different, Feynman drawing little pictures and Schwinger writing down complicated equations. The flash of illumination on the Greyhound bus gave me the connection between the two explanations, allowing me to translate one into the other.
Dyson is obviously brilliant, and I'm sure he's being humble to a fault here, but it's amazing how valuable being in the right place at the right time is. This piece of work brought Dyson to fame:
> Oppenheimer rewarded Dyson with a lifetime appointment at the Institute for Advanced Study, "for proving me wrong", in Oppenheimer's words.[0]
I think the Internet has two competing effects here:
1. Ideas and inventions disseminate quickly and become part of open source knowledge almost immediately if useful, and when people do learn of a new idea they are unlikely to know who invented it;
and
2. Because of this openness of information and 'democratization of invention,' there are fewer recognized centers of invention (mostly being universities and special projects teams working on mostly unpublished work at big tech companies), and so great minds are less likely to gravitate to the same spot.
Another consideration here is that the hottest field is software, where innovation suffers from the open-sourcing/attribution problem to a greater degree than any other field.
>>software, where innovation suffers from the open-sourcing/attribution problem to a greater degree than any other field.
Suffers? What a curious choice of word! I would claim quite the contrary, where innovation flourishes due to the ease and speed of dissemination of ideas.
Can you explain why you think innovation is dampened?
For theoretical computer science, Berkeley in 80s and 90s was a fantastic place: the foundations of cryptography and complexity theory were developed here. A sample: Goldwasser, Micali, Blum, Impagliazzo, Rudich, Arora, Sudan, Karp, the Vazirani's, Rubenfeld, Naor, Sipser, and more. These are the who's who of cryptography and complexity theory, and they all overlapped in time over 1982-92.
I think there are plenty of teams of this caliber out there. They're just working on less impactful or more stubborn projects. If Bell Labs hadn't existed, I believe it wouldn't have been long before most of the breakthroughs that came from there came from other places instead.
The events around the founding of America brought together a group of people of staggering intellect and morality, definitely unrivaled. (Although their efforts ultimately failed, as predicted by one of them.)
I don't think that people in the past were smarter so I would think that at places like CERN you have the same level of talent but information gets out much easier these days so it's hard to stay ahead. The internet levels the playing field a lot.
Physics stackexchange discussion of this [1].
That includes a link to a 2001 paper, "Feynman's derivation of Maxwell equations and extra dimensions" [2].
Here's a paper Dyson wrote about it in 1989 [3].
That was discussed here on HN [4].
[1] https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/391744/does-feyn...
[2] https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0106235
[3] http://fermatslibrary.com/s/feynmans-proof-of-the-maxwell-eq...
[4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11067435
Life has never been the same since...
> My tremendous luck was to be the only person who had spent six months listening to Feynman expounding his new ideas at Cornell and then spent six weeks listening to Schwinger expounding his new ideas in Ann Arbor. They were both explaining the same experiments, which measure radiation interacting with atoms and electrons. But the two ways of explaining the experiments looked totally different, Feynman drawing little pictures and Schwinger writing down complicated equations. The flash of illumination on the Greyhound bus gave me the connection between the two explanations, allowing me to translate one into the other.
Dyson is obviously brilliant, and I'm sure he's being humble to a fault here, but it's amazing how valuable being in the right place at the right time is. This piece of work brought Dyson to fame:
> Oppenheimer rewarded Dyson with a lifetime appointment at the Institute for Advanced Study, "for proving me wrong", in Oppenheimer's words.[0]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeman_Dyson
See this for more: http://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/D/bo353...
https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/87a8ea/1927_group_pho...
Schrödinger, Pauli, Heisenberg, Dirac, de Broglie, Bohr, Planck, Curie, Lorentz, Einstein... the number of Nobel Prizes here is left as an exercise.
Has something on that scale happened since, with an unrelated set of people?
Another consideration here is that the hottest field is software, where innovation suffers from the open-sourcing/attribution problem to a greater degree than any other field.
Suffers? What a curious choice of word! I would claim quite the contrary, where innovation flourishes due to the ease and speed of dissemination of ideas.
Can you explain why you think innovation is dampened?
https://medium.com/@bagelboy/make-america-bohemian-again-de8...
The Impressionists.
The Lost Generation with Hemingway, Fitzgerald, Elliot, and everyone passing through Paris.
Bebop in the 40s and 50s.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonic_Academy
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/firefox-reader-view-clu...
https://nwu.org/nwu-and-nautilus-magazine-settle-60000-non-p...
Deleted Comment