VIRENDRA K. SINGH TO RICHARD P. FEYNMAN, OCTOBER 17, 1965

I need to thank you! In an essay a while ago you expressed your thoughts in some paragraphs starting “. . . I stand at the seashore...”

TOMAS E. FIRLE TO RICHARD P. FEYNMAN, AUGUST 7, 1966

Dear Dr. Feynman:

When I first heard these expressions I had an immediate deep response of a good feeling, faith, of beauty. I took the liberty to graphically rearrange your words to make them more expressive to me. Incidentally there are other interesting permutations possible.

On receiving news of my father’s death in Germany last July 4, I wanted to share some feelings of words of creation and life with my stepmother and I found myself attempting a “translation” of your thoughts into German. Since it has been a long time since I left Germany my “translation” is undoubtedly poor, but it conveyed something of my thinking and feelings, as expressed by you, to my stepmother.

Why do I write you this letter? Partly to extend my thanks to you, to tell you that with these, to you maybe unimportant lines, you have filled another human being’s need. Also, frankly, I enjoy the sensitivity of your “thoughts” especially since to me they indicate the closeness of artistic creation with scientific greatness.

Yours truly,

Tomas E. Firle

July 7, 1966

I stand at the seashore,
alone, and start to think...
There are the rushing waves...
Mountains... of molecules,
each stupidly minding its own business...
trillions apart....
yet forming white surf in unison.
Ages on ages...
before any eyes could see...
year after year thunderously pounding the shore as now.
For whom, for what?...
on a dead planet,
with no life to entertain.
Never at rest...
tortured by energy
wasted prodigiously by the sun...
poured into space.
A mite makes the sea roar.
Deep in the sea, all molecules
repeat the patterns of one another
till complex new ones are formed.
They make others like themselves...
And a new dance starts.
Growing in size and complexity...
living things,
masses of atoms, DNA, protein...
Dancing a pattern ever more intricate.
Out of the cradle onto the dry land...
Here it is standing...
atoms with consciousness...
matter with curiosity.
Stands at the sea...
wonders at wondering
I. . .
a universe of atoms
an atom in the universe.

Richard P. Feynman, Science and Ideas, edited by A. B. Arons (Prentice-Hall, 1964), p. 5.

RICHARD P. FEYNMAN TO THOMAS E. FIRLE, OCTOBER 4, 1966

Mr.Thomas E. Firle

Del Mar, California

Dear Mr. Firle:

I need to thank you.Thank you for noticing and enjoying what I tried to “hide” in my lecture. Really, I thought of it poetically also, but was afraid of ridicule if I tried to write a poem in a lecture. The rearrangement is almost exactly the way I would have done it. In fact, you should see my hand written lecture notes that I made to guide me as I gave the lecture for the first time—they are written out in lines just as you “deciphered.” Naturally, I am very pleased and flattered that you thought them worth translating to German. But, it means even more to me that you found the thought of some relevance to you in the face of your father’s death.

As a reply to a questionnaire from Physics Today, Feynman wrote, “I never read your magazine. I don’t know why it is published, please take me off your mailing list. I don’t want it.” On August 25, 1966, the editor wrote to say that Feynman’s reaction “poses some interesting questions for us.” His main concern was where the magazine had failed. “Is it in the nature of the purpose or in the way we are serving it? . . . If Physics Today is not the magazine physicists want and need, we would like to supply what they do want and need” Here is Feynman’s response.

RICHARD P. FEYNMAN TO R. HOBART ELLIS, JR., OCTOBER 3, 1966

Mr. R. Hobart Ellis, Jr.

Physics Today

I’m not “physicists,” I’m just me. I don’t read your magazine so I don’t know what’s in it. Maybe it’s good, I don’t know. Just don’t send it to me. Please remove my name from the mailing list as requested. What other physicists need or don’t need, want or don’t want has nothing to do with it.

Thank you for spending all the time to write such a long letter to me. It was not my intention to shake your confidence in your magazine—nor to suggest that you stop publication—only that you stop sending one copy here. Can you do that, please?

I thought you might be amused to know that after a film of your superb lecture on the “Great Conservation Principles” was shown here last week several in the audience were overheard proposing that you run for governor. It was not clear, however, whether the intention was for you to be a candidate in California or here in Massachusetts.

IRWIN L. SHAPIRO TO RICHARD P. FEYNMAN, OCTOBER 21, 1966

Dear Professor Feynman:

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Irwin L. Shapiro

RICHARD P. FEYNMAN TO IRWIN L. SHAPIRO, DECEMBER 6, 1966

Professor I. L. Shapiro

Lincoln Laboratory

Lexington, Massachusetts

Dear Professor Shapiro:

They were, of course, speaking of California. At this time I feel it is better to issue releases denying an interest but not completely dashing the hopes of those working at the grass roots. At the appropriate time, I shall announce my reluctance but pleasure in accepting the responsibilities urged upon me by my constituents. Until then, please make no public statement, although privately you may feel free to give a word of encouragement and hope to those who are working hardest on my behalf.

Thank you for your report on conditions in Massachusetts. Please be assured that I shall not forget my good friend, Irwin Shapiro, when I am in a position to help you more directly.

Sincerely,

RICHARD P. FEYNMAN TO MIKE FLASAR, NOVEMBER 9, 1966

Mr. Mike Flasar

Boston, Massachusetts

The information you have about the number and need for theoretical and experimental physicists is quite correct.The B in mathematics is of no consequence, as that kind of mathematics, although popular, is not really necessary in physics, theoretical or experimental.

Work hard to find something that fascinates you.When you find it you will know your lifework.A man may be digging a ditch for someone else, or because he is forced to, or is stupid—such a man is “toolish”—but another working even harder may not be recognized as different by the bystanders—but he may be digging for treasure. So dig for treasure and when you find it you will know what to do. In the meantime, you don’t need to make the decision—steer your practical affairs so the alternatives remain open to you.

In any of the graduate schools you mentioned there is always the opportunity to change from theory to experimental or vice versa at any time.

While looking for what fascinates you, don’t entirely neglect the possibility that it may be found outside of physics.The man happy in his work is not the narrow specialist, nor the well-rounded man, but the man who is doing what he loves to do.You must fall in love with some activity.

Yours sincerely,

RICHARD P. FEYNMAN TO JEHIEL S. DAVIS, DECEMBER 6, 1966

Mr. Jehiel S. Davis

Van Nuys, California

I am sorry, but I have no information regarding the color television used at the Chicago Worlds Fair in 1922 nor do I know who to refer you to for this information.

Your discussion of atomic forces shows that you have read entirely too much beyond your understanding.What we are talking about is real and at hand: Nature. Learn by trying to understand simple things in terms of other ideas—always honestly and directly. What keeps the clouds up, why can’t I see stars in the daytime, why do colors appear on oily water, what makes the lines on the surface of water being poured from a pitcher, why does a hanging lamp swing back and forth—and all the innumerable little things you see all around you. Then when you have learned to explain simpler things, so you have learned what an explanation really is, you can then go on to more subtle questions.

RICHARD P. FEYNMAN TO ASHOK ARORA, JANUARY 4, 1967

Master Ashok Arora

Debra Dun (U.P.) India

Dear Master Arora:

Do not read so much, look about you and think of what you see there. I have requested the proper office to send you information about Caltech and the availability of scholarships.

RICHARD P. FEYNMAN TO TORD PRAMBERG, JANUARY 4, 1967

Mr.Tord Pramberg

Stockholm, Sweden

The fact that I beat a drum has nothing to do with the fact that I do theoretical physics. Theoretical physics is a human endeavor, one of the higher developments of human beings—and this perpetual desire to prove that people who do it are human by showing that they do other things that a few other humans do (like playing bongo drums) is insulting to me.

I am human enough to tell you to go to hell.

Sincerely,

Dr. Albert Hibbs was a graduate student of Feynman’s, a co-author (of Quantum Mechanics and Path Integrals), and a very close friend. He held many positions at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory over the years, but he was best known as the “voice of JPL,” for his work as a broadcast spokesman for many of its planetary missions. (Incidentally, my husband and I were married at his home; Dr. Hibbs performed the ceremony, as he was an ordained minister—by mail—of the Church of the Mother Earth.)

A. R. HIBBS TO RICHARD P. FEYNMAN, JANUARY 10, 1967

Jet Propulsion Laboratory

Interoffice Memo

Subject: Application for Astronaut

Here is the reference form which I have spoken to you about. My application as an astronaut is made with considerable optimism. I am both over-age and over-height. Nevertheless, I am counting on the phrase which the National Academy has used in describing these limitations: “Exceptions to these requirements will be allowed in outstanding cases.” Obviously, I have to represent myself as outstanding in some particular area. I have a good background in both space science and particularly in space instrument systems.The broadness of this background may be unique, but this may not be too important for the Apollo Project. Nevertheless, I am counting on the desire on the part of the Academy and NASA to find what they term,“astute and imaginative observers,” and I hope that my background qualifies me in this area.

But I think the one field where I might be called exceptional is my experience in communicating scientific results to others. So it is as a combined observer and communicator that I hope to present myself as an exceptional case.

Thank you in advance for your help.

—Al

BETTE BRENT TO THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, JANUARY 25, 1967

Scientist as Astronaut

National Academy of Sciences

National Research Council

Washington, D.C.

I am attaching a Confidential Reference Report for Albert Roach Hibbs as completed by Professor Richard P. Feynman of Caltech.

I have taken the liberty of typing Professor Feynman’s comments for easier reading for S-1, D-8, D-9 and D-10.

Secretary to Richard P. Feynman

(Miss) Bette Brent

Comments and Summary

Applicant: HIBBS, Albert Roach

S-1

Hibbs’ only weakness is that he is not a very highly-trained specialist in some particular scientific corner. For your needs this should prove an advantage—for his scientific understanding and spirit is ideal—just what is needed to study unexpected phenomena. Too much training, say in geology, could lead to expecting features on the moon like those on the earth—whereas a more open but extremely careful and observant mind (as Hibbs has) would see more clearly what is really there. His general calmness, yet deep and wide scientific attitude and interest make him an ideal observer. Finally, do not forget the wide experience in explaining science on TV and radio—how well he will be able to tell the world what he has seen, what it means and what the entire lunar program means.

Personal Characteristics

D-8

No opportunity to observe. Knowing the man I would guess that he would remain unusually clear and observant—he always is—he takes his scientific spirit of observation into all his experiences and he seeks out unusual experiences.

D-9

He has done a great deal of exposition both very technical (we wrote a book together) and to non-technical audiences on TV and radio and is very good at it—always maintains his good sense and wisdom about what is important.

D-10

He has had many positions of responsibility and leadership and I have not heard of any “personality difficulties” in the jobs he has had—although I do not have first-hand information from his colleagues and workers below him in more than two or three cases. I have worked with him intimately without anything but pleasure.

RICHARD P. FEYNMAN TO GEORGE W. BEADLE, JANUARY 16, 1967

Dr. George W. Beadle

The University of Chicago

Office of the President

Chicago, Illinois

Dear George,

Yours is the first honorary degree that I have been offered, and I thank you for considering me for such an honor.

However, I remember the work I did to get a real degree at Princeton and the guys on the same platform receiving honorary degrees without work—and felt an “honorary degree” was a debasement of the idea of a “degree which confirms certain work has been accomplished.” It is like giving an “honorary electricians license.” I swore then that if by chance I was ever offered one I would not accept it.

Now at last (twenty-five years later) you have given me a chance to carry out my vow.

So thank you, but I do not wish to accept the honorary degree you offered. Sincerely yours,

Tina Levitan wrote to Feynman requesting a biographical sketch and a black and white photograph for inclusion in her book-in-progress, The Laureates: Jewish Winners of the Nobel Prize.

RICHARD P. FEYNMAN TO TINA LEVITAN, JANUARY 18, 1967

Miss Tina Levitan

It would not be appropriate to include me in “Jewish Winners of the Nobel Prize” for several reasons, one of which is that at the age of thirteen I was converted to non-Jewish religious views.

Dear Miss Levitan:

Your letter of January 18, in which you state that it would not be appropriate for me to include you in my book of Jewish Winners of the Nobel Prize, has been received.

TINA LEVITAN TO RICHARD P. FEYNMAN, JANUARY 30, 1967

Dear Dr. Feynman,

My listing of Jewish Nobel Prize winners includes not only professing Jews and those partly of Jewish ancestry but also those of Jewish origins for the simple reason that they usually have inherited their valuable heredity elements and talents from their people.

Under these circumstances may I include you? I will not represent the fact that at the age of thirteen you were converted to non-Jewish religious views.

If there is another reason why you do not wish to be included, please let me know.

In your letter you express the theory that people of Jewish origin have inherited their valuable hereditary elements from their people. It is quite certain that many things are inherited but it is evil and dangerous to maintain, in these days of little knowledge of these matters, that there is a true Jewish race or specific Jewish hereditary character. Many races as well as cultural influences of men of all kinds have mixed into any man. To select, for approbation the peculiar elements that come from some supposedly Jewish heredity is to open the door to all kinds of nonsense on racial theory.

Tina Levitan

(Miss) Tina Levitan

RICHARD P. FEYNMAN TO TINA LEVITAN, FEBRUARY 7, 1967

Dear Miss Levitan:

Such theoretical views were used by Hitler. Surely you cannot maintain on the one hand that certain valuable elements can be inherited from the “Jewish people,” and deny that other elements which other people may find annoying or worse are not inherited by these same “people.” Nor could you then deny that elements that others would consider valuable could be the main virtue of an “Aryan” inheritance.

It is the lesson of the last war not to think of people as having special inherited attributes simply because they are born from particular parents, but to try to teach these “valuable” elements to all men because all men can learn, no matter what their race.

It is the combination of characteristics of the culture of any father and his father plus the learning and ideas and influences of people of all races and backgrounds which make me what I am, good or bad. I appreciate the valuable (and the negative) elements of my background but I feel it to be bad taste and an insult to other peoples to call attention in any direct way to that one element in my composition.

At almost thirteen I dropped out of Sunday school just before confirmation because of differences in religious views but mainly because I suddenly saw that the picture of Jewish history that we were learning, of a marvelous and talented people surrounded by dull and evil strangers was far from the truth.The error of anti-Semitism is not that the Jews are not really bad after all, but that evil, stupidity and grossness is not a monopoly of the Jewish people but a universal characteristic of mankind in general. Most non-Jewish people in America today have understood that. The error of pro-Semitism is not that the Jewish people or Jewish heritage is not really good, but rather the error is that intelligence, good will, and kindness is not, thank God, a monopoly of the Jewish people but a universal characteristic of mankind in general.

Therefore you see at thirteen I was not only converted to other religious views but I also stopped believing that the Jewish people are in any way “the chosen people.” This is my other reason for requesting not to be included in your work.

I am expecting that you will respect my wishes.

Miss Levitan wrote on February 16, 1967, agreeing to respect his wishes and not include him in her book. One year later she informed Feynman he was again under consideration, this time for an article on “The Scientist and Religion”—“a portrait gallery of Jewish scientists of great intelligence and creative accomplishment.” She enclosed a questionnaire and asked for a photograph.

RICHARD P. FEYNMAN TO TINA LEVITAN, FEBRUARY 16, 1968

Dear Miss Levitan:

I have your form letter and questionnaire of February 14. Please see my previous correspondence, in particular, my letter of February 7, 1967, to understand why I do not wish to cooperate with you, in your new adventure in prejudice.

Early in 1967, while both visiting the University of Chicago, James Watson gave Feynman a copy of the manuscript for the book that would later be published as The Double Helix. They had met when Watson visited Caltech to give lectures on the coding systems of DNA. The following letter was Feynman’s reaction.

RICHARD P. FEYNMAN TO JAMES D. WATSON, FEBRUARY 10, 1967

Don’t let anybody criticize that book who hasn’t read it thru to the end. Its apparent minor faults and petty gossipy incidents fall into place as deeply meaningful and vitally necessary to your work (the book—the literary work I mean) as one comes to the end. From the irregular trivia of ordinary life mixed with a bit of scientific doodling and failure, to the intense dramatic concentration as one closes in on the truth and the final elation (plus with gradually decreasing frequency, the sudden sharp pangs of doubt)—that is how science is done. I recognize my own experiences with discovery beautifully (and perhaps for the first time!) described as the book nears its close.There it is utterly accurate.

And the entire ‘novel’ has a master plot and a deep unanswered human question at the end: Is the sudden transformation of all the relevant scientific characters from petty people to great and selfless men because they see together a beautiful corner of nature unveiled and forget themselves in the presence of the wonder? Or is it because our writer suddenly sees all his characters in a new and generous light because he has achieved success and confidence in his work, and himself?

Don’t try to resolve it. Leave it that way. Publish with as little change as possible. The people who say “that is not how science is done” are wrong. In the early parts you describe the impression by one nervous young man imputing motives (possibly entirely erroneous) on how the science is done by the men around him. (I myself have not had the kind of experiences with my colleagues to lead me to think their motives were often like those you describe—I think you may be wrong—but I don’t know the individuals you knew—but no matter, you describe your impressions as a young man.) But when you describe what went on in your head as the truth haltingly staggers upon you and passes on, finally fully recognized, you are describing how science is done. I know, for I have had the same beautiful and frightening experience.

If you were really serious about wanting something on the flyleaf, tell me and we can work something out.

The hard cover edition of Watson’s book does indeed have a quote from Feynman on the dust jacket: “He has described admirably how it feels to have that frightening and beautiful experience of making a great scientific discovery.”

DANNY ROBINSON TO RICHARD P. FEYNMAN, FEBRUARY 13, 1967

Dear Sir,

I am in the sixth grade and my name is Danny Robinson. In class my teacher was reading to us about microminiaturization. The book was from Life and it was called The Scientist. In the book it said that you offered $1,000 of your own money to anyone who could build you an electronic motor that is no more than a quarter millionth of a cubic inch in volume. In the book it said a man made one. Is it true? If it is true could you tell us what kind of tools the man used? What is the purpose for it? How did it work out? How long did it take him to build it? Where do you keep it?

I thank you very much for reading my letter and will you please write back to—.

Thank you,

Danny Robinson

RICHARD P. FEYNMAN TO DANNY ROBINSON, FEBRUARY 24, 1967

Mr. Danny Robinson

Petaluma, California

Dear Mr. Robinson:

You are right—there is such a motor as you described. It was made by a Mr. McLellan in response to a challenge I made in a lecture. I am enclosing a copy of my original lecture, and a description and photographs of the motor and its parts made by Mr. McLellan.

Several motors were made—I have one, there is one in an exhibit case here at Caltech and Mr. McLellan has several.They all still work very well.

There is no use to it—it was all done just for fun. And if you read the lecture carefully you will see that there is another prize offered for small writing, which has not yet been won.

Mr. Aron M. Mathieu, Publisher

RICHARD P. FEYNMAN TO ARON M. MATHIEU, FEBRUARY 17, 1967

Research and Development

Cincinnati, Ohio

My doctor forbids me to serve as a consulting editor because it is bad for my blood pressure. I end up wanting to write the book and am frustrated by the actual author.

Enclosed find $25.00 draft sent to me by some nut wanting to throw money away. Buy your wife some flowers with it.

P.S. The outline you sent me shows no imagination, it is hard to believe that anything very good can come from it.

P.P.S. I am returning the two chapters which you sent in subsequent letters. I have had no opportunity to look at them.

R.B.S. MANIAN TO RICHARD P. FEYNMAN, MARCH 6, 1967

To,

Dr. Feynman,

Blazer of new trails,

Sir,

It would seem to you most inappropriate and ludicrous to receive a missive (or a missile!) from a nobody like me. I am post-graduate student in physics and came across your “Lectures in Physics” series. When I went through the forward I was staggered. Physics is an elixir no doubt but to ram it in one measure down the throat is entirely another thing. All these diverse facets translate past (as the armoury does on Red Square) your brain swiftly. After the vistas melt it is only a daze felt in a maze.You don’t quite get what I am up to in one stroke: It is too much for the freshman or the sophomore. A great hullabaloo and tom tomming by Physics Revision Committee has not made things all right. I hear that most of the students take it on the lam after some months of turmoil. If things go on like this Caltech cannot produce scholars. One cannot or should not bite more than he can chew. Physics should be stagger-tuned, i.e. given in successive slabs so that student can lap it up steadily. Even if a dog drinks water in a river, it can force it in minute quantities.Your vol. II, III, IV we do in our post graduate curriculum.

Even electro dynamic books by such well-known persons like “Reitz and Milford” and Tralli men are for graduate course as mentioned in their forward. Matrix formulations, tensions, group theory, operational calculus are not for sophomores.You may now well be in the process of retrospection and a sentiment of guilt would have been left after thoughts evaporate. Not even a beaver like you should be eager to introduce reforms that are short-sighted.Your books are no doubt superb but it is a square block in a round hole. Really, inclined planes may be obsolete but they are stepping stones to more refined topics. A climb to the rotunda needs stairs or a lift: one cannot be at the top of Empire State Building pronto. How did you become like this. Not by high-faluting modern way of teaching physics.You did your climb in orderly way. If my views are myopic or I am derived from Conservative forces, please enlighten me.Take me also in the bandwagon and let me get inured to the kaleidoscope of ever changing patterns.

Please Reply.

I believe in your rectitude and bonhomie.

Yours Sincerely,

R.B.S. Manian

RICHARD P. FEYNMAN TO R.B.S. MANIAN, MARCH 14, 1967

R.B.S. Manian

Bombay, India

I think you may be quite right in your criticism. On the other hand, it is equally wrong to insist that all students go up by slow and easy steps along the same route. All students are different, to some one way applies, to others, another. If you do not like my book because it is too advanced for one reason or another, there are many more elementary books than mine. Possibly in your case there is one much more useful to you.

If the school at which you are learning has chosen my book for the Freshman and Sophomore courses, criticize them, not me. The thing I was trying to do when we started these lectures was to teach the students that I had when I gave the lectures.The decision to edit and publish these lectures and to use them in the ensuing years was not made by me. I am proud of these books as Physics books, but on the problem of when to use them, by whom, and where, I have no opinion.

Thank you very much for your remarks. If you need this letter to help you influence the school not to use the books by the elementary students, please do so. Good luck in your venture.

Sincerely,

As I get more experience I realize that I know nothing whatsoever as to how to teach children arithmetic. I did write some things before I reached my present state of wisdom. Perhaps the references you heard came from the article which I enclose.

RICHARD P. FEYNMAN TO BERYL S. COCHRAN, APRIL 27, 1967

Mrs. Beryl S. Cochran

Madison Project

Weston, Connecticut

Dear Mrs. Cochran:

At present, however, I do not know whether I agree with my past self or not.

Wishy-washy.

Mr. DeGaris, a second-year physics, math, and philosophy student, said he would like to take over Feynman’s work when Feynman was “too old.” Mr. DeGaris was concerned about losing half his productive years to learning instead of creation and thought perhaps Caltech would be a more conducive atmosphere than the one he was in. He agreed with Murray Gell-Mann’s position on unified field theory—“the greatest adventure of our time”—and said he would like to be “in it” as well.

RICHARD P. FEYNMAN TO HUGH DEGARIS, APRIL 27, 1967

If you want to be “in it” it doesn’t make any difference where you are. You must learn to develop and evaluate your own ideas. To start with, why not choose your ideas of fractional dimensions, as a purely mathematical idea, and develop it.You are bound to learn something. If it is no good or gets wound up in uninteresting things (which is nearly impossible) you must find another of your own ideas and work that out.

At the same time study physics in the conventional way in schools or through books or encyclopedias.That may give you other ideas—but you need to know something about the problems in physics you are trying to solve (so that you can judge how likely it is that “perhaps he ties up with this idea somehow” etc.).

There is no quick shortcut that I know.

I very much hope that you will agree to sign the enclosed statement which it is proposed to publish as an advertisement in the (London) Times, and if funds reach that far, in one of the more popular, high-circulation papers as well. I am looking for the signatures of a smallish number—around 50—of eminent Americans whose names are also well known in this country (not always overlapping categories). Among those who have already signed are Naum Gabo, Joseph Heller, Professor Stuart Hughs, Thomas Merton, Professor Anatol Rapoport, Professor Meyer Schapiro, William Schirer and Professor Victor Weisskopf. I am hoping to get a number of signatures of those whose names are not yet publicly linked with this protest—or at least, not in this country.

MARGARET GARDINER TO RICHARD P. FEYNMAN, MAY 6, 1967

Dear Professor Feynman,

We believe that this advertisement could have a significant effect on public opinion here, where protests about our Government’s support of the war are constantly met with taunts—both official and unofficial—of anti-Americanism and ‘it’s all Hanoi’s Fault’. We also believe that since Britain is the only major power that explicitly supports the war, even a partial disassociation on the part of our Government might be of importance.

I propose to publish the advertisement on June 1st or 2nd, when Parliament is sitting again and while Mr. Wilson is visiting Mr. Johnson. So if you agree to sign, as I hope you will, I’d be grateful for an early reply.

Yours Sincerely,

Margaret Gardiner

London, England

Should you wish to contribute towards the cost of this advertisement please will you make your cheque out to “Gardiner and Kustow—Vietnam Account.”

STATEMENT TO BE PUBLISHED AS AN ADVERTISEMENT IN THE (LONDON) TIMES and to be signed by eminent Americans who are also well known in Great Britain.

We, citizens of the United States, who are deeply concerned over the war in Vietnam, wish to put it on record that we do not subscribe to the official view of our country and of yours, that Hanoi alone blocks the path to negotiations. On the contrary, there is considerable evidence which has been presented to our Government but which has never been answered by them, to show that escalation of the war by the United States has repeatedly destroyed the possibilities for negotiations.

We assure you that any expression of your horror of this shameful war—a war which is destroying those very values it claims to uphold—ought not to be regarded as anti-American but, rather, as support for that American which we love and of which we are proud.

RICHARD P. FEYNMAN TO MARGARET GARDINER, MAY 15, 1967

Miss Margaret Gardiner

London, England

Dear Miss Gardiner:

I would like to sign your letter for I am completely in sympathy with its spirit and its last paragraph. However, I am, unfortunately not familiar with the evidence that escalation has destroyed the possibilities for negotiation. Certainly escalation has failed in its attempt to “force” Hanoi to negotiate—but I have not been following things closely enough to know that there would have been any real possibility of negotiation without escalation. It has seemed to me that Hanoi’s policy has never included such an alternative—but that that is no justification for our being there and destroying what we claim to wish to save.

I feel unhappy that I am not sure enough of my position to be able to sign your letter. As next best alternative I am enclosing a small check to help to make sure your advertisement is published.

Whether in response to a letter or phone call is unclear, but on June 13, 1967, a physics editor at a New York publisher wrote Feynman to apologize for any misunderstanding concerning a promotional letter sent his way. “Although the letter may have looked unique, it is just another example of the advanced state of a part of the graphics industry. Briefly, the letter was a precise duplicate of other letters in a mass mailing to something over 3,000 physics professors in the country.” He hoped it had not caused Feynman any embarrassment or offense.

RICHARD P. FEYNMAN TO DONALD H. DENECK, JUNE 27, 1967

Donald H. Deneck

John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

You have me all wrong—I am just trying to cut down on the amount of mail I get. It has nothing to do with being an author, or being embarrassed. I am trying to get off mailing lists.Won’t you please take my name out of your mailing lists? I ask this of all publishers, including Addison-Wesley. Thank you. No offense meant.

Dear Sir,

Yours sincerely,

The Rockefeller University

RICHARD P. FEYNMAN TO MARK KAC, OCTOBER 3, 1967

Professor Mark Kac

I’m sorry, but I don’t want to go anywhere to give lectures. I like it here and I want to work in peace and quiet—preparing, going, lecturing, and returning is too much of a disturbance to my tranquil life.

Dear Kac,

Thanks for the invitation, though.

Yours,

As a response to some remarks he made in the Los Angeles Times on the subject of modern poetry, Mrs. Robert Weiner wrote to Feynman. She felt that Feynman’s remarks “added up to a complaint that modern poets show no interest in modern physics. . .The truth of the matter is that modern poets write about practically everything, including interstellar spaces, the red shift, and quasars.” Concluding that Feynman had a reputation “for liking forbidding difficult stuff,” she enclosed a copy of W. H. Auden’s “After Reading a Child’s Guide to Modern Physics”:

RICHARD P. FEYNMAN TO THE NEW YORK TIMES MAGAZINE, OCTOBER 1967

To the Editor:

It was fun to see my name and my dog’s picture in The New York Times Magazine (“Two Men in Search of the Quark,” Oct. 8).¹⁸ Although I did do many of the things described in your article, I am really not one of the men responsible for starting scientists thinking about quarks. It was the result of one of the great ideas that Gell-Mann gets when he is working separately.

Richard P. Feynman

California Institute of Technology

Pasadena, Calif.

RICHARD P. FEYNMAN TO MRS. ROBERT WEINER, OCTOBER 24, 1967

If all a top physicist knows
About the Truth be true,
Then, for all the so-and-so’s,

Futility and grime,
Our common world contains,
We have a better time
Than the Greater Nebulae do,
Or the atoms in our brains.

Marriage is rarely bliss
But, surely it would be worse
As particles to pelt
At thousands of miles per sec
About a universe
In which a lover’s kiss
Would either not be felt
Or break the loved one’s neck.

Though the face at which I stare
While shaving it be cruel
For, year after year, it repels
An aging suitor, it has,
Thank God, sufficient mass
To be altogether there,
Not an indeterminate gruel
Which is partly somewhere else.

Our eyes prefer the suppose
That a habitable place
Has a geocentric view,
That architects enclose
A quiet Euclidean space:
Exploded myths—but who
Would feel at home astraddle
An ever expanding saddle?

This passion of our kind
For the process of finding out
Is a fact one can hardly doubt,
But I would rejoice in it more
If I knew more clearly what
We wanted the knowledge for,
Felt certain still that the mind
Is free to know or not.

Carl and Kiwi in the desert, 1968.

It has chosen once, it seems,
And whether our concern
For magnitude’s extremes
Really become a creature
Who comes in a median size,
Or politicizing Nature
Be altogether wise,
Is something we shall learn.

—W. H. Auden, from About the House

Mrs. Robert Weiner
Del Mar, California

Dear Mrs.Weiner:

I haven’t answered your July 7th letter before now as I was off on vacation and am just now getting down to answering the mail that accumulated this summer.

The point of my remarks about poets was not meant to be a complaint that modern poets show no interest in modern physics—but that they show no emotional appreciation for those aspects of Nature that have been revealed in the last four hundred years.

Mr. Auden’s poem only confirms his lack of response to Nature’s wonders for he himself says that he would like to know more clearly what we “want the knowledge for.”We want it so we can love Nature more.Would you not turn a beautiful flower around in your hand to see it from other directions as well?

Of course, men want knowledge for many other purposes also, to make war, to make a commercial success, to help the sick or the poor, etc., motives of various values.These obvious motives and their consequences the poets do understand and do write about. But the emotions of awe, wonder, delight and love which are evoked upon learning Nature’s ways in the animate and inanimate world, together (for they are one) is rarely expressed in modern poetry where the aspect of Nature being appreciated is one which could have been known to men in the Renaissance.

And the crassness of our time, so much lamented is a crassness that can be alleviated only by art, and surely not by science without art. Art and poetry can remind the mind of beauty and gradually make life more beautiful.

My lament was that a kind of intense beauty that I see given to me by science, is seen by so few others; by few poets and therefore, by even fewer more ordinary people.

On the other hand, you might be right, for I have read very little. But at least the example you enclosed only confirms my view, for a modern poet is directly confessing not understanding the emotional value of knowledge of nature.

P.S.You can find my more complete remarks first-hand in The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Volume I, pgs. 3-6 footnote.

RICHARD P. FEYNMAN TO ROBERT F. GOHEEN, FEBRUARY 16, 1968

Dr. Robert F. Goheen

President’s Room

Princeton University

Princeton, New Jersey

I am sorry, but I do not wish to accept the honorary degree you have offered me. I already have one degree, honestly earned, from Princeton. At the commencement when I received it, I remember watching the honorary degrees being conferred and feeling that an “honorary” degree was a debasement of the idea of a degree that confirms that certain work has been accomplished.

Mr. Bruce Jowers, a high school student who described himself as a future scientist, wrote Feynman two letters—though unfortunately, only one remains—about fusion devices, describing what he saw as the most basic faults and then offering suggestions.

RICHARD P. FEYNMAN TO BRUCE JOWERS, APRIL 25, 1969

1. He thought the attempt to heat gas until it has enough energy to fuse was too much. “Why don’t you keep the heat of the gases down to, say, 3/4 of the needed heat.Then take the resulting plasma and run it through a plasma-accelerator. You then take this plasma beam and pass it through another head on. This should give the gas particles enough energy to fuse.”

2. Instead of attempting to control fusion by containing it, Mr. Jowers suggested letting it move through a long magnetic pipe, and noted that this would let the reaction happen at a high velocity, and the inertia of the high speed would help to control the reaction.

3. He thought carbon or another catalyst should be added to help reaction along. “All the astronomy books I have read have informed me that the sun’s fusion reactions use carbon to catalyze them. I have not read of you people trying to apply this.”

A diagram of the recommended device was enclosed. In closing, Mr. Jowers said, “I hope this letter has been of some value to you. If at all possible I would like you to rip my ideas to shreds and send me the remains. I need the experience, for I am still in high school. Thank you.”

Mr. Bruce Jowers

Sepulveda, California

You sent me two letters asking me to tear your ideas to shreds.You will be happy to learn that I won’t do that for they are, on the whole, mainly correct. On the other hand, don’t be too disappointed to hear that many of them have been thought of before.

About the reactor—catalysts have been suggested, but not carbon. We use atoms easier to make fuse than H¹. We use H² (deuterium) or H³ (tritium) which react easier, and sometimes add catalysts like lithium if that would speed the reaction. The sun has very little deuterium or tritium and must start with nearly pure H¹, so carbon does help there as a catalyst. Also solar rates of reaction are too slow for our use, so we must try other reactions. Moving beams of plasma into each other, etc., is a good idea, and people try things like that. The confinement problem means helping the beams or plasmas from spreading out of the apparatus—for example, sideways.

On your nuclear glue, you are mainly right.The nuclei with large numbers of neutrons are unstable, however, not because the electrons pull them out but because there is a rule that many particles of the same kind cannot be put into the same space without a lot of energy. (That is why, for example, all the electrons in an atom don’t all settle close to the nucleus—they stay out of each other’s way in “shells” or motions of wider spatial extent.) The electrons have only a tiny effect on nuclear processes, as we know from experiments of the kind you suggest. Different chemical forms of an element in different substances (for which the motions of the electrons would be altered near the nucleus) have only very tiny effects on nuclear energies and rates of decay.The nuclei are held together by strong forces between neutron and proton (and also between proton and proton, and also between neutron and neutron).They are modified by the smaller electrostatic repulsion between protons.The problems I personally work on now are related to what makes this nuclear force.

Director, Muszaki Konyvkiado,

RICHARD P. FEYNMAN TO SANDOR SOLT, APRIL 25, 1969

Sandor Solt

Budapest, Hungary

Dear Mr. Solt:

I was very pleased to hear that you have thought so well of the Feynman Lectures that you are translating them into Hungarian. It is good to know that you want to make them available to your Hungarian students.

Instead, I suggest that you translate everything but, in the case of paragraph 46-8 (and any others that you may choose) and a “translator’s footnote” in which you point out the parts that you think are erroneous and why. It would be very good for the students to learn that science is an ongoing subject with new research always modifying old ideas, and I myself would be happy to see the careful criticism of my ideas that your physicists have made (for I am not yet aware that those ideas had been found to be invalid).These criticisms would enhance the book and I urge you to include them, if you wish, in such footnotes, but the main text must be left intact.

Again, thank you for your patient work of translation and criticism.

The Feynman Fellowship was established by Dudley Wright, a longtime friend of Feynman’s. The recipient for the 1969-1970 year was Mr. Kenneth Young, a Caltech student majoring in physics.

RICHARD P. FEYNMAN TO H. DUDLEY WRIGHT, MAY 1, 1969

Mr. H. Dudley Wright

Geneva, Switzerland

Dear Dudley:

Dean Bohnenblust wrote you about the choice for your Feynman Fellowship next year, and I’ve been aiming to write a note to go with it but these deans are more efficient than absent-minded professors and beat me to it.

It is a very good guy we have as recipient—the best we have. Sometimes it is easy because one guy stands out clearly among the others and this is it. We’re off to a good start.

There has been talk that our grad students are getting poorer year by year (maybe from the competition from other schools).We had this great undergraduate and thought he ought to be rewarded.We found out later that he had been talking to his friends about going to Princeton, but the fellowship changed his mind, so we thank you.

What’s new? Will we see you again soon?

Here things are as usual. Everybody in the family is OK. News is we have adopted a baby girl.We’ve had her since she was two months old and she is eight months old now, and of course cute as can be. Also I had a little art exhibit, with an opening, etc., of my drawings here at Caltech in the basement of the Athenaeum. So you can never tell, you had better hold on to those behinds I sent you.

Love,

RPF

RICHARD P. FEYNMAN IN A LETTER TO THE FACULTY, MAY 12, 1969

Letter to the Faculty

c/o The California Tech

Winnett Student Center

Campus

It is generally believed that the Caltech student is unhappy, and that all he needs is social recognition by the faculty. For that reason, there have been many studies and committees working on the problem of student-faculty relations. Up to now, we of the faculty have so often made every conceivable effort with no response by the students at all. I wish to report here, however, some glimmering of a beginning of a small student effort in that direction. An effort, which I believe should be answered by the faculty.

Having been invited to Page House last Saturday evening, I was watching a moving picture, when I was captured by a number of men and women in togas and wooden swords, and carried off to Fleming where I was dressed (by lovely handmaidens) in a toga, given a crown and declared emperor (of what the more straitlaced among you might call a Roman orgy).¹⁹ I was served breads with four kinds of cheeses and wines while watching gladiators battle for my amusement. An oracle declared that the emperor needed a consort, so four maidens were selected for me to choose from. After watching them dance for me, I found myself with my head in the lap of one of the most beautiful and gracious ladies of Claremont, being fed grapes, of course, while we watched a play. (I had difficulty keeping track of the play.) Whatever I wished was granted—my back was rubbed with special lotions prepared for the occasion (by the ZoltanTokes I understand); a pan of hot water was brought, my lady removed my shoes and socks and I soaked my feet, while a group of musicians on recorders and drums played for me. A dancing Bacchus proffered wine and more wine; and a most delicious hot buttered rum was prepared (more than once) for the emperor.

As in all such situations, jealousies arose, and there was an attempt to depose the emperor, but having been previously warned by a spy among my coterie of handmaidens I found it easy to put down the attempted revolution.

Finally it was decided (after some tests) that I need not drive my own chariot home, and a sober charioteer was found to escort me.

Taking account of their inexperience in entertaining faculty (they were unable to produce a kumquat on demand), I think this represents a sincere first step in an attempt to improve relations. I have every reason to believe that this represents a new policy. I should suggest therefore that next time you are invited to student houses, you accept for you will surely be treated better than I, as they gain experience and develop competition among the houses.

Incidentally, in the closeness of the relationship developed during the evening via the hot buttered rum, I found out what their real demands are; what will bring peace and happiness to this campus while other colleges have chaos. It is not a demand for more girls, or more student say in administration or faculty decisions, or any of those complex psychological things. These are just covers for their true underlying uncertainty.They asked only one thing and, under the circumstances that I found myself in, it seemed very easy to grant. I needed only to announce that all Fleming men were guaranteed an A in physics to make them deliriously happy.

I am sure my colleagues will find it easy to arrange to make my promise into reality—in the name of student faculty relations, so this campus may never fear the troubles that beset others.

And to the men of Fleming, and their ladies, thank you. I had the time of my life!

Ricardus Feynmanius, Emperor

RICHARD P. FEYNMAN TO ANDY WANG, SEPTEMBER 30, 1969

Mr. Andy Wang, a foreign student from Hong Kong, wanted to study physics in college but had had previous difficulties with the subject. In a letter to Feynman, he enclosed his academic report from the previous year for reference.

Mr. Andy Wang

Haverford College

Haverford, Pennsylvania

Dear Mr.Wang:

I am sorry, but of course I cannot advise you without knowing you better. Sometimes a situation like yours arises from a little block of misunder-standing that can be found and cleared away. At other times it may be harder to straighten out and really not worth it.Your 93 in Electricity and Magnetism looks good. But it is not good to hit yourself on a stone wall, either, so what can I say?

Carl, Michelle, and Richard on Michelle’s first birthday, 1969.

Richard and his children at the beach.

I say this.Try to find some friends who are also somewhat interested in physics and try to discuss physics things with them. If you find yourself able to explain things in your own words, so that they are led to understand things from what you say, you are OK. Soon you will find yourself able to explain things to yourself. Otherwise, give up and plan for a different career. If you can’t find such friends, try to tutor elementary physics, and see how it goes.