Albert Einstein On God: “Nothing More Than the Expression and Product of Human Weakness”

Einstein Gutkind Letter

With depend­able fre­quen­cy, the reli­gious views of Albert Ein­stein get revised and re-revised accord­ing to some re-dis­cov­ered or re-inter­pret­ed quo­ta­tion from his sci­en­tif­ic work or per­son­al cor­re­spon­dence. It’s not espe­cial­ly sur­pris­ing that Ein­stein had a few things to say on the sub­ject. As the pre-emi­nent the­o­ret­i­cal physi­cist of his age, he spent his days pon­der­ing the mys­ter­ies of the uni­verse. As one of the most famous pub­lic intel­lec­tu­als in his­to­ry, and an immi­grant to a coun­try as high­ly reli­gious as the Unit­ed States, Ein­stein was often called on to voice his reli­gious opin­ions. Like any one of us over the course of a life­time, those state­ments do not har­mo­nize into a neat and tidy con­fes­sion of belief, or unbe­lief. Instead, at times, Ein­stein explic­it­ly aligns him­self with the pan­the­ism of Baruch Spin­oza; at oth­er times, he express­es a much more skep­ti­cal atti­tude. Often he seems to stand in awe of a vague deist notion of God; Often, he seems max­i­mal­ly agnos­tic.

Ein­stein reject­ed the athe­ist label, it’s true. At no point in his adult life, how­ev­er, did he express any­thing at all like a belief in tra­di­tion­al reli­gion. On the con­trary, he made a par­tic­u­lar point of dis­tanc­ing him­self from the the­olo­gies of Judaism and Chris­tian­i­ty espe­cial­ly. Though he did admit to a brief peri­od of “deep reli­gious­ness” as a child, this phase, he wrote “reached an abrupt end at the age of twelve.” As he writes in his Auto­bi­o­graph­i­cal Notes, after a “fanat­ic orgy of free­think­ing,” brought on by his expo­sure to sci­en­tif­ic lit­er­a­ture, he devel­oped a “mis­trust of every kind of author­i­ty… a skep­ti­cal atti­tude toward the con­vic­tions that were alive in any spe­cif­ic social environment—an atti­tude that has nev­er left me, even though, lat­er on, it has been tem­pered by a bet­ter insight into the causal con­nec­tions.” In con­trast to the “reli­gious par­adise” of his youth, Ein­stein wrote that he had come to find anoth­er kind of faith—in the “huge world… out yon­der… which stands before us like a great rid­dle.”

Einstein’s rejec­tion of a per­son­al God was unde­ni­ably final, such that in 1954, a year before his death, he would write the let­ter above to philoso­pher Erik Gutkind after read­ing Gutkind’s book Choose Life: The Bib­li­cal Call to Revolt on the rec­om­men­da­tion of a mutu­al friend. The book, Ein­stein tells its author, is “writ­ten in a lan­guage inac­ces­si­ble to me.” He goes on to dis­par­age all reli­gion as “the most child­ish super­sti­tion”:

The word God is for me noth­ing more than the expres­sion and prod­uct of human weak­ness, the Bible a col­lec­tion of hon­or­able, but still pure­ly prim­i­tive, leg­ends which are nev­er­the­less pret­ty child­ish. No inter­pre­ta­tion, no mat­ter how sub­tle, can change this for me. For me the Jew­ish reli­gion like all oth­er reli­gions is an incar­na­tion of the most child­ish super­sti­tion. And the Jew­ish peo­ple to whom I glad­ly belong, and whose think­ing I have a deep affin­i­ty for, have no dif­fer­ent qual­i­ty for me than all oth­er peo­ple. As far as my expe­ri­ence goes, they are also no bet­ter than oth­er human groups, although they are pro­tect­ed from the worst can­cers by a lack of pow­er…

You can read a full tran­script at Let­ters of Note, who include the let­ter in their sec­ond vol­ume of fas­ci­nat­ing cor­re­spon­dence from famous fig­ures, More Let­ters of Note. The let­ter went up for auc­tion in May of 2008, and a much more dog­mat­i­cal­ly anti-reli­gious sci­en­tist had a keen inter­est in acquir­ing it: “Unsur­pris­ing­ly,” Let­ters of Note point out, “one of the unsuc­cess­ful bid­ders was Richard Dawkins.”

Relat­ed Con­tent:

“Do Sci­en­tists Pray?”: A Young Girl Asks Albert Ein­stein in 1936. Ein­stein Then Responds

Albert Ein­stein Reads ‘The Com­mon Lan­guage of Sci­ence’ (1941)

Ein­stein for the Mass­es: Yale Presents a Primer on the Great Physicist’s Think­ing

Albert Einstein​ & Sig­mund Freud​ Exchange Let­ters and Debate How to Make the World Free from War (1932)

Free Online Physics Cours­es

50 Famous Aca­d­e­mics & Sci­en­tists Talk About God

Josh Jones is a writer and musi­cian based in Durham, NC. Fol­low him at @jdmagness

Michio Kaku & Brian Green Explain String Theory in a Nutshell: Elegant Explanations of an Elegant Theory

A few years ago, String The­o­ry seemed the prime can­di­date for the “long-sought The­o­ry of Every­thing,” the holy grail of physics that will reveal, writes Jim Holt in The New York­er, “how the uni­verse began and how it will end… in a few ele­gant equa­tions, per­haps con­cise enough to be embla­zoned on a T‑shirt.” Pop­u­lar physi­cist and sci­ence com­mu­ni­ca­tor Bri­an Greene has tout­ed the the­o­ry everywhere—in his book The Ele­gant Uni­verse and PBS series of the same name; in inter­view after inter­view, a World Sci­ence Fes­ti­val forum and TED talk….  Giv­en such evan­ge­lism, you’d think he’d have his ele­va­tor pitch for string the­o­ry down pat. And you’d be right. In an io9 Q&A, he defined it in just 14 words: “It’s an attempt to uni­fy all mat­ter and all forces into one math­e­mat­i­cal tapes­try.”

All of this might make string the­o­ry sound sim­ple to under­stand, even for a lay per­son like myself. But is it? Well, you will find no short­age of primers online in addi­tion to Greene’s exhaus­tive expla­na­tions. There’s even a “String The­o­ry for Dum­mies.” If you’d pre­fer to avoid being insult­ed by the title of that instruc­tion­al series, you can also watch the video above of anoth­er excel­lent pop­u­lar physics com­mu­ni­ca­tor, Michio Kaku, explain­ing string the­o­ry, with help­ful visu­al aids, in four min­utes flat. He quick­ly lays out such essen­tial com­po­nents as the mul­ti­verse, the big bang, worm­holes, and the cheer­ful inevitabil­i­ty of the death of the uni­verse. The short talk is excerpt­ed from Kaku’s Float­ing Uni­ver­si­ty pre­sen­ta­tion “The Uni­verse in a Nut­shell,” which you can watch in full here.

For all of Kaku’s ref­er­ences to Ein­stein and the equa­tions of string the­o­ry, how­ev­er, he doesn’t quite explain to us what those equa­tions are or how and why physi­cists arrived at them, per­haps because they’re writ­ten in a math­e­mat­i­cal lan­guage that might as well come from an alien dimen­sion as far as non-spe­cial­ists are con­cerned. But we can still learn much more about the the­o­ry as lay peo­ple. Above, watch Greene’s short TED talk on string the­o­ry from 2005 for more straight talk on the con­cepts involved. And as for whether the pos­si­bly unfal­si­fi­able the­o­ry is still, ten years lat­er, a can­di­date for the grand­ly uni­fy­ing “The­o­ry of Every­thing,” see his arti­cle from this past Jan­u­ary in the Smith­son­ian mag­a­zine.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Free Online Physics Cours­es, a sub­set of our col­lec­tion, 1,700 Free Online Cours­es from Top Uni­ver­si­ties.

Michio Kaku Explains the Physics Behind Absolute­ly Every­thing

What Is Déjà Vu? Michio Kaku Won­ders If It’s Trig­gered by Par­al­lel Uni­vers­es

The Feyn­man Lec­tures on Physics, The Most Pop­u­lar Physics Book Ever Writ­ten, Now Com­plete­ly Online

Josh Jones is a writer and musi­cian based in Durham, NC. Fol­low him at @jdmagness

Download the Software That Provides Stephen Hawking’s Voice

hawking capitalism future

Cre­ative Com­mons image via NASA

Ah to be pos­sessed of a high­ly dis­tinc­tive voice.

Actress Kather­ine Hep­burn had one.

As did FDR

And not­ed Hol­ly­wood Square Paul Lyn­de…

Physi­cist Stephen Hawk­ing may trump them all, though his famous­ly rec­og­niz­able voice is not organ­ic. The one we all asso­ciate with him has been com­put­er gen­er­at­ed since wors­en­ing Amy­otroph­ic lat­er­al scle­ro­sis, aka Lou Gehrig’s dis­ease, led to a tra­cheoto­my in 1985.

With­out the use of his hands, Hawk­ing con­trols the Assis­tive Con­text-Aware Toolk­it soft­ware with a  sen­sor attached to one of his cheek mus­cles.

Recent­ly, Intel has made the soft­ware and its user guide avail­able for free down­load on the code shar­ing site, Github. It requires a com­put­er run­ning Win­dows XP or above to use, and also a web­cam that will track the visu­al cues of the user’s facial expres­sions.

The mul­ti-user pro­gram allows users to type in MS Word and browse the Inter­net, in addi­tion to assist­ing them to “speak” aloud in Eng­lish.

The soft­ware release is intend­ed to help researchers aid­ing suf­fer­ers of motor neu­ron dis­eases, not pranksters seek­ing to bor­row the famed physicist’s voice for their door­bells and cook­ie jar lids. To that end, the free ver­sion comes with a default voice, not Pro­fes­sor Hawking’s.

Down­load the Assis­tive Con­text-Aware Toolk­it (ACAT) here.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Stephen Hawking’s Big Ideas Explained with Sim­ple Ani­ma­tion

Stephen Hawk­ing Starts Post­ing on Face­book: Join His Quest to Explain What Makes the Uni­verse Exist

Stephen Hawking’s Uni­verse: A Visu­al­iza­tion of His Lec­tures with Stars & Sound

Free Online Physics Cours­es

Ayun Hal­l­i­day is an author, illus­tra­tor, and Chief Pri­ma­tol­o­gist of the East Vil­lage Inky zine. Her play, Fawn­book, is cur­rent­ly play­ing in New York City. Fol­low her @AyunHalliday

Gravity Visualized by High School Teacher in an Amazingly Elegant & Simple Way

Just a few miles down the high­way from Open Cul­ture’s gleam­ing head­quar­ters you will find Los Gatos High School, where Dan Burns, an AP Physics Teacher, has fig­ured out a sim­ple but clever way to visu­al­ize grav­i­ty, as it was explained by Ein­stein’s 1915 Gen­er­al The­o­ry of Rel­a­tiv­i­ty. Get $20 of span­dex, some mar­bles, a cou­ple of weights, and you’re all good to go. Using these read­i­ly-avail­able objects, you can demon­strate how mat­ter warps space-time, how objects grav­i­tate towards one anoth­er, and why objects orbit in the way they do. My favorite part comes at the 2:15 mark, where Burns demon­strates the answer to a ques­tion you’ve maybe pon­dered before: why do all plan­ets hap­pen to orbit the sun mov­ing in a clock­wise (rather than counter-clock­wise) fash­ion? Now you can find out why.

If you would like to sup­port the mis­sion of Open Cul­ture, con­sid­er mak­ing a dona­tion to our site. It’s hard to rely 100% on ads, and your con­tri­bu­tions will help us con­tin­ue pro­vid­ing the best free cul­tur­al and edu­ca­tion­al mate­ri­als to learn­ers every­where. You can con­tribute through Pay­Pal, Patre­on, and Ven­mo (@openculture). Thanks!

via Coudal

Relat­ed Con­tent

Free Online Physics Cours­es

The Feyn­man Lec­tures on Physics, The Most Pop­u­lar Physics Book Ever Writ­ten, Now Com­plete­ly Online

Bertrand Russell’s ABC of Rel­a­tiv­i­ty: The Clas­sic Intro­duc­tion to Ein­stein (Free Audio)

Free Physics Text­books

by | Permalink | Make a Comment ( 5 ) |

See Galileo’s Famous Gravity Experiment Performed in the World’s Largest Vacuum Chamber, and on the Moon

It is one of the most famous exper­i­ments in all of sci­ence his­to­ry, but there’s sig­nif­i­cant doubt about whether it actu­al­ly took place. Did Galileo drop objects of dif­fer­ing mass from the Lean­ing Tow­er of Pisa in 1589 to demon­strate the the­o­ries pro­posed in his unpub­lished text De motu (“Of Motion”)? Rice University’s Galileo Project notes that schol­ars have long thought Galileo’s ref­er­ences to exper­i­ments he con­duct­ed “were only rhetor­i­cal devices.” As PBS’s NOVA writes, “it’s the kind of sto­ry that’s easy to imag­ine, easy to remem­ber, but whether he ever per­formed the exper­i­ment at the tow­er is debat­able.” That’s not to say Galileo didn’t test any of his ideas while he taught at the Uni­ver­si­ty of Pisa dur­ing 1589 and 1592, only that his most famous the­o­ry about the effects of grav­i­ty on free-falling objects rests main­ly on a con­cep­tu­al thought exper­i­ment.

In fact, it would have been impos­si­ble for Galileo to ful­ly demon­strate his the­o­ry because of the effects of air resis­tance. Sub­tract the atmos­phere, how­ev­er, and we can eas­i­ly con­firm Galileo’s hypoth­e­sis that any two objects, regard­less of weight, shape, or mate­r­i­al of com­po­si­tion, will fall at exact­ly the same rate when dropped. One of the most mem­o­rable times this exper­i­ment did take place was not in Italy or any­where else on earth, but on the Moon, when astro­naut David Scott, com­man­der of the Apol­lo 15 mis­sion, dropped a geo­log­ic ham­mer and a falcon’s feath­er at the same time in 1971 (above).

As cool as Com­man­der Scott’s exper­i­ment is, it’s still not as dra­mat­ic as the ver­sion of the exper­i­ment at the top of the post, con­duct­ed at NASA’s Space Pow­er Facil­i­ty in Ohio in the world’s largest vac­u­um cham­ber. A great deal of the dra­ma comes cour­tesy of physi­cist Bri­an Cox, who presents the exper­i­ment for BBC Two’s Human Uni­verse, explain­ing the his­to­ry and con­struc­tion of the vac­u­um cham­ber, which sim­u­lates the con­di­tions of out­er space. Then we’ve got the mul­ti­ple cam­era angles and dra­mat­ic music… typ­i­cal TV show stuff, effec­tive nonethe­less at set­ting us up for the big drop. Even though we “know how the exper­i­ment will end,” points out io9, and may have seen it per­formed before—on the Moon even—this demon­stra­tion is some­thing spe­cial.

First, we get an anti­cli­mac­tic drop of the objects—a bowl­ing ball and a feather—while the cham­ber is still full of air. As expect­ed, the ball plum­mets, the feath­ers gen­tly drift. Then, in a sequence right out of a sci-fi film, engi­neers seal off the enor­mous cham­ber, and the three-hour removal of air is tele­scoped into a few sec­ond mon­tage of push­ings of but­tons and mum­blings into inter­coms. What hap­pens next will… well, you know the click­bait ver­biage. But it cer­tain­ly sur­pris­es Cox and a room­ful of NASA engi­neers. Cox goes on to explain, using Einstein’s the­o­ry of gen­er­al rel­a­tiv­i­ty, that the rea­son the objects fall at the same rate is “because they’re not falling; they’re stand­ing still.” The sci­ence may be com­mon knowl­edge, but see­ing it in action is indeed pret­ty mind blow­ing.

Relat­ed Con­tent:  

An Ani­mat­ed His­to­ry of Physics Intro­duces the Dis­cov­er­ies of Galileo, New­ton, Maxwell & Ein­stein

Galileo’s Moon Draw­ings, the First Real­is­tic Depic­tions of the Moon in His­to­ry (1609–1610)

Bohemi­an Grav­i­ty: String The­o­ry Explored With an A Cap­pel­la Ver­sion of Bohemi­an Rhap­sody

Free Online Physics Cours­es

Josh Jones is a writer and musi­cian based in Durham, NC. Fol­low him at @jdmagness

What Is Déjà Vu? Michio Kaku Wonders If It’s Triggered by Parallel Universes

I’ve spent the past week on a road trip across Amer­i­ca, and, dur­ing it, expe­ri­enced per­haps my most intense case of déjà vu ever. Rolling into Mem­phis for the first time in my life, I walked into the lob­by of the hotel at which I’d reserved a room for the night and imme­di­ate­ly felt, in every fiber of my being, that I’d walked into that lob­by before. But I then real­ized exact­ly why: it fol­lowed the same floor plan, to the last detail — the same front desk, the same busi­ness cen­ter com­put­ers, the same café with the same chalk­board ask­ing me to “Try Our Clas­sic Oat­meal” — of the one I’d vis­it­ed the pre­vi­ous day in Okla­homa City.

Should we chalk this up to gener­ic Amer­i­can place­mak­ing at its most effi­cient, or can we find a more inter­est­ing psy­cho­log­i­cal phe­nom­e­non at work? Michio Kaku, though best known for his work with physics, has some ideas of his own about what we expe­ri­ence when we expe­ri­ence déjà vu. “There is a the­o­ry,” says Kaku in the Big Think video above,“that déjà vu sim­ply elic­its frag­ments of mem­o­ries that we have stored in our brain, mem­o­ries that can be elicit­ed by mov­ing into an envi­ron­ment that resem­bles some­thing that we’ve already expe­ri­enced.”

But wait! “Is it ever pos­si­ble on any scale,” he then tan­ta­liz­ing­ly asks, “to per­haps flip between dif­fer­ent uni­vers­es?” And does déjà vu tell us any­thing about our posi­tion in those uni­vers­es, giv­ing us signs of the oth­ers even as we reside in just one? Kaku quotes an anal­o­gy first made by physi­cist Steven Wein­berg which frames the notion of a “mul­ti­verse” in terms of our vibrat­ing atoms and the fre­quen­cy of a radio’s sig­nal: “If you’re inside your liv­ing room lis­ten­ing to BBC radio, that radio is tuned to one fre­quen­cy. But in your liv­ing room there are all fre­quen­cies: radio Cuba, radio Moscow, the Top 40 rock sta­tions. All these radio fre­quen­cies are vibrat­ing inside your liv­ing room, but your radio is only tuned to one fre­quen­cy.” And some­times, for what­ev­er rea­son, we hear two sig­nals on our radio at once.

Giv­en that, then, maybe we feel déjà vu when the atoms of which we con­sist “no longer vibrate in uni­son with these oth­er uni­vers­es,” when “we have decou­pled from them, we have deco­hered from them.” It may relieve you to know there won’t be an exam on all this. While Kaku ulti­mate­ly grants that “déjà vu is prob­a­bly sim­ply a frag­ment of our brain elic­it­ing mem­o­ries and frag­ments of pre­vi­ous sit­u­a­tions,” you may get a kick out of putting his mul­ti­verse idea in con­text with some more tra­di­tion­al expla­na­tions, such as the ones writ­ten about in venues no less depend­able than Sci­en­tif­ic Amer­i­can and Smith­son­ian. But in any case, I beg you, Mar­riott Court­yard hotels: change up your designs once in a while.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Philip K. Dick The­o­rizes The Matrix in 1977, Declares That We Live in “A Com­put­er-Pro­grammed Real­i­ty”

Free Online Physics Cours­es

Michio Kaku Explains the Physics Behind Absolute­ly Every­thing

Michio Kaku: We’re Born Sci­en­tists But Switch to Invest­ment Bank­ing (and More Cul­ture Around the Web)

Michio Kaku Schools a Moon Land­ing-Con­spir­a­cy Believ­er on His Sci­ence Fan­tas­tic Pod­cast

Col­in Mar­shall writes else­where on cities, lan­guage, Asia, and men’s style. He’s at work on a book about Los Ange­les, A Los Ange­les Primer, the video series The City in Cin­e­maand the crowd­fund­ed jour­nal­ism project Where Is the City of the Future? Fol­low him on Twit­ter at @colinmarshall or on Face­book.

Adam Savage’s Animated Lesson on the Simple Ideas That Lead to Great Scientific Discoveries

Edu­ca­tor, indus­tri­al design fab­ri­ca­tor and Myth Busters cohost Adam Sav­age is dri­ven by curios­i­ty.

Sci­ence gets his wheels turn­ing faster than the notched disc Hip­poly­te Fizeau used to mea­sure the speed of light in 1849.

In his TED-Ed talk on how sim­ple ideas lead to sci­en­tif­ic dis­cov­er­ies, above, Sav­age zips across the cen­turies to share the work of three game chang­ers — Fizeau, Eratos­thenes, and Richard Feyn­man (one of the de fac­to patron saints of sci­ence-relat­ed TED talks).

I found it dif­fi­cult to wrap my head around the sheer quan­ti­ties of infor­ma­tion Sav­age shoe­horns into the sev­en minute video, giv­ing sim­i­lar­ly vol­u­ble and omniv­o­rous math­mu­si­cian Vi Hart a run for her mon­ey. Clear­ly, he under­stands exact­ly what he’s talk­ing about, where­as I had to take the review quiz in an attempt to retain just a bit of this new-to-me mate­r­i­al.

I’m glad he glossed over Feynman’s child­hood fas­ci­na­tion with iner­tia in order to spend more time on the less­er known of his three sub­jects. Lit­tle Feynman’s obser­va­tion of his toy wag­on is charm­ing, but the Nobel Prize winner’s life became an open book to me with Jim Otta­viani and Leland Myrick’s excel­lent graph­ic biog­ra­phy. What’s left to dis­cov­er?

How about Eratos­thenes? I’d nev­er before heard of the Alexan­dri­an librar­i­an who cal­cu­lat­ed the Earth­’s cir­cum­fer­ence with aston­ish­ing accu­ra­cy around 200 BC. (It helped that he was good at math and geog­ra­phy, the lat­ter of which he invent­ed.) Inspi­ra­tion fuels the arts, much as it does sci­ence, and I’d like to learn more about him.

Dit­to Fizeau, whom Sav­age describes as a less sexy sci­en­tif­ic swash­buck­ler than method­i­cal fact check­er, which is what he was doing when he wound up crack­ing the speed of light in 1849. Two cen­turies ear­li­er Galileo used lanterns to deter­mine that light trav­els at least ten times faster than sound. Fizeau put Galileo’s num­ber to the test, exper­i­ment­ing with his notched wheel, a can­dle, and mir­rors and ulti­mate­ly set­ting the speed of light at a much more accu­rate 313,300 Km/s. Today’s mea­sure­ment of 299792.458 km/s was arrived at using tech­nol­o­gy unthink­able even a few decades ago.

Per­son­al­ly, I would nev­er think to mea­sure the speed of light with some­thing that sounds like a zoetrope, but I might write a play about some­one who did.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Neil deGrasse Tyson Deliv­ers the Great­est Sci­ence Ser­mon Ever

The Feyn­man Lec­tures on Physics, The Most Pop­u­lar Physics Book Ever Writ­ten, Now Com­plete­ly Online

Sam Har­ris: Sci­ence Can Answer Moral Ques­tions

Ayun Hal­l­i­day is an author, illus­tra­tor, and Chief Pri­ma­tol­o­gist of the East Vil­lage Inky zine. Her play, Fawn­book, opens in New York City lat­er this fall. Fol­low her @AyunHalliday

The Drawings & Paintings of Richard Feynman: Art Expresses a Dramatic “Feeling of Awe”

feynman-art 1

I first encoun­tered bon­go-play­ing physi­cist Richard Feyn­man in a col­lege com­po­si­tion class geared toward sci­ence majors. I was not, mind you, a sci­ence major, but a dis­or­ga­nized sopho­more who reg­is­tered late and grabbed the last avail­able seat in a required writ­ing course. Skep­ti­cal, I thumbed through the read­ing in the col­lege book­store. As I browsed Sure­ly You’re Jok­ing, Mr. Feyn­man!—the first of many pop­u­lar mem­oirs released by the affa­ble con­trar­i­an scientist—the human­ist in me perked up. Here was a guy who knew how to write; a the­o­ret­i­cal physi­cist who spoke the lan­guage of every­day peo­ple.

feynmanart 3

Feyn­man cul­ti­vat­ed his pop­ulist per­sona to appeal to those who might be oth­er­wise turned off by abstract, abstruse sci­en­tif­ic con­cepts. Like Carl Sagan and Neil deGrasse Tyson, his name has come to stand for the best exam­ples of pop­u­lar sci­ence com­mu­ni­ca­tion. It is often through one of Feynman’s acces­si­ble, non-spe­cial­ist books or pre­sen­ta­tions that peo­ple learn of his work with the Man­hat­tan project, his con­tri­bu­tions to quan­tum mechan­ics, and his Nobel Prize. But Feynman’s extracur­ric­u­lar pursuits—from safe-crack­ing to drum­ming to exper­i­ment­ing with LSD—were also gen­uine expres­sions of his idio­syn­crat­ic char­ac­ter, as was anoth­er of his pas­sions for which he is not very well known: art.

feynmanart282

Feyn­man took up the pur­suit at the age of 44, and con­tin­ued to draw and paint for the rest of his life, sign­ing his work “Ofey.” Many of his draw­ings dis­play the awk­ward, off-kil­ter per­spec­tive of the begin­ner, and a great many oth­ers look very accom­plished indeed. In an intro­duc­to­ry essay to a pub­lished col­lec­tion of his art­work, Feyn­man describes what moti­vat­ed him to take up this par­tic­u­lar avo­ca­tion:

I want­ed very much to learn to draw, for a rea­son that I kept to myself: I want­ed to con­vey an emo­tion I have about the beau­ty of the world. It’s dif­fi­cult to describe because it’s an emo­tion. It’s anal­o­gous to the feel­ing one has in reli­gion that has to do with a god that con­trols every­thing in the uni­verse: there’s a gen­er­al­i­ty aspect that you feel when you think about how things that appear so dif­fer­ent and behave so dif­fer­ent­ly are all run ‘behind the scenes’ by the same orga­ni­za­tion, the same phys­i­cal laws. It’s an appre­ci­a­tion of the math­e­mat­i­cal beau­ty of nature, of how she works inside; a real­iza­tion that the phe­nom­e­na we see result from the com­plex­i­ty of the inner work­ings between atoms; a feel­ing of how dra­mat­ic and won­der­ful it is. It’s  — of sci­en­tif­ic awe — which I felt could be com­mu­ni­cat­ed through a draw­ing to some­one who had also had that emo­tion. I could remind him, for a moment, of this feel­ing about the glo­ries of the uni­verse.

As you can see above, he took his work seri­ous­ly. Most of his draw­ings con­sist of por­traits and nudes, with the occa­sion­al land­scape or still life. You can see more exten­sive gal­leries of Feynman’s art at Amus­ing­Plan­etMuse­um Syn­di­cate and Brain Pick­ings.

feynmanart102

Feynman’s preoccupation—and full immersion—in the rela­tion­ship between the arts and sci­ences marks him as a Renais­sance man in per­haps the purest def­i­n­i­tion of the term: his approach close­ly resem­bles that of Leonar­do da Vin­ci, a like­ness that comes to the fore in the work below, which is either a col­lec­tion of sketch­es doo­dled over with for­mu­lae, or a col­lec­tion of for­mu­lae cov­ered with doo­dles. Either way, it’s a per­fect rep­re­sen­ta­tion of the vision­ary mind of Feyn­man and his regard for ordi­nary lan­guage, peo­ple, and objects—and for “sci­en­tif­ic awe.”

feynmanart 4

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Free Online Physics Cours­es

The Feyn­man Lec­tures on Physics, The Most Pop­u­lar Physics Book Ever Writ­ten, Now Com­plete­ly Online

Richard Feynman’s Let­ter to His Depart­ed Wife: “You, Dead, Are So Much Bet­ter Than Any­one Else Alive” (1946)

Learn How Richard Feyn­man Cracked the Safes with Atom­ic Secrets at Los Alam­os

‘The Char­ac­ter of Phys­i­cal Law’: Richard Feynman’s Leg­endary Course Pre­sent­ed at Cor­nell, 1964

Josh Jones is a writer and musi­cian based in Durham, NC. Fol­low him at @jdmagness

« Go BackMore in this category... »
Quantcast