Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Feynman Lectures Released Free Online

samzenpus posted about three weeks ago | from the watch-and-learn dept.

Education 70

Anna Merikin writes In 1964, Richard Feynman delivered a series of seven hour-long lectures at Cornell University which were recorded by the BBC, and in 2009 (with a little help from Bill Gates), were released to the public. The three-volume set may be the most popular collection of physics books ever written, and now the complete online edition has been made available in HTML 5 through a collaboration between Caltech (where Feyman first delivered these talks, in the early 1960s) and The Feynman Lectures Website. The online edition is "high quality up-to-date copy of Feynman's legendary lectures," and, thanks to the implementation of scalable vector graphics, "has been designed for ease of reading on devices of any size or shape; text, figures and equations can all be zoomed without degradation." Volume I deals mainly with mechanics, radiation and heat; Volume II with electromagnetism and matter; and Volume III with quantum mechanics. Last year we told you when Volume I was made available. It's great to see the rest added.

cancel ×

70 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Ahhh (3, Insightful)

mdsolar (1045926) | about three weeks ago | (#47795471)

Feynman....

He dead (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47795477)

He dead.

Re:He dead (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47795493)

He's dead, Jim.

Fixed that for you.

Re:He dead (1)

Barsteward (969998) | about three weeks ago | (#47796993)

but not as we know it

Re:He dead (1)

Alain Williams (2972) | about three weeks ago | (#47795545)

As will all of us be - sooner or later

Re:He dead (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about three weeks ago | (#47795989)

-I think you mean "he died."
-No, first he died. Now he dead.

Feynman was a good physicist (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47795523)

Top 20-25 percent, easily

Feynman was overrated (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47795665)

and physics is living in the past, rather than innovating.

Re:Feynman was overrated (4, Funny)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about three weeks ago | (#47795793)

and physics is living in the past, rather than innovating.

That's right. To be really innovative, you need to create a new physics. Or math.

Go right ahead.

Re:Feynman was overrated (5, Informative)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about three weeks ago | (#47795991)

That's right. To be really innovative, you need to create a new physics. Or math.

With QED and Feynman Diagrams, that is pretty much what Richard Feynman did.

Re:Feynman was overrated (1)

hwk_br (570932) | about three weeks ago | (#47801887)

And the equations for liquid helium! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P... [wikipedia.org]

Re:Feynman was overrated (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47795807)

and physics is living in the past, rather than innovating.

Don't mistake the String Theory religion and everything connected to it for science. It isn't.
As for innovation, maybe you're thinking about engineering ?
Physics and Mathematics innovate constantly, a layman just doesn't see it.

Re:Feynman was overrated (4, Interesting)

iluvcapra (782887) | about three weeks ago | (#47798017)

Don't mistake the String Theory religion and everything connected to it for science. It isn't.

Notwithstanding the numerous theoretical physicists that devote their time to it. And the fact that America's most prominent theoretical physicist [briangreene.org] is a string theorist. What a mess.

There's no question that theoretical physics has certainly declined in terms of its practical output since World War II, but that's understandable -- the death of 100K Japanese and the nihilistic horror of a thermonuclear war is a hard act to follow up :) On the other hand, there's definitely some force to the argument that theoretical physics has kinda lost its way because the Philosophy of Science hasn't managed to keep pace. Something that really comes through with Feynman's lectures is that he has a really solid metaphysical, experiential grounding for what he's explaining, like Einstein did. He's thought through everything he's explaining from the basic foundations and takes little for granted, and he's explicit about the things he does take for granted and he understands the limits of his arguments.

Feynman was famous for saying that, if you couldn't explain something to a freshman lecture, it wasn't understood and you probably didn't understand it yourself. If you go up on Hulu and watch Brian Greene's NOVA three-parter on String Theory, it's atrocious -- it's like hearing a Catholic priest explain the nature of Holy Spirit. He doesn't get it -- he exemplifies the unfortunate trend in modern theoretical physics, that if you don't have the answer you want, you haven't done enough Lagrangians.

Re:Feynman was overrated (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47800185)

your comment contains strangeness at the expense of charm: you discuss with regard to physics its force and momentum, and you go on to question mass, but neither in a Newtonian nor Einsteinian sense.

Re:Feynman was overrated (1)

iluvcapra (782887) | about three weeks ago | (#47801461)

Tom Lehrer, is that you?

Re:Feynman was overrated (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47795913)

and you are a poor troll.

Skeptic (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47795525)

Feynman was a Skeptic.

Re:Skeptic (5, Funny)

davester666 (731373) | about three weeks ago | (#47795631)

He wasn't sure he was a physicist?

Re:Skeptic (3, Insightful)

jandersen (462034) | about three weeks ago | (#47798383)

Feynman was a Skeptic.

I'm not sure what your point it, but as far as I know ALL scientists are skeptics; that's why they keep probing the edges of their chosen discipline all the time, in order to improve their theories.

What real scientists are not is closed-minded deniers of any and all facts they don't like, like in 'climate-skeptic' or 'evolution-skeptic', and I suspect you are trying to imply that Feynman is a 'skeptic' like that. Knowing his work, I doubt it.

Surely You're Joking online (4, Funny)

mdsolar (1045926) | about three weeks ago | (#47795527)

I thought about how much paperwork I usually had to get involved with when I deal with the government, so I laughed and said, "I'll be glad to give the talk. There's only one condition on the whole thing"--I pulled a number out of a hat and continued--"that I don't have to sign my name more than thirteen times, and that includes the check!" http://www.chem.fsu.edu/chemla... [fsu.edu]

Silverlight (3, Interesting)

EmperorOfCanada (1332175) | about three weeks ago | (#47795567)

When these were first released they were silverlight only. I wanted to watch them but there was a zero percent chance I would use silverlight. It is wonderful that these are now available for all the sensible people who don't drink the microsoft koolaid.

Silverlight (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47800473)

Yep. Bill Gates philantropically used them as a way to try and get geeks to install Silverlight.

As an ambassador for silverlight? They were awful. You could only see them in postage stamp size in the middle of a huge distracting web page.

Dated ... (1)

noshellswill (598066) | about three weeks ago | (#47795581)

Feynmans  smarmy "physicalist" arguments are SOOOOO 1950 that you just wanna gag. NO! A single atom cannot do all the things a chaotic self-structuring complex of atoms can do. Not even close.  Feynman had not the concept of "emergent" phenomena ... had  evidently never read Prigogine or Godel. Too damn busy just calculating.

Re:Dated ... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47795629)

arguments are SOOOOO 1950 that you just wanna gag.

So are fixed pitch fonts.

Re:Dated ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47795711)

Stop with the down-mods. Try addressing parent's points. I for one am curious about the atom-vs-complex-of-atoms point. Is there a place I can read more about it? By the way, I.Am.Not.The.Parent, nor Keith Olbermann.

Re:Dated ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47795889)

Read Chaos, by Edward Lorentz; Perspectives of Non-linear Dynamics, by Jackson (if you're mathematically literate); Godel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid, by Douglas Hofstadter for a start. There's another good reference too, but I've forgotten it for the time being.

Re:Dated ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47796021)

Roger Penrose's The Emperor's New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds, and The Laws of Physics, Shadows of the Mind: A Search for the Missing Science of Consciousness, The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe and Cycles of Time: An Extraordinary New View of the Universe.

Re:Dated ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47796207)

Thank you, both.

Re:Dated ... (1)

CaptainDork (3678879) | about three weeks ago | (#47796605)

You didn't have the sense god gave a pissant to find those for yourself, so good luck in understanding them.

Re:Dated ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47799699)

And thank you, CaptainDork. Some suggested reading for you [merriam-webster.com] .

By the way, so far no one has addressed my original request. Firing off a list of books is useless...but at least I was polite in my response.

I've read Roger Penrose enough to realize this guy is miles off track. Tomb writer. Battleship sinking stuff. Heavy. Dead. As old and stagnant as physics gets.

I don't see how "Godel, Escher, Bach" relates to anything discussed in this sub-thread.

Recall I was looking for an elaboration of the "atom-vs-complex-of-atoms point" of the original poster.

Lorentz's "Chaos", an astrophysics book, relates to atoms vs a complex-of-atoms...how exactly?

So, reply fail, and point made. Physics is stale, and dead.

People who study physics are as close minded and blinkered as Boxer the horse. But quick with the downmods.

Re:Dated ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47795789)

Feynmans smarmy "physicalist" arguments are SOOOOO 1950 that you just wanna gag. NO! A single atom cannot do all the things a chaotic self-structuring complex of atoms can do. Not even close. Feynman had not the concept of "emergent" phenomena ... had evidently never read Prigogine or Godel. Too damn busy just calculating.

Of course science advances, and Feynman couldn't have known about the accelerated expansion of universe or nanocarbon materials etc... That doesn't minimize at all his physical hand-waving arguments. Good/Great physicists know how to use order of magnitude arguments. Feynman was one of them, another one was Fermi.

misleading (4, Informative)

tloh (451585) | about three weeks ago | (#47795583)

The videos of Feynman speaking at Cornell that Gates acquired and released are NOT the more popularly known "Feynman Lectures on Physics". It was part of the Messanger Lectures series where Feynman was a guest at his alma mater. Entitled "The Character of Physical Law", they are lesser known, but more accessible to someone who isn't intent upon a complete college lecture course.

Re:misleading (5, Informative)

CopaceticOpus (965603) | about three weeks ago | (#47795651)

I found a simple but terrific site, richard-feynman.net, which has compiled links to Richard Feynman videos [richard-feynman.net] . This includes the series "The Character of Physical Law."

Re:misleading (3, Informative)

tomhath (637240) | about three weeks ago | (#47795925)

Feynman taught at Cornell for a few years after WWII before moving to CalTech. His alma maters were MIT and Princeton.

Re:misleading (1)

tloh (451585) | about three weeks ago | (#47797301)

I stand corrected. I remembered most vividly reading that Paul Dirac was somewhat of a mentor figure for the young Feynman at Cornell. But I'd somehow forgotten he was no longer a student at that point.

A lot of good his science did for him (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47795655)

Pray, sinnners, pray. It is your choice, heaven or hell.

A lot of good his science did for him (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47795755)

I'll have whichever one doesn't have you.

Re:A lot of good his science did for him (2)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about three weeks ago | (#47795803)

I'll have whichever one doesn't have you.

The problem is that sanctimonious twits are going to be found everywhere. Best way forward is to be reincarnated as a flatworm.

From the preface (5, Interesting)

CopaceticOpus (965603) | about three weeks ago | (#47795661)

I was reading about the project to put these lectures online. It's amazing how well these lectures have held up over time.

This excerpt from History of Errata [caltech.edu] is quite enjoyable:

It is remarkable that among the 1165 errata corrected under my auspices, only several do I regard as true errors in physics. An example is Volume II, page 5-9, which now says “no static distribution of charges inside a closed grounded conductor can produce any [electric] fields outside” (the word grounded was omitted in previous editions). This error was pointed out to Feynman by a number of readers, including Beulah Elizabeth Cox, a student at The College of William and Mary, who had relied on Feynman's erroneous passage in an exam. To Ms. Cox, Feynman wrote in 1975,3 “Your instructor was right not to give you any points, for your answer was wrong, as he demonstrated using Gauss's law. You should, in science, believe logic and arguments, carefully drawn, and not authorities. You also read the book correctly and understood it. I made a mistake, so the book is wrong. I probably was thinking of a grounded conducting sphere, or else of the fact that moving the charges around in different places inside does not affect things on the outside. I am not sure how I did it, but I goofed. And you goofed, too, for believing me.”

What did Feynman think of later for E & M? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47795725)

Does anyone know what Feynman was referring to in this interview which appears at the beginning of The Feynman Tips on Physics? Note that he is referring to something that did not appear in the Feynman lectures.

> I didn't like to do the second year, because I didn't think I had
> great ideas about how to present the second year. I felt that I
> didn't have a good idea on how to do lectures on electrodynamics.
> But, you see, in these challenges that had existed before about
> lectures, they had challenged me to explain relativity, challenged me
> to explain quantum mechanics, challenged me to explain the relation of
> mathematics to physics, the conservation of energy. I answered every
> challenge. But there was one challenge which nobody asked, which I
> had set myself, because I didn't know how to do it. I've never
> succeeded yet. Now I think I know how to do it. I haven't done it,
> but I'll do it someday. And that is this: How would you explain
> Maxwell's equations? How would you explain the laws of electricity
> and magnetism to a layman, almost a layman, a very intelligent person,
> in an hour lecture? How do you do it? I've never solved it. Okay,
> so give me two hours of lecture. But it should be done in an hour of
> lecture, somehow -- or two hours.
>
> **Anyhow I've now cooked up a much better way of presenting the electrodynamics, a much more original and much more powerful way than
> is in the book.** But at that time I had no new way, and I complained
> that I had nothing extra to contribute for myself. But they said, "Do
> it anyway," and they talked me into it, so I did.

Did this approach to teaching electrodynamics appear in any of his later writing?

Re:What did Feynman think of later for E & M? (1)

slew (2918) | about three weeks ago | (#47798777)

Don't know of such a writing, but perhaps he came up with a clever way to teach classical electrodynamics in a way that mirrors his electron-to-electron time-symmetric approach to QED (i.e., Wheeler/Feynman absorber theory). I mean in a way that is clever enough to think you might actually understand it w/o actually understanding it (which is sadly often a problem with Feynman lectures)... Path integrals and Feynman diagrams for classical electrodynamics? I shutter at the thought of that in sophomore-level physics...

Re:What did Feynman think of later for E & M? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47799367)

two clues: Feynman's proof of the Maxwell equations http://signallake.com/innovation/DysonMaxwell041989.pdf (google feynman maxwell's equations for more) Using some basic assumptions he derives two Maxwell Equations.

2. Based on something I read somewhere, reference lost in time: Conventional courses in E & M are based on E and B, whereas the scaler and vector potentials, phi and A, might be more fundamental, based on some clues from quantum mechanics, such as Aharonov-Bohm effect. Probably a way to unify concepts with Q.E.D.

So cool... (1)

guygo (894298) | about three weeks ago | (#47795835)

total gold. and for free. most excellent.

Re:So cool... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47795917)

I wouldn't call it free if you're not allowed to download it... more like available for now. This is what I hate about copyright... stuff that came out half a century ago is still probably protected 50 years from now when no one will miss it or the originals were "misplaced" and all you have is new "interpretations" which are original works of their own (separately copyrighted). It's even shittier with songs where you can't find notes or lyrics for stuff from the 1930s because the guy who made them died in 1960s so the protection is still valid a couple of decades. FUUUUCK! You can keep your lectures.

Re:So cool... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47796703)

I wouldn't call it free if you're not allowed to download it... more like available for now. This is what I hate about copyright... stuff that came out half a century ago is still probably protected 50 years from now when no one will miss it or the originals were "misplaced" and all you have is new "interpretations" which are original works of their own (separately copyrighted). It's even shittier with songs where you can't find notes or lyrics for stuff from the 1930s because the guy who made them died in 1960s so the protection is still valid a couple of decades. FUUUUCK! You can keep your lectures.

I go by my own rule: If I can download it, it's mine. If you didn't want me to have it, you shouldn't have put it online.

Re:So cool... (1)

Jason Goatcher (3498937) | about three weeks ago | (#47796761)

Be sure to waggle your hand in a hang loose gesture when you say that. It'll be totally tubular, dude.

Cornell Lectures were not "Lectures in Physics" (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47795847)

The Cornell lectures, which were made available by Bill Gates using Silverlight, are the basis for Feynman's book "The Character of Physical Law".

These are *not* the Feynman Lectures in Physics, which were based on the freshman Physics class Feynman taught at Cal Tech in 1962-64.

It is the Cal Tech lectures that are available free on-line. There is also an iPad app that has multimedia for some of the lectures -- the 6 Easy Pieces part.

Finally (1)

Mister Liberty (769145) | about three weeks ago | (#47795849)

We'll learn what all this modern quantum stuff is all about.

Re:Finally (1)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | about three weeks ago | (#47796241)

Great. Now learn what the term modern [merriam-webster.com] means.

Free to read online but not to download (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47795861)

How do I do that? What does it even mean? First, and obviously, I need to download the information for my computer to display it on the screen; but assuming they're okay with that, do I need to clear out my browser cache after reading? And why do they have this obsession with preventing me from reading the lectures while in an area where I have no connectivity? At home you can read the lectures, fine; offline in a cave (or even at home during a power cut) - no Lectures for you!

Oh well. I guess I'll just have to stick with the set of big hardbacks in the bookcase in the corner....

Free to read online but not to download (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47795941)

It's so enemies of USA currently bombarded can not use the time well in the caves. :)

Re:Free to read online but not to download (1)

Jason Goatcher (3498937) | about three weeks ago | (#47796783)

If somebody fixes that with Wifi and cellular, are they an enemy of the State? And why do they call us a State, did someone use a term they were only supposed to use in private, away from the rabble?

Cornell Lectures are not Cal Tech Lectures. (3, Informative)

geo3rge (937616) | about three weeks ago | (#47795899)

The Cornell lectures, which were made available by Bill Gates using Silverlight, are the basis for Feynman's book "The Character of Physical Law". They are referred to as the Messenger Lectures, and are intended for a general audience -- basically anyone at college level (or college level in 1964). I think that they should be required reading by everyone.

These lectures are currently available in various formats on YouTube, as wells the site sponsored by Bill Gates.

These are *not* the Feynman Lectures in Physics, which were based on the freshman Physics class Feynman taught at Cal Tech in 1962-64. This is the famous three volume work, which has usually been published in red covers.

It is the Cal Tech lectures that are available free on-line. There is also an iPad app that has multimedia for some of the lectures -- the 6 Easy Pieces part.

The Feynman Lectures in Physics was the result of CalTech's reform of the teaching of Physics. The books are taken from audio tapes (and photos) of Feynman teaching the two year course from 1962-1964. Other than the parts extracted as the "Six Easy Pieces", they are intended for physics majors (and engineers, mathematicians, etc.). Although some parts are dated, the main reason for reading these books after 50+ years is the quality of Feynman's explanations. They are models of clarity.

don't they understand the Internet? (1)

rknop (240417) | about three weeks ago | (#47796055)

The front-page warning says "However, we want to be clear that this edition is only free to read online, and this posting does not transfer any right to download all or any portion of The Feynman Lectures on Physics for any purpose. "

I wonder how they expect people to read it in their browsers without the text of the document being transferred down to the computer on which the browser is running...?

Re:don't they understand the Internet? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47796359)

Wow, you're so clever.

Re:don't they understand the Internet? (1)

c0d3g33k (102699) | about three weeks ago | (#47796571)

The front-page warning says "However, we want to be clear that this edition is only free to read online, and this posting does not transfer any right to download all or any portion of The Feynman Lectures on Physics for any purpose. "

I wonder how they expect people to read it in their browsers without the text of the document being transferred down to the computer on which the browser is running...?

Not to mention the implied requirement that an always online connection is required to read these 'free' editions, rather than being able to read from a local copy offline.

Yes, yes, we all know that in the modern day everyone has an internet connection to the cloud all the time, so this is an old-fashioned sentiment. Or wait - maybe it isn't so old-fashioned. It's still quite common that in situations where there is enough idle time to read something like this (on a plane, train, boat or automobile; in a remote vacation cabin in the woods etc) there isn't an internet connection available. Not to mention the times I deliberately set my tablet to airplane mode just so I can read a book or magazine without being distracted by notifications or tempted to look at something else online.

I'd also think that these lectures would be quite useful to those in poorer countries that don't have the funds to have an always on internet connection available personally at home, but might have access to a library or other venue where a public internet connection is available.

I appreciate their graciousness in making these lectures available gratis, but that front page warning does seem to be a bit counter to the spirit that probably drove this effort.

Personally, after glancing through some of the chapters in the first volume, I think that maybe releasing the material under whatever Creative Commons license allows them to retain the rights they want but enables people to share and contribute updates might be preferable in the long run. I'm thinking not so much of the text itself, but many of the figures seem rather outdated (eg. a poor photograph of some old ball-and-stick atomic models) and could benefit from some cosmetic updating to make them more suitable for modern eyes.

Re:don't they understand the Internet? (0)

CaptainDork (3678879) | about three weeks ago | (#47796645)

Perhaps your online time would be better spent by actually reading the stuff than bitching about it.

Re:don't they understand the Internet? (1)

c0d3g33k (102699) | about three weeks ago | (#47796751)

Perhaps your online time would be better spent by actually reading the stuff than bitching about it.

Personally I feel that was uncalled for, but your nick suggests that perhaps you can't help it. Please learn to distinguish between 'bitching' and 'discussing critically'. The latter is intended to point out how things might be made better, while the former is more about complaining for the sake of complaining. They are very different things. It seems to me that these days anything outside of Pollyanna-ish optimism and praise is being lumped into the "bitching" or "complaining" or "being negative" category, often as a technique to quash discussion, belittle or shame. Or worse, to avoid the effort needed to make improvements to the status quo. The end result seems to be a general lack of improvment where it might be warranted or even slow deterioration over time as attitudes shift from a roll-up-the-sleeves-we-can-make-it-better to a shrug-why-bother.

Re:don't they understand the Internet? (-1, Redundant)

CaptainDork (3678879) | about three weeks ago | (#47796877)

Perhaps your online time would be better spent by actually reading the stuff than bitching about a nick.

Re:don't they understand the Internet? (1)

c0d3g33k (102699) | about three weeks ago | (#47797393)

Perhaps your online time would be better spent by actually reading the stuff than bitching about a nick.

Oh snap, you got me, you clever lad.

Perhaps your online time would be better spent actually reading the stuff than tossing out sophomoric zingers.

I mean, put a little work into it and bring in the source material. Feynman was a funny guy - work that into your act. Here are some quotes to get you started: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/... [wikiquote.org]

Better yet, show that you actually spent your time reading the stuff and work that into your schtick. THAT would be impressive.

Come on, show me what you got, funny guy. Stop phoning it in. :-)

Re:don't they understand the Internet? (1)

c0d3g33k (102699) | about three weeks ago | (#47796655)

I should point out that my final comment about updating some of the figures only applies to some of them - the majority of the updated SVG versions are actually quite nice as they are, which I noticed as I looked through volumes 2 and 3.

I was thinking in particular of the monochrome photographic images such as Fig 52-1 from http://www.feynmanlectures.cal... [caltech.edu] , which could probably be updated with a photo of the same models using a modern camera, or perhaps a nice 3-D rendering of the same molecules. Another example would be figure 51.4 from http://www.feynmanlectures.cal... [caltech.edu] , which I can't really make out at all.

PDF? (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about three weeks ago | (#47796245)

For those of us that dont stay connected just to read..

Re:PDF? (1)

whereiswaldo (459052) | about three weeks ago | (#47796599)

PDF, and the source that was used to generate the HTML (FLP LaTeX according to the thank you section)

Re:PDF? (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about three weeks ago | (#47796705)

Yes LaTeX source would work instead.... Just not wget+html->pdf ....

Re:PDF? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47799487)

Yes LaTeX source would work instead.... Just not wget+html->pdf ....

No, but open in Chrome and save to PDF would work (sort of).

I think you'd be flabbergasted if you would see how some people here at work create PDF these days.
Standard procedure in the administration department: send electronic document (sometimes a few existing PDF's needing to be combined) to Xerox document center to print, pick up printed copy from output tray, shove it into input tray, hit "scan to PDF" button and have it sent to her e-mail address.

That person does have Acrobat on her PC, but says it's of no use because sometimes a signature or a "received" stamp has to be added on the paper copy before turning it into a PDF, and she doesn't want to use different workflows to create different PDF's. It's complicated enough as it is.

Feynman Volume III (1)

PvtVoid (1252388) | about three weeks ago | (#47796269)

The quantum lectures in Volume III are still some of the best available. Protip: read them at the same time as Sakurai. You will be a Jedi master of quantum when you are complete.

Mechanical Universe (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47796911)

I remember watching these caltech videos as a kid and not really understanding a whole lot of it but enjoying them nevertheless: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mechanical_Universe

Not available everywhere? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47797065)

There's

but on
http://feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/img/FLP_I/f01-04/f01-04_tc_big.svg

I'm getting
Forbidden
You don't have permission to access /img/FLP_I/f01-04/f01-04_tc_big.svg on this server.
Apache/2.2.3 (Red Hat) Server at feynmanlectures.caltech.edu Port 80

Anyone else?

This is great (1)

tomxor (2379126) | about three weeks ago | (#47797067)

Fantastic that they made these available for free and in such an accessible format.

Had a quick look through and one of the major differences between the HTML5 version and the book is the layout, everything is completely linearly presented... i suppose that makes it easier to support mobile devices and various sized screens etc, but not quite as nice as the book.

Depending on the re-use rights perhaps it could be given some love with @media queries and some more caring typography.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>