Richard Feynman - The.Character.of.Physical.Law - Part 2 (full version)
Why Hacker News recommends it
Recommended as a lecture so clear that no formal training is needed to follow it, and cited on why math is needed for physics.
What it is
Part 2 of Richard Feynman's Messenger Lectures at Cornell, The Character of Physical Law, on the relation of mathematics to physics. He explains why understanding nature requires mathematics.
Recommended by 1 HN commenters across 1 different months, 2013 to 2018.
What Hacker News said
Strong rec sillysaurus · 2013-07 · on “Neutrino shape-shift points to new physics”
Physics is just mindblowing. When I think deeply about the fact that things that are moving will keep on moving forever unless a force acts on them, and the fact that no one knows why it's true (and that the question may not even have any meaning), and that my body is nothing more than a very advanced method of propagating genetics, then... well, it's just a lot of fun to think about! The fact that there are mysteries that no life will ever have answers to is quite humbling. If you find physics interesting, then you'll love these Feynman lectures. Feynman is so good at explaining these concepts that you don't even need any formal training to understand them. Lecture 1: The Law of Gravitation
Cites 3rd3 · 2013-10 · on “The Two Cultures”
Feynman referred to this issue at the end of his second Messenger Lecture: [this video] Transcript: .. To summarize, I would use the words of Jeans, who said that "the Great Architect seems to be a mathematician". To those who do not know mathematics it is difficult to get across a real feeling as to the beauty, the deepest beauty, of nature. C.P. Snow talked about two cultures. I really think that those two cultures separate people who have and people who have not had this experience of understanding mathematics well enough to appreciate nature once. It is too bad that it has to be mathematics, and that mathematics is hard for some people. It is reputed - I do not know if it is true - that when
Cites petermcneeley · 2018-06 · on “Abel's Theorem in Problems and Solutions (2004) [pdf]”
You ask a trick question. We view and interpret the world through the tools we have (math). Feynman pointed out this absurdity here ( [this video] ) The ancients used geometry, classical theory tends to analytical expressions, modern theory is mostly fields, and likely future developments will be computational. The old tools will likely go the way of Greek and Latin and geometry and geography.