Feynman Day At The Bloomsbury

Last Saturday, I went to ‘A Day Celebrating Richard Feynman’ held at the Bloomsbury Theatre in London.

Feynman is well-known to physicists the world over (he won the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1965) but also much more widely through his books (such as ‘Surely You’re Joking Mr Feynman?’) as well as through his role on the Commission into the Challenger disaster. It was the 95th anniversary of his birth.

I was fortunate enough to meet Feynman in person as I co-organised the last conference he went to (held at Wangerooge, an island off the coast of North Germany) so I was very interested to join in the celebration! I went along with a friend, Ron Donaldson, who is a consultant in creativity and innovation (hence the interest in Feynman). The full event spanned the afternoon and evening – we attended just the afternoon session (for travel reasons, we both live outside London).

The Bloomsbury is a small but quite intimate theatre, well suited to this sort of event. The afternoon session was split into two one-hour parts; the first was technical and the second oriented around the videos made about him.

The first talk was by John Butterworth, Professor of Physics at nearby UCL. It focused on what a Feynman Diagram is and how the idea is incredibly useful in figuring out the complicated interactions of fundamental particles, including the recently discovered Higgs particle.

I was familiar with this material as I’d previously worked in this area (when an academic) and it was interesting to see how he went about his explanations (of some quite complicated physics) in the relatively short space of time allowed, something that is always tricky. There was a good selection of questions afterwards so it obviously hit the mark!

The second part centred on some captivating interviews with the producers Christopher Sykes and Christopher Riley.

Christopher Sykes is a TV documentary producer who made three very well-known programs with and about Feynman (he’s done loads of other interesting work as well, including contributing to the fascinating Web of Stories video collection). Christopher Riley produced the latest documentary on Feynman, The Fantastic Mr Feynman, which was aired on BBC2 last Sunday. Robin Ince handled the interviewing well, using a light touch and encouraging some really interesting insights from both speakers.

Talking about his well-known video work with Feynman in the ‘80s, some of the stories that Sykes told that particularly caught my attention were (I’m going on memory here):

1. Feynman and Dyson

The idea for the series of interviews with Feynman came about as a bit of an accident. Freeman Dyson, another celebrated physicist, had written a well-received book ‘Disturbing The Universe’ (well worth a read by the way) and Sykes thought that this might be a good basis for a programme. However in discussions about this, Dyson strongly recommended interviewing Feynman instead! This was along the lines of ‘Feynman is so special, capturing anything about him is incredibly important’. Not a ‘good thing to do’, important! This response obviously tells you quite alot about Dyson himself as well as his high respect and admiration for Feynman. He’s written a perceptive review of a couple of recent books on Feynman here.

2. Talking From The Chair

It says alot about Feynman’s charisma and presence that he can hold your attention whilst just sitting in a chair and talking. No glitz or props at all! Here’s an example in case you’ve not seen any of the videos (produced by Sykes in the ’80s):

This particular video is interesting in it’s own special way as it gives such a brilliant example of a productive and imaginative conversation. It starts from the question of how can you understand the feeling you get when you move two magnets together i.e. the sense of repulsion or attraction.

In the video, there’s some very reasonable confusion at the start, and most non-scientists would identify with the questions that Sykes asks. The key point comes when Sykes says ‘I must say I think that’s a perfectly reasonable question’ and Feynman agrees with him (‘an excellent question’) and then goes off on a fascinating discussion of the role and limitations of the question “Why?”. The main point is that you can only explain something in terms of concepts that the other person understands and is used to. However, talking around this point and elucidating it in different ways and guises is incredibly illuminating. The clip also gives a glimpse of Feynman’s inimitable personality as well as his determination (and ability) to make things exceptionally clear.

3. Buffoon and Genius

Feynman has a great reputation as a showman, and this sometimes leads to criticisms. However Sykes offered the suggestion that this was a method that Feynman used to handle the fact that he was so different from other people but still needed to get on with and communicate with them. A tantalising insight.

4. Feynman’s Problem Solving Algorithm

• Write down the problem.
• Think very hard.
• Write down the answer.

Unfortunately this doesn’t have general applicability, especially to mere mortals!

5. Reputation as a Womaniser

Feynman has a (somewhat vague) reputation as a womaniser, as well as perhaps giving a rather macho view of women. Sykes strongly questioned this viewpoint and was curious where it originated from as he’d never come across any solid facts to support it.

On this theme, when I was a postdoc at the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen, I’m sure I remember seeing a poster for some talks at Caltech where one of the speakers was jokily mentioned as Fine Dickman!

Anyway, maybe this was all part of the deliberate smoke-and-mirrors act, perpetuated by Feynman as well as others?

6. Death

Feynman died of cancer in February 1988 and Sykes spent time with him during the terminal stages. One of the delicate issues that cropped up was whether they could or should discuss his views on dying and death. In the end he decided to bring it up and after thinking about it, Feynman decided it was best not to talk about it.

This is a rather poignant topic. When I invited Feynman to a specialist workshop I was organising (I’d heard through the grapevine that he’d been working on the subject area), I wasn’t aware of his illness. To our surprise and delight, he accepted and the meeting was held in September 1987. Together with a colleague, we transcribed his talk. Afterwards, via his secretary, Helen Tuck, he complimented us on our write-up. She also told us that he’d reviewed the paper from his hospital bed, which naturally came as quite a shock.

Feynman at the workshop held in Wangerooge, Germany in 1987. He’s in the middle, just to the right.

7. Living Life

It was impressive that Sykes and Riley both had the strong view that Feynman communicated and encouraged an irrepressible enthusiasm for life, as, for example, typified in this quote:

“Fall in love with some activity, and do it! Nobody ever figures out what life is all about, and it doesn’t matter. Explore the world. Nearly everything is really interesting if you go into it deeply enough. Work as hard and as much as you want to on the things you like to do the best. Don’t think about what you want to be, but what you want to do. Keep up some kind of a minimum with other things so that society doesn’t stop you from doing anything at all.” – Richard P. Feynman

Something for us all to think about…

Top picture credit: here.

Thinking Can Be Bad For You

“Don’t think. Thinking is the enemy of creativity. It’s self-conscious, and anything self-conscious is lousy. You can’t try to do things. You must simply do things.” – Ray Bradbury (author)

This quote struck a note with me as I’m currently doing some research for a book. It’s on a subject I know well and so I consequently have many acquired views and opinions. However, as I’m aiming to come up with an original approach, it’s important to try to get out of the usual lines of thinking.

One method I’ve found that works well is that when I’ve a minute or two to spare, I’ll randomly dip into a book on the general subject and I’ll often find snippets and ideas that suggest or support new directions.

Just reading the book wouldn’t do this as I’d get transfixed by the line of reasoning and these ‘little insights’ would get submerged. To encourage this serendipity, I’ve set up a large writing desk with all the relevant books written on the subject scattered about, making it easy to do.

The important point is that I’m looking with no set purpose and when I’m in a relaxed frame of mind. Anyway, so far it’s working well!

Overcoming Objections

“Nothing will ever be attempted if all possible objections must first be overcome.” – Samuel Johnson

Actualising Dreams

“If you can dream it, you can do it.” – Walt Disney

It’s All In The Way You Move

I’ve suffered from insomnia over the last ten years and, as I’ve not found any simple solution to this, I decided to read up on it. One of the standard things they all emphasise is the need to keep a ‘sleep diary’ so that there is an initial assessment of the condition. Then, after carrying out the various recommendations, you can monitor progress against this baseline. For example, it’s common to make progress and then suffer a temporary relapse (so having the data behind this will be reassuring).

Unfortunately I found this quite hard to do in a reliable manner – I even kept a notebook on my bedside table to jot down the times I woke. Having some real data is obviously important but I found the overall process awkward.

So I was quite amazed when I came across an iPhone app, Sleep Cycle, that automatically monitors your sleep by sensing your body movements (see picture below). It can also act as an alarm to wake you up during your lightest sleep phase (which is the best time).

A really innovative use of modern technology! It’s also incredibly cheap (UK 69p).

From their site:

“This isn’t really something new. These so called bio-alarm clocks have been around for years and work very well, but they usually come with a hefty $200 price tag. I realized that the iPhone has all the components needed, and decided to make an alarm clock that works exactly the same, but sell it for a dollar or two instead.” Maciek Drejak, the programmer behind the application, says.

The only problem I can imagine is that you knock the iPhone off the bed and damage it (that might easily keep me awake…) – see picture below. Anyway, it’s worth a cautious try just to see what I can learn.

There’s a recent review of different sleep monitoring apps here (Android and iOS) and a detailed review of the Sleep Cycle app can be found here.

A Very Italian Detective

After discovering the work of Michael Dibdin in 2007 whilst accidentally stumbling across Radio 4’s Bookclub, I started looking for other similarly gifted detective novelists. Continuing with the Italian theme, I quickly discovered Andrea Camilleri and his wonderful series of books featuring Inspector Montalbano.

Recently I came across this interesting insight into how he started writing the novels at the age of 70 (there’s hope for us all…) and his ‘breakthrough moment’ (see my boldface):

Until he was almost 70, Camilleri was a minor historical novelist who was better known as a director of Pirandello. He was an author in search of a character, and that character turned out to be Montalbano. When a protagonist becomes a phenomenon, I am always interested in whether the novelist remembers the exact moment of conception. Camilleri does: “I know exactly when he arrived. In 1994, I was stuck on a historical novel called The Brewer of Preston. I couldn’t organise it the way I wanted, I had not found the key to structure it, and then decided that the best solution was to set it aside and write something else. And then I said to myself: what can I write? The way I used to write novels was to start with the very first thing that struck me about a subject. It was not methodical: the first thing I wrote would never be the first chapter, maybe it would become the fourth or fifth chapter. Then I said: but you can write a novel from first to last chapter with a perfect order of logic. I saw the form of the thriller as a cage that does not allow you to escape. And so I began to write the first Montalbano novel – The Shape of Water.

Recently there’s been the Italian TV series on BBC Four on the Montalbano books although I found them strangely cartoonish especially when seen alongside the Scandinavian (The Killing) and French (Spiral) programmes in this genre.

Linking back to the main theme of my blog, I’ve often thought that research and crime are quite similar. You’re always looking for clues and trying to piece various fragments of information together in creative ways. Sometimes you get it right, and sometimes totally wrong or often it just remains unresolved!

More on this here (from Brian Eno):

This idea came into sharp focus for me when reading a book about Chicago detectives. One of the particularly successful ones was asked how he’d developed such an accurate nose for trouble. He said: “If you find yourself doing a double take, do a triple take.” So don’t say ” Ah … it’s probably nothing important” and rationalise yourself out of looking at it. Say instead “If I noticed it, it must be important. Now in which way is it?”

Isn’t this what all the best science comes from – someone deciding to take seriously something that millions of other people could also have noticed but didn’t?

Picture credit here.

The Roles Of Ignorance, Uncertainty And Doubt

From the excellent Brain Pickings:

“The scientist has a lot of experience with ignorance and doubt and uncertainty, and this experience is of very great importance, I think. When a scientist doesn’t know the answer to a problem, he is ignorant. When he has a hunch as to what the result is, he is uncertain. And when he is pretty darn sure of what the result is going to be, he is in some doubt. We have found it of paramount importance that in order to progress we must recognize the ignorance and leave room for doubt. Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty – some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain.” – Richard Feynman (physicist)

The creative role of ignorance applies to other fields as well of course.

Creativity, Mashed Potato And Hendrix

I’ve been a fan of Jimi Hendrix since I was a teenager, so I was interested to hear an interview on Radio 4 with Kathy Etchingham. She was the girlfriend of Hendrix in the late 60’s. It was quite strange to hear that she was relatively ‘straight’ when compared to the (at least on-stage) very flamboyant Hendrix. It made me curious how they got on and what they saw in each other. She played a major role in getting the English Heritage blue plague (above) for his stay in London (Mayfair) – the first for a rock musician.

From her blog:

She met Jimi Hendrix in the Scotch of St James nightclub, on the day of his arrival in London in September 1966. They became a couple during the time of his rise to stardom. Kathy was the inspiration for many of Hendrix’ compositions including “The Wind Cries Mary” (penned after an argument between Hendrix and Etchingham), “Foxy Lady” (during one of the first performances of this number Hendrix pointed her out from the stage), as the Katherina in “1983… (A Merman I Should Turn to Be)” and in Send My Love to Linda (the original lyrics of which were Send My Love to Kathy until Etchingham objected to being named). In 1969 she and Hendrix drifted apart.

She told the story that one day she was cooking mashed potatoes and they had an argument about it – how best to do it. Anyway, this resulted in plate throwing and Etchingham storming out. They made up the following day and she found that in between he’d written ‘The Wind Cries Mary’ (Mary was her middle name). The disagreement had obviously affected him and prompted an incredibly creative response. From her blog:

‘I wrote a song,’ he said and handed me a piece of paper with ‘The Wind Cries Mary’ written on it. Mary is my middle name, and the one he would use when he wanted to annoy me. I took the song and read it through. It was about the row we had just had, but I didn’t feel the least bit appeased.

I still find this story very surprising – how something so impressive and poetic could be prompted (at least in part) by something so mundane!

Info on the song here (it mentions other possible sources of inspiration) and here’s a clip of the real thing:

Picture credit here.

Hypotheses And Experiments In Business

“Requirements are actually Hypotheses and your Projects are really just Experiments. Realizing this should be liberating.”

From David J Bland – picked up via a retweet from Scott Berkun.

So true! More on this (in an enterprise context) here.

In a related manner, and on a much smaller scale, I’ve been using this ‘experiments’ viewpoint in a social enterprise startup I’ve been working on. It’s been very helpful as, by premise, you can question any aspect of what you’re doing or assuming and quickly change things if they don’t turn out as expected ie start another experiment.

This approach fits in well with the premise that it’s rare that your first idea will be your final (and best) idea.

Innovation: Giant Leaps Versus Marginal Gains

Tim Harford at WIRED2012

There was a journalist’s strike at the BBC yesterday, resulting in some programme changes. In particular, on the morning radio, in place of the customary news and interviews, there were a number of really inspiring audio documentaries.

One that really caught my attention was a talk by Tim Harford. The content was similar to a talk he gave at Wired2012 (see video above). His theme was success in innovation and two key types: giant steps and marginal improvements. In fact, this general topic was the original motivation for the title of my blog: Steps & Leaps!

Most innovations are marginal improvements that produce clear-cut short-term gains. They can be easily understood as they build on what’s already there; they refine the landscape. Giant leaps take you to places you don’t even recognise as the landscape has completely changed. Both types are obviously important for progress but for different reasons (and timescales).

Marginal Gains: He illustrates this via the winning ability of the UK cycling team in the 2012 Olympics – they even had a ‘Head of Marginal Gains’, Matt Parker:

A sports scientist who now runs a team of 15 Marginal Gains specialists, ranging from experts in biomechanics to nutrition to physiotherapy, so far 28 major projects have been completed in the last two and a half years. Some, like the work they will do on bikes and kit, last up to four years – a full Olympic cycle, whilst others, like athlete development, stretch out of sight of London, time-wise.

Giant Steps: On the other hand, Dr Mario Capecchi, who pioneered gene targeting (which has transformed the study of key diseases), was thought of as a scientific outsider:

Not too long ago, the notion that scientists could manipulate genes to create animal models of human disease seemed virtually impossible, even to many researchers. Dogged research by Mario Capecchi and others made it a reality. Capecchi is credited with developing a powerful technology known as gene targeting. This technology has allowed scientists to engineer mice with conditions such as cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer’s disease, cystic fibrosis, and high blood pressure—a feat that has revolutionized the study of human disease.

Bearing both in mind, Radford then asks the interesting question as to how you can ‘organise for innovation’. In particular, how can you stimulate giant leaps but in a way that doesn’t require exceptional individuals to buck the system (as with Capecchi)?

One example of an organisation that successfully does this is the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) which only funds big, bold steps – in fact it’s required there’s a substantial chance of ‘failure’!

At HHMI, the engines of discovery are powered by approximately 330 HHMI investigators who direct laboratories on the campuses of nearly 70 universities and other research organizations throughout the United States. By appointing scientists as Hughes investigators—rather than awarding them research grants—HHMI is guided by the principle of “people, not projects.” Investigators have the freedom to explore and, if necessary, to change direction in their research. Moreover, they have support to follow their ideas through to fruition—even if that process takes a very long time.

Through another initiative, HHMI identified some of the nation’s most promising scientists to receive support at a critical early stage of their careers. Each early career scientist has a six-year, nonrenewable appointment to the Institute and along with it the freedom to focus on his or her boldest—and potentially transformative—research ideas without having to worry about obtaining grants to fund those experiments.

It’s interesting that they focus (the emphasis above in bold is mine) on the two key aspects of ‘time’ (for lots of ‘failures’) and ‘boldness’ (if it works it will make a substantive difference).

It’s really good to learn that the terms ‘organisation’ and ‘series of giant leaps’ can actually go hand in hand!