Richard Feynman

For those who want some proof that physicists are human, the proof is in the idiocy of all the different units which they use for measuring energy. Show less «

I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.

Philosophers say a great deal about what is absolutely necessary for science, and it is always, so far as one can see, rather naive, and probably wrong. Show less «

I'd hate to die twice. It's so boring. [last words]

You can know the name of a bird in all the languages of the world, but when you're finished, you'll know absolutely nothing whatever about the bird... So let's look at the bird and see what it's doing -- that's what counts. I learned very early the difference between knowing the name of something and knowing something. Show less «

I was born not knowing and have had only a little time to change that here and there.

We are at the very beginning of time for the human race. It is not unreasonable that we grapple with problems. But there are tens of thousands of years in the future. Our responsibility is to do what we can, learn what we can, improve the solutions, and pass them on. Show less «

The stars are made of the same atoms as the earth. I usually pick one small topic like this to give a lecture on. Poets say science takes away from the beauty of the stars - mere gobs of gas atoms. Nothing is "mere." I too can see the stars on a desert night, and feel them. But do I see less or more? The vastness of the heavens stretches my imagination - stuck on this carousel my little eye can catch one-million-year-old light. A vast pattern - of which I am a part - perhaps my stuff was belched from some forgotten star, as one is belching there. Or see them with the greater eye of Palomar, rushing all apart from some common starting point when they were perhaps all together. What is the pattern, or the meaning, or the "why?" It does not do harm to the mystery to know a little about it. For far more marvelous is the truth than any artists of the past imagined! Why do the poets of the present not speak of it? What men are poets who can speak of Jupiter if he were like a man, but if he is an immense spinning sphere of methane and ammonia must be silent? Show less «

The theoretical broadening which comes from having many humanities subjects on the campus is offset by the general dopiness of the people who study these things. Show less «

If I could explain it to the average person, I wouldn't have been worth the Nobel Prize. "Reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled. [on identifying the reason for the explosion of the space shuttle Challenger by showing that O-rings grow brittle when immersed in water, Life magazine, January 1987] Show less «

People who wish to analyze nature without using mathematics must settle for a reduced understanding.

The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.

For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled. [After working on the Challenger investigation] Show less «