《费曼物理学讲义》笔记讲课稿
《费曼物理学讲义(第2卷)(新千年版)》读书笔记模板
第7章在各种情况下的电场（续）
§7-1求静电场的各种方法 §7-2二维场；复变函数 §7-3等离子体振荡 §7-4电解质内的胶态粒子 §7-5栅极的静电场
第8章静电能
§8-1电荷的静电能；均匀带电球 §8-2电容器的能量；作用于带电导体上的力 §8-3离子晶体的静电能 §8-4核内的静电能 §8-5静电场中的能量 §8-6点电荷的能量
第24章波导
§24-1传输线 §24-2矩形波导 §24-3截止频率 §24-4导波的速率 §24-5导波的观测 §24-6波导管 §24-7波导模式 §24-8另一种看待导波的方法
第25章用相对论符号表示的电动力学
§25-1四维矢量 §25-2标积 §25-3四维梯度 §25-4用四维符号表示的电动力学 §25-5运动电荷的四维势 §25-6电动力学方程组的不变性
第39章弹性材料
§39-1应变张量 §39-2弹性张量 §39-3在弹性体中的运动 §39-4非弹性行为 §39-5计算弹性常量
第40章干水的流动
§40-1流体静力学 §40-2运动方程 §40-3定常流——伯努利定理 §40-4环流 §40-5涡线
第41章湿水的流动
§41-1黏性 §41-2黏性流动 §41-3雷诺数 §41-4经过一圆柱体的流动 §41-5零黏性极限 §41-6库埃特流动
第9章大气中的电学
§9-1大气的电势梯度 §9-2大气中的电流 §9-3大气电流的来源 §9-4雷暴雨 §9-5电荷分离的机制 §9-6闪电
第10章电介质
§10-1介电常量 §10-2极化矢量P §10-3极化电荷 §10-4有电介质时的静电方程组 §10-5有电介质时的场和力
第11章在电介质内部
第26章场的洛伦兹变换
Feynman 费曼物理学讲义英文版 2至5章
2Basic Physics2–1IntroductionIn this chapter, we shall examine the most fundamental ideas that we have about physics—the nature of things as we see them at the present time. We shall not discuss the history of how we know that all these ideas are true; you will learn these details in due time.The things with which we concern ourselves in science appear in myriad forms, and with a multitude of attributes. For example, if we stand on the shore and look at the sea, we see the water, the waves breaking, the foam, the sloshing motion of the water, the sound, the air, the winds and the clouds, the sun and the blue sky, and light; there is sand and there are rocks of various hardness and permanence, color and texture. There are animals and seaweed, hunger and disease, and the observer on the beach; there may be even happiness and thought. Any other spot in nature has a similar variety of things and influences. It is always as complicated as that, no matter where it is. Curiosity demands that we ask questions, that we try to put things together and try to understand this multitude of aspects as perhaps resulting from the action of a relatively small number of elemental things and forces acting in an infinite variety of combinations.For example: Is the sand other than the rocks? That is, is the sand perhaps nothing but a great number of very tiny stones? Is the moon a great rock? If we understood rocks, would we also understand the sand and the moon? Is the wind a sloshing of the air analogous to the sloshing motion of the water in the sea? What common features do different movements have? What is common to different kinds of sound? How many different colors are there? And so on. In this way we try gradually to analyze all things, to put together things which at first sight look different, with the hope that we may be able to reduce the number of different things and thereby understand them better.A few hundred years ago, a method was devised to find partial answers to such questions. Observation, reason, and experiment make up what we call the scientific method. We shall have to limit ourselves to a bare description of our basic view of what is sometimes called fundamental physics, or fundamental ideas which have arisen from the application of the scientific method.What do we mean by ―understanding‖ something? We can imagine that this complicated array of moving things which constitutes ―the world‖ is something like a great chess game being played by the gods, and we are observers of the game. We do not know what the rules of the game are; all we are allowed to do is to watch the playing. Of course, if we watch long enough, we may eventually catch on to a few of the rules. The rules of the game are what we mean by fundamental physics. Even if we knew every rule, however, we might not be able to understand why a particular move is made in the game, merely because it is too complicated and our minds are limited. If you play chess you must know that it is easy to learn all the rules, and yet it is often very hard to select the best move or to understand why a player moves as he does. Soit is in nature, only much more so; but we may be able at least to find all the rules. Actually, we do not have all the rules now. (Every once in a while something like castling is going on that we still do not understand.) Aside from not knowing all of the rules, what we really can explain in terms of those rules is very limited, because almost all situations are so enormously complicated that we cannot follow the plays of the game using the rules, much less tell what is going to happen next. We must, therefore, limit ourselves to the more basic question of the rules of the game. If we know the rules, we consider that we ―understand‖ the world.How can we tell whether the rules which we ―guess‖ at are really right if we cannot analyze the game very well? There are, roughly speaking, three ways. First, there may be situations where nature has arranged, or we arrange nature, to be simple and to have so few parts that we can predict exactly what will happen, and thus we can check how our rules work. (In one corner of the board there may be only a few chess pieces at work, and that we can figure out exactly.)A second good way to check rules is in terms of less specific rules derived from them. For example, the rule on the move of a bishop on a chessboard is that it moves only on the diagonal. One can deduce, no matter how many moves may be made, that a certain bishop will always be on a red square. So, without being able to follow the details, we c an always check our idea about the bishop’s motion by finding out whether it is always on a red square. Of course it will be, for a long time, until all of a sudden we find that it is on a black square (what happened of course, is that in the meantime it was captured, another pawn crossed for queening, and it turned into a bishop on a black square). That is the way it is in physics. For a long time we will have a rule that works excellently in an over-all way, even when we cannot follow the details, and then some time we may discover a new rule. From the point of view of basic physics, the most interesting phenomena are of course in the new places, the places where the rules do not work—not the places where they do work! That is the way in which we discover new rules.The third way to tell whether our ideas are right is relatively crude but probably the most powerful of them all. That is, by rough approximation. While we may not be able to tell why Alekhine moves this particular piece, perhaps we can roughly understand that he is gathering his pieces around the king to protect it, more or less, since that is the sensible thing to do in the circumstances. In the same way, we can often understand nature, more or less, without being able to see what every little piece is doing, in terms of our understanding of the game.At first the phenomena of nature were roughly divided into classes, like heat, electricity, mechanics, magnetism, properties of substances, chemical phenomena, light or optics, x-rays, nuclear physics, gravitation, meson phenomena, etc. However, the aim is to see complete nature as different aspects of one set of phenomena. That is the problem in basic theoretical physics, today—to find the laws behind experiment; to amalgamate these classes. Historically, we have always been able to amalgamate them, but as time goes on new things are found. We were amalgamating very well, when all of a sudden x-rays were found. Then we amalgamated some more, and mesons were found. Therefore, at any stage of the game, it always looks rathermessy. A great deal is amalgamated, but there are always many wires or threads hanging out in all directions. That is the situation today, which we shall try to describe.Some historic examples of amalgamation are the following. First, take heat and mechanics. When atoms are in motion, the more motion, the more heat the system contains, and so heat and all temperature effects can be represented by the laws of mechanics. Another tremendous amalgamation was the discovery of the relation between electricity, magnetism, and light, which were found to be different aspects of the same thing, which we call today the electromagnetic field. Another amalgamation is the unification of chemical phenomena, the various properties of various substances, and the behavior of atomic particles, which is in the quantum mechanics of chemistry.The question is, of course, is it going to be possible to amalgamate everything, and merely discover that this world represents different aspects of one thing? Nobody knows. All we know is that as we go along, we find that we can amalgamate pieces, and then we find some pieces that do not fit, and we keep trying to put the jigsaw puzzle together. Whether there are a finite number of pieces, and whether there is even a border to the puzzle, is of course unknown. It will never be known until we finish the picture, if ever. What we wish to do here is to see to what extent this amalgamation process has gone on, and what the situation is at present, in understanding basic phenomena in terms of the smallest set of principles. To express it in a simple manner, what are things made of and how few elements are there?2–2Physics before 1920It is a little difficult to begin at once with the present view, so we shall first see how things looked in about 1920 and then take a few things out of that picture. Before 1920, our world picture was something like this: The ―stage‖ on which the universe goes is the three-dimensional space of geometry, as described by Euclid, and things change in a medium called time. The elements on the stage are particles, for example the atoms, which have some properties. First, the property of inertia: if a particle is moving it keeps on going in the same direction unless forces act upon it. The second element, then, is forces, which were then thought to be of two varieties: First, an enormously complicated, detailed kind of interaction force which held the various atoms in different combinations in a complicated way, which determined whether salt would dissolve faster or slower when we raise the temperature. The other force that was known was a long-range interaction—a smooth and quiet attraction—which varied inversely as the square of the distance, and was called gravitation. This law was known and was very simple. Why things remain in motion when they are moving, or why there is a law of gravitation was, of course, not known.A description of nature is what we are concerned with here. From this point of view, then, a gas, and indeed all matter, is a myriad of moving particles. Thus many of the things we saw while standing at the seashore can immediately be connected. First the pressure: this comes from the collisions of the atoms with the walls or whatever; the drift of the atoms, if they are all moving in one direction on the average, is wind; the random internal motions are the heat. There are waves of excess density,where too many particles have collected, and so as they rush off they push up piles of particles farther out, and so on. This wave of excess density is sound. It is a tremendous achievement to be able to understand so much. Some of these things were described in the previous chapter.What kinds of particles are there? There were considered to be 92 at thattime: 92 different kinds of atoms were ultimately discovered. They had different names associated with their chemical properties.The next part of the problem was, what are the short-range forces? Why does carbon attract one oxygen or perhaps two oxygens, but not three oxygens? What is the machinery of interaction between atoms? Is it gravitation? The answer is no. Gravity is entirely too weak. But imagine a force analogous to gravity, varying inversely with the square of the distance, but enormously more powerful and having one difference. In gravity everything attracts everything else, but now imagine that there are two kinds of ―things,‖ and that this new force (which is the electrical force, of course) has the property that likes repel but unlikes attract. The ―thing‖ that carries this stron g interaction is called charge.Then what do we have? Suppose that we have two unlikes that attract each other, a plus and a minus, and that they stick very close together. Suppose we have another charge some distance away. Would it feel any attraction? It would feel practically none, because if the first two are equal in size, the attraction for the one and the repulsion for the other balance out. Therefore there is very little force at any appreciable distance. On the other hand, if we get very close with the extra charge, attraction arises, because the repulsion of likes and attraction of unlikes will tend to bring unlikes closer together and push likes farther apart. Then the repulsion will be less than the attraction. This is the reason why the atoms, which are constituted out of plus and minus electric charges, feel very little force when they are separated by appreciable distance (aside from gravity). When they come close together, they can ―see inside‖ each other and rearrange their charges, with the result that they have a very strong interaction. The ultimate basis of an interaction between the atoms is electrical. Since this force is so enormous, all the plusses and all minuses will normally come together in as intimate a combination as they can. All things, even ourselves, are made of fine-grained, enormously strongly interacting plus and minus parts, all neatly balanced out. Once in a while, by accident, we may rub off a few minuses or a few plusses (usually it is easier to rub off minuses), and in those circumstances we find the force of electricity unbalanced, and we can then see the effects of these electrical attractions.To give an idea of how much stronger electricity is than gravitation, consider two grains of sand, a millimeter across, thirty meters apart. If the force between them were not balanced, if everything attracted everything else instead of likes repelling, so that there were no cancellation, how much force would there be? There would be a force of three million tons between the two! You see, there is very, very little excess or deficit of the number of negative or positive charges necessary to produce appreciableelectrical effects. This is, of course, the reason why you cannot see the difference between an electrically charged or uncharged thing—so few particles are involved that they hardly make a difference in the weight or size of an object.With this picture the atoms were easier to understand. They were thought to have a ―nucleus‖ at the center, which is positively electrically charged and very massive, and the nucleus is surrounded by a certain number of ―electrons‖ which are very light and negatively charged. Now we go a little ahead in our story to remark that in the nucleus itself there were found two kinds of particles, protons and neutrons, almost of the same weight and very heavy. The protons are electrically charged and the neutrons are neutral. If we have an atom with six protons inside its nucleus, and this is surrounded by six electrons (the negative particles in the ordinary world of matter are all electrons, and these are very light compared with the protons and neutrons which make nuclei), this would be atom number six in the chemical table, and it is called carbon. Atom number eight is called oxygen, etc., because the chemical properties depend upon the electrons on the outside, and in fact only upon how many electrons there are. So the chemical properties of a substance depend only on a number, the number of electrons. (The whole list of elements of the chemists really could have been called 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc. Instead of saying ―carbon,‖ we could say ―element six,‖ meaning six electrons, but of course, when the elements were first discovered, it was not known that they could be numbered that way, and secondly, it would make everything look rather complicated. It is better to have names and symbols for these things, rather than to call everything by number.)More was discovered about the electrical force. The natural interpretation of electrical interaction is that two objects simply attract each other: plus against minus. However, this was discovered to be an inadequate idea to represent it. A more adequate representation of the situation is to say that the existence of the positive charge, in some sense, distorts, or creates a ―condition‖ in space, so that when we put the negative charge in, it feels a force. This potentiality for producing a force is called an electric field. When we put an electron in an electric field, we say it is ―pulled.‖ We then have two rules: (a) charges make a field, and (b) charges in fields have forces on them and move. The reason for this will become clear when we discuss the following phenomena: If we were to charge a body, say a comb, electrically, and then place a charged piece of paper at a distance and move the comb back and forth, the paper will respond by always pointing to the comb. If we shake it faster, it will be discovered that the paper is a little behind, there is a delay in the action. (At the first stage, when we move the comb rather slowly, we find a complication which is magnetism. Magnetic influences have to do with charges in relative motion, so magnetic forces and electric forces can really be attributed to one field, as two different aspects of exactly the same thing. A changing electric field cannot exist without magnetism.) If we move the charged paper farther out, the delay is greater. Then an interesting thing is observed. Although the forces between two charged objects should go inversely as the square of the distance, it is found, when we shake acharge, that the influence extends very much farther out than we would guess at first sight. That is, the effect falls off more slowly than the inverse square.Here is an analogy: If we are in a pool of water and there is a floating cork very close by, we can move it ―directly‖ by pushing the water with another cork. If you looked only at the two corks, all you would see would be that one moved immediately in response to the motion of the other—there is some kind of ―interaction‖ between them. Of course, what we really do is to disturb the water; the water then disturbs the other cork. We could make up a ―law‖ that if you pushed the water a little bit, an object close by in the water would move. If it were farther away, of course, the second cork would scarcely move, for we move the water locally. On the other hand, if we jiggle the cork a new phenomenon is involved, in which the motion of the water moves the water there, etc., and waves travel away, so that by jiggling, there is an influence very much farther out, an oscillatory influence, that cannot be understood from the direct interaction. Therefore the idea of direct interaction must be replaced with the existence of the water, or in the electrical case, with what we call the electromagnetic field.The electromagnetic field can carry waves; some of these waves are light, others are used in radio broadcasts, but the general name is electromagnetic waves. These oscillatory waves can have various frequencies. The only thing that is really different from one wave to another is the frequency of oscillation. If we shake a charge back and forth more and more rapidly, and look at the effects, we get a whole series of different kinds of effects, which are all unified by specifying but one number, the number of oscillations per second. The usual ―pickup‖ that we get from electric currents in the circuits in the walls of a building have a frequency of about onehundred cycles per second. If we increase the frequency to 500 or 1000 kilocycles (1 kilocycle=1000cycles) per second, we are ―on the air,‖ for this is the frequency range which is used for radio broadcasts. (Of course it has nothing to do with the air! We can have radio broadcasts without any air.) If we again increase the frequency, we come into the range that is used for FM and TV. Going still further, we use certain short waves, for example for radar. Still higher, and we do not need an instrument to ―see‖ the stuff, we can see it with the human eye. In the range offrequency from 5×1014 to 1015 cycles per second our eyes would see the oscillation of the charged comb, if we could shake it that fast, as red, blue, or violet light, depending on the frequency. Frequencies below this range are called infrared, and above it, ultraviolet. The fact that we can see in a particular frequency range makes that part of the electromagnetic spectrum no more impressive than the other parts from a physicist’s standpoint, but from a human standpoint, of course, it is more interesting. If we go up even higher in frequency, we get x-rays. X-rays are nothing but very high-frequency light. If we go still higher, we get gamma rays. These two terms, x-rays and gamma rays, are used almost synonymously. Usually electromagnetic rays coming from nuclei are called gamma rays, while those of high102 Electrical disturbanceField 5×105 – 106 Radio broadcastWaves 108 FM —TV 1010 Radar5×1014 – 1015 Light1018X-rays Particle 1021γ-rays, nuclear 1024γ-rays, ―artificial‖ 1027 γ-rays, in cosmic rays2–3Quantum physicsHaving described the idea of the electromagnetic field, and that this field cancarry waves, we soon learn that these waves actually behave in a strange way whichseems very unwavelike. At higher frequencies they behave much morelike particles! It is quantum mechanics , discovered just after 1920, which explainsthis strange behavior. In the years before 1920, the picture of space as athree-dimensional space, and of time as a separate thing, was changed by Einstein,first into a combination which we call space-time, and then still further intoa curved space-time to represent gravitation. So the ―stage‖ is changed intospace-time, and gravitation is presumably a modification of space-time. Then it wasalso found that the rules for the motions of particles were incorrect. The mechanicalrules of ―inertia‖ and ―forces‖ are wrong —Newton’s laws are wrong —in the world ofatoms. Instead, it was discovered that things on a small scale behave nothinglike things on a large scale. That is what makes physics difficult —and very interesting.It is hard because the way things behave on a small scale is so ―unnatural‖; we haveno direct experience with it. Here things behave like nothing we know of, so that it isimpossible to describe this behavior in any other than analytic ways. It is difficult, andtakes a lot of imagination.Quantum mechanics has many aspects. In the first place, the idea that a particlehas a definite location and a definite speed is no longer allowed; that is wrong. Togive an example of how wrong classical physics is, there is a rule in quantummechanics that says that one cannot know both where something is and how fast it ismoving. The uncertainty of the momentum and the uncertainty of the position are complementary, and the product of the two is bounded by a small constant. We canwrite the law like this: ΔxΔp≥ℏ/2, but we shall explain it in more detail later. This rule is the explanation of a very mysterious paradox: if the atoms are made out of plus and minus charges, why don’t the minus charges simply sit on top of the plus charges (they attract each other) and get so close as to completely cancel them out? Why are atoms so big? Why is the nucleus at the center with the electrons around it? It was first thought that this was because the nucleus was so big; but no, the nucleus is verysmall. An atom has a diameter of about 10−8 cm. The nucleus has a diameter ofabout 10−13 cm. If we had an atom and wished to see the nucleus, we would have to magnify it until the whole atom was the size of a large room, and then the nucleus would be a bare speck which you could just about make out with the eye, but very nearly all the weight of the atom is in that infinitesimal nucleus. What keeps the electrons from simply falling in? This principle: If they were in the nucleus, we would know their position precisely, and the uncertainty principle would then require that they have a very large (but uncertain) momentum, i.e., a very large kinetic energy. With this energy they would break away from the nucleus. They make a compromise: they leave themselves a little room for this uncertainty and then jiggle with a certain amount of minimum motion in accordance with this rule. (Remember that when a crystal is cooled to absolute zero, we said that the atoms do not stop moving, they still jiggle. Why? If they stopped moving, we would know where they were and that they had zero motion, and that is against the uncertainty principle. We cannot know where they are and how fast they are moving, so they must be continually wiggling in there!) Another most interesting change in the ideas and philosophy of science brought about by quantum mechanics is this: it is not possible to predict exactly what will happen in any circumstance. For example, it is possible to arrange an atom which is ready to emit light, and we can measure when it has emitted light by picking up a photon particle, which we shall describe shortly. We cannot, however, predict when it is going to emit the light or, with several atoms, which one is going to. You may say that this is because there are some internal ―wheels‖ which we have not looked at closely enough. No, there are no internal wheels; nature, as we understand it today, behaves in such a way that it is fundamentally impossible to make a precise prediction of exactly what will happen in a given experiment. This is a horrible thing; in fact, philosophers have said before that one of the fundamental requisites of science is that whenever you set up the same conditions, the same thing must happen. This is simply not true, it is not a fundamental condition of science. The fact is that the same thing does not happen, that we can find only an average, statistically, as to what happens. Nevertheless, science has not completely collapsed. Philosophers, incidentally, 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. For example, some philosopher or other said it is fundamental to the scientific effort that if an experimentis performed in, say, Stockholm, and then the same experiment is done in, say, Quito, the same results must occur. That is quite false. It is not necessary that science do that; it may be a fact of experience, but it is not necessary. For example, if one of the experiments is to look out at the sky and see the aurora borealis in Stockholm, you do not see it in Quito; that is a different phenomenon. ―But,‖ you say, ―that is something that has to do with the outside; can you close yourself up in a box in Stockholm and pull down the shade and get any difference?‖ Surely. If we take a pendulum on a universal joint, and pull it out and let go, then the pendulum will swing almost in a plane, but not quite. Slowly the plane keeps changing in Stockholm, but not in Quito. The blinds are down, too. The fact that this happened does not bring on the destruction of science. What is the fundamental hypothesis of science, the fundamental philosophy? We stated it in the first chapter: the sole test of the validity of any idea is experiment. If it turns out that most experiments work out the same in Quito as they do in Stockholm, then those ―most experiments‖ will be used to formulate some general law, and those experiments which do not come out the same we will say were a result of the environment near Stockholm. We will invent some way to summarize the results of the experiment, and we do not have to be told ahead of time what this way will look like. If we are told that the same experiment will always produce the same result, that is all very well, but if when we try it, it does not, then it does not. We just have to take what we see, and then formulate all the rest of our ideas in terms of our actual experience.Returning again to quantum mechanics and fundamental physics, we cannot go into details of the quantum-mechanical principles at this time, of course, because these are rather difficult to understand. We shall assume that they are there, and go on to describe what some of the consequences are. One of the consequences is that things which we used to consider as waves also behave like particles, and particles behave like waves; in fact everything behaves the same way. There is no distinction between a wave and a particle. So quantum mechanics unifies the idea of the field and its waves, and the particles, all into one. Now it is true that when the frequency is low, the field aspect of the phenomenon is more evident, or more useful as an approximate description in terms of everyday experiences. But as the frequency increases, the particle aspects of the phenomenon become more evident with the equipment with which we usually make the measurements. In fact, although we mentioned many frequencies, no phenomenon directly involving a frequency has yet been detected above approximately 1012 cycles per second. We only deduce the higher frequencies from the energy of the particles, by a rule which assumes that the particle-wave idea of quantum mechanics is valid.Thus we have a new view of electromagnetic interaction. We have a new kind of particle to add to the electron, the proton, and the neutron. That new particle is called a photon. The new view of the interaction of electrons and photons that is electromagnetic theory, but with everything quantum-mechanically correct, is called quantum electrodynamics. This fundamental theory of the interaction of light and matter, or electric field and charges, is our greatest success so far in physics. In。
《费曼物理学讲义》笔记
加州理工学院费曼物理学讲义加州理工学院（California Institute of Technology, 缩写为Caltech）"Physics is to math what sex is to masturbation."（“物理之于数学好比性爱之于手淫。
”）"Physics is like sex: sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it."（“物理跟性爱有相似之处：是的，它可能会产生某些实在的结果，但这并不是我们做它的初衷。
”）理查·费曼与“草包族科学”理查·费曼曾经在1974年，于加州理工学院的一场毕业典礼演说中叙述“草包族科学”（Cargo cult science）时提到：从过往的经验，我们学到了如何应付一些自我欺骗的情况。
举个例子，密立根做了个油滴实验，量出了电子的带电量，得到一个今天我们知道是不大对的答案。
他的资料有点偏差，因为他用了个不准确的空气粘滞系数数值。
于是，如果你把在密立根之后、进行测量电子带电量所得到的资料整理一下，就会发现一些很有趣的现象：把这些资料跟时间画成坐标图，你会发现这个人得到的数值比密立根的数值大一点点，下一个人得到的资料又再大一点点，下一个又再大上一点点，最后，到了一个更大的数值才稳定下来。
为什么他们没有在一开始就发现新数值应该较高？——这件事令许多相关的科学家惭愧脸红——因为显然很多人的做事方式是：当他们获得一个比密立根数值更高的结果时，他们以为一定哪里出了错，他们会拼命寻找，并且找到了实验有错误的原因。
另一方面，当他们获得的结果跟密立根的相仿时，便不会那么用心去检讨。
因此，他们排除了所谓相差太大的资料，不予考虑。
我们现在已经很清楚那些伎俩了，因此再也不会犯同样的毛病。
目录第1章原子的运动 (5)§1-1引言 (5)§1-2物质是原子构成的 (5)§1-3原子过程 (5)§1-3化学反应 (6)第2章基本物理 (6)§2-1引言 (6)§2-2 1920年以前的物理学 (6)附录 (7)理查德.费曼 (7)目录 (9)[编辑] 生平简介 (9)[编辑] 费曼的著作 (10)[编辑] 传记 (12)[编辑] 参考资料 (12)[编辑] 外部链接 (12)第1章原子的运动§1-1 引言问：为什么不能直截了当的列出基本定律，然后再就一切可能的情况说明定律的应用呢？答：第一，我们还不知道所有的基本定律：未知领域的边界在不断地扩展；第二，正确地叙述物理定律要涉及到一些非常陌生的概念，而叙述这些概念有要用到高等数学。
费曼物理学讲义中文版
三一文库（）〔费曼物理学讲义中文版〕*篇一：费曼物理学讲义中文版费曼物理学讲义费曼物理学讲义(TheFeynmansLecturesonPhysics)被誉为本世纪最经典的物理导引。
《费曼物理学讲义》是根据诺贝尔物理学奖获得者-理查德·菲利普·费曼（RichardPhillipsFeynman，又译作费恩曼），在1961年9月至1963年5月在加利福尼亚工学院讲课录音整理编辑的。
删除了原录音中费曼教授对惯性导航的精彩解说（可以到网上找录音）和应对做题的解决思路（单独成书）。
《费曼物理学讲义》成书几十年，导引了千千万万物理学工作者进入物理殿堂。
我国自82年开始引进并翻译，并由上海科学技术出版社刊印。
近年来上海科学技术出版社与上海世纪出版股份有限公司合作出版、发行该书，2005年6月推出第一版，截至2010年已经是第八次印刷。
世界图书出版公司北京公司也出版了该书的影印版，译名为《费恩曼物理学讲义》。
这部书虽然基础，理解时，仍需反复研读。
简介20世纪60年代初，美国一些理工科大学鉴于当时的大学基础物理教学与现代科学技术的发展不相适应，纷纷试行教学改革，加利福尼亚理工学院就是其中之一。
该校于1961年9月至1963年5月特请著名物理学家费恩曼主讲一二年级的基础物理课，事后又根据讲课录音编辑出版了《费恩曼物理学讲义》。
本讲义共分三卷，第1卷包括力学、相对论、光学、气体分子动理论、热力学、波等，第2卷主要是电磁学，第3卷是量子力学。
全书内容十分丰富，在深度和广度上都超过了传统的普通物理教材。
引申当时美国大学物理教学改革试图解决的一个主要问题是基础物理教学应尽可能反映近代物理的巨大成就。
《费恩曼物理学讲义》在基础物理的水平上对20世纪物理学的两大重要成就——相对论和量子力学——作了系统的介绍，对于量子力学，费恩曼教授还特地准备了一套适合大学二年级水平的讲法。
教学改革试图解决的另一个问题是按照当前物理学工作者在各个前沿研究领域所使用的方式来介绍物理学的内容。
《费曼讲物理入门》个人笔记
《费曼讲物理:入门》个人笔记1918-1988.2.15《费曼讲物理:入门》是从著名的费曼《物理学讲义》节选的六节物理课。
内容包括“运动着的原子”、“基础物理学”、“物理学与其他学科的关系”、“能量守恒”、“万有引力理论”、“量子行为”六部分。
费曼：物理学与其他学科的关系∙“理解某种事情”指的是？组成这个“世界”的运动物体的复杂排列似乎有点像是天神们所下的一盘伟大的国际象棋，我们则是这盘棋的观众….当我们观看了足够长的时间，总能看出几条规则来，而弈棋规则就是我们所说的基础物理。
但是，即使我们知道了每条规则，仍然可能不理解为什么下棋时要走这一步，这仅仅是因为情况太复杂了，而我们的智力确实有限的。
除了我们还在知道所有规则以外，我们真正能用已知规则来解释的事情也非常有限，因为几乎所有的情况都是极其复杂的，我们不能领会这盘棋中应用这些规则的走法，更无法预言下一步将要怎样。
所以，如果我们知道了这些规则，就认为“理解”了世界。
∙实验是任何观念的正确性的唯一试金石。
∙如果一件事情不是科学，这并不意味着其中有什么错误的地方，它只是意味着其它不是科学而已。
1. 化学：受到物理学影响最深；①理论化学最深刻的部分必定会归结到量子力学；②统计力学；③有机化学→生物化学→生物学（无机化学：物理化学，量子化学）2. 生物学：生物过程中有很多物理现象，比如神经放电3. 天文学4. 地质学5. 心理学如果我们微不足道的有限智力为了某种方便将这个宇宙分为几个部分：物理，化学，生物，地理，天文，心理等，那么记住，大自然并不知道这一切。
P32 有时候，我真搞不清楚人是怎么回事：他们都不是透过了解而学习，而且靠背诵死记或其他方法，因此知识的基础都很薄弱。
P79 就这样，我学到一点关于生物学的特性：你可以很轻易便提出一个非常有趣的问题，而没有人知道答案。
但在物理学，你必须先稍微深入学习，才有可能问一些大家都无法回答的问题。
P87 我居然在哈佛大学的生物系里发表演讲呢！事实上，这可以作为我一生中的写照：我永远会一脚踏进某个事情中，看看到底能做到什么地步。
本科物理“双语教学”的范本——《费曼物理学讲义》
第28卷第5期 唐山师范学院学报 2006年9月 Vol. 28 No.5 Journal of Tangshan Teachers College Sep. 2006 ────────── 收稿日期：2005-02-29作者简介：王贺清（1965-），女，河北唐山人，唐山师范学院物理系讲师。
- 137 -本科物理“双语教学”的范本——《费曼物理学讲义》王贺清（唐山师范学院 物理系，河北 唐山 063000）摘 要：费曼独特的教学理念对物理教学的启迪是非同寻常的，其《费曼物理学讲义》中深刻的物理学思想和精练的阐述，是物理系本科学生双语学习难得的经典教材，而且还能为学生毕业后从事物理教学和科研打下良好的基础。
关键词：费曼物理学讲义；双语教学；启迪中图分类号：G658.3 文献标识码：B 文章编号：1009-9115（2006）05-0137-021 《费曼物理学讲义》为创设“双语教学”环境提供了良好的开端物理系“双语教学”课程是为大三学生开设的。
经过大一和大二两年的大学英语学习，学生已经具有了基本的听、说、读、写的语言能力，有些学生已经具备了较高的英语水平；同时学生也具备了物理专业背景知识。
《费曼物理学讲义》能把学生从“做题，过级”的怪圈中解放出来，以一种既符合学生学习心理特点，也符合英语教学规律的方式来创设“双语教学”环境。
《费曼物理学讲义》的前言用了很长篇幅介绍了费曼的生平、费曼对科学和教育的贡献及《费曼物理学讲义》产生的背景，使学生在“双语”环境中不仅能轻松地感受到费曼多方面的个性，而且更能体会到费曼简单而巧妙的教学技巧。
例如，在一次讲座中，他试图解释为什么千万不能用第一次提出的观点所用的数据来证明这个观点。
费曼开始谈论汽车车牌，看上去像是漫不经心偏离了主题，实际上已经严密地论证了他所论述的物理内容：Once, during a public lecture, he was trying to explain why one must not verify an idea using the same data that suggested the idea in the first place. Seeming to wander off the subject. Feynman began talking about the license plates. “You know, the most amazing thing happened to me tonight. I was coming here, on the way to the lecture, and I came in through the parking lot. And you won’t believe what happened. I saw a car with the license plate ARW 357. Can you imagine? Of all the millions of license plates in the state, what was the chance that I would see that particular one tonight? Amazing!”（“你知道吗！今天晚上发生了最令我惊奇的事情。
费曼讲物理：通过《费曼物理学讲义》学习物理概念
费曼讲物理：通过《费曼物理学讲义》学习物理概念介绍费曼是一位杰出的物理学家，也是一位优秀的科普作家。
他以其独特的教学风格和幽默感而闻名于世。
《费曼物理学讲义》是费曼在加州理工学院教授初级大学物理课程时所编写的教材，以其简洁、生动、易于理解的方式展示了物理学的核心概念。
1. 物理学简介在开始深入探讨《费曼物理学讲义》之前，我们先来了解一下物理学的基本内容和重要性。
涵盖了经典力学、电磁学、热力学等领域，它是自然科学中最基础和最重要的一个分支。
2.《费曼物理学讲义》概述这本书是由费曼亲自撰写，分为三卷。
每卷都以清晰明了的语言描述了各个领域中的重要概念，配有丰富的例题和插图，便于读者更好地理解。
2.1 第一卷：力与运动原则第一卷主要介绍了经典力学方面的知识，讲解了运动规律、牛顿定律、万有引力等基础内容。
2.2 第二卷：电与磁第二卷则涵盖了电磁学的内容，详细讲解了静电学、电流、磁场以及电磁辐射等相关概念。
2.3 第三卷：量子物理最后一卷则涉及到量子物理学领域，包括粒子的性质、波粒二象性、原子结构和核物理等内容。
3. 学习《费曼物理学讲义》的建议•掌握数学基础：由于物理学与数学紧密相关，建议读者在阅读本书之前具备扎实的数学基础。
•系统化地学习：将书籍分为多个部分，每次深入研究一个主题，并进行总结和复习。
•注重实践：通过大量的例题和实验来巩固所学知识并加深理解。
•结合其他资源：除了《费曼物理学讲义》，还可以参考其他教材、视频教程等来帮助更好地理解难点。
•交流与讨论：可以参加物理学习小组或者与同学共同探讨问题，相互促进学习。
4. 结语《费曼物理学讲义》是一本值得推荐的物理学自学教材，以其独特的风格和深入浅出的讲解方法，帮助读者更好地理解物理学中的核心概念。
通过系统化地阅读和实践，相信读者能够从中获得丰富的知识和启发。
同时也希望读者在深入研究物理学领域时能够保持求知的好奇心和兴趣。
《费曼物理学讲义》笔记
《费曼物理学讲义》笔记费曼物理学讲义第一章原子的运动引言:两学年的物理课，200年以来空前蓬勃发展的知识领域。
1、我们还不知道所有的基本定律:未知领域的边界在不断地扩展、涉及一些陌生的概念，需要高数。
大量的预备性的训练 2实验是一切知识的试金石。
理论、实验物理学家1、正确的、陌生的定律以及有关的奇特而困难的定律，例如相对论，四维空间等等之。
2、简单的质量守恒定律，虽然只是近似，但并不包含那种困难的观念的定律那我们世界的总体图像是怎样的呢,原子的假设(一言以蔽之)，证明原子的存在，布朗运动从原子的观点来描写固体、液体和气体。
假设有一滴水，贴近观察，光滑连续的水，没有任何其它东西。
用最好的光学显微镜放大2000倍，相当于一个大房间，可以看到草履虫摆动的纤毛与卷曲的身体。
再放大2000倍，像从远处看挤在足球场上的人群。
再放大250倍，放大10亿倍后的水的图像。
蒸发、溶解与淀积化学反应、化学物质从原子角度考虑这个世界最基本的物质，那么首先想到的自然是太阳，这个由氢氦元素组成的巨大熔炉，源源不断地发生着核聚变;以至于地球的组分、人的化学组分第二章基本物理引言:我们在科学上所关心的事物具有无数的形式和许多属性:或许是由较少量的基本事物和相互作用以无穷多的方式组合后所产生的结果。
沙粒与月亮，岩石;风与水流，流动;不同的运动有什么共同特征;究竟有多少颜色,我们就是试图这样地逐步分析所有的事情，把那些乍看起来似乎不相同的东西联系起来，希望有可能减少不同类事物的数目，从而能更好地理解它们。
世界是一盘伟大的象棋，我们不知道弈棋的规则，所有能做的事就是观看这场棋赛。
(张志豪的三维弹球;lol里的小细节也是一步一步探索出来的) 人们首先把自然界中的现象大致分为几类，如热、电、力学、磁、物性、化学、光、核物理等等现象，这样做的目的是将整个自然界看作是一系列现象的不同侧面。
基础理论物理:发现隐匿在实验后的定律;把各类现象综合起来。
费曼物理学讲义中文pdf
费曼物理学讲义中文pdf费曼物理学讲义是一套备受推崇的物理教材，由著名物理学家理查德·费曼编著。
这套讲义涵盖了广泛的知识领域，包括力学、相对论、光学、气体分子动理论、热力学、波、电磁学以及量子力学等。
其特点是内容通俗易懂，叙述条理清晰，深入浅出，避免了运用高深烦琐的数学方程。
因此，无论是普通物理水平的读者，还是物理专业的学者，都能从这套讲义中获得丰富的知识和启发。
费曼物理学讲义的第一卷主要讲述了原子的运动等基本物理概念。
在第一卷中，费曼先生通过生动的例子和简洁的语言，使读者对物理学的基本原理有了直观的理解。
此外，讲义还介绍了物理学与其他科学的关系，以及各门学科之间的相互联系，帮助读者建立起全面的科学素养。
第二卷则涵盖了力学、相对论、光学等方面的内容。
在这一卷中，费曼先生详细讲解了牛顿定律、万有引力定律等基本定律，以及相对论的基本原理。
此外，他还介绍了光的性质和光学现象，使读者对光学有了更深入的认识。
第三卷主要涉及气体分子动理论、热力学、波、电磁学以及量子力学等领域。
在这一卷中，费曼先生讲解了气体分子的运动规律、热力学定律、波动现象以及电磁学的基本原理。
此外，他还深入浅出地介绍了量子力学的基本概念，使读者对这一神秘的领域有了更为清晰的认识。
总之，费曼物理学讲义是一套极具价值的物理教材，适用于广大读者学习。
这套讲义不仅能够帮助读者掌握物理学的基本知识，还能激发他们对物理学的兴趣和热情。
无论你是高中生、大学生，还是物理工作者，都可以从这套讲义中获得丰富的教益。
值得一提的是，费曼物理学讲义的全三卷已经被翻译成中文，并提供了PDF高清中文版下载。
广大读者可以借此机会，深入了解这套备受推崇的物理教材，感受费曼先生独特的教学风格和物理智慧。
在当前的科学研究中，费曼物理学讲义仍然具有很高的指导意义。
这套讲义对于培养新一代物理学家和提高全社会的科学素养具有重要意义。
希望更多的读者能够通过学习费曼物理学讲义，走进物理学的殿堂，探索这个神奇而美妙的世界。
《费曼物理学讲义》笔记全解
费曼物理学讲义第一章原子的运动引言：两学年的物理课，200年以来空前蓬勃发展的知识领域。
1、我们还不知道所有的基本定律：未知领域的边界在不断地扩展2、涉及一些陌生的概念，需要高数。
大量的预备性的训练实验是一切知识的试金石。
理论、实验物理学家1、正确的、陌生的定律以及有关的奇特而困难的定律，例如相对论，四维空间等等之。
2、简单的质量守恒定律，虽然只是近似，但并不包含那种困难的观念的定律那我们世界的总体图像是怎样的呢？原子的假设（一言以蔽之），证明原子的存在，布朗运动从原子的观点来描写固体、液体和气体。
假设有一滴水，贴近观察，光滑连续的水，没有任何其它东西。
用最好的光学显微镜放大2000倍，相当于一个大房间，可以看到草履虫摆动的纤毛与卷曲的身体。
再放大2000倍，像从远处看挤在足球场上的人群。
再放大250倍，放大10亿倍后的水的图像。
蒸发、溶解与淀积化学反应、化学物质从原子角度考虑这个世界最基本的物质，那么首先想到的自然是太阳，这个由氢氦元素组成的巨大熔炉，源源不断地发生着核聚变；以至于地球的组分、人的化学组分第二章基本物理引言：我们在科学上所关心的事物具有无数的形式和许多属性：或许是由较少量的基本事物和相互作用以无穷多的方式组合后所产生的结果。
沙粒与月亮，岩石；风与水流，流动；不同的运动有什么共同特征；究竟有多少颜色？我们就是试图这样地逐步分析所有的事情，把那些乍看起来似乎不相同的东西联系起来，希望有可能减少不同类事物的数目，从而能更好地理解它们。
世界是一盘伟大的象棋，我们不知道弈棋的规则，所有能做的事就是观看这场棋赛。
（张志豪的三维弹球；lol里的小细节也是一步一步探索出来的）人们首先把自然界中的现象大致分为几类，如热、电、力学、磁、物性、化学、光、核物理等等现象，这样做的目的是将整个自然界看作是一系列现象的不同侧面。
基础理论物理：发现隐匿在实验后的定律；把各类现象综合起来。
1、热与力学的综合，当原子运动时，运动得越是剧烈，系统包含的热量就越多，这样热和所有的温度效应可以用力学定律来说明2、电、磁、光，同一件事物的不同方面，电磁场3、量子化学。
费曼讲物理学讲义DOC版本
费恩曼物理学讲义费曼物理学讲义（连载）作者：理查德·费曼第一卷·第一章原子的运动第一卷·第二章基本物理第一卷·第三章物理学与其它科学的关系第一卷·第四章能量守恒第一卷·第五章时间与距离第一卷第一章原子的运动理查德·费曼1-1 引言这是一门两学年的物理课，我们开设这门课程是着眼于你们，读者们，将成为物理学工作者。
当然情况并非一定如此，但是每门学科的教授都是这样设想的！假如你打算成为一个物理学工作者，就要学习很多东西，这是一个200年以来空前蓬勃发展的知识领域。
事实上你会想到，这么多的知识是不可能在四年内学完的，确实不可能。
你们还得到研究院去继续学习。
相当出人意外的是，尽管在这么长时间中做了极其大量的工作，但却有可能把这一大堆成果大大地加以浓缩。
这就是说，找到一些概括我们所有知识的定律。
不过，即使如此，掌握这些定律也是颇为困难的。
因此，在你对科学的这部分与那部分题材之间的关系还没有一个大致的了解之前就让你去钻研这个庞大的课题的话，就不公平了。
根据这种看法，前三章将略述物理学与其他科学的关系，各门学科之间的相互联系以及科学的含义，这有助于你们对本学科产生一种切身的感受。
你们可能会问，在讲授欧几里德几何时先是陈述公理，然后作出各种各样的推论，那为什么在讲授物理学时不能先直截了当地列出基本定律，然后再就一切可能的情况说明定律的应用呢？（这样一来，如果你不满足于要花四年时间来学习物理，那你是否打算在4分钟内学完它？）我们不能这样做是由于两个理由。
第一，我们还不知道所有的基本定律：未知领域的边界在不断地扩展。
第二，正确地叙述物理定律要涉及到一些非常陌生的概念，而叙述这些概念又要用到高等数学。
因此，即使为了知道词的含义，也需要大量的预备性的训练。
的确，那样做是行不通的，我们只能一步一步地来。
大自然整体的每一部分始终只不过是对于整个真理——或者说，对于我们至今所了解的整个真理——的逼近。
费曼物理学讲义
费曼物理学讲义2008年9月11日，“勘测者”号宇宙飞船发回了令人惊喜的消息。
在火星的高层大气中，探测到了来自宇宙的一些微弱电磁信号。
我们称之为“可能的生命迹象”。
这种现象与我们在地球上所熟知的“信号”非常相似。
这些信号并不明显，而且从其他方面来看也没有特别之处。
但我们仍可以根据它们的规模和特性，作出判断，这种可能存在的迹象确实是来自另一个星球。
这种令人振奋的发现，使得我们对宇宙又产生了更多的兴趣。
我们需要寻找外星生命。
我们的探测器在火星上发现了水分子，如果按照进化论，这意味着曾经有水、鱼类和藻类等生命形式生活在火星上，或许还可能生活在现在我们探测器登陆过的其他星球上。
在大约80亿年前，火星可能就已经是一颗具有宜居环境的星球了。
如果我们今天在火星上真的发现了一些生命形式，那么就会是一件伟大的事情，因为只有几十亿年时间，地球才从一个荒芜的星球变成了现在的样子。
有谁能说生命离我们很遥远？谁能想象，不久后的某一天，会有外星人在遥远的星球上向我们招手呢？对于我们这些科学爱好者来说，这些发现让我们充满了期待。
但是，除了研究它们以外，我们还有什么办法来证明自己的推断呢？毕竟，太空中漂浮的尘埃颗粒数量如此庞大，很难观察清楚它们内部的构造，而且即使是极微小的变化也会影响信号的强度。
因此，我们必须创造新的技术和方法，建立起更精确的量子物理学理论，通过它来推断物质内部结构和物质运动的状况。
费曼本人可以说是物理世界里一个充满奇迹的人。
在上世纪50年代初，他提出了弦理论，为弦的长度与宇宙大爆炸后的膨胀速率联系起来提供了一个可能的解释。
弦理论认为，宇宙的基本组成部分是某种类型的“弦”，这些微小的“弦”以一种不同于麦克斯韦方程的方式进行振动。
它们以不同的频率震动，形成了整个宇宙。
这种弦的长度被称为“宇宙常数”，这一长度大约为100万亿英里。
后来，他又将计算的最小值延伸到150万亿英里。
宇宙中存在着一种自然规律，那就是熵增加。
本科物理“双语教学”的范本——《费曼物理学讲义》
ｐａｅ ｅｍｉｇ ｔ ａ ｄｒｏ ｈ ｕｊｃ ｅｎ ｎ ｅａ ｌ ．Ｓ ｅ ｎ ｏ ｗ ｎ ｅ ｆ ｔｅ ｓｂｅｔ ｙ ｍａ ｂｇ ｃ ．Ｆ ｎ
ａ ｋ ｎ ｂ ｕ ｉ ｎ ｅ ｐ ａ ｅ ． Ｙｏ ｎ ｗ ｔ ｅ ｍｏ ｔａ ｚ ｎ ｔ ｌ ｉｇ ａ ｏ ｔｔ ｅ ｌ ｅ ｓ ｌｔ ｓ “ ｕ ｋ ｏ ， ｈ ｓ ｍ ａ ｉ ｇ ｈ ｃ ｔ ｉ ｇ ｈ ｐ ｅ ｅ ｎ ｇ ｔ Ｉ ｓ ｏ ｎ ｅ ｅ ｏ ｅｗｏ Ｗａ ｃ ｍｉ ｇｈ ｒ ， ｎ ｔ ｙ ｔ ｈ ｏ
例如，在一次讲座 中，他试图解释 为什 么＿万 能用第 Ｔ ‘
～
现 了能量守恒 定律 ， 迈耶在关于生物吸收和放¨ 的热量 问题 ；
上首先涉猎了能量 守恒 。 费曼的表述 让你感到每个学科都很
有 趣 并和 物 理 学 息 息相 关 。
次提出的观点所用的数据柬证明这个观点。 费曼开始谈论
《 曼物 理 学 讲 义 》 前 占用 丫很 长 篇 幅介 绍 ＿费 曼 的 费 的 『
生
费曼对科学和教育的贡献及 《 费曼物理学讲义》产 生
的背景，使学生在 “ 双语 ”环境 中不仅能轻松地感受到费曼多 方面的个性 ， 月更能体会到费曼简单而巧妙的教学技巧。 ．
在物理学 Ｌ生物学的关系 中他讲到足 生物学帮助 物理学发 ｊ
王贺清
（ 山师 范学 院 物理系，河北 唐 山 ０ ３ ０ ） 唐 ６ ０ ０
摘
要：费曼独特的教学理念对物理教学的启 迪是 非同寻常的，其 “ 费曼物理学讲 义》 中深 刻的物理学思想
和精练 的阐述 ，是 物理 系本科学 生双语学 习难得的经典教材，而且还 能为 学生毕业后从事物理教 学和科研 打下 良
《 费曼物理学讲义》在 “ 大气中的电 ”一章 中对一 常 见的 自然 现象 如大气 电流的来源 、雷 雨、电倚 分离的机制 、 闪 电、大气 的电势梯度等用 了很长 的篇幅 分析得很透彻 ，使
《费曼物理学讲义(套装共5册)(新千年版)》读书笔记模板
§24-1振子的能量 §24-2阻尼振动 §24-3电瞬变态
§25-1线性微分方程 §25-2解的叠加 §25-3线性系统中的振动 §25-4物理学中的类比 §25-5串联和并联阻抗
§26-1光 §26-2反射与折射 §26-3费马最短时间原理 §26-4费马原理的应用 §26-5费马原理的更精确表述 §26-6最短时间原理是怎样起作用的
§27-1引言 §27-2球面的焦距 §27-3透镜的焦距 §27-4放大率 §27-5透镜组 §27-6像差 §27-7分辨本领
§28-1电磁学 §28-2辐射 §28-3偶极辐射子 §28-4干涉
§29-1电磁波 §29-2辐射的能量 §29-3正弦波 §29-4两个偶极辐射子 §29-5干涉的数学
§38-1概率波幅 §38-2位置与动量的测量 §38-3晶体衍射 §38-4原子的大小 §38-5能级 §38-6哲学含义
§39-1物质的性质 §39-2气体的压强 §39-3辐射的压缩性 §39-4温度和动能 §39-5理想气体定律
§40-1大气的指数变化律 §40-2玻尔兹曼定律 §40-3液体的蒸发 §40-4分子的速率分布 §40-5气体比热 §40-6经典物理的失败
费曼博士获得诺贝尔奖是由于成功地解决了量子电动力学理论问题，他也创立了说是液氦中起流动性现象的 数学理论。此后，他和盖尔曼（M.Gell-Mann）在B衰变等弱相互作用领域内做出了奠基性的工作。在以后的几年 里，他在夸克理论的发展中起了关键性的作用，提出了他的高能质子碰撞过程的部分子模型。
读书笔记
§11-1物理学中的对称性 §11-2平移 §11-3转动 §11-4矢量 §11-5矢量代数 §11-6牛顿定律的矢量表示法 §11-7矢量的标积
费曼物理学讲义 第1章 英文版
1Atoms in Motion1–1IntroductionThis two-year course in physics is presented from the point of view that you, the reader, are going to be a physicist. This is not necessarily the case of course, but that is what every professor in every subject assumes! If you are going to be a physicist, you will have a lot to study: two hundred years of the most rapidly developing field of knowledge that there is. So much knowledge, in fact, that you might think that you cannot learn all of it in four years, and truly you cannot; you will have to go to graduate school too!Surprisingly enough, in spite of the tremendous amount of work that has been done for all this time it is possible to condense the enormous mass of results to a large extent—that is, to find laws which summarize all our knowledge. Even so, the laws are so hard to grasp that it is unfair to you to start exploring this tremendous subject without some kind of map or outline of the relationship of one part of the subject of science to another. Following these preliminary remarks, the first three chapters will therefore outline the relation of physics to the rest of the sciences, the relations of the sciences to each other, and the meaning of science, to help us develop a “feel” for the subject.You might ask why we cannot teach physics by just giving the basic laws on page one and then showing how they work in all possible circumstances, as we do in Euclidean geometry, where we state the axioms and then make all sorts of deductions. (So, not satisfied to learn physics in four years, you want to learn it in four minutes?) We cannot do it in this way for two reasons. First, we do not yet know all the basic laws: there is an expanding frontier of ignorance. Second, the correct statement of the laws of physics involves some very unfamiliar ideas which require advanced mathematics for their description. Therefore, one needs a considerable amount of preparatory training even to learn what the words mean. No, it is not possible to do it that way. We can only do it piece by piece.Each piece, or part, of the whole of nature is always merely an approximation to the complete truth, or the complete truth so far as we know it. In fact, everything we know is only some kind of approximation, because we know that we do not know all the laws as yet. Therefore, things must be learned only to be unlearned again or, more likely, to be corrected.The principle of science, the definition, almost, is the following: The test of all knowledge is experiment. Experiment is the sole judge of scientific “truth.” But what is the source of knowledge? Where do the laws that are to be tested come from? Experiment, itself, helps to produce these laws, in the sense that it gives us hints. But also needed is imagination to create from these hints the great generalizations—to guess at the wonderful, simple, but very strange patterns beneath them all, and then to experiment to check again whether we have made the right guess. This imagining process is so difficult that there is a division of labor in physics: there are theoretical physicists who imagine, deduce, and guess at new laws, but do not experiment; and then there are experimental physicists who experiment, imagine, deduce, and guess.We said that the laws of nature are approximate: that we first find the “wrong” ones, and then we find the “right” ones. Now, how can an experiment be “wrong”? First, in a trivial way: if something is wrong with the apparatus that you did not notice. But these things are easily fixed, and checked back and forth. So without snatching at such minor things, how can the results of an experiment be wrong? Only by being inaccurate. For example, the mass of an object never seems to change: a spinning top has the same weight as a still one. So a “law” was invented: mass is constant, independent of speed. That “law” is now found to be incorrect. Mass is found to increase with velocity, but appreciable increases require velocities near that of light. A true law is: if an object moves with a speed of less than one hundred miles a second the mass is constant to within one part in a million. In some such approximate form this is a correct law. So in practice one might think that the new law makes no significant difference. Well, yes and no. For ordinary speeds we can certainly forget it and use the simple constant-mass law as a good approximation. But for high speeds we are wrong, and the higher the speed, the more wrong we are.Finally, and most interesting, philosophically we are completely wrong with the approximate law. Our entire picture of the world has to be altered even though the mass changes only by a little bit. This is a very peculiar thing about the philosophy, or the ideas, behind the laws. Even a very small effect sometimes requires profound changes in our ideas.Now, what should we teach first? Should we teach the correct but unfamiliar law with its strange and difficult conceptual ideas, for example the theory of relativity, four-dimensional space-time, and so on? Or should we first teach the simple “constant-mass” law, whichis only approximate, but does not involve such difficult ideas? The first is more exciting, more wonderful, and more fun, but the secondis easier to get at first, and is a first step to a realunderstanding of the first idea. This point arises again and again in teaching physics. At different times we shall have to resolve it in different ways, but at each stage it is worth learning what is now known, how accurate it is, how it fits into everything else, and howit may be changed when we learn more.Let us now proceed with our outline, or general map, of our understanding of science today (in particular, physics, but also of other sciences on the periphery), so that when we later concentrateon some particular point we will have some idea of the background,why that particular point is interesting, and how it fits into thebig structure. So, what is our over-all picture of the world?1–2Matter is made of atomsIf, in some cataclysm, all of scientific knowledge were to be destroyed, and only one sentence passed on to the next generations of creatures, what statement would contain the most information in the fewest words? I believe it is the atomic hypothesis (or the atomic fact, or whatever you wish to call it) that all things are made of atoms—little particles that move around in perpetual motion, attracting each other when they are a little distance apart, but repelling upon being squeezed into one another. In that one sentence, you will see, there is an enormous amount of information about the world, if just a little imagination and thinking are applied.Figure 1–1To illustrate the power of the atomic idea, suppose that we have a drop of water a quarter of an inch on the side. If we look at it very closely we see nothing but water—smooth, continuous water. Even ifwe magnify it with the best optical microscope available—roughly two thousand times—then the water drop will be roughly forty feet across, about as big as a large room, and if we looked rather closely, we would still see relatively smooth water—but here and there small football-shaped things swimming back and forth. Very interesting. These are paramecia. You may stop at this point and get so curious about the paramecia with their wiggling cilia and twisting bodiesthat you go no further, except perhaps to magnify the paramecia still more and see inside. This, of course, is a subject for biology, butfor the present we pass on and look still more closely at the water material itself, magnifying it two thousand times again. Now the drop of water extends about fifteen miles across, and if we look very closely at it we see a kind of teeming, something which no longer has a smooth appearance—it looks something like a crowd at a football game as seen from a very great distance. In order to see what this teeming is about, we will magnify it another two hundred and fifty times and we will see something similar to what is shown in Fig. 1–1. This is a picture of water magnified a billion times, but idealizedin several ways. In the first place, the particles are drawn in a simple manner with sharp edges, which is inaccurate. Secondly, for simplicity, they are sketched almost schematically in a two-dimensional arrangement, but of course they are moving around inthree dimensions. Notice that there are two kinds of “blobs” or circles to represent the atoms of oxygen (black) and hydrogen (white), and that each oxygen has two hydrogens tied to it. (Each little group of an oxygen with its two hydrogens is called a molecule.) Thepicture is idealized further in that the real particles in nature are continually jiggling and bouncing, turning and twisting around one another. You will have to imagine this as a dynamic rather than a static picture. Another thing that cannot be illustrated in a drawing is the fact that the particles are “stuck together”—that they attract each other, this one pulled by that one, etc. The whole group is “glued together,” so to speak. On the other hand, the particles do not squeeze through each other. If you try to squeeze two of them too close together, they repel.The atoms are 1 or 2×10−8 cm in radius. Now 10−8 cm is called an angstrom (just as another name), so we say they are 1 or2 angstroms (Å) in radius. Another way to remember their size is this: if an apple is magnified to the size of the earth, then the atoms in the apple are approximately the size of the original apple.Now imagine this great drop of water with all of these jiggling particles stuck together and tagging along with each other. The water keeps its volume; it does not fall apart, because of the attractionof the molecules for each other. If the drop is on a slope, where it can move from one place to another, the water will flow, but it does not just disappear—things do not just fly apart—because of the molecular attraction. Now the jiggling motion is what we represent as heat: when we increase the temperature, we increase the motion. If we heat the water, the jiggling increases and the volume between the atoms increases, and if the heating continues there comes a time when the pull between the molecules is not enough to hold them togetherand they do fly apart and become separated from one another. Ofcourse, this is how we manufacture steam out of water—by increasing the temperature; the particles fly apart because of the increased motion.Figure 1–2In Fig. 1–2 we have a picture of steam. This picture of steam fails in one respect: at ordinary atmospheric pressure there certainly would not be as many as three water molecules in this figure. Most squares this size would contain none—but we accidentally have two and a half or three in the picture (just so it would not be completely blank). Now in the case of steam we see the characteristic molecules more clearly than in the case of water. For simplicity, the molecules are drawn so that there is a 120∘ angle between the hydrogen atoms. In actual fact the angle is 105∘3′, and the distance between the center of a hydrogen and the center of the oxygen is 0.957 Å, so we know this molecule very well.Let us see what some of the properties of steam vapor or any other gas are. The molecules, being separated from one another, will bounce against the walls. Imagine a room with a number of tennis balls (a hundred or so) bouncing around in perpetual motion. When they bombard the wall, this pushes the wall away. (Of course we would have to push the wall back.) This means that the gas exerts a jittery force which our coarse senses (not being ourselves magnified a billion times)feel only as an average push. In order to confine a gas we must apply a pressure. Figure 1–3 shows a standard vessel for holding gases (used in all textbooks), a cylinder with a piston in it. Now, it makes no difference what the shapes of water molecules are, so for simplicity we shall draw them as tennis balls or little dots. These things are in perpetual motion in all directions. So many of them are hitting the top piston all the time that to keep it from being patiently knocked out of the tank by this continuous banging, weshall have to hold the piston down by a certain force, which we call the pressure (really, the pressure times the area is the force). Clearly, the force is proportional to the area, for if we increase the area but keep the number of molecules per cubic centimeter the same, we increase the number of collisions with the piston in the same proportion as the area was increased.Figure 1–3Now let us put twice as many molecules in this tank, so as to double the density, and let them have the same speed, i.e., the same temperature. Then, to a close approximation, the number of collisions will be doubled, and since each will be just as “energetic” as before, the pressure is proportional to the density. If we consider the true nature of the forces between the atoms, we would expect a slight decrease in pressure because of the attraction between the atoms, and a slight increase because of the finite volume they occupy. Nevertheless, to an excellent approximation, if the density is low enough that there are not many atoms, the pressure is proportional to the density.We can also see something else: If we increase the temperaturewithout changing the density of the gas, i.e., if we increase the speed of the atoms, what is going to happen to the pressure? Well,the atoms hit harder because they are moving faster, and in addition they hit more often, so the pressure increases. You see how simplethe ideas of atomic theory are.Let us consider another situation. Suppose that the piston moves inward, so that the atoms are slowly compressed into a smaller space. What happens when an atom hits the moving piston? Evidently it picks up speed from the collision. You can try it by bouncing a ping-pong ball from a forward-moving paddle, for example, and you will findthat it comes off with more speed than that with which it struck. (Special example: if an atom happens to be standing still and the piston hits it, it will certainly move.) So the atoms are “hotter”when they come away from the piston than they were before they struck it. Therefore all the atoms which are in the vessel will have picked up speed. This means that when we compress a gas slowly, the temperature of the gas increases. So, under slow compression, a gas will increase in temperature, and under slow expansion it will decrease in temperature.Figure 1–4We now return to our drop of water and look in another direction. Suppose that we decrease the temperature of our drop of water. Suppose that the jiggling of the molecules of the atoms in the wateris steadily decreasing. We know that there are forces of attraction between the atoms, so that after a while they will not be able to jiggle so well. What will happen at very low temperatures isindicated in Fig. 1–4: the molecules lock into a new pattern whichis ice. This particular schematic diagram of ice is wrong because itis in two dimensions, but it is right qualitatively. The interesting point is that the material has a definite place for every atom, and you can easily appreciate that if somehow or other we were to holdall the atoms at one end of the drop in a certain arrangement, each atom in a certain place, then because of the structure of interconnections, which is rigid, the other end miles away (at our magnified scale) will have a definite location. So if we hold aneedle of ice at one end, the other end resists our pushing it aside, unlike the case of water, in which the structure is broken down because of the increased jiggling so that the atoms all move aroundin different ways. The difference between solids and liquids is, then, that in a solid the atoms are arranged in some kind of an array, called a crystalline array, and they do not have a random position at long distances; the position of the atoms on one side of the crystalis determined by that of other atoms millions of atoms away on the other side of the crystal. Figure 1–4 is an invented arrangement for ice, and although it contains many of the correct features of ice, it is not the true arrangement. One of the correct features is thatthere is a part of the symmetry that is hexagonal. You can see thatif we turn the picture around an axis by 60∘, the picture returnsto itself. So there is a symmetry in the ice which accounts for thesix-sided appearance of snowflakes. Another thing we can see from Fig. 1–4 is why ice shrinks when it melts. The particular crystal pattern of ice shown here has many “holes” in it, as does the true ice structure. When the organization breaks down, these holes can be occupied by molecules. Most simple substances, with the exception of water and type metal, expand upon melting, because the atoms are closely packed in the solid crystal and upon melting need more roomto jiggle around, but an open structure collapses, as in the case of water.Now although ice has a “rigid” crystalline form, its temperaturecan change—ice has heat. If we wish, we can change the amount of heat. What is the heat in the case of ice? The atoms are not standing still. They are jiggling and vibrating. So even though there is a definite order to the crystal—a definite structure—all of the atoms are vibrating “in place.” As we increase the temperature, they vibrate with greater and greater amplitude, until they shake themselves out of place. We call this melting. As we decrease the temperature, the vibration decreases and decreases until, at absolute zero, there is a minimum amount of vibration that the atoms can have, but not zero. This minimum amount of motion that atoms can have isnot enough to melt a substance, with one exception: helium. Heliummerely decreases the atomic motions as much as it can, but even at absolute zero there is still enough motion to keep it from freezing. Helium, even at absolute zero, does not freeze, unless the pressureis made so great as to make the atoms squash together. If we increase the pressure, we can make it solidify.1–3Atomic processesFigure 1–5So much for the description of solids, liquids, and gases from the atomic point of view. However, the atomic hypothesis also describes processes, and so we shall now look at a number of processes from an atomic standpoint. The first process that we shall look at is associated with the surface of the water. What happens at the surface of the water? We shall now make the picture more complicated—and more realistic—by imagining that the surface is in air. Figure 1–5 shows the surface of water in air. We see the water molecules as before, forming a body of liquid water, but now we also see the surface of the water. Above the surface we find a number of things: First of all there are water molecules, as in steam. This is water vapor, which is always found above liquid water. (There is an equilibrium between the steam vapor and the water which will be described later.) In addition we find some other molecules—here two oxygen atoms stuck together by themselves, forming an oxygen molecule, there two nitrogen atoms also stuck together to make a nitrogen molecule. Air consists almost entirely of nitrogen, oxygen, somewater vapor, and lesser amounts of carbon dioxide, argon, and other things. So above the water surface is the air, a gas, containing some water vapor. Now what is happening in this picture? The molecules in the water are always jiggling around. From time to time, one on the surface happens to be hit a little harder than usual, and gets knocked away. It is hard to see that happening in the picture because it is a still picture. But we can imagine that one molecule near the surface has just been hit and is flying out, or perhaps another one has been hit and is flying out. Thus, molecule by molecule, the water disappears—it evaporates. But if we close the vessel above, after a while we shall find a large number of molecules of water amongst the air molecules. From time to time, one of these vapor molecules comes flying down to the water and gets stuck again. So we see that what looks like a dead, uninteresting thing—a glass of water with a cover, that has been sitting there for perhaps twenty years—really contains a dynamic and interesting phenomenon which is going on all the time.To our eyes, our crude eyes, nothing is changing, but if we could see it a billion times magnified, we would see that from its own point of view it is always changing: molecules are leaving the surface, molecules are coming back.Why do we see no change? Because just as many molecules are leavingas are coming back! In the long run “nothing happens.” If we then take the top of the vessel off and blow the moist air away, replacing it with dry air, then the number of molecules leaving is just the same as it was before, because this depends on the jiggling of the water, but the number coming back is greatly reduced because thereare so many fewer water molecules above the water. Therefore thereare more going out than coming in, and the water evaporates. Hence,if you wish to evaporate water turn on the fan!Here is something else: Which molecules leave? When a molecule leaves it is due to an accidental, extra accumulation of a little bit more than ordinary energy, which it needs if it is to break away from the attractions of its neighbors. Therefore, since those that leave have more energy than the average, the ones that are left have lessaverage motion than they had before. So the liquid gradually cools if it evaporates. Of course, when a molecule of vapor comes from the air to the water below there is a sudden great attraction as the molecule approaches the surface. This speeds up the incoming molecule and results in generation of heat. So when they leave they take away heat; when they come back they generate heat. Of course when there is nonet evaporation the result is nothing—the water is not changing temperature. If we blow on the water so as to maintain a continuous preponderance in the number evaporating, then the water is cooled. Hence, blow on soup to cool it!Of course you should realize that the processes just described are more complicated than we have indicated. Not only does the water go into the air, but also, from time to time, one of the oxygen or nitrogen molecules will come in and “get lost” in the mass of water molecules, and work its way into the water. Thus the air dissolves in the water; oxygen and nitrogen molecules will work their way into the water and the water will contain air. If we suddenly take the air away from the vessel, then the air molecules will leave more rapidly than they come in, and in doing so will make bubbles. This is verybad for divers, as you may know.Figure 1–6Figure 1–7Now we go on to another process. In Fig. 1–6 we see, from an atomic point of view, a solid dissolving in water. If we put a crystal ofsalt in the water, what will happen? Salt is a solid, a crystal, an organized arrangement of “salt atoms.” Figure 1–7 is anillustration of the three-dimensional structure of common salt, sodium chloride. Strictly speaking, the crystal is not made of atoms, but of what we call ions. An ion is an atom which either has a few extra electrons or has lost a few electrons. In a salt crystal wefind chlorine ions (chlorine atoms with an extra electron) and sodium ions (sodium atoms with one electron missing). The ions all stick together by electrical attraction in the solid salt, but when we put them in the water we find, because of the attractions of the negative oxygen and positive hydrogen for the ions, that some of the ionsjiggle loose. In Fig. 1–6 we see a chlorine ion getting loose, and other atoms floating in the water in the form of ions. This picture was made with some care. Notice, for example, that the hydrogen endsof the water molecules are more likely to be near the chlorine ion, while near the sodium ion we are more likely to find the oxygen end, because the sodium is positive and the oxygen end of the water is negative, and they attract electrically. Can we tell from thispicture whether the salt is dissolving in water or crystallizing outof water? Of course we cannot tell, because while some of the atoms are leaving the crystal other atoms are rejoining it. The process isa dynamic one, just as in the case of evaporation, and it depends on whether there is more or less salt in the water than the amount needed for equilibrium. By equilibrium we mean that situation inwhich the rate at which atoms are leaving just matches the rate at which they are coming back. If there is almost no salt in the water, more atoms leave than return, and the salt dissolves. If, on theother hand, there are too many “salt atoms,” more return than leave, and the salt is crystallizing.In passing, we mention that the concept of a molecule of a substanceis only approximate and exists only for a certain class of substances. It is clear in the case of water that the three atoms are actually stuck together. It is not so clear in the case of sodium chloride in the solid. There is just an arrangement of sodium and chlorine ionsin a cubic pattern. There is no natural way to group them as “molecules of salt.”Returning to our discussion of solution and precipitation, if we increase the temperature of the salt solution, then the rate at which atoms are taken away is increased, and so is the rate at which atoms are brought back. It turns out to be very difficult, in general, to predict which way it is going to go, whether more or less of thesolid will dissolve. Most substances dissolve more, but some substances dissolve less, as the temperature increases.1–4Chemical reactionsIn all of the processes which have been described so far, the atoms and the ions have not changed partners, but of course there are circumstances in which the atoms do change combinations, forming new molecules. This is illustrated in Fig. 1–8. A process in which the rearrangement of the atomic partners occurs is what we call a chemical reaction. The other processes so far described are called physical processes, but there is no sharp distinction between the two. (Nature does not care what we call it, she just keeps on doing it.) This figure is supposed to represent carbon burning in oxygen. In the case of oxygen, two oxygen atoms stick together very strongly. (Whydo not three or even four stick together? That is one of the very peculiar characteristics of such atomic processes. Atoms are very special: they like certain particular partners, certain particular directions, and so on. It is the job of physics to analyze why each one wants what it wants. At any rate, two oxygen atoms form,saturated and happy, a molecule.)Figure 1–8The carbon atoms are supposed to be in a solid crystal (which couldbe graphite or diamond1). Now, for example, one of the oxygen molecules can come over to the carbon, and each atom can pick up a carbon atom and go flying off in a new combination—“carbon-oxygen”—which is a molecule of the gas called carbon monoxide. It is given the chemical name CO. It is very simple: the letters “CO” are practically a picture of that molecule. But carbon attracts oxygen much more than oxygen attracts oxygen or carbon attracts carbon. Therefore in this process the oxygen may arrive with only a little energy, but the oxygen and carbon will snap together with a tremendous vengeance and commotion, and everything near them willpick up the energy. A large amount of motion energy, kinetic energy,is thus generated. This of course is burning; we are getting heatfrom the combination of oxygen and carbon. The heat is ordinarily in。
费曼物理学讲义
费曼物理学讲义
世界上有两种天才，一种是“普通的”天才，一种是如魔术师般“神奇的”天才。
只要你我再聪明几倍的话，就可以比得上普通的天才。
而如魔术师般神奇的天才就不一样了，他们的心思到底怎样在运作，我们是无论如何也无法理解的，分析他们的思想就像要看穿魔术师怎样变戏法一样困难。
所以，在外人看来，“神奇的”天才都是那些言语荒诞、行为古怪、智慧超凡的“鬼才”。
而理查德·费曼可以说是人类历史上千年才难得出一个的科学鬼才。
费曼被许多物理学家誉为上世纪继爱因斯坦之后最伟大的经验物理学家。
当他从研究生院毕业时，他参加了在美国制造第一颗原子弹的曼哈顿计划。
后来，他在加州理工学院任教约40年，并于1965年获得诺贝尔物理学奖。
然而，让这位物理学家出名的远不止这些。
他的邦戈鼓技术高超，甚至可以代替专业鼓手。
他也可以像一个真正的画家一样出售他的作品。
他是撬保险柜的专家，喜欢在袒胸露乳的酒吧里研究科学问题。
总之，他的才华，他的幽默，他自发的恶作剧使他的生活丰富多彩。
同时，他的成长和成就也蕴含着诸多启示。
《费曼物理学讲义》笔记
费曼物理学讲义第一章原子得运动引言:两学年得物理课,200年以来空前蓬勃发展得知识领域。
1、我们还不知道所有得基本定律:未知领域得边界在不断地扩展2、涉及一些陌生得概念,需要高数。
大量得预备性得训练实验就是一切知识得试金石。
理论、实验物理学家1、正确得、陌生得定律以及有关得奇特而困难得定律,例如相对论,四维空间等等之。
2、简单得质量守恒定律,虽然只就是近似,但并不包含那种困难得观念得定律那我们世界得总体图像就是怎样得呢？原子得假设(一言以蔽之),证明原子得存在,布朗运动从原子得观点来描写固体、液体与气体。
假设有一滴水,贴近观察,光滑连续得水,没有任何其它东西。
用最好得光学显微镜放大2000倍,相当于一个大房间,可以瞧到草履虫摆动得纤毛与卷曲得身体。
再放大2000倍,像从远处瞧挤在足球场上得人群。
再放大250倍,放大10亿倍后得水得图像。
蒸发、溶解与淀积化学反应、化学物质从原子角度考虑这个世界最基本得物质,那么首先想到得自然就是太阳,这个由氢氦元素组成得巨大熔炉,源源不断地发生着核聚变;以至于地球得组分、人得化学组分第二章基本物理引言:我们在科学上所关心得事物具有无数得形式与许多属性:或许就是由较少量得基本事物与相互作用以无穷多得方式组合后所产生得结果。
沙粒与月亮,岩石;风与水流,流动;不同得运动有什么共同特征;究竟有多少颜色？我们就就是试图这样地逐步分析所有得事情,把那些乍瞧起来似乎不相同得东西联系起来,希望有可能减少不同类事物得数目,从而能更好地理解它们。
世界就是一盘伟大得象棋,我们不知道弈棋得规则,所有能做得事就就是观瞧这场棋赛。
(张志豪得三维弹球;lol里得小细节也就是一步一步探索出来得)人们首先把自然界中得现象大致分为几类,如热、电、力学、磁、物性、化学、光、核物理等等现象,这样做得目得就是将整个自然界瞧作就是一系列现象得不同侧面。
基础理论物理:发现隐匿在实验后得定律;把各类现象综合起来。
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性，平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益，请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间：9:00-18:30)。
费曼物理学讲义第一章原子的运动引言：两学年的物理课，200年以来空前蓬勃发展的知识领域。
1、我们还不知道所有的基本定律：未知领域的边界在不断地扩展2、涉及一些陌生的概念，需要高数。
大量的预备性的训练实验是一切知识的试金石。
理论、实验物理学家1、正确的、陌生的定律以及有关的奇特而困难的定律，例如相对论，四维空间等等之。
2、简单的质量守恒定律，虽然只是近似，但并不包含那种困难的观念的定律那我们世界的总体图像是怎样的呢？原子的假设（一言以蔽之），证明原子的存在，布朗运动从原子的观点来描写固体、液体和气体。
假设有一滴水，贴近观察，光滑连续的水，没有任何其它东西。
用最好的光学显微镜放大2000倍，相当于一个大房间，可以看到草履虫摆动的纤毛与卷曲的身体。
再放大2000倍，像从远处看挤在足球场上的人群。
再放大250倍，放大10亿倍后的水的图像。
蒸发、溶解与淀积化学反应、化学物质从原子角度考虑这个世界最基本的物质，那么首先想到的自然是太阳，这个由氢氦元素组成的巨大熔炉，源源不断地发生着核聚变；以至于地球的组分、人的化学组分第二章基本物理引言：我们在科学上所关心的事物具有无数的形式和许多属性：或许是由较少量的基本事物和相互作用以无穷多的方式组合后所产生的结果。
沙粒与月亮，岩石；风与水流，流动；不同的运动有什么共同特征；究竟有多少颜色？我们就是试图这样地逐步分析所有的事情，把那些乍看起来似乎不相同的东西联系起来，希望有可能减少不同类事物的数目，从而能更好地理解它们。
世界是一盘伟大的象棋，我们不知道弈棋的规则，所有能做的事就是观看这场棋赛。
（张志豪的三维弹球；lol里的小细节也是一步一步探索出来的）人们首先把自然界中的现象大致分为几类，如热、电、力学、磁、物性、化学、光、核物理等等现象，这样做的目的是将整个自然界看作是一系列现象的不同侧面。
基础理论物理：发现隐匿在实验后的定律；把各类现象综合起来。
1、热与力学的综合，当原子运动时，运动得越是剧烈，系统包含的热量就越多，这样热和所有的温度效应可以用力学定律来说明2、电、磁、光，同一件事物的不同方面，电磁场3、量子化学。
这场游戏是否有底1920年以前的物理学（一开始就从现在的观点讲起是有点困难）1920年以前，我们的世界图像：宇宙活动的舞台是欧几里得所描绘的三维几何空间，一切事物在称为时间的一种媒介里变化，舞台上的基本元素是粒子，例如原子，他们具有某些特性，首先一个是惯性，动则同方向一直动下去，除非有力；第二个基本元素就是力，第一类力是分子间原子间作用力，确定温度升高食盐溶解变快，另一为长程相互作用，是与距离平方成反比的变化平缓的作用力，称为万有引力。
这些为我们所知，它是简单的，但为什么物体运动一旦开始就能保持，或者为什么存在一条万有引力定律，我们就不清楚了。
粒子有哪些种类？在当时92种，按照各自的化学性质被赋予不同的名称。
其次短程力是什么？为什么一个碳吸引一个而不是三个氧，相互作用的机制是万有引力吗，不，太弱了。
关于电的两条规则1、电荷产生电场2、电荷在电场中会受到里的作用，例木塞于水。
电磁波，频率越快，由场（电扰动）到波（无线电、FM、雷达、光）到粒子（X射线）第三章物理学与其他科学的关系（如果说某件事不是科学，这并不意味着其中有什么错误的地方，这只是意味着它不是科学而已。
数学不是科学，它的正确性不是用实验来检验的；爱好不是科学）我们知道，精确预言某个化学反应中出现什么情况是十分困难的，然而，理论化学最深刻部分必定会归结到量子力学。
与生物学。
所有的物质都是由原子组成的，并且生命体所做的每一件事都可以从原子摆动和晃动中来理解。
与天文学是的，此刻我是世界上唯一知道为什么她们会发光的人。
孤独真理远比以往任何艺术家的想象更为奇妙！物理学的历史问题：这些定律是怎么变化而来的“整个宇宙就存在一杯葡萄酒中。
”第四章能量守恒有一个事实，如果你愿意的话，也可以说一条定律，支配着至今我们所知道的一切自然现象，没有什么例外，这条定律称为能量守恒定律。
淘气的丹尼斯只有当我们的公式包含了所有形式的能量时才能理解能量守恒。
我想在这里讨论一下地球表面附近的重力势能的公式，与历史无关，这种推导方式只是为这堂课想出来的，也就是说一种推理思路。
为的是要向你们说明一个值得注意的情况，从几个事实和严密的推理出发可以推断出很多有关大自然的知识。
虚功原理，为了运用能量守恒的原理，我们用了很小的假想运动为了说明另一种形式的能量，我们来考虑一个单摆。
E=mc2守恒定律，能量守恒定律，线动量守恒，角动量守恒；微妙的，与空间和时间有关电荷守恒定律，重子的守恒，轻子守恒定律；进行计数的意义上是简单的第五章时间与距离运动。
很多人都喜欢把伽利略在350年前所做的工作看作是物理学的开端，在此之前对运动的研究是哲学上的事情，大部分的论据是由亚里士多德和其他希腊哲学家提出的，伽利略做实验，球沿着斜面滚下，对于时间的测量用脉搏。
时间。
时间的定义建立在某种明显是周期性的事件的重复性上。
短的时间，伽利略断定只要一个摆的摆幅很小，则以相等的时间间隔来回摆动，即可划分出一个小时的几分之一。
假如我们利用一个机械装置计点摆动次数，并且保持摆动进行下去，那么就得到我们祖先一代所用的那种摆钟。
电学摆第六章几率“我们这个世界的真正逻辑寓于几率的计算之中。
”JG麦克斯韦，活到100岁，明天下雨，明年发生地震，下一个10秒盖革计数器，下一个十年核战。
这个世界是现实的，可逆过程只是最理想的状态绝对不可能实现，而唯有判断、几率的计算才是真正的生活；在理论物理无处可走的现在，实验就是判断选择了。
信息information 又是能够计算几率的最基础的条件，正如福尔摩斯小脑袋只是对信息的整理和判断，不过他有自己的独特而高效的思路。
Head-Tail 帕斯卡三角形无规行走距离的平方来表示这种量度的进度第七章万有引力理论开普勒定律，基于第谷的星表。
每个行星沿着一条称为椭圆的曲线绕太阳运行，而太阳处于椭圆的一个焦点。
椭圆不仅仅是一个呈现为一个卵形的东西，而是一条非常独特的精确的曲线，两只平头钉，一束线和铅笔。
开普勒三定律1、太阳，椭圆焦点2、等时等面卡文迪许称地球引力与相对论。
依照牛顿的观点，引力效应是瞬间发生的，爱因斯坦证明我们不能发送比光更快的信号第八章运动人龟赛跑；速率第九章牛顿的动力学定律直线运动行星运动第十章动量守恒线性气垫相对论性动量，质量随速度而改变。
在量子力学中，动量是另一回事，它不再是mv了。
物体的速度的含义已难于确切定义，但是动量仍然存在。
在量子力学中，差别在于当粒子表现为波时，动量就用每厘米的波数来量度，波数越大，动量就越大。
第十一章矢量使用物理学中的所有概念需要具备一定的常识，它们不纯粹是数学的或抽象的概念。
物理定律的对称性，物理定律对于平移是对称的。
人造卫星上摆钟根本不走第十二章力的特性任何简单的概念都是近似的。
作为例子，考虑一个客体；什么是客体，哲学家这样说，嗯，就拿一张椅子来作为例子吧。
那么椅子是什么。
哪些原子属于油漆，哪些原子属于灰尘摩擦。
从原子情况来看，相互接触的两个表面是不平整的，它们有很多接触点，在这些接触点上，原子好像粘接在一起，于是当我们拉动一个正在滑动的物体时，原子啪的忽然打开，随即发生振动。
动力损耗的机理是当滑动体撞击突起部分时，突出部分发生形变，接着在两个物体之间产生波和原子运动，过了一会儿产生热。
摩擦系数，公式分子力。
这些力是原子之间的力，也是摩擦的根本起因。
图中将两个原子之间的力作为两个原子之间的距离的函数。
同时，还存在着不同的情况：例如在水分子中氧带有较多负电荷，所以负电荷在正电荷的平均位置不在同一点上，结果附近的另一个分子感受到比较大的力，这个力称为偶极-偶极力。
然而，对许多系统来说，电荷平衡得非常好，特别是氧气，它是完全对称的。
对于所有非极性分子（其中所有的电力被中和），在较大距离上的作用力仍然是引力，而且与距离的7次方成反比，正是这个力使得我们不会落到地板下面去。
在一定距离形成固体。
胡克定律基本力，场下面我们来讨论唯一剩下的基本力。
我们把他们称作基本力是由于他们遵从的定律从根本上说是简单的。
我们首先讨论电力。
在分析比较基本的一类力时形成了一种有趣的、非常重要的概念。
因为乍看起来，力比反平方定律所指出的要复杂得多，而这些定律仅当相互作用物体处于静止时才成立，所以就需要一种改进的方法来处理当物体开始以一种复杂的方式运动时所产生的非常复杂的力。
经验表明，用所谓“场”的概念这种方法，对于分析这种类型的力是非常有用的。
第十三章功与势能（上）能量守恒最简单的例子是一个垂直下落的物体，动能加势能总和为恒量，如何证明？动能的变化率拓展到更一般的情况首先讨论三维情况下一般的动能变化率现在我们来讲一讲单位第十四章（下）在学习任何一个与数学有关的技术性课题中，人们面临着弄懂并记住大量事实和概念的任务。
可以“证明”存在着某些关系将这些事实和概念联系起来，人们容易把证明本身与它们之间所建立起来的关系混淆起来。
很清楚，要学习和记住的要点是事实和概念之间的关系，而不是证明本身。
在任何特定情况下，我们可以或者说“能够证明”某某是正确的，或者直接来证明它。
几乎在所有情况中，我们所采用的那种特殊证明首先是为了能将它很快地和容易地写在黑板上或纸上，并且使它尽可能地清楚，结果看上去似乎这个证明很简单。
当看到一个证明时，要记住的并不是证明本身，而是那些能够证明是正确的东西。
一个作者在一门课程中所作的全部论证，并不是他从学习大学一年级物理时就记住的。
完全相反，他只记得某某是正确的，而在说明如何去证明的时候，需要的话，他就自己想出一个证明方法。
无论哪个真正学过一门课程的人，都应遵循类似的步骤去做，而死记证明是无用的。
约束运动。
固定的无摩擦约束运动保守力势和场第十五章狭义相对论第一次看出牛顿所阐明的运动方程存在一个谬误、并找到修正它的方法是在1905年，这两件事都是爱因斯坦。
牛顿第二定律如右：即使速度大到像绕地球运转的卫星，约5英里/秒，对质量修正只是20亿到30亿分之一。
相对性原理是牛顿在他的运动定律的一个推论中首先提出的：“封闭在一个给定空间中的物体，它们的运动彼此之间是同一的，无论这个空间是处于静止状态还是均匀地沿一直线向前运动。
”相对性原理在力学中已应用了很长一段时间，惠更斯应用它来求出弹子球碰撞的规则。
在上一世纪中，由于对电、磁以及光等现象的研究，人们对于这条定理的兴趣更加浓厚了。
许多人对这些现象所作的一系列精心研究，其结晶就是麦克斯韦方程组似乎并不遵循相对性原理。
这就是说，如果我们用上式代入麦克斯韦方程组并对它进行变换，那么它们的形式不再保持相同；因此，在飞行的宇宙飞船中，光与电的现象应当与飞船静止时不同。