Richard Feynman. Why.
Why Hacker News recommends it
Cited constantly as the classic answer to 'why' questions, on explanation, frames of reference and the limits of physics.
What it is
A short clip of Richard Feynman answering an interviewer's question about why magnets repel, explaining that a 'why' question depends on a shared framework of understanding. It illustrates how hard it is to explain fundamentals to a layperson.
Recommended by 5 HN commenters across 5 different months, 2019 to 2026.
What Hacker News said
Recommends acqq · 2019-04 · on “Why have so many physicists shrugged off the paradoxes of quantum mechanics?”
And we can actually listen here Feynman's answer to " what is the meaning of... " and " why " questions: [this video] Note, despite the title of somebody presenting this segment of his talk, he definitely doesn't talk just about "magnets" but really about "the meaning" and "why" questions (the youtube poster got it). About the needed "expected framework" to avoid "perpetual why questions" etc. Even the things that we take for granted, e.g. using electricity in our day to day life, or the eventual "why" we don't fall through the floor can't be properly explained using just our "common" intuition. In another direction, it works, we are "used" to see some effects of the electrical forces all the tim
Recommends Guthur · 2019-09 · on “Overrated: Ludwig Wittgenstein”
It's not simple thing to explain non simple things in a way that it's comprehensible to a layman. I think this video is a very good illustration of this fact [this video]
Recommends tsbinz · 2020-04 · on “Why is Maxwell's theory so hard to understand? (2007) [pdf]”
Regarding "fully" understanding physics, I like to refer people to Feynman's answer to a question about why magnets repel each other[0]. "Assuming something" is one integral part of the scientific method. You formulate a question, you build a hypothesis from prior knowledge, you make predictions, you test them, you analyze your results which might lead you to change your hypothesis or not. "Greatness" is finding simple hypotheses (like "the laws of physics are the same as viewed from any inertial frame and the speed of light is the same for every observer") that predict/"explain" effects that were inconsistent with prior hypotheses. Of course you can never really prove a model of the world i
Recommends rlpb · 2021-03 · on “Why is electricity so hard to understand? (1989)”
There's a really good clip by Richard Feynman on explanations and frames of reference: [this video] I think he does an excellent job of explaining why it's so hard to explain this type of thing.
Recommends magicalhippo · 2024-02 · on “Inside the proton, the ‘most complicated thing you could possibly imagine’”
Richard Feynman addresses a similar "why" question in a great way in this interview[1], and how "why" questions are problematic in science. [1]: [this video]
Cites gridlockd · 2019-08 · on “Crispr now cuts and splices whole chromosomes”
DNA is neither hardware nor software, living organisms aren't computers. Bad analogies are going to frame your thinking and may prevent better understanding. They'll also set you up for fruitless discussions with people who don't like the analogy. Somewhat related: (Richard Feynman - Why) [this video]
Cites Gibbon1 · 2019-09 · on “Ask HN: Why Does the World Exist?”
Makes me think of this talk by Richard Feynman talking about magnets how do they work. [this video] The take away is to answer a why question you need a framework to provide an acceptable answer. Why the universe exists? We don't have possibility can't contain such a framework.
Cites sushibowl · 2019-10 · on “Military Has Been Researching "Anti-Gravity" For Nearly 70 Years”
Richard Feynman himself has a reply similar to yours in the documentary called "Fun To Imagine" when he is asked a why question, in that case related to the magnetic force: [this video] Indeed, questions of why are often metaphysical and can't truly be answered within the framework of physics.