they do not th~nl~ catefully about ~t,
~s the Platonic s c h o o l Plato ( 4 2 7
B C - 3 4 7 BC) cla,med the ~dea o f a
chaz~ was mo~e ~eal than a n y pa~tw-
u l a r chair Thus P l a t o n w Mathe-
m a t ~ c m n s w,ll s a y they 'd~scove~ed' a
result, not 'created' ~t The houble
wzth P l a t o m s m ,s ~t f a z l s to be very
behevable, and certainly cannot ac-
count fo~ how M a t h e m a h c s evolves, as
d~st,nct f r o m e v p a n d , n g and elabo-
rating, the b a s w ~deas and d e f i m -
t,ons o f Mathematics have g~adually
changed ove~ the centuries, and th~s
does not f i t well w~th the ,dea o f the
, m m u t a b l e P l a t o m c ~deas
I w a s a graduate student ~n
M a t h e m a t t c s when th,s f a c t [Hdbert's
~nsert~on o f axzoms o f betweeness and
~ntersectzon ~nto E u c h d ' s postulates
fo~ plane geometry] came to m y at-
t e n h o n I read up on st a b,t, and then
thought a great deal The~e a~e, I am
told, some 4 6 7 theorems ,n Euchd,
but not one o f these theorems tu~v, ed
out to be false afte~ Halbert added h~s
postulates
It soon became emdent to m e one o f
the reasons no theorem u, as false was
that Hdbert 'knot,' the Euchdean theo-
rems u, ete 'correct,' and he had p~clted
h~s added postulates so th~s would be
true But then I soon reahzed E u c h d
had been ,n the same pos~hon, E u c h d
k n e w the 'truth' o f the Pythagorean the-
o~em, and m a n y othe~ theorems, and
had to f i n d a system o f postulates
w h i c h would let h~m get the ~esults he
k n e w ~n advance E u c h d dzd not lay
down postulates and m a k e deduchons
as ~t ,s commonly taught, he felt h,s
w a y back f r o m 'known' results to the
postulates he needed~
Richard Hamnung has served as a
c o n s u l t a n t to the E l d e r s of the
M o r m o n Church, s e r v e d on the Board
of Directors of a large c o m p u t e r cor-
poration, spent 30 y e a r s as a Member
o f Technical Staff at Bell Telephone
Laboratories, l e c t u r e d world-wide, re-
ceived a n u m b e r of p r e s t i g i o u s m e d a l s
a n d awards, and s p e n t 20 y e a r s at
Naval P o s t g r a d u a t e School m the thick
of educaUon His chatty, idiosyncratic,
s o m e t ] m e s annoying, a l w a y s t h o u g h t -
provol~ng b o o k is one of a kind and a
t e m b l y good r e a d
THE MATHEMATICAL tNTELLIGENCER
Department of Mathematical Sciences
Stevens Institute of Technology
Castle Potnt on Hudson
Hoboken NJ 07030
USA
e-mail rptnkham@stevens-tech edu
EDITOR'S NOTE On the o b i t u a r y p a g e of
the New York Times, Sunday, J a n 11,
1998, t h e r e a p p e a r e d an article u n d e r
the headhne, 'Richard Hamming, 82
Dies, P i o n e e r in Digital T e c h n o l o g y " I
quote from the article
R~cha~d Wesley H a m m z n g , who d~s-
cove~ed mathematzcal f o r m u l a s that
allow computers to correct thez~ own
errots, mako~g possible such ~nnova-
h o n s as modems, compact dzsks and
satelhte c o m m u n t c a t w n s , d~ed on
Wednesday at a hospital ,n Monterey,
C a h f , where he heed He was 82
He d~ed o f a heart attach, h~s f a m -
~ly sa~d
Feynman's Lost Lecture
by David L Goodste~n and
J u d i t h R Goodste~n
LONDON JONATHAN CAPE (1996)
ISBN 0 224 04394 3
REVIEWED BY GRAHAM W G R I F F I T H S
Richard F,eynman was one of flus
century s great physlctsts He
shared the 1965 Nobel Prize for Physics
with Juhan Schwmger a n d Shimchtro
T o m o n a g a for the invention o f quan-
t u m e l e c t r o d y n a m i c s Most p e o p l e
with an interest in things scmnt]fic will
recall that F e y n m a n served m 1986 on
the p r e s i d e n t i a l c o m m m s m n investi-
gating the Challenger s p a c e shuttle dis-
a s t e r D u n n g a televised h e a n n g o f the
commission, he d r a m a t i c a l l y d e m o n -
s t r a t e d that O-nng seal failure at low
t e m p e r a t u r e s was a likely c a u s e o f the
acodent
In 1961 Feyrmlan agreed to t e a c h the
two-year introductory physics course at
the Cahforma Institute of Technology
Ttus s e n e s of lectures was r e c o r d e d
and transcribed, and the b l a c k b o a r d s
p h o t o g r a p h e d F r o m this mformatmn,
the mteruatmnally r e n o w n e d "Feynman
Lectures on Physics" were p r o d u c e d
and p u b h s h e d
In 1687 N e w t o n published his in-
verse-square l a w of grawty In the mag-
nificent w o r k Phdosoph,ce N a t u ~ a h s
P ~ n c , p ~ a M a t h e m a t w a , n o w com-
monly k n o w n as the Ib'~nc,pm The
Pr~nc~pm is p r o b a b l y the greatest sci-
entific w o r k e v e r published and has ln-
t n g u e d scmntmts and m a t h e m a t i c i a n s
b e c a u s e o f the vast extent of the
ground c o v e r e d a n d the beauty a n d dif-
ficulty of the p r o o f s zt c o n t a m s
F e y n m a n ' s Lost Lecture is a recon-
structaon of a lecture gqven by F e y n m a n
which centered around attemptmg to
prove Newton's mverse-square law of
gravity using only the mathematmal
tools available to Newton Thts lecture
was gnven to freshmen at Caltech at the
end of the w i n t e r quarter in 1964 as a
guest lecture, not part of the ongmal lec-
ture course It w a s ongmally r e c o r d e d
on audio cassette, but the accompany-
mg photographs were nnslmd Thus, it
had not been possible to reconstruct
this lecture until m April 1992 Feyn-
man's ongmal notes were dtscovered m
the office of his colleague, Robert
Lelghtman, followmg Leightman's
death Once F e y n m a n ' s notes w e r e un-
earthed, D a w d Goodstem, a p h y s m s
p r o f e s s o r at Caltech who w o r k e d with
Feynman, w a s able to r e c o n s t r u c t b y
sleuthhke d e d u c t i o n the lecture m its
entirely It is n o t m a d e clear w h e t h e r
it was ever a t t e m p t e d to locate n o t e s
t a k e n b y a t t e n d e e s at the lecture for
verification p u r p o s e s
By w a y of an introduction to the
subject, the b o o k p r o v i d e s b a c k g r o u n d
m f o r m a t m n relating to the w o r k o f
Tycho Brahe, Kepler, Newton, and oth-
ers, t o g e t h e r with s o m e amusing anec-
dotal r e m ] m s c e n c e s of D G o o d s t e m ' s
relatmnship with F e y n m a n Some pho-
tographs of F e y n m a n at the black-
b o a r d are also r e p r o d u c e d The epi-
logue d i s c u s s e s b n e f l y the w o r k o f
Maxwell and Rutherford, and de-
scribes how, after two h u n d r e d years,
Einstein's t h e o n e s of relatlv~ty super-
s e d e d N e w t o n ' s t h e o r y of gravttatmn
for s p e e d s a p p r o a c h i n g the s p e e d of
light and for large c o n c e n t r a t i o n s of
matter
The r e c o n s t r u c t i o n is a bit l a b o r e d
in places, p a r t i c u l a r l y m r e s p e c t o f
 G t
F=gure 1 Construct,on Of Elhpse
Kepler's 2nd Law (equal areas swept
out in equal time, which also implies
c o n s e r v a t i o n of angular m o m e n t u m )
A more interesting part of the lecture
is where F e y n m a n appeals to F e r m a t ' s
Pnnclple, 1 e , light always takes the
shortest path, in order to provide a
s o m e w h a t novel proof of a property of
an elhpse rather than adopting a purely
geometrical approach, Figure 1
The p r o o f also c o n t a m s a very re-
markable ~eloclty diagram, Figure 2,
which was published previously by
James Clerk Maxwell In his 1877 b o o k
Matter and Motion Maxwell attrib-
utes the method to Sir William
Hamilton, which goes to show how dif-
ficult It is to discover something com-
pletely o n g m a l F e y n m a n was appar-
ently u n a w a r e of Maxwell's book,
b e c a u s e he credits V Fano and L F a n o
\ Those readers unfamiliar with the
IJ
S I
a)
F,gure 2 a) Orb,t D,agram b) Velocity Dmgram
with some of the Ideas in their discus-
sions of the Rutherford Scattenng Law
in the 1957 b o o k Basic Physws of
Atoms and Molecules F e y n m a n shows
rather cleverly that, as a result of
Kepler's 2nd Law, orbit velocity dia-
grams subject to an mverse-square law
of gravity must be circular
The objective of the lecture was for
F e y n m a n to prove to his students that
elhpt~cal planetary orbits with the s u n
at one focus are a direct c o n s e q u e n c e
of Newton's reverse-square law How-
ever, close i n s p e c t i o n of the book re-
~eals that n e i t h e r F e y n m a n n o r the
Goodstems have truly provided such a
proof Nevertheless, the Goodstems
present the F e y n m a n lecture as if It did
actually c o n t m n a b n l h a n t proof, and
this is a very real w e a k n e s s In the lec-
ture given in c h a p t e r 4, F e y n m a n re-
ferred repeatedly to his "elementary
demonstrations" and "demonstra-
tions " F e y n m a n omits some crucial
steps and r e f i n e m e n t s that would have
to be Included for his d e m o n s t r a t i o n s
to be acceptable as a proof Missing
c o m p o n e n t s include
9 an explanation of the scalmg be-
t w e e n the hodograph velocity diagram
and the orbit diagram,
9 a coherent a r g u m e n t why it is justi-
fied to use the p e r p e n d i c u l a r bisector
of Op (diagram on page 162) to locate
the corresponding point, P, on the or-
bit diagram, w h e n It Is not k n o w n a
p r w m that the a n s w e r will turn out to
be an ellipse, and,
9 an adequate e x p l a n a t i o n of how par-
b)
abohc and hyperbolic orbits are iden-
tified, using the hodograph method,
knowing only that the central force
obeys an reverse-square law, and that
equal areas are swept out m equal time
Whilst F e y n m a n did d e m o n s t r a t e
the existence of elhptlcal orbit solu-
tions to the problem, what he did n o t
demonstrate is the lmlqueness of these
solutions Furthermore, he alludes to
this situation on page 164 " is what
I proved that the ellipse is a possible
solution to the p r o b l e m " Unfortu-
nately, F e y m n a n also made other state-
m e n t s apparently contradicting this
view, so we will n e v e r really know how
n g o r o u s he believed has lecture to be
D u n n g his lecture, F e y n m a n con-
fided to has s t u d e n t s that he had expe-
rmnced considerable difficulty with
some of the comc-sectlon geometry
F e y m n a n states " he [Newton] per-
petually uses (for me) completely ob-
scure properties of the conic sections,"
and " the r e m m n m g d e m o n s t r a t i o n
is not one which c o m e s from Newton,
because I found I c o u l d n ' t follow it my-
self very well, b e c a u s e it mvolves so
m a n y properties of conic sections So
I cooked up a n o t h e r o n e " As it hap-
pens, most the proofs in question were
o n g m a l l y published in The Conws,
Book III by Appolomus, circa 200 B C ,
a n d all were c o m m o n l y included in
books on geometry until the early part
of this century, e g, An Elementa~?1
T~eatise On Conic Sectmns By 77~e
Methods Of Co-ordinate Geometry by
C Smith, MacMillan, 1910 If the conic
section properties were unfamiliar to
s o m e o n e with such a ~ast knowledge
of mathematics and physms as
Feynman, it makes one w o n d e r how
n m c h other useful knowledge has been
dropped from the m o d e r n curncuhanl
in the name of progress
f'mer points of Newton's derlxatlons
will find that S K Stem's article,
"Exactly How Did Newton Deal With
His Planets" (The Mathematwal In-
tell~gence~, ~ol 18, no 2), pro~ades a
clear exposition from basic p n n c l p l e s
Slrmlarly, readers unfamthar x~lth the
use of velocity diagrams or hodographs
should refer to Andrew Lenard's paper,
"Kepler Orblts--Mo~e Geomeh wo," m
VOLUME20 NUMBER3 1998 69
the College Mathematws Jour~al 25,
no 2 (March 1994), which pro~ades an
excellent lntroductmn
The Goodstems make a n assertion
which is not umversally accepted by
historians of scmnce " There ~s httle
doubt that he [Newton] used these pow-
erflfl tools [differential and integral cal-
culus] to make his great chscovenes"
This lmphes that Newton first worked
out his solutions usmg the Calculus, and
then recast them into a geometrical
form Whilst it is true, as R Westfall has
pointed out m his defmmve biography
of Newton, Neve~ at Rest, that Newton
confided to his frmnd Wflham Derhmn
that he deliberately made his Prmclpia
abstruse " to avoid bemg bmted by
httle Smatterers of Mathematxcks ,"
this apphed to the recasting of Book III
of the P~ ~ne~p~a from a prose style to
the mathematical format that he sub-
sequently p u b h s h e d This was a result
of his clash(es) with Robert Hooke
70 THE MATHEMATICALINTELLIGENCER
D T Whites]de has made the point
forcibly that the mathematics used by
Newton to arrive at his d]scoverms is
the same mathematms he used m the
P~nc~pm
It is extremely s a n s f y m g to see that
a great physmmt like F e y n m a n was in-
terested sufficiently m the h l s t o n c a l
d e v e l o p m e n t of h~s sub3ect that he
was p r e p a r e d to devote s l g m f m a n t
n i n e to p r e s e n t i n g h~stoncal develop-
ments, s u c h as Newton's inverse-
square law of gra~qty, to his s t u d e n t s
I am c o m a n c e d that u n w e r s m e s will
t u r n out b e t t e r educated s c m n n s t s m
the future ff they encourage s t u d e n t s
to a p p r e c m t e the p r o b l e m s that con-
f r o n t e d great scientists m the past,
and to u n d e ] s t a n d how those s c m n -
n s t s solved them wath the tools avail-
able at the time
It must be stud that ff the Goodstems
had included an appendax providing a n
over~aew of hodograph theory, the edu-
cauonal value of the book would have
been greatly e n h a n c e d Nevertheless,
this book has been produced to a high
quahty and will be a'valuable addition to
any library, and is recommended read-
mg for all students of Newton and
Feymnan All the discussions should be
readily understood by anyone famlhar
with high school mathematms
Acknowledgments
The re~aewer w o u l d hke to acknowl-
edge useful and mformatlve discus-
sions with Professor Robert Burckel
(Kansas State) a n d Professor Robert
Wemstock ( O b e r h n College) m con-
nection with this rexaew
Control Eng~neenngResearch Centre
Oty University
Northampton Square
London EC1 0HB
United Kingdom
e-ma~l graham@sastco uk