第3集 【费曼访谈】从另一个视角看待这个世界

[段 1]

You could take any crazy idea. I don’t know, it’s hard to make up a very crazy one. Like witches or something like that. You tell about what people used to believe in witches. And of course nobody believes in witches now. And you say, how could they believe in witches? Then you turn around and you say, let’s see, what witches do we believe in? What ceremonies do we do? Every morning we brush our teeth. What is the evidence that the brushing of teeth does the centigrade and cabbage. You start wondering. Are we all, imagine as the earth turns on the orbit, there’s an edge between light and dark. And along that edge, all the people along that edge were doing the same ritual for no good reason. Just like in the Middle Ages, they had other rituals. And you kind of picture this perpetual line of toothbrushes going around the earth. It’s to take the world from another point of view. Now it may well be that brushing teeth is a very good thing because it gets rid of cavities and you can find out whether it does or it doesn’t by trying to find out.

[译文 1]

你可以拿任何一个疯狂的想法来说。我不知道，很难想出一个特别疯狂的例子。比如女巫之类的。你跟人们讲过去大家怎么相信女巫。当然现在没人信女巫了。然后你会说，他们怎么能相信女巫呢？接着你回过头来说，等等，我们信的是什么女巫？我们做的又是什么仪式？每天早上我们刷牙。有什么证据表明刷牙能驱除什么温度和卷心菜。你开始感到困惑。我们所有人，想象地球沿着轨道运转，光明和黑暗之间有一条边界线。沿着那条边界线，所有人都在做同样毫无理由的仪式。就像中世纪，他们也有其他各种仪式。你脑海中浮现出一条永无尽头的牙刷线环绕着地球。这是从另一个角度看世界。刷牙也许是一件非常好的事情，因为它能去除蛀牙，你可以去验证它到底有没有效果。

[段 2]

Now you can ask your dentist, he says of course and you say how about evidence, I have not found the evidence from dentists because they just learned it in school. Now I’m not trying to argue that it’s good or bad to brush teeth. What I’m trying to argue for is to think about things from a new point of view. Music

You see, I have had in my life a number of pleasant experiences. The earliest one, when I was a kid, I invented a problem for myself, the sum of the powers of the integers. And in trying to get the formula for it I developed a certain set of numbers that I could form it for which I couldn’t get and I discovered later that those were known as the Bernoulli numbers and discovered in 1739. So I was up to 1739 when I was about 14. And then a little later I discovered something. I invented a thing called which we now call operator calculus and that was invented in 1890 something. You see, gradually I was inventing things that came later and later. But the moment when I began to realize that I was now working on something new was when I read about quantum electrodynamics at the time.

[译文 2]

现在你可以去问你的牙医，他说当然要刷牙，然后你问他证据呢，我没从牙医那里找到证据，因为他们只是在课本上学到的。我不是在争论刷牙是好是坏。我想说的是，要学会从新的角度去思考问题。音乐

你知道吗，我一生中有过许多愉快的经历。最早的一次，当我还是个孩子的时候，我给自己发明了一个问题，整数幂次和的问题。在试图推导出它的公式时，我发展出一套数字体系，当时我求不出来，后来才发现那被称为伯努利数，是1739年发现的。所以我在大约14岁时就已经到了1739年的水平。后来我又发现了一些东西。我发明了一种我们现在称为算符微积分的东西，那是19世纪90年代发明的。你看，我发明的东西年代越来越晚。但当我开始意识到我正在研究一些全新的东西时，是在我读到量子电动力学的时候。

[段 3]

And I read a book and I learned about it. For example, I read Dirac’s book. And he had these problems that nobody knew how to solve. It was described there. I couldn’t understand the book very well because I really wasn’t up to it. But there in the last paragraph at the end of the book it said, Some new ideas are here needed. And so there I was, some new ideas were needed, okay, so I started to think of new ideas. Okay, so I started to think of new ideas. Richard Feynman, Nobel Prize winner, and his son Carl stepped gingerly down the wet cobbles of Millbank, high in the Yorkshire Pennines. Feynman, Professor of Physics at the California Institute of Technology, retreats to this remote village near his wife’s home for a special purpose. It’s here he finds the time and solitude to sift the ideas that have made him the most feared and original mind in modern physics. Feynman is in the forefront of one of the oldest and most intriguing games of hide-and-seek in science, finding the ultimate constituents of the world. In this search, Feynman is a celebrated maverick who was encouraged by his father, a New York clothing salesman, to confront conventional wisdom.

[译文 3]

我读了一本书，从中了解了它。比如，我读了狄拉克的书。书里有一些没人知道怎么解决的问题，书里就是这么写的。我读不太懂那本书，因为我的水平确实不够。但在书的最后一段写着，这里需要一些新的想法。而我就在那里，需要一些新的想法，好吧，那我就开始想新的想法。好吧，那我就开始想新的想法。诺贝尔奖得主理查德·费曼和他的儿子卡尔小心翼翼地走在米尔班克湿漉漉的鹅卵石路上，这里是约克郡奔宁山脉的高处。加州理工学院物理学教授费曼来到这个靠近妻子家乡的偏远村庄，有着特殊的目的。正是在这里，他找到了时间和独处的空间，去梳理那些使他成为现代物理学界最令人敬畏和最具原创性的头脑的想法。费曼站在科学中最古老、最引人入胜的捉迷藏游戏的前沿——寻找世界的基本构成要素。在这场探索中，费曼是一位著名的特立独行者，他的父亲——一位纽约服装销售员——曾鼓励他挑战传统观念。

[段 4]

One Sunday, all the kids were all walking in little parties with their fathers in the woods. Then the next Monday, we were playing in a field, and the kid said to me, he said, what’s that bird? Do you know the name of that bird? I said, I’m the slightest idea. He said, well, it’s a brown-throated thrush. He says, your father doesn’t teach you anything. But my father had already taught me about the names of birds. Once we walked in he says that’s a brown-throated thrush. He says, know what the name of that bird is? A brown-throated thrush? In German it’s called a Flieglfliegl. In Chinese it’s called a Tinglongtong. In Japanese a Tahatahara. And so on. And when you know all the names in every language of that bird you know nothing, but absolutely nothing, about the bird. Then we would go on and talk about the pecking and the feathers. So I had learned already that names don’t constitute knowledge, but the knowing the name of something, that’s caused me a certain trouble since, because I refuse to learn the name of anything. So when someone comes in and says, you got any explanation for the Fitzconan experiment?

[译文 4]

一个星期天，所有孩子都和父亲们三三两两地走在树林里。到了第二天星期一，我们在田野里玩，有个孩子对我说，他说，那是什么鸟？你知道那只鸟叫什么名字吗？我说，我一点都不知道。他说，那是褐喉鸫。他说，你父亲什么都不教你。但我父亲其实已经教过我鸟的名字了。有一次我们散步时他说，那是褐喉鸫。他说，你知道那只鸟叫什么名字吗？褐喉鸫？在德语里叫Flieglfliegl。在中文里叫Tinglongtong。在日语里叫Tahatahara。等等。当你知道了那只鸟在每种语言里的名字，你对那只鸟仍然一无所知，绝对一无所知。然后我们会继续讨论啄食和羽毛。所以我早就学到了，名字并不构成知识，但知道某样东西的名字，后来给我带来了一些麻烦，因为我拒绝学习任何东西的名字。所以当有人进来说，你对菲茨科南实验有什么解释吗？

[段 5]

I says, what’s that? He says, you know, that the long-lived K-meson disintegrates into two pies. Oh, oh, yes, now I know. But I never know the names of things. What he forgot to tell me was that the knowing the names of things is useful if you want to talk to somebody else so you tell them what you’re talking about but the basic principle of knowing about something rather than just knowing its name is something that you stuck to is it yes of course that you have to learn these are kind of disciplines in the field of science that you have to learn that to know when you know and when you don’t know and what it is you know and what it is you don’t know it’s uh you got to be very careful not to confuse yourself. How else did he try and progress mold your methods of thinking the way you looked at the world? Well, we had a lot of little games, like you would say at the dinner table. Like he would say at the dinner table, you’d think of some little problem. And he’d say, suppose you were a Martian, you were Martians, and we came down to this earth and we’d look at it from the outside.

[译文 5]

我说，那是什么？他说，你知道的，长寿命K介子衰变成两个π介子。哦，哦，是的，现在我知道了。但我从来不知道事物的名字。他忘了告诉我的是，知道事物的名字如果你想跟别人交流是有用的，这样你才能告诉他们你在说什么，但了解某件事而不是仅仅知道它的名字这个基本原则，是你必须坚持的，是的，当然你必须学习这些，这是科学领域中你必须学会的纪律，要知道你什么时候知道、什么时候不知道，你知道什么、你不知道什么，你不能把自己搞糊涂。他还用什么其他方式来努力塑造你的思维方式和你看待世界的方式呢？嗯，我们有很多小游戏，比如吃饭的时候他会说。他会说，假设你是一个火星人，你是火星人，我们来到地球，我们从外面观察它。

[段 6]

I can’t explain exactly what he meant, but there’s a way of looking at something anew, as if you never saw it before, for the first time, and asking questions about it as if you were different. For instance, if you were to ask… Later I did some little amusing research for a paper in college on sleep. But it started with a question of his kind. Suppose you were a Martian who never slept. They didn’t have sleep. You didn’t have to sleep. And you came down to this earth and you saw these people have this funny puppy that every day for a certain amount of time had to lie down and become unconscious. And then the natural question would be, how does it feel to get unconscious? What happens to you? Ideas run along and suddenly they stop? Or do they just run more and more slowly? But what happens to your ideas? How does it feel to become unconscious? So I tried to answer the question, what happens when you become unconscious? But do you find that these days you still, when you’re faced with a particularly difficult problem, when you’re absolutely stuck, you tend to say, let’s look at it like a Martian would look at it.

[译文 6]

我不能准确解释他的意思，但有一种方式可以重新审视某件事，就像你从未见过它一样，第一次见到它，然后像一个不同的人那样去问问题。比如，如果你去问……后来我在大学时为一篇论文做了一些关于睡眠的有趣的研究。但这一切始于他那种类型的问题。假设你是一个从不睡觉的火星人。他们不需要睡觉。你不需要睡觉。你来到地球，看到这些人有一种奇怪的宠物，每天在某个时间段必须躺下变得不自然的状态。那很自然的问题会是，变得不自然是什么感觉？你身上会发生什么？想法在运行然后突然停止？还是只是越来越慢？但你的想法会怎样？变得不自然是什么感觉？所以我试图回答这个问题，当你变得不自然时会发生什么？但你发现现在，当你面对一个特别困难的问题时，当你完全卡住的时候，你倾向于说，让我们像火星人那样来看待它。

[段 7]

Sometimes. There are lots of things that people did. For example, Maxwell put the equations together. The Faraday formulated the equations mathematically with some model in his hand. And Dirac got his answer by just writing and guessing an equation. And uh, writing and guessing an equation. And other people got, they were asked, like in relativity, they got the idea by looking at principles of symmetry. Now all these methods, and Heisenberg got his quantum mechanics by thinking only talk about the things that you can measure. Now all these ideas, we should only talk about things that we can measure, try to define things in terms of only things you measure, or let’s formulate the equation mathematically, or let’s guess the equation, all these things are tried all the time. Look for symmetries. All that stuff is tried. All that stuff, when we’re going against the problem, we do all that. That’s very useful. But we all know that. That’s what we learn in the physics classes, how to do that. But the new problem, where we’re stuck, we’re stuck because all those methods don’t work. If any of those methods would have worked, we would have gone through there.

[译文 7]

有时候会。人们做过很多事情。比如，麦克斯韦把方程组整合在一起。法拉第用他手中的模型把方程用数学形式表达出来。狄拉克只是写出并猜出了一个方程。还有，写出并猜出一个方程。其他人，比如相对论，他们是通过观察对称性原理得到的想法。现在所有这些方法，海森堡是通过只谈论你能测量的东西而得到了量子力学。现在所有这些想法，我们应该只谈论我们能测量的东西，试着只用你能测量的东西来定义事物，或者用数学形式表达方程，或者猜测方程，这些方法一直都在被尝试。寻找对称性。所有那些方法都被尝试过。所有那些方法，当我们面对问题时，我们都会去做。那非常有用。但我们都知道。那就是我们在物理课上学的，怎么做那些方法。但新的问题，我们卡住的地方，我们卡住是因为所有这些方法都不管用。如果其中任何一种方法管用，我们早就通过了。

[段 8]

So when we get stuck in a certain place, it’s a place where history will not repeat herself. And that makes it even more exciting, because whatever we’re going to look at, the method and the trick and the way it’s going to look is going to be very different than anything that we’ve seen before because we’ve used all the methods from before. So, therefore, a thing like the history of the idea is an accident of how things actually happen. And if I want to turn the history around and try to get a new way of looking at it, it doesn’t make any difference. I don’t care. The only thing that the real test in physics is experiment and history. Real test in physics is experiment and history is fundamentally irrelevant. The most enduring legacy from his father was not just learning to question the physical world but an enthusiasm for the inquiry which at 54 Feynman still shares today. It has to do with curiosity, it has to do with people wondering what makes something do something and then to discover that if you try to get answers that they’re related to each other. The things that make the wind make the waves and the motion of water is like the motion of air is like the motion of sand.

[译文 8]

所以当我们卡在某个地方时，那是一个历史不会重演的地方。这让人更加兴奋，因为无论我们将要研究什么，它的方法、技巧和呈现方式都将与我们以前见过的任何东西完全不同，因为我们已经用尽了以前所有的方法。因此，思想的历史实际上是一种偶然，取决于事物实际发生的历程。如果我想扭转历史，尝试获得一种新的看待方式，那没有任何区别。我不在乎。物理学中唯一真正的检验是实验和历史。物理学中唯一真正的检验是实验，而历史从根本上说是无关紧要的。从父亲那里得到的最持久的遗产不仅仅是学会质疑物理世界，更是一种对探索的热情，54岁的费曼至今仍保持着这种热情。这与好奇心有关，与人们好奇是什么让某物做出某种行为有关，然后发现如果你去寻找答案，它们彼此之间是相互关联的。让风形成波浪的东西，水的运动就像空气的运动，就像沙子的运动。

[段 9]

The fact that things have common features turns out more and more universal. What we’re looking for is how everything works and how everything, what makes everything work. And what happens first in the history is we discover the things that are on the face of it, obviously. And then gradually that we ask more questions and then we dig in a little deeper to things that we can just make. We need to do a little more complicated experiment to find out about. But it’s curiosity as to where we are, what we are. It’s very much more exciting to discover we’re on a ball, half of it sticking upside down. It’s spinning around in space. It’s a mysterious force which holds us up. It’s going around a great big glob of gas that’s burning by a fuel, by a fire that’s completely different than the fire, any fire we can make. Well, now we can make that fire, nuclear fire. No. But that’s a much more exciting story to many people than the tales which other people used to make up, who worried about the universe, that we were living on the back of a turtle or something like that.

[译文 9]

事物具有共同特征这一事实，结果证明越来越具有普遍性。我们想要探究的是一切如何运作，是什么让一切运转起来。在历史上，我们首先发现的往往是那些显而易见的、摆在明面上的事物。然后我们逐渐提出更多问题，再稍微深入挖掘，去探究那些我们需要设计更复杂的实验才能弄清楚的东西。但这一切都源于对我们身处何方、我们是什么的好奇心。发现自己生活在一个球体上，有一半人头朝下，这要令人兴奋得多。这个球体在太空中旋转。有一种神秘的力量将我们托举起来。它围绕着一团巨大的气体运转，那团气体通过一种燃料燃烧着，一种与我们能制造出的任何火都完全不同的火。不过现在我们能造出那种火了——核火。不。但对许多人来说，这比过去那些担心宇宙的人编造的故事——比如我们生活在一只龟的背上之类的传说——要精彩得多。

[段 10]

They were wonderful stories, but the truth is so much more remarkable. And so, what’s the pleasure in physics is that, to me, is that as it’s revealed, the truth is so remarkable, so amazing. And I can’t… I have this disease, and many other people who have studied far enough to begin to understand a little of how things work are fascinated by it. And this fascination drives them on to such an extent that they’ve been able to convince governments and so on to keep supporting them in this investigation that the race is making into its own environment. As a theoretical physicist, Feynman doesn’t have a laboratory, and he finds family relaxation helps him to concentrate. In recent years, he’s been concerned with the long-asked, almost childlike question, what are things really made of? What makes up the world we see around us? Have we at last come to the foundation stone from which we can make anything? A tree, a human being? Or must we go on looking at smaller and smaller pieces and going deeper and deeper into a bottomless pit? Feynman is trying to knit together our scattered knowledge of the smallest pieces of matter to see whether they fit a pattern.

[译文 10]

那些故事很美妙，但真相要惊人得多。所以，物理学带给我的乐趣在于，随着真相被揭示，它是如此非凡、如此令人惊叹。我有一种毛病，许多其他研究到一定程度、开始稍微理解事物运作方式的人，也为此着迷。这种着迷驱使他们走到如此地步，以至于他们能够说服政府等各方继续支持他们对自身所处环境的探索。作为一名理论物理学家，费曼没有他发现家庭生活有助于他集中注意力。近年来，他一直在思考一个被反复追问的、近乎孩童般的问题：事物究竟是由什么构成的？我们周围所见的世界是由什么组成的？我们是否终于找到了可以构成一切的基石？一棵树，一个人？还是我们必须继续寻找越来越小的碎片，越来越深地钻入一个无底的深渊？费曼正试图把我们关于物质最小碎片的零散知识编织在一起，看看它们是否符合某种规律。

[段 11]

The problem, although fundamentally important to all branches of science, seems far removed from everyday reality. The world is strange. The whole universe is very strange. But, see, when you look at the details and you find out that the rules are very simple of the game, the mechanical rules by which you can figure out exactly what’s going to happen when the situation is simple. It’s, again, this chess game. If you were in just a corner where only a few pieces are involved, you can work out exactly what’s going to happen. And you could always do that when there’s only a few pieces. And so you know you understand it. And yet, in the real game, it’s so many pieces you can’t figure out what’s going to happen. So there was a kind of hierarchy of different complexities. It’s hard to believe. It’s incredible. In fact, most people don’t believe that the behavior of, say, me, one yak-yak, and you nodding and all this stuff, is the result of lots and lots of atoms all obeying these very simple rules come out, that it evolves into such a creature that a billion years of life with its experiences has produced a thing with prongs that stick out like this and so on.

[译文 11]

这个问题虽然从根本上对所有科学分支都至关重要，但似乎与日常生活相距甚远。这个世界很奇异。整个宇宙都非常奇异。但你看，当你观察细节，发现游戏的规则其实非常简单——那些机械般的规则，让你能够准确推算出在简单情境下会发生什么。这又回到了那个棋局。如果你只在一个角落，只有少数几个棋子参与，你就能准确推算出将要发生什么。而当只有少数几个棋子时，你总是能做到这一点。于是你便知道你理解了它。然而在真正的棋局中，棋子太多，你无法推算出将要发生什么。所以存在一种不同复杂性的层级结构。这令人难以置信。事实上，大多数人不相信，比如说，我——一个喋喋不休的人——和你点头以及所有这些行为，都是大量原子遵循这些极其简单的规则所产生的结果，它进化成了这样一种生命体，数十亿年的生命历程及其经历，造就了这样一个长出各种突起的奇特存在。

[段 12]

The real… There’s such a lot in the world, there’s so much distance between the fundamental rules and the final phenomena that it’s almost unbelievable that the final variety of phenomena can come from such a steady operation of such simple rules. But you’ve had to build the most complex scaffolding to find out the simple rules. But it is not complicated. It’s just a lot of it. And if you’d start at the beginning, which nobody wants to do, I mean, nobody wants to do. I mean, you come in to me now in an interview and you’re asking me about the latest discoveries that have been made. Nobody ever asks about a simple ordinary phenomenon in the street. Oh, like what about those colors or something like that. I have a nice interview explaining all about the colors, butterfly wings, whole big deal. You don’t care about that. You want the big final result. Then it’s going to be complicated because I am at the end of 400 years a very effective method of finding things out about the world. In the search for the ground rules of the physical world, John Dalton worked out a comprehensive explanation over 150 years ago.

[译文 12]

真实情况是……世界上有太多东西，基本规则与最终现象之间的距离如此之大，以至于令人几乎不敢相信，最终如此多样的现象竟能来自如此简单规则的稳定运作。但你必须搭建最复杂的脚手架，才能发现那些简单规则。但它并不复杂。它只是数量很多。如果你从头开始——虽然没人愿意这么做——我是说，没人愿意。我是说，你现在来采访我，你问的是最新发现的成果。从来没有人问过街上那些简单平常的现象。哦，比如那些颜色之类的。我可以做一次精彩的访谈，详细解释蝴蝶翅膀的颜色，大谈一番。你根本不关心那些。你想要的是最终的重大结果。那就很复杂了，因为我处于四百年发展出的一个非常有效的世界探索方法的尽头。在寻找物理世界基本规则的过程中，约翰·道尔顿在一百五十多年前提出了一套全面的解释。

[段 13]

He assumed that everything we see is made out of tiny atoms, that they’re immutable and indestructible, and that atoms of different chemical elements, like lead or copper, have different weights. Too small to be observed, the atoms combine with each other to form complicated molecules, and vast collections of these molecules are recognisable to us as tables, trees or whatever. But in the final analysis, atoms were to be the smallest constituents of matter, ultimate and unchangeable. At the turn of the century, we evolved our present picture of the atom, light electrons surrounding a heavy central core or nucleus. Once the atom was shown to be destructible, attention turned to the nucleus and during the 30s it was found that bombarding one nucleus with another led to a release of energy and the breaking up of the nuclei. This process, which takes place in nuclear accelerators, is phenomenal. This process, which takes place in nuclear accelerators, is photographed in a liquid bubble chamber. You take a liquid, liquid hydrogen or some other liquid, and expand it so that it’s ready to boil. Low temperature and you decrease the pressure, it’s ready to boil, and it has to form bubbles somewhere.

[译文 13]

他假设我们所见的一切都由微小的原子构成，原子是不可改变、不可毁灭的，而不同化学元素的原子——比如铅或铜——有不同的重量。原子太小无法被直接观察，它们相互结合形成复杂的分子，而大量分子的集合体就是我们能够辨认出的桌子、树木或其他事物。但在最终的分析中，原子被认为是物质最小的组成部分，是终极的、不可改变的。到了世纪之交，我们发展出了如今的原子图像：轻盈的电子围绕着沉重的核心——原子核——运转。一旦原子被证明是可毁灭的，人们的注意力便转向了原子核，在三十年代发现，用一个原子核轰击另一个原子核，会导致能量的释放和原子核的裂变。这个过程发生在核加速器中，这个过程在液体气泡室中被拍摄下来。你取一种液体，液态氢或其他某种液体，使其膨胀到即将沸腾的状态。在低压低温下，它随时准备沸腾，必须在某处形成气泡。

[段 14]

And any little piece of dirt or any little disturbance, it’ll form a bubble. In that condition, if a particle comes flying through from some machine, it leaves a track. It tears up the atoms along with the electrons that knocked off the atoms along its track. And we can’t see that. But when the liquid tries to boil, the bubbles form around these charged particles which are left. So it leaves a string of bubbles that then form. Then you can take a picture of the bubbles. So the simplest picture would be if you had a machine that made fast particles. The particles would go through, and you’d see a string of bubbles. But if the particles on the way through hit the nucleus of another atom, then you see a string of bubbles in a kind of a Y if it made its recoil plus some other thing. Instead of a Y you may see more complicated track three or four coming out and then one of them going along and going into two. Then you know that some particle went along and disintegrated. Now these things are going nearly at the speed of light and so if you can see a short distance of few centimeters that’s corresponds to a tenth of a billionth of a second.

[译文 14]

任何微小的杂质或任何微小的扰动，都会形成一个气泡。在这种状态下，如果某个粒子从机器中飞射穿过，它会留下一条轨迹。它沿途撕裂原子，同时撞飞原子上的电子。我们看不到这些。但当液体试图沸腾时，气泡会在这些残留的带电粒子周围形成。所以它留下一串气泡。然后你就可以拍摄这些气泡的照片。所以最简单的画面是，如果你有一台产生高速粒子的机器。粒子穿过，你会看到一串气泡。但如果粒子在途中撞上了另一个原子的原子核，那么你会看到Y形的气泡串——如果它产生了反冲加上其他东西。你可能看到的不只是Y形，而是更复杂的轨迹——三条或四条轨迹射出，然后其中一条继续前行并分裂成两条。那么你就知道某个粒子一路前行然后衰变了。这些粒子的运动速度接近光速，所以如果你能看到短短几厘米的距离，那对应的就是一百亿分之一秒。

[段 15]

That is, if a track comes out, goes along here, and then bifurcates into two, you know you made a product which integrated into two in less than a ten billionth of a second. So you see, it’s not very difficult to… second so it’s not very difficult to find out about these things with the right with clever techniques. Since the war with evidence from bubble chamber photographs like this physicists have explored the nucleus of the atom. The results have been spectacular and confusing. The harder the nuclei were bombarded against each other the more they disintegrated into even tinier particles until literally hundreds were known. In the last ten years, some order has been made out of seeming chaos by arranging the particles into patterns. Each pattern has eight or ten members, related by nuclear properties like spin and mass. To the physicist, patterns like this imply the possibility of even smaller particles, not yet identified but already named. The key to the question of what makes up the physical world, then, lies in the understanding of the nature of these nuclear patterns. We’re getting close because we have a number of little theories by which we can understand these patterns.

[译文 15]

也就是说，如果一条轨迹射出来，沿着这里走，然后分叉成两条，你就知道你产生了一个在不到一百亿分之一秒内分裂成两个的产物。所以你看，用合适的巧妙技术来了解这些事物并不困难。自从战争以来，物理学家们借助气泡室照片中的证据探索了原子核。结果既壮观又令人困惑。原子核被相互轰击得越剧烈，它们就分裂成越小的粒子，直到已知的粒子实际上达到了数百种。在过去十年中，通过将粒子排列成各种模式，从看似混乱中理出了一些秩序。每个模式有八个或十个成员，通过自旋和核质量等核性质相互关联。对物理学家来说，这样的模式暗示着存在更小的粒子的可能性，这些粒子尚未被确认，但已经被命名了。那么，解开物理世界组成之谜的关键，就在于理解这些核模式的本质。我们正接近答案，因为我们有一些小理论可以用来理解这些模式。

[段 16]

One picture which describes what particles you’re going to find rather well is that all these particles are made of, out of something else which we happen to call quarks. And our quark is an object which comes in three varieties. It’s either an A-type, B-type, or C-type quark, okay? And the particles that we find are two big classes. In one class, are two big classes. And one class, we can understand, is being made out of three quarks. And depending on the different proportions, how many A’s, B’s, and C’s, and how they’re moving around each other, if we count how many states we would get from putting three objects together, it could be made in so many ways, 27 different ways, each one being three. We find groups of particles in groups of 27 analogously and so on. A little more complicated, but it’s more subtle, but it’s like that. And then when we allow for their motion around each other, we find the higher energy states analogous to the way that we ought to get. And even semi-quantitatively, there seems to be a relation between the states, the rates at which one turns into another. So it looks like they may add up just three quarks.

[译文 16]

有一种描述方式能相当好地说明你会发现的粒子，那就是所有这些粒子都是由别的东西构成的，我们恰好称之为夸克。我们的夸克有三种类型。它要么是A型夸克，要么是B型夸克，要么是C型夸克，好吗？而我们发现的粒子分为两大类。在其中一个大类中，我们可以理解，是由三个夸克组成的。根据A型、B型和C型的不同比例，以及它们如何相互环绕运动，如果我们计算将三个物体组合在一起会有多少种状态，它可以以很多种方式构成，27种不同的方式，每种由三个组成。我们发现了以27个为一组的粒子群，以此类推。稍微复杂一些，但更微妙，不过大致就是这样。然后当我们考虑它们相互之间的运动时，我们发现更高能态与我们预期获得的方式类似。甚至在半定量地看，这些状态之间似乎存在一种关系，以及一种状态转化为另一种状态的速率。所以看起来它们可能正好由三个夸克组成。

[段 17]

Then there’s this other class of particles which are called mesons. The first class are called baryons. The words aren’t going to do you any good. But the other class of mesons we have to understand is being made of a quark, one quark and one anti-quark. An anti-quark is a negative product with all the numbers, all the charge properties, the exact opposite of a quark. We make a quark and an anti-quark, put those together, we understand the meson state. Put three quarks together, we understand all the others. So we have made a really great progress in analyzing these patterns. So much so that it looks very much as if, to me at least, that we’re very close to understanding this part of physics, this strongly interacting system. Okay. Strongly interacting system. But what’s the main barrier still to? Well the quarks have, well the main barrier is we don’t understand it quantitatively, we don’t know exactly the laws. I mean we do things like I’m just talking to you on a little bit more carefully, counting how many states we should get and so on, but we don’t know exactly how they move and exactly what holds them together and so on and so on.

[译文 17]

还有一类粒子叫做介子。第一类叫做重子。这些名词对你来说没什么帮助。但另一类介子，我们必须了解的是，它们由一个夸克和一个反夸克组成。反夸克就是所有数值、所有电荷性质都与夸克完全相反的产物。我们把一个夸克和一个反夸克组合在一起，就理解了介子态。把三个夸克组合在一起，就理解了所有其他粒子。所以我们在分析这些模式方面取得了非常大的进展。进展之大，至少在我看来，我们似乎已经非常接近理解物理学的这一部分——这个强相互作用系统。好的。强相互作用系统。但主要的障碍是什么呢？夸克的问题是，主要的障碍是我们没有从定量上理解它，我们不知道确切的规律。我的意思是，我们做的事情就像我现在跟你们讲话时稍微仔细一点，数一数我们应该得到多少个态等等，但我们不知道它们究竟是怎么运动的，究竟是什么把它们结合在一起，等等等等。

[段 18]

Also there are a number of paradoxes with this quark picture. This picture helps to give us the behavior at low energies, what kinds of particles to expect. But then you’d expect that a particle would be made out of only three parts. But we’ve done some experiments at very high energy, hitting a proton with an electron, which can only be interpreted by supposing that the number of particles inside is really infinite. If there are particles inside, it can’t be done with just three. You can calculate, it doesn’t come out right. So there’s a difficulty. Furthermore, the idea that there’d just be three particles is contradictory to the ideas of relativity and so on, which imply the existence of particles and antiparticles. And when there are three, there should be possible for the forces to produce pairs of particle and antiparticle in various numbers. So there should be not just three, but many more. So the infinity is not a paradox by itself. The three is more than a paradox. Why is it so simple? Why do we get away and understand so much with just three when there should be an infinite number? Probably in there, both theoretically and experimentally.

[译文 18]

此外，这幅夸克图景还存在许多悖论。这幅图景帮助我们理解低能下的行为，以及应该预期什么种类的粒子。但你本来以为一个粒子只由三个部分组成。但我们做了一些非常高能的实验，用电子撞击质子，实验结果只能这样来解释：内部的粒子数量实际上是无限的。如果内部有粒子，那就不可能只有三个。你可以算一算，结果对不上。所以这就存在一个困难。而且，认为只有三个粒子的想法与相对论等理论相矛盾，相对论意味着粒子和反粒子的存在。当有三个粒子时，力应该能够产生各种数量的粒子-反粒子对。所以应该不止三个，而是要多得多。因此，无限本身并不是悖论。三个才更像是悖论。为什么如此简单？既然应该有无限多个，为什么我们只靠三个就能理解这么多？可能在理论上和实验上都是如此。

[段 19]

Another thing that’s a little technical but very paradoxical is that we had a rule back for atoms that no two electrons can occupy the same state. It’s called the exclusion principle. And we thought we understood that that was necessary according to quantum mechanics and relativity, you know, that’s the thing. And with the quarks, we find the exact opposite rule. Two particles tend to occupy the same state. The exact opposite. Seems to be contradictory with principle. There are ways of escaping this all the time, only by complicating the picture. But the simplest picture, just three, which explains everything, is self-contradictory. Furthermore, some people suppose that maybe these quarks could come apart. That would mean the prediction of new states which consists of only one quark, say. If there was such a state, it would have to have a charge of one-third normal charges of our objects, for example, or two-thirds. And we don’t find experimentally any such particles. Not everybody’s looking for them. But it looks as if they exist at all, they have to be extremely heavy. Then the problem is, very good, if they’re extremely heavy, how, compared to a proton, say, how is it when you put three of them together, you get a light object that’s not heavy like the proton.

[译文 19]

另一个稍微有点技术性但非常矛盾的问题是，原子中有一个规则：两个电子不能占据相同的状态。这叫做不相容原理。我们原以为我们理解了为什么根据量子力学和相对论这是必要的，你知道，就是那个东西。而对于夸克，我们发现规则恰恰相反。两个粒子倾向于占据相同的状态。恰恰相反。这似乎与该原理矛盾。我们总是有办法回避这一点，但只有通过把图景复杂化才行。但最简单的图景——就是三个夸克——能解释一切，却自相矛盾。此外，有些人猜测这些夸克也许可以分开。那将意味着预测到只由一个夸克组成的新状态。如果存在这样的状态，它的电荷必须是我们物体正常电荷的三分之一，比如，或者三分之二。但我们在实验中没有发现任何这样的粒子。并不是所有人都在寻找它们。但看起来即使它们存在，也一定极其沉重。那么问题来了，很好，如果它们极其沉重，那么，比如说，与质子相比，当你把三个这样的东西放在一起，怎么就得到了一个轻的物体，而不是像质子那样重的东西呢？

[段 20]

There are technical ways of erasing it, but they’re always complicated. The situation is as it always is when we’re near the answer. It looks much simpler than it has any right to be, and we have to understand that simplicity and why we think it must be more complicated. Our minds are complicated somehow. Just like the orbits of the planets, which were supposed to be circles, which looked simple, and they were experimentally, they weren’t circles, so they made circles on circles on circles on circles. They’re more and more complicated. It turned out it was really much simpler. It was a force inversely of the square of the distance which made ellipses and so on but a different way of formulating entirely which was beautiful. So now we have our wheels within wheels. We, it looks simple and nature is no doubt simpler than all our thoughts about it now. And the question is what way do we have to think about it so that we understand its simplicity. That’s where we stand now. On holiday in the Pennines, Richard Feynman is paid a neighbourly visit by Yorkshireman Sir Fred Hoyle, the astronomer, cosmologist and science fiction writer.

[译文 20]

有一些技术性手段可以消除这个矛盾，但它们总是很复杂。情况一如既往，当我们接近答案时，它看起来比它理应的要简单得多，我们必须理解那种简单性，以及为什么我们认为它一定更复杂。我们的思维在某种程度上就是复杂的。就像行星的轨道，人们以为它们是圆形的，看起来很简单，实验上它们确实不是圆形，于是他们就做成圆上加圆，圆上加圆，圆上加圆。越来越复杂。结果发现其实要简单得多。是一个与距离平方成反比的力，产生了椭圆轨道等等，但完全是另一种表述方式，非常优美。所以现在我们有我们的"轮中之轮"。我们，它看起来简单，而大自然无疑比我们现在对它的所有想法都要简单。问题是我们必须以什么样的方式来思考它，才能理解它的简单性。这就是我们目前所处的位置。在彭奈恩度假期间，理查德·费曼受到了约克郡人弗雷德·霍伊尔爵士的友好拜访，后者是天文学家、宇宙学家和科幻作家。

[段 21]

At first sight, there seems little in common between the study of galaxies and nebulae billions of miles in diameter and millions of light years old, and nuclear physics, where particles exist for only a million millionth of a second. But the formation of stars and galaxies is determined on a massive scale by the behaviour of the very nuclear particles Feynman studies. Hoyle and Feynman share an interest in the foundations of physics, and exchanging ideas in the local pub is always as profitable as it is enjoyable. You agree that the quasars are in real trouble, that the very big redshifts… I think so. I’ve had this uneasy feeling now for about five years. It looked crazy for a while, but it’s like… You’re out of evidence all the time this way. Each one makes a new problem. Every piece of evidence is the same problem in the same sense. If there were any cause for a redshift as big as that, other than recession, we’d be all right. That’s right. But in the present physical laws, there doesn’t seem to be any place for such a redshift. That’s good. That fits. That won’t fail. And at the same time, the same kind of laws predict the kind of peculiar phenomenon of black holes, which is really confusing.

[译文 21]

乍看之下，研究直径数十亿英里、年龄数百万年的星系和星云，与核物理学——粒子仅存在百万兆分之一秒——似乎没有什么共同之处。但恒星和星系的形成，在很大程度上是由费曼所研究的那些核粒子的行为所决定的。霍伊尔和霍伊尔对物理学的基础有着共同的兴趣，在当地酒吧交流思想总是既有收获又令人愉快的。你同意类星体确实有大麻烦，那些非常大的红移……我也这么认为。大约五年来我一直有种不安的感觉。有一段时间看起来很疯狂，但就是……你一直缺乏证据。每一个都带来新的问题。每块证据在同样的意义上都是同样的问题。如果除了退行之外还有任何原因能造成那么大的红移，我们就没问题了。没错。但在现有的物理定律中，似乎没有任何地方能容纳这样的红移。很好。这吻合。这不会失败。与此同时，同样的定律预测了黑洞这种令人困惑的奇异现象。

[段 22]

And it could be that either the gravity is wrong or one of the physical laws is wrong, too, some physical law that’s involved. Because I’m not arguing at the moment that the physical laws are wrong. I mean, you would agree that one has to push it through along these lines. Yeah, the best way to progress, I always think maybe, is to try to be as conservative. That’s what Wheeler always said. To try to be as conservative about the physical laws as possible and explain the phenomenon. And if you continuously fail, then you gradually realize you’ve got to change something. But we start out by saying, you’ve got to change something. There’s so many ways of changing. And you don’t know how the… It’s most likely you don’t have to change anything. Most of the time we succeed ultimately in explaining these damn things in terms of the known laws but it’s the cases that’s fairly interesting ones. Yeah. It’s like the old story isn’t it? The chap with the under the single lamp in the street where a passerby says what are you looking for? He says I’m looking for my key and they search for it for a few minutes and at the end of the minute these minutes the passerby says are you sure you lost it here?

[译文 22]

可能是引力出了问题，或者某条物理定律也出了问题，涉及的某条物理定律。因为我现在并不是在论证物理定律有错。我的意思是，你会同意必须沿着这条路推进。是的，最好的进步方式，我一直认为也许就是尽量保守。惠勒总是这么说。尽量对物理定律保持保守，然后解释现象。如果你不断失败，那你就逐渐意识到必须改变些什么。但我们一开始就说，你必须改变些什么。改变的方式太多了。而你不知道……最可能的情况是你什么都不必改变。大多数时候我们最终成功地用已知定律来解释这些该死的东西，但那些才是相当有趣的案例。是的。就像那个老故事，不是吗？那个在街灯下的人，路人问你在找什么？他说我在找钥匙，他们找了几分钟，最后路人说你确定你是在这里丢的？

[段 23]

And the man said not at all but unless I lost it here I’ll never find it. Because the light’s better. Yeah. Yeah, we work where the light’s better. Yeah. Once I was thinking by analogy that there was a time in the 1900s when the thought that the properties of substances were not physics. For example, they would be numbers. We would find a series of numbers, the index of refraction, that was physics. But the number for the index, that glass had an index of 1.543 and so on, that salt had another index, that those numbers, so the properties of substances would come from chemistry or something. It was at that time, it was considered a different branch. Then when the quantum mechanical understanding of the atoms was evolved, then we could calculate all these properties, and we realized that all these numbers were really part of physics. And so properties of substances became a branch of physics, whereas previously it was a sort of chemical branch. And I wondered by analogy, I always work by analogy, what today do we not consider part of physics, which may ultimately be part of physics. I see. Be part of physics I say and they read it realized immediately something we consider at the present moment most people consider that we study the laws of physics that is how things go given a certain condition how the things behave after that but how did they get into that condition it’s considered another problem another way of the condition right now we are given the conditions circumstances and then it evolves they are going to physical laws we’re studying the laws.

[译文 23]

那人说，完全不，但如果我不是丢在这里的，我永远也找不到。因为这里光线更好。是的。是的，我们在光线好的地方工作。是的。我曾经类比地想到，在1900年代有一个时期，人们认为物质的性质不是物理学的范畴。比如，它们会是数字。我们会找到一系列数字，折射率，那是物理学的。但那个折射率数值，玻璃的折射率是1.543等等，盐有另一个折射率，那些数字，所以物质的性质被认为来自化学或什么别的。在那个时期，它被认为是另一个分支。后来当量子力学对原子的理解发展起来，我们就可以计算所有这些性质，我们意识到所有这些数字其实都是物理学的组成部分。于是物质的性质变成了物理学的一个分支，而以前它算是化学的一个分支。我好奇地通过类比，我总是通过类比来工作，今天我们有什么不认为是物理学范畴的，但最终可能成为物理学的范畴。我明白。成为物理学范畴，我这么说了，他们立刻就领会了——我们目前认为，大多数人认为我们研究的是物理定律，也就是说，给定一个条件，事物之后会怎么变化，但事物是怎么进入那个条件的，那是另一个问题，另一种方式。现在的条件是给定的，然后事物演化——那就是物理定律，我们在研究定律。

[段 24]

It’s as though we’re doing a chess game again, and we’re working on the rules, but we’re not worrying about how the pieces are supposed to be set up on the board in the first place. That’s not our business. That’s the business of history, how the world evolved. Astronomical history, cosmology, how the universe exploded or the steady state or whatever it was. It’s not our business. It’s interesting that in many other sciences there’s a historical question, like in geology, the question how did the earth evolve to the condition in biology how did the various species evolve to get to be the way they are but the one field which has not admitted any evolutionary question is physics here are the laws we say here are the laws today yeah how did they get that way in time we don’t even think of it that way we think of well that is that way from forever it’s always been like that the same laws and we try to explain the universe that way so it might turn out that they’re not the same all the time, and that there is a historical, evolutionary question. But how do you see it going?

[译文 24]

就好像我们又在下棋，我们在研究规则，但我们不操心棋子最初是怎么摆上棋盘的。那不关我们的事。那是历史的事，世界是怎么演化的。天文历史，宇宙学，宇宙是怎么爆炸的，或者是稳态理论，或者不管那是什么。那不关我们的事。有趣的是，在许多其他科学领域都有一个历史问题，比如在地质学中，地球是怎么演化到现在的状态的；在生物学中，各种物种是怎么演化成现在这个样子的。但唯一一个没有承认任何进化问题的领域是物理学——这是定律，我们说，这是今天的定律，是的，它们是怎么变成那样的？在时间中？我们甚至不那样想。我们想的是，它们从始至终就是那样的，同样的定律，我们试图用这种方式来解释宇宙。所以结果可能证明它们并不总是一样的，而是有一个历史的、进化的问题。但你觉得它会怎么发展？

[段 25]

Evolutionary question. But how do you see it going? It’s hard to speculate. Is it a continuous change or is it something that depends on big… You’re the speculator. You and I think differently. I think of the possibilities but I’m afraid to put things in. When I see the dark, I always think of the dark as too big for me to guess at. It’s not much use in guessing particular things, but you’re different. I would like to discuss with you sometime how do you do that because I’m really a little afraid to make specific guesses. Is it your background? I don’t know. The way you kind of grow up. I don’t know. I’m afraid to make specific guesses because the moment I’m making that guess, I can see seven other alternatives. And so since I see these other alternatives, I don’t know which one to piddle with. I don’t like to spend a lot of energy on one. My choice is very simple. I don’t set any requirement that the answer be right. It’s just what I’m interested in. That’s the difference. That’s the difference. If I’m interested in it, I’m trying to find out not how nature could be, but how nature is.

[译文 25]

进化的问题。但你怎么看它的发展？这很难猜测。是连续的变化，还是取决于重大的……你才是那个善于推测的人。你和我思考方式不同。我会去想各种可能性，但我不敢把想法说出来。当我面对未知时，总觉得那个未知太大了，根本无从猜起。猜测具体的东西没什么用处，但你不一样。我很想找个时间跟你聊聊你是怎么做到的，因为我确实有点害怕做出具体的猜测。是因为你的背景吗？我不清楚。还是因为你成长的方式？我不知道。我之所以不敢做具体猜测，是因为一旦我做出那个猜测，我马上就能看到另外七种可能性。既然我能看到这些其他选项，我就不知道该把精力放在哪一个上面。我不想在某个选项上花太多精力。我的选择非常简单。我不要求答案必须正确。我只是对这个问题感兴趣。这就是区别。这就是区别。如果我对某件事感兴趣，我想弄清楚的不是大自然可能是什么样，而是大自然到底是什么样。

[段 26]

See, what’s right. Well, I don’t think you’ll ever find it, you see. I don’t think you’ll ever find it. Your idea is to find out what nature could be. No, no, no. What I think is interesting. Yeah. Even if it’s wrong. Things get very painful. For you. After discussing working problems, it is natural that Feynman and Hoyle should savour that most thrilling pleasure of all, the moment of revelation. You try all sorts of things and you’re hopeful about trying it. Have you had a moment in a complicated problem where quite suddenly the thing comes into your head and you’re almost sure you’ve got to be right? Oh, yes. I mean, this is a great… Oh, God. Yeah. And then you try to figure out what the conditions were of that moment that you can do it again. For example, I worked out the theory of helium. Once and suddenly saw everything I’ve been struggling struggling for two years and suddenly saw everything and I can remember everything about it by the way it’s psychologically funny you can remember the color of the paper you were writing on it that’s the truth and the room and everything else and uh then you wonder what’s the psychological condition well I know at that particular time I simply looked up and I said wait a minute it can’t be quite that difficult it must be very easy I’ll stand back and I’ll just treat it very lightly I’ll just tap it and it’ll say, boop, boop, and there it was.

[译文 26]

你看，什么是正确的。嗯，我觉得你永远找不到的，你看。我觉得你永远找不到。你的想法是去弄清大自然可能是什么样。不，不，不。我觉得有趣的是，即使是错的也没关系。事情会变得很痛苦。对你来说。在讨论了那些工作问题之后，费曼和霍伊尔理应享受那种最令人激动的乐趣——顿悟的时刻。你尝试了各种方法，对尝试充满希望。你有没有过这样的经历：在一个复杂的问题中，突然之间灵感涌入脑海，你几乎可以肯定自己一定是对的？哦，有过。我是说，这太棒了……哦，天哪。是的。然后你会试图弄清楚那个时刻的条件是什么，这样你就能再次重现它。比如，我研究出了氦的理论。有一次，我突然看到了我为之苦苦挣扎了两年的所有东西，突然一切都豁然开朗了。顺便说一句，我能记住所有的细节，这从心理学角度来看很有趣——你甚至能记住你当时书写的那张纸的颜色，这是真的，还有房间的样子以及其他一切。然后你就会想知道，那个心理条件到底是什么呢？嗯，我知道在那一刻我只是抬起头来说，等一下，它不可能那么难，它一定很容易。我退后一步，轻轻地对待它。我只需要轻轻敲一下，它就会说，噗，噗，然后答案就出来了。

[段 27]

So how many times since then I’m walking on the beach, and I said, well, look, it can’t be so complicated. Tap, tap, tap, nothing happens. Nothing happens, yeah. The lights are great, but the secret way, what’s the condition? It’s that missing bit in the brain, isn’t it? Right, that suddenly lights up. I have no idea. I’ve thought about it, because some man suggested I think about that, because if I can only figure out the formula for what condition to be in, figure out the formula for what condition to be in to get good ideas and be much more efficient and more happy. So I often paid attention to what the condition is and I’ve never found any correlation with anything. By the way, it’s the delight, it’s absolute ecstasy. It just got absolutely wild. And how long did it last for? That drives you. How long did it last for? It’s not very short. It’s a very big moment. Three days? Yeah, and so on. And then there are lesser pleasures. As you work on more things and more people notice it. But the high feet, you’re on the high feet for about three days.

[译文 27]

所以从那以后有多少次，我走在海滩上说，好吧，看，它不可能那么复杂。敲，敲，敲，什么也没发生。什么也没发生，是的。灵感很伟大，但那个秘密的方法，那个条件是什么？是大脑中突然亮起的那个缺失的部分，对吧？没错。我不知道。我思考过这个问题，因为有人建议我思考一下，因为如果我能找出处于什么状态才能获得好主意，找出那个状态的公式，就能更高效、更快乐。所以我经常留意当时的状态，但我从未发现它与任何东西有关联。顺便说一声，那种喜悦，那种绝对的狂喜。它简直让人完全疯狂。它持续了多久呢？那驱使你不断追寻。它持续了多久？它不是非常短暂。那是一个很大的时刻。三天？是的，差不多。然后还有一些较小的乐趣。当你研究更多的东西，越来越多的人注意到你的时候。但那种极度兴奋的状态，你大约能持续三天。

[段 28]

That’s right, yes. It’s like a supernova, I suppose. No, that’s 54 days. That’s better. But I was going to say that it’s the hope of that kind of gold. That keeps you going. That can keep you going through these doldrums. Yeah. And that, I think, what I learned when I was a child from my father, was that if you did work a little bit at these things, there would be a time at which you’d get this. And I had to learn that first, I’d never been able to do it. And then afterwards you wonder why the devil was so stupid that I didn’t see this. That’s not only true of you, it’s true of history, of the history of the science. You can always look at it, at the end of the moment in history, and wonder why they hadn’t they hadn’t thought of it 20 years earlier or 10 years earlier, depending on the case. It’s because we’re dubbed somehow. It’s most mysterious, this. It just means that however good you may get comparatively compared to apes and so on, we’re still very bad at it. Absolutely. We’re doing the best we can. Yeah, very good.

[译文 28]

没错，是的。我想它就像一颗超新星。不，那是54天。那更好。但我想说的是，正是那种对黄金般珍贵时刻的希望，支撑着你不断前行。它能帮你度过这些低迷期。是的。而且我认为，我小时候从父亲那里学到的就是，如果你在这些事情上稍微下一点功夫，总有一天你会得到这种体验。而我必须先学会这一点，我以前从来做不到。然后事后你会想，我当初怎么那么蠢，居然没有看出来这一点。这不仅对你来说是如此，对科学史来说也是如此。你总是可以在历史的关键时刻回过头来看，然后纳闷为什么他们没有在20年前或10年前想到这一点，具体取决于情况。是因为我们被某种东西蒙蔽了。这是最令人费解的。它的意思是，无论与猿类等相比你变得多么优秀，我们在这方面仍然非常差劲。绝对如此。我们已经在尽力了。是的，非常好。

[段 29]

This depressing and sobering thought. Well, it’s been fun.

[译文 29]

这个令人沮丧又发人深省的念头。嗯，这次谈话很有趣。