Still, I didn’t want toleave any student completely behind, as perhaps I did. I think one way we couldhelp the students more would be by putting more hard work into developing a setof problems which would elucidate some of the ideas in the lectures. Problemsgive a good opportunity to fill out the material of the lectures and make morerealistic, more complete, and more settled in the mind the ideas that have beenexposed.
尽管如此，我不想让任何一个学生，完全落下，虽然我可能曾这样做过。我想，有一个方法，可能会让我们给学生，提供更多的帮助，即更努力地工作，开发若干问题，它们可以澄清讲座中的想法。这些问题，有可能覆盖讲座中的所有材料，可以让讲座中所展示的想法，在学生的思想中，变得更现实、更完整和更确定。

I think, however, thatthere isn’t any solution to this problem of education other than to realizethat the best teaching can be done only when there is a direct individualrelationship between a student and a good teacher—a situation in which thestudent discusses the ideas, thinks about the things, and talks about the things.It’s impossible to learn very much by simply sitting in a lecture, or even bysimply doing problems that are assigned. But in our modern times we have somany students to teach that we have to try to find some substitute for the ideal.Perhaps my lectures can make some contribution. Perhaps in some small placewhere there are individual teachers and students, they may get some inspirationor some ideas from the lectures. Perhaps they will have fun thinking themthrough—or going on to develop some of the ideas further.
Richard P. Feynman
June, 1963
然而我想，对于教育的这个问题，没有任何其它的解决方案，除非意识到，最好的教育，就是在一个学生和一个好的老师之间，有直接的一对一的个别关系，在此情形下，学生可以探讨想法，思考事情，和谈论事情。只坐在讲座中，或者只做课后布置的习题，学不到很多。但是，现时有这么多的学生要教，所以，我们要尝试去寻找某种替代方式，以达到尽可能的理想状态。我的讲座或许会有所贡献。或许在有些小的地方，学生和老师的关系，是个别的，这样，他们就可以从讲座中得到某些启示或想法。或许，他们可以很有兴趣地做彻底的思考，或也可以进一步发展某些想法。
理查德·费曼
1963年6月

Foreword雷顿的前言
This book is based upon acourse of lectures in introductory physics given by Prof. R. P. Feynman at theCalifornia Institute of Technology during the academic year 1961–62; it coversthe first year of the two-year introductory course taken by all Caltechfreshmen and sophomores, and was followed in 1962–63 by a similar series coveringthe second year. The lectures constitute a major part of a fundamental revisionof the introductory course, carried out over a four-year period.
费曼教授，1961-62年，在加州理工，有一门介绍物理学的课程，由一系列讲座构成，这本书，就是基于此课程；此介绍性的课程，为期两年，所有加州理工一年级二年级的学生，都要参加，这本书涵盖了第一年的内容，1962-63年，又有类似的一系列讲座，作为第二年的内容，它们也包含在这本书中。介绍物理的课程，曾经需要四年时间，对这门介绍性的课程，我们打算做根本性的修订，此讲座的内容，构成了此修订的主要部分。

In order to generate avariety of ideas on what material to include and how to present it, asubstantial number of the physics faculty were encouraged to offer their ideasin the form of topical outlines for a revised course. Several of these were presentedand were thoroughly and critically discussed. It was agreed almost at once thata basic revision of the course could not be accomplished either by merelyadopting a different textbook, or even by writing one ab initio, but that thenew course should be centered about a set of lectures, to be presented at therate of two or three per week; the appropriate text material would then beproduced as a secondary operation as the course developed, and suitablelaboratory experiments would also be arranged to fit the lecture material.Accordingly, a rough outline of the course was established, but this wasrecognized as being incomplete, tentative, and subject to considerablemodification by whoever was to bear the responsibility for actually preparing thelectures.
一个修订的课程，究竟应该包括哪些材料，及如何提供它们，需要想法，为了产生这些想法，相当数量的物理系的员工，被鼓励以标题和大纲的形式，提供其想法。其中一些想法，被提供，且得到了彻底和鉴定性地讨论。几乎立刻就达成了一致，那就是，此课程的基本修订，既不可能通过采纳不同的课本来完成，也不可能从头写起，相反，这个新的课程，将以一组讲座为中心，讲座每2到3周一次；随着课程的发展，适当的文字材料，将作为第二部分而产生，另外，将在实验室，安排与讲座材料相适应的实验。据此，关于讲座的一个粗略大纲，就建立了起来，但这个大纲是不完整的、暂定的，实际承担讲座的人，将会做必要的修改。

Concerning the mechanismby which the course would finally be brought to life, several plans wereconsidered. These plans were mostly rather similar, involving a cooperative effortby N staff members who would share the total burden symmetrically and equally: eachman would take responsibility for 1/N of the material, deliver the lectures,and write text material for his part. However, the unavailability of sufficientstaff, and the difficulty of maintaining a uniform point of view because of differencesin personality and philosophy of individual participants, made such plans seemunworkable.
要让这个课程，最终变成实际，需要一种机制，为此，几种计划被考虑到。这些计划，大部分相当类似，包括N个员工通力合作，平衡地、平等地共享总的任务，即每个人都负责材料的1/N、做讲座和撰写他那部分的文字材料。由于这样的员工，数量不够，以及，由于每个参与人员的性格和哲学，都有所不同，所以使得观点难以统一，最终导致这样的计划，似乎无法实行。

The realization that we actuallypossessed the means to create not just a new and different physics course, butpossibly a unique one, came as a happy inspiration to Professor Sands. Hesuggested that Professor R. P. Feynman prepare and deliver the lectures, andthat these be tape-recorded. When transcribed and edited, they would then becomethe textbook for the new course. This is essentially the plan that was adopted.
山德士教授得到的一个快乐的启示，让我们意识到，我们实际上是有办法，建立一种新的完全不同的物理课程的，而且很可能是独一无二的。他建议说，由费曼教授准备并做这个讲座，同时进行磁带录音。录音被转换成文字、并被编辑之后，就变成了这门新课程的课本。这就是本来所采取的计划。

It was expected that thenecessary editing would be minor, mainly consisting of supplying figures, andchecking punctuation and grammar; it was to be done by one or two graduatestudents on a part-time basis. Unfortunately, this expectation was short-lived.It was, in fact, a major editorial operation to transform the verbatim transcriptinto readable form, even without the reorganization or revision of the subjectmatter that was sometimes required. Furthermore, it was not a job for a technicaleditor or for a graduate student, but one that required the close attention ofa professional physicist for from ten to twenty hours per lecture!
本来以为，必要的编辑工作，工作量很小，主要包括提供插图、检查标点符号和语法等，只需1到2名研究生，业余时间干干就行。不幸的是，这个期待，很快夭折。事实上，把录音一字不差地转换成可读的形式，即便不考虑对于主题的重新组织和修订等--这有时候是需要的，也是一个非常沉重的编辑工作。另外，这个工作，也不是一个技术编辑或一个研究生能够胜任的，它要求一个专业的物理学家，非常仔细地工作，每个讲座，都需要10到20个小时。

The difficulty of theeditorial task, together with the need to place the material in the hands of thestudents as soon as possible, set a strict limit upon the amount of “polishing”of the material that could be accomplished, and thus we were forced to aim towarda preliminary but technically correct product that could be used immediately,rather than one that might be considered final or finished. Because of anurgent need for more copies for our students, and a heartening interest on thepart of instructors and students at several other institutions, we decided topublish the material in its preliminary form rather than wait for a furthermajor revision which might never occur. We have no illusions as to thecompleteness, smoothness, or logical organization of the material; in fact, weplan several minor modifications in the course in the immediate future, and wehope that it will not become static in form or content.
对于已完成的材料，需要进行“润色”，由于编辑任务，是困难的，而把材料尽快送到学生手中，又是一项要求，这两者加起来，就让润色工作，受到严格限制，所以，我们产品的目标，就是初步地和技术上正确，可立即使用就行，而不是一个最终的或完成了的产品。由于我们的学生，急需更多的拷贝，而其它的几个机构导师和学生，对这个才材料，又表示出了浓厚的兴趣，所以，我们就决定，按此最初的形式，出版这个材料，而不是等到将来，经过较完整的修订之后再出版，因为这种版本，可能永远也不会出现。对于材料的完整、流畅和逻辑组织，我们并不抱任何幻想；事实上，我们已经打算，在不久的将来，对课程做几处小的修改，我们希望，无论形式还是内容，它都不是静态的。

In addition to the lectures,which constitute a centrally important part of the course, it was necessaryalso to provide suitable exercises to develop the students’ experience and ability,and suitable experiments to provide first-hand contact with the lecture materialin the laboratory. Neither of these aspects is in as advanced a state as the lecturematerial, but considerable progress has been made. Some exercises were made up asthe lectures progressed, and these were expanded and amplified for use in thefollowing year. However, because we are not yet satisfied that the exercisesprovide sufficient variety and depth of application of the lecture material tomake the student fully aware of the tremendous power being placed at hisdisposal, the exercises are published separately in a less permanent form inorder to encourage frequent revision.
讲座是课程的核心，除此之外，还有必要提供合适的练习，以发展学生的经验和能力，还要提供合适的实验，以让学生能在实验室中，对讲座中的材料，有直接的感触。虽然这两方面的发展，都不如讲座材料本身的发展，但是，也已经有了相当可观的进步。随着讲座的进行，有些练习被开发了出来，在随后的年月中，它们也得到发展和增强。然而，对于讲座材料的应用来说，练习并不能提供足够的多样性和深度，以让学生能充分意识到，巨大的力量，已经可以任其使用，对此，我们并不满意，所以，练习就是单独出版，形式也不固定，为的是鼓励经常修订。

The revision program wasunder the direction of Professors R. B. Leighton, H. V. Neher, and M. Sands.Officially participating in the program were Professors R. P. Feynman, G. Neugebauer,R. M. Sutton, H. P. Stabler,1F. Strong, and R. Vogt, from the division of Physics, Mathematics andAstronomy, and Professors T. Caughey, M. Plesset, and C. H. Wilts from the divisionof Engineering Science. The valuable assistance of all those contributing tothe revision program is gratefully acknowledged. We are particularly indebted tothe Ford Foundation, without whose financial assistance this program could nothave been carried out.
Robert B. Leighton
July, 1963.
修订计划，由雷顿、尼赫尔、和山德士教授指导完成。正式参加计划的有：来自物理、数学、和天文系的理查德费曼，G. Neugebauer, R. M. Sutton, H. P. Stabler,1F. Strong, and R. Vogt等教授，和来自工程科学系的T. Caughey, M.Plesset, and C. H. Wilts等教授。在此，对所有对修订计划有贡献的人，都深表感谢。我们特别受惠于福特基金，没有他们的经济资助，这个计划，无法完成。
罗伯特·雷顿
1963年6月

Surprisingly enough, in spite of thetremendous amount of work that has been done for all this time it is possibleto condense the enormous mass of results to a large extent—that is, to find lawswhich summarize all our knowledge. Even so, the laws are so hard to grasp thatit is unfair to you to start exploring this tremendous subject without somekind of map or outline of the relationship of one part of the subject ofscience to another. Following these preliminary remarks, the first threechapters will therefore outline the relation of physics to the rest of thesciences, the relations of the sciences to each other, and the meaning ofscience, to help us develop a “feel” for the subject.
一直以来，已经做了大量的工作，除此之外，足以让人惊奇的是，有可能把这大量的结果，浓缩到一个基本范围之内，也就是说，找到规律，用以概况我们所有的知识。尽管如此，这些规律，还是非常难以掌握，以至于，如果没有某种各科学之间的关系的地图或轮廓的话，就让大家去探索这个巨量的主题，是不公平的。跟随这些最初的标记，最初的三章，将会勾画出物理学与其它科学的关系的轮廓、各科学之间的关系、及科学的意义，以帮助我们，发展关于此主题的“感觉”。

The principle of science, the definition,almost, is the following: The test of all knowledge is experiment. Experimentis 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 toproduce these laws, in the sense that it gives us hints. But also needed is imaginationto create from these hints the great generalizations—to guess at the wonderful,simple, but very strange patterns beneath them all, and then to experiment tocheck again whether we have made the right guess. This imagining process is sodifficult that there is a division of labor in physics: there are theoreticalphysicists who imagine, deduce, and guess at new laws, but do not experiment;and then there are experimental physicists who experiment, imagine, deduce,and guess.
科学的原则，定义，几乎如下：所有知识的测试是实验。实验是科学“真相”的灵魂裁判。但是，知识的源泉又是什么呢？待测试的定律，来自何处呢？实验本身能帮助产生定律，这句的意思是说，它给我们提示。但还需要想象力，以从这些提示出发，创造伟大的一般化--即猜测在所有这些提示后面的那些奇妙的、简单的、但也是非常奇怪的模型，然后，再去实验，以检查我们的猜测，是否正确。这个想象力的过程，是如此困难，以至于在物理学中，有了一个分支，即理论物理学家，他们想象、推导、和猜测新的规律，但并不做实验；然后，又有实验物理学家，他们实验、想象、推导、和猜测。

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 wrongwith 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 canthe 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 weightas a still one. So a “law” was invented: mass is constant, independent ofspeed. That “law” is now found to be incorrect. Mass is found to increase withvelocity, but appreciable increases require velocities near that of light. A truelaw is: if an object moves with a speed of less than one hundred miles a secondthe mass is constant to within one part in a million. In some such approximateform this is a correct law. So in practice one might think that the new lawmakes no significant difference. Well, yes and no. For ordinary speeds we cancertainly forget it and use the simple constant-mass law as a goodapproximation. But for high speeds we are wrong, and the higher the speed, themore wrong we are.
我们说过，自然的规律，只是近似的：我们首先发现“错误”的规律，然后,发现“正确”的。现在，一个实验，如何才会是“错误”的呢？首先，是一些小事情，例如仪器出了问题，而你没有注意到。但是这类小事，很容易解决，来回检查就行。所以，如果不被这种小事情所干扰，那么，一个实验的结果，如何才“能”是错误的呢？只能是由于不精确。例如，一个物体的质量，永远不变：一个旋转的陀螺，与一个静止的陀螺，重量相等。于是，就得到一条定律：质量是守恒的，它独立于速度。现在发现，这条定律，并不正确。质量被发现，随着速度的增加而增加，但是，只有速度到达光速时，才有显著的增加。一条“真正”的定律就是:如果物体的运动速度，在每秒100英里之内，那么，质量就是守恒的，因为只有百万分之一的变化。在一些这类近似的形式中，这就是一条正确的定律。所以，在实践中，有人可能会想，新的定律，并没有什么显著的不同。对此，你可以说是，也可以说否。对于普通速度，我们完全可以忘记这条规律，而是把简单的质量守恒定律，当作一种近似。但在高速的情况下，我们就错了，且速度越高，我们的错误就越大。

Finally, and most interesting, philosophicallywe are completely wrong with the approximate law. Our entire picture of theworld has to be altered even though the mass changes only by a little bit. Thisis a very peculiar thing about the philosophy, or the ideas, behind the laws. Evena very small effect sometimes requires profound changes in our ideas.
最后，也最有趣的，就是对于近似性的规律，从哲学意义上说，我们完全错了。因为即便物质，只改变了一点点，我们关于世界的图像，也会发生彻底改变。这与规律后面的哲学或想法有关，非常奇特。有时一个很小的结果，也会要求我们的想法，产生深刻的改变。

Now, what should we teach first? Should weteach the correct but unfamiliar law with its strange and difficultconceptual ideas, for example the theory of relativity, four-dimensionalspace-time, and so on? Or should we first teach the simple “constant-mass” law,which is only approximate, but does not involve such difficult ideas? The firstis more exciting, more wonderful, and more fun, but the second is easier to getat first, and is a first step to a real understanding of the first idea. Thispoint arises again and again in teaching physics. At different times we shallhave to resolve it in different ways, but at each stage it is worth learningwhat is now known, how accurate it is, how it fits into everything else, andhow it may be changed when we learn more.
那么，首先我们应该教什么呢？我们是否应该教那些正确的、但却是不熟悉的规律呢？因为这些规律，比较奇怪，而且，有着比较困难的概念性的想法，例如，相对论、四维时空等。或者，我们首先应该教这种简单的“质量守恒”规律，它是近似的，但却不牵扯到困难的概念。第一种教法，更刺激、更有好奇性、也更有趣，但第二种教法，则更容易一些，并且，要真正理解第一种教法中的想法，这也是第一步。这一问题，在教授物理学的时候呢，不断会浮起。在不同的时期，我们将以不同的方式，来解决它，但在每个阶段，有些事情，都值得知道，那就是：现在知道了些什么？它有多准确？它与其他的东西，有多适合？以及，当我们学到更多的东西时，它会发生什么样的变化？
{它=它们}