[k-mcgrady]

Is this worth reading for someone without a particular need to understand physics in depth? What I mean is if I take the time to read these will I learn anything useful to someone not pursuing a career in physics or related field?

[abecedarius]

I don't know about useful -- physics is not currently as useful to a programmer as, say, probability theory -- but I'd recommend volume 1 to anyone ready to follow it, just for the mind-stretching. Volume 2 is longer, harder, and less different in its approach to its main topic, electromagnetism. Volume 3 is short, unique, and doesn't depend too much on Volume 2 -- I was able to profit from it without mastering volume 2. (Nowadays there probably are better intros to quantum mechanics, though. I don't think there was any one really good intro when I studied it back in the 80s. The most enlightening were Feynman vol. 3, Dirac's Principles, and another whose authors I've forgotten.)

Added: There's only one other introductory physics text by a historically first-rank physicist, and that was Maxwell in the 19th century. (Maybe there were earlier ones, like Euler's books on mechanics, which I haven't read. Einstein's Relativity was a popularization like Feynman's QED or The Character of Physical Law rather than like the Feynman lectures. Newton's Principia has also been used as an intro text, which seems hilariously inappropriate.) The lectures are also unusually full of the this-is-how-a-physicist-thinks thing which is hard to pin down.

[rwallace]

The honest answer is, unless your profession is in the physical sciences or hardware engineering, learning physics from this or other sources will probably not be useful.

Whether it's worthwhile is to at least some extent a value judgment, and also as I see it, depends to some extent on what else you would have done with the time. If you have a block of time allocated for work, and you're thinking of spending it reading about physics instead of reading documentation on something you do actually need, that's probably suboptimal. If you've finished work for the day, you have a block of time allocated for intellectual leisure and you're trying to decide between reading about physics versus, say, the latest Dungeons & Dragons rules, in my opinion the former is more worthwhile.

[lovelearning]

I feel quantum computing will become a critical field, starting a decade or so from now.

Since it's still in its infancy, higher level abstractions won't be engineered for atleast another 2-3 decades.

So the first few engineers who get into it - even software engineers - will have to grapple with fundamental quantum mechanical concepts, in the same way computer engineers in the 1940s-60s had to grapple with fundamental electrical engineering concepts.

Feynman's Volume 3 is an especially useful introduction to these fundamental concepts, and I feel a good investment for the future.

[lutusp]

> Is this worth reading for someone without a particular need to understand physics in depth?

For someone just curious about modern physics, without any specialized knowledge or advanced mathematical skill, it might be overwhelming.

[HCIdivision17]

I suspect many of us would say yes. One of the things Feynman was known for was his knack for bringing ideas down to earth.

As he opens in QED, you won't be able to solve heavy physics problems analytically in a short period of time, but with a little effort, you'll certainly be able to qualitatively understand the situation. And there's quite a lot of beauty to have there, even without heavy math (but there will be math!)

[ChuckMcM]

Yes, it is especially useful as they are vary approachable. That said they are also as deep as any 3 semester course in physics you're likely to take so at some point you will need the math skills to keep up.