I finished reading The Life of Isaac Newton. It was dry to my taste, but still okay. It’s hard to read any history after experiencing David McCullough’s books.

I’m not sure many people appreciate how different the world was before and after Newton. His contributions weren’t the only ones that mattered, but they were profoundly significant. He used prisms to demonstrate that white light is composed of all the colors of the spectrum. He invented calculus (independently, though simultaneously, with Leibniz). He formulated the laws of motion. He discovered universal gravitation—an idea that sounds absurd at first: everything attracts everything else! Before him, the cosmos seemed governed by mysteries or divine intervention; after him, it was ruled by discoverable, mathematical laws. He also helped formalize the scientific method.

One thing the book does well is showing what a complicated person Newton was. He was smart, but also combative, suspicious, and vindictive. I would even go further and call his personality unpleasant. His obsession with quarrels was at odds with his intellect.

For example, he developed calculus in 1665–1666 but didn’t formally publish his results during his lifetime. Leibniz published his method in 1684, and Newton’s priority claim rested on his earlier, unpublished work. The dispute over who invented calculus first began in the 1690s and escalated in 1704, when Newton published some of his calculus-related material in the appendix of Opticks. The argument dragged on for many years, with both sides accusing the other of plagiarism, until Leibniz died in 1716.

This contrast between his achievements and his difficult personality makes reading his biography challenging but also more interesting. The challenging part comes from my brain’s desire to have a coherent picture of someone, but life is not like that.

I do not know what I may appear to the world, but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the seashore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.

Moria

From It is link winter on X:

The truth on X is what random people commentate, polarize, interpret, and summarize from source material that is intentionally lost by a black box algorithm. There is no depth to anything on X because context with links is heavily penalized.

Getting off Twitter was one of the best decisions I made in the past year. My life has become much calmer.

I recently registered on Bluesky, and after a few minutes I couldn’t understand why I’d want to spend time there. It’s interesting how your perspective changes once you step away. You start to see it differently — as a giant arena where everyone is shouting, countless things are happening, yet nothing meaningful ever really occurs.

Found a wonderful website and a book — Motion Mountain. The book explores the many wonders of everyday life:

Using hundreds of stories, pictures, films, tables and puzzles, five volumes tell about sport, raindrops and animal life (mechanics, gravity and heat), about moving empty space and the sky at night (relativity and the structure of the universe), about lightning, lasers and nerves (electricity, optics, the brain, language and truth), and about colours, pleasure and the stars (quantum physics, nuclear physics and radioactivity). A sixth volume tells about the search for a final, unified theory of physics.

Surprisingly, I’ve stumbled upon it by accident and have never seen it recommended anywhere on the mainstream internet.

Also from the website:

Truthfulness — combined with politeness — make the world a better place.

Geometry for FLPE 2.24

Solving this exercise via force components is straightforward, leading to the answer $x$. However, I struggled with solving it using the principle of virtual work.

The hardest part of this exercise was calculating how the weight moves when we displace the cart. For simplicity, I reflected the diagram horizontally, aligning the movement with the standard x-axis.

One important point is that we cannot simply multiply the displacement by $^$, as this does not account for the fact that the weight moves along a circular path due to the rope.

I arrived at the following diagram, and the solution became clear from its geometry. In this diagram, the card moves to the right and $AB = x$.

We can approximate the path of the weight by a straight line, as the angle of the rope will be small. Thus, we obtain:

${\displaystyle \mathrm{\angle }ACB=90^{\circ }⟹AC=AB\cdot \cos 30^{\circ }=\mathrm{\Delta }x\cdot \cos 30^{\circ }}$

Finally, we arrive at the correct answer:

${\displaystyle \mathrm{\angle }AOC=90^{\circ }⟹OC=AC\cdot \sin 30^{\circ }=\mathrm{\Delta }x\cdot \cos 30^{\circ }\cdot \sin 30^{\circ }}$

I would be interested in solving this analytically by equating the equation for a circle with that of the plane to find the coordinates of the point. Ultimately, for the principle of virtual work, we only need to determine $\frac{\delta y}{\delta x}$.

If anyone stumbles upon this post and finds such a solution, please feel free to send a copy to $@$.

Eiermann Desk

Last year I was looking for a new desk. My main requirement was that it should be lower than 70 cm. Most desks today are 75 cm high, which is too tall for most people. I also wanted to avoid the Silicon Valley vibe that is so ubiquitous in modern workspaces.

Eventually, I found the table I loved — the Eiermann 1. The original table frame was designed in 1953, either for Eiermann’s own office or for his students; history differs on this point. The crossbar, made in one piece, is placed diagonally between the sides. This reduced construction achieves the perfect balance between material and stability. The tabletop lies flat on the frame. Less is not possible.

It’s been almost a year and it still brings me joy every time I sit at it.

It’s been almost two months since I bought Feynman’s exercises. I didn’t expect physics to capture my attention this much. I’ve finished six chapters and created 200 new Mochi cards since then.

The exercises turned out to be the key to understanding. There were many times when I read a chapter, thought I understood it, but then found myself lost when trying to solve a practical problem. There must be a reason for this phenomenon. My guess is that it’s easy to confuse familiarity with understanding. Reading gives you the sense of the tools you can use, but it doesn’t teach you how to use them.

Doing exercises highlighted how much I’ve forgotten from mathematics. As a refresher, I skimmed through Lang’s Basic Mathematics. I started going through Spivak’s Calculus, which has even more exercises than the Feynman’s books.

This experience makes me wonder how it’s possible to cover everything in university. Sometimes I spend days thinking about a single problem. I don’t know if you can afford that when you have other subjects to study.

Turkey ’24

We just returned from Turkey, where we spent a week on a sailing boat and added the first 175 miles to our logbooks.

This might be the best vacation I’ve ever had. I’ve been thinking about what made it so, and the answer seems to be that sailing is wonderfully unpredictable. With few specific arrangements beyond where you’ll dock, it felt more like an adventure than a traditional vacation. The best trips I’ve taken have been like this.

Recently 003

I’m still working through the exercises to the Feynman’s Lectures. There are 36 of them to the Chapter 4! Doing exercises turned out to be the best way to understand something. I want to move forward faster with lectures and I have to stop myself constantly. It’s easy to fool yourself and think you understand the material after reading a lecture, only I open a new exercise and realize that there are gaps.

Mochi helps a lot. It’s surprising that this isn’t taught in schools and universities. Spaced repetition might be the only reliable and proven way to enhance memory. As Michael Nilsen says, “Anki makes memory a choice, rather than a haphazard event, to be left to chance.” It feels like superpower.

Movies watched

• First Man. Damien Chazelle brought depth to the story and focused on personal drama, stepping away from all the stories surrounding a well-known person.
• Oppenheimer. I rewatched it again with subtitles this time. It was better. Still, this movie lacks complexity and depth.
• Flow. An indie animation without any dialogues and with interesting style (probably shaped by its budget).
• The Wild Robot. As someone on Letterboxd put it, “the best Pixar cartoon was made by Dreamworks”. It’s an overstatement, but it’s a good cartoon.

Reading

Finished reading Bullshit Jobs. It resonated with my thoughts that many modern jobs are mind-numbing, and many more make the world a worse place. Still, it was quite repetitive and could’ve been half its size.

Dropped The Invention of Science after a few chapters. This turned out not to be a history of inventions, but more a philosophical work on how that was happening — how people talked and thought about it. It might be good, but it wasn’t what I expected.

Currently reading The Life of Isaac Newton, which has been good so far.

The easiest way to solve 2.19 (Plank Weight Trough)

A plank of weight W and length $R$ lies in a smooth circular trough of radius $R$. At one end of the plank is a weight $W/2$. Calculate the angle $\theta$ at which the plank lies when it is in equilibrium.

There are already a few solutions at the Feynman’s Lectures website, but my solution is simpler.

Since the plank is in equilibrium, it must be at its lowest possible position. This means the center of mass of the plank lies directly below the center of the trough.

We can calculate the center of mass $c$ given the length of the plank $L = R$:

${\displaystyle \begin{array}{rl}{\displaystyle c}& {\displaystyle =\frac{1}{1.5W}(\frac{WL}{2}+\frac{WL}{2})}\\ {\displaystyle }& {\displaystyle =\frac{L}{1.5}=\frac{\sqrt{3}R}{1.5}=\frac{2R}{\sqrt{3}}}\end{array}}$

Since $c$ forms the hypotenuse from the left point of contact to the vertical line beneath the trough center, we have:

${\displaystyle \cos \theta =\frac{R}{c}=\frac{R\sqrt{3}}{2R}=\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}}$

This gives $= 30^{}$

Solving 2.17 and 2.18 Using the Principle of Virtual Work

It is possible to solve 2.17 and 2.18 using torques, but since the chapter was about using the virtual work principle, let’s use it.

Let’s consider the ladder from the exercise 2.18 (2.17 uses similar approach) rotating clockwise due to the reactive force of the wall.

Let’s imagine a ladder rotating clockwise under the influence of the reaction force of the wall. As the ladder rotates by a small angle $\delta \theta$ radians, it displaces a distance $s = r$ (by the definition of a radian).

For a small angle $\theta$, it is possible to approximate that any point on ladder moves in a straight line, not in a circular path (see figure below).

This linear movement allows us to compute displacement of each point on the ladder as the following:

${\displaystyle \begin{array}{rl}{\displaystyle \mathrm{\Delta }x}& {\displaystyle =s\sin \theta =\delta \theta \cdot r\cdot \sin \theta }\\ {\displaystyle \mathrm{\Delta }y}& {\displaystyle =s\cos \theta =\delta \theta \cdot r\cdot \cos \theta }\end{array}}$

Now we can calculate the work done by a reactive force of the wall $T$:

${\displaystyle W_T=T(\delta \theta \cdot L\cdot \sin \theta )}$

Changes in potential energies of the weight $W$ and the ladder $\omega$ are:

${\displaystyle \begin{array}{rl}{\displaystyle E_W}& {\displaystyle =(\delta \theta \cdot 0.75L\cdot \cos \theta )\cdot W}\\ {\displaystyle E_{\omega }}& {\displaystyle =(\delta \theta \cdot 0.5L\cdot \cos \theta )\cdot \omega }\end{array}}$

Equating the work done by $T$ to the total change in potential energy yields:

${\displaystyle \begin{array}{rl}{\displaystyle T(\delta \theta \cdot L\cdot \sin \theta )}& {\displaystyle =(\delta \theta \cdot 0.5L\cdot \cos \theta )\cdot \omega }\\ {\displaystyle }& {\displaystyle +(\delta \theta \cdot 0.75L\cdot \cos \theta )\cdot W}\end{array}}$

${\displaystyle T=\mathrm{ctg}\theta (0.5\omega +0.75W)}$

Feynman’s Lectures Exercises 2.16

I spent more time on this exercise than needed because I didn’t notice that the masses are equal. Otherwise, the application of the virtual work principle is straightforward.

The work is done by the gravitation force and the force accelerates the entire system, that is $M = m_1 + m_2 = 2m$.

Let’s use the positive sign the direction of gravity acting on $m_2$.

The work can be calculate as:

${\displaystyle \begin{array}{rl}{\displaystyle W}& {\displaystyle =F\mathrm{\Delta }s}\\ {\displaystyle }& {\displaystyle =Ma\cdot \mathrm{\Delta }s}\\ {\displaystyle }& {\displaystyle =Ma\cdot \mathrm{\Delta }{y}_2}\\ {\displaystyle }& {\displaystyle =2m\cdot \mathrm{\Delta }{y}_2}\end{array}}$

This work is equal to the change of the potential energy in the system as follows:

${\displaystyle \begin{array}{rl}{\displaystyle \mathrm{\Delta }{E}_k}& {\displaystyle =m_2\cdot g\cdot \mathrm{\Delta }{y}_2-m_1\cdot g\cdot \mathrm{\Delta }{y}_1}\\ {\displaystyle }& {\displaystyle =m\cdot g\cdot \mathrm{\Delta }{y}_2-m\cdot g\cdot \mathrm{\Delta }{y}_1}\\ {\displaystyle }& {\displaystyle =m\cdot g\cdot (\mathrm{\Delta }{y}_2-\mathrm{\Delta }{y}_1)}\\ {\displaystyle }& {\displaystyle =m\cdot g\cdot (\mathrm{\Delta }{y}_2-\mathrm{\Delta }{y}_2\cdot \sin \frac{\pi }{4})}\end{array}}$

Thus, we get:

${\displaystyle \begin{array}{rl}{\displaystyle a}& {\displaystyle =g\frac{m-m\cdot \sin \frac{\pi }{4}}{2m}}\\ {\displaystyle }& {\displaystyle =g\frac{(1-\sin \frac{\pi }{4})\cdot m}{2m}}\\ {\displaystyle }& {\displaystyle =g\frac{1-\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}}{2}}\\ {\displaystyle }& {\displaystyle =\frac{1}{2}(1-\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}})g}\end{array}}$

Feynman’s Lectures Exercises 2.14 and 2.15

If the weights $W_1$ and $W_2$ move the distance $s$ along the plane to the left, their corresponding difference in height are:

${\displaystyle \mathrm{\Delta }{h}_1=s\cdot \sin \theta ,\mathrm{\Delta }{h}_2=-s\cdot \sin \theta }$

Then, the difference in potential energy of the system is:

${\displaystyle \mathrm{\Delta }{E}_p=\mathrm{\Delta }{h}_1{W}_1-\mathrm{\Delta }{h}_2{W}_2}$

By the definition of work:

${\displaystyle F\cdot s=\mathrm{\Delta }{E}_p}$

Then:

${\displaystyle \begin{array}{rl}{\displaystyle F}& {\displaystyle =\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }{E}_p}{s}}\\ {\displaystyle }& {\displaystyle =\sin \theta \cdot m_1\cdot g-\sin \theta \cdot m_2\cdot g}\\ {\displaystyle }& {\displaystyle =\sin \theta \cdot g\cdot (m_1-m_2)}\end{array}}$

For the acceleration along the plane, using $a =$ and the total mass $m = m_1 + m_2$, the acceleration is:

${\displaystyle a=\sin \theta \cdot g\cdot \frac{m_1-m_2}{m_1+m_2}}$

For the motion over distance $D$, starting from rest:

${\displaystyle D=\frac{a{t}^2}{2}}$

Thus:

${\displaystyle \begin{array}{rl}{\displaystyle t^2}& {\displaystyle =\frac{2D}{a}}\\ {\displaystyle t}& {\displaystyle =\sqrt{\frac{2D}{a}}}\end{array}}$

The speed at time $t$ is given by:

${\displaystyle \begin{array}{rl}{\displaystyle v}& {\displaystyle =at}\\ {\displaystyle }& {\displaystyle =a\cdot \sqrt{\frac{2D}{a}}}\\ {\displaystyle }& {\displaystyle =\sqrt{2Da}}\\ {\displaystyle }& {\displaystyle =\sqrt{2D\cdot \sin \theta \cdot g\cdot \frac{m_1-m_2}{m_1+m_2}}}\end{array}}$

For Exercise 2.15, the acceleration is given by:

${\displaystyle a=\frac{1}{2}\cdot g\cdot (\sin \theta -\sin \varphi )}$

Substituting this into the expression for speed, we get:

${\displaystyle v=\sqrt{g\cdot D\cdot (\sin \theta -\sin \varphi )}}$

I finally bought the Feynman Lectures on Physics, something I wanted to do for a very long time. Ever since reading You’re Surely Joking Mr. Feynman. After watching some of his interviews on YouTube and going through a few chapters online, I realized there’s something special about how Feynman explains things. He doesn’t just teach formulas — he teaches understanding. Once you grasp that, you realize what true understanding is. Here are a few quotes from the introduction to the New Millennium edition:

It was like going to church. The lectures were a transformational experience, the experience of a lifetime, probably the most important thing I got from Caltech. I was a biology major but Feynman’s lectures stand out as a high point in my undergraduate experience … though I must admit I couldn’t do the homework at the time and I hardly turned any of it in. I was among the least promising of students in this course, and I never missed a lecture. … I remember and can still feel Feynman’s joy of discovery. … His lectures had an … emotional impact that was probably lost in the printed Lectures.

The book is beautiful. I don’t choose books solely on looks, but when there are different options, it’s better to go for the one you like. I’ve noticed that this works for anything — if I like something that’s part of an activity, I’m more likely to engage with it. So, in that sense, it is rational to choose a book by its cover. One sad thing is the lettering from the original edition has been lost in the New Millennium version:

Almost all other popular physics books look very average. Compare another popular textbook with the austere design of Feynman’s lectures:

My plan is to work through all three volumes over the winter and solve all the exercises from the companion workbook. I will buy a refresher for math once I hit a wall. There are a few books I have in mind: Spivak’s Calculus and The Princeton Companion to Applied Mathematics. Both are as beautifully designed as Feynman’s lectures.

Made a few changes to the site, and now I can have posts without titles. It gives a sense of freedom, similar to what you might have unconsciously experienced on Twitter. Having a title adds a layer of seriousness to a post.

The Archive layout has changed to accommodate missing titles — now the dates link to posts, and the dates are in ISO format set in tabular figures for proper alignment.

With each iteration, it’s becoming more brutalist, and I like it.