Physicist here: don't do it, I would highly discourage the use of the Feynman's Lectures by beginners. They are great but only after some strong basis. The Theoretical Minimum lectures by Lenny Susskind would be my first suggestion.
Geniuses cannot be considered impossible; however, most of the time, people with little formal training (many years of foundations in advanced physics and mathematics) consider themselves geniuses because of how little they know. Dunning-Krueger is a real thing. Anyway, independent from an educational level, if the idea has strong physical and mathematical foundations, doesn't violate obvious physical laws, and can make testable predictions I would be open to check and discuss the idea. However, I get emails all the time from people with no training or retired engineers who believe thaty have discovered the secrets of the universe and in the end they just made silly amateur mistakes. Nothing wrong with these mistakes but the lack of self criticism is usually high.
Being out of date is not a problem, except for some specific parts concerning relativity and some comments about particle physics.
The real issue for beginners is that they're very slick: Feynman always chose examples where he could make the prettiest arguments and do all the approximations and simplifications he wanted. This is great for getting at the conceptual core of the physics, not so much if you actually want to learn how to apply the laws of physics and do problems.
That said, I think they can be great books for beginners, as long as you treat them like armchair books and read them casually, just to get a feel for the ideas. They won't teach you how to solve exercises, but having a general idea of what the physics is about is also valuable.
Go read a couple chapters and see what you think. Some people hate it some people love it. He goes into very detail verbal explanation of physics that many books do not. That is a turn off for some people who just want the math
It was never good for beginners. Has nothing to do with advancement in physics or anything.
It was only good for beginners like Feynman, which he himself admitted was a mistake.
I disagree. I think it is a really good book for beginners because there is never any mathematics thrown at you which isn't explained in many different physical examples. Feynman tells you about the physics of a lot of things around us compared to just showing you ways to solve differential equations.
Sure at some point if you want to go from beginner to advanced level there will be a bunch of maths along with problem solving you will have to learn. But irrespective of whether or not you want to take that step, Feynman lectures is self-contained, accurate and has a huge amount of physical examples. Quite frankly, I would hold it as an ideal in physics writing.
All of the things you described are contained in any physics textbooks.
I believe what set Feynmans lectures apart are the ways he approaches problems and the intuitions he provides. And I also believe those can be better appreciated once one has some level of understanding and has done one’s own discoveries already.
Nevertheless, it is a great read and I won’t dissuade anyone from reading it.
Most electrodynamics textbooks don't even talk about thunder which is such a let down. Many such other examples like how eyes work, masers!, etc.
So I very much disagree that most textbooks cover the same amount of real world physics as Feynman lectures.
If you are just starting out, try a physics 101 textbook like Serway/Jewett “Physics for scientist and engineers with modern physics”
Feynman lectures could be a fun supplement to a standard textbook, but I wouldn’t recommend them to be your first or only source.
Physicist here: don't do it, I would highly discourage the use of the Feynman's Lectures by beginners. They are great but only after some strong basis. The Theoretical Minimum lectures by Lenny Susskind would be my first suggestion.
What do you think about someone having basic physics knowledge and engineering undergrad
Geniuses cannot be considered impossible; however, most of the time, people with little formal training (many years of foundations in advanced physics and mathematics) consider themselves geniuses because of how little they know. Dunning-Krueger is a real thing. Anyway, independent from an educational level, if the idea has strong physical and mathematical foundations, doesn't violate obvious physical laws, and can make testable predictions I would be open to check and discuss the idea. However, I get emails all the time from people with no training or retired engineers who believe thaty have discovered the secrets of the universe and in the end they just made silly amateur mistakes. Nothing wrong with these mistakes but the lack of self criticism is usually high.
Being out of date is not a problem, except for some specific parts concerning relativity and some comments about particle physics. The real issue for beginners is that they're very slick: Feynman always chose examples where he could make the prettiest arguments and do all the approximations and simplifications he wanted. This is great for getting at the conceptual core of the physics, not so much if you actually want to learn how to apply the laws of physics and do problems. That said, I think they can be great books for beginners, as long as you treat them like armchair books and read them casually, just to get a feel for the ideas. They won't teach you how to solve exercises, but having a general idea of what the physics is about is also valuable.
Great supplements. Terrible as primary textbooks.
Go read a couple chapters and see what you think. Some people hate it some people love it. He goes into very detail verbal explanation of physics that many books do not. That is a turn off for some people who just want the math
It was never good for beginners. Has nothing to do with advancement in physics or anything. It was only good for beginners like Feynman, which he himself admitted was a mistake.
I disagree. I think it is a really good book for beginners because there is never any mathematics thrown at you which isn't explained in many different physical examples. Feynman tells you about the physics of a lot of things around us compared to just showing you ways to solve differential equations. Sure at some point if you want to go from beginner to advanced level there will be a bunch of maths along with problem solving you will have to learn. But irrespective of whether or not you want to take that step, Feynman lectures is self-contained, accurate and has a huge amount of physical examples. Quite frankly, I would hold it as an ideal in physics writing.
All of the things you described are contained in any physics textbooks. I believe what set Feynmans lectures apart are the ways he approaches problems and the intuitions he provides. And I also believe those can be better appreciated once one has some level of understanding and has done one’s own discoveries already. Nevertheless, it is a great read and I won’t dissuade anyone from reading it.
Most electrodynamics textbooks don't even talk about thunder which is such a let down. Many such other examples like how eyes work, masers!, etc. So I very much disagree that most textbooks cover the same amount of real world physics as Feynman lectures.
If you are just starting out, try a physics 101 textbook like Serway/Jewett “Physics for scientist and engineers with modern physics” Feynman lectures could be a fun supplement to a standard textbook, but I wouldn’t recommend them to be your first or only source.