It is very interesting to see completely different impressions of Feynman from comments here. As a physicist, I first got introduced to Feynman from his popular QED book as a freshman in college. Over the years, I came to admire his contributions and way of thinking but could also see the cult of personality that has formed.

Feynman is definitely not like Neil deGrasse Tyson or Kaku. He was a very creative and technically sophisticated physicist. All his popular books are based on lectures he wrote and gave but they were mostly "side projects" e.g. computation, lectures on gravitation, six easy pieces etc.

To get a better sense of his work, I would highly recommend:

- The Beat of a Different Drum by Jagdish Mehra

- Genius: The Life and Science of Richard Feynman by James Gleick

- Selected Papers - https://www.worldscientific.com/worldscibooks/10.1142/4270 (expensive and technical)

- QED and the men who made it by Schweber

There are also many historical physicists who are surprisingly unknown outside the field - Schwinger, Tomonaga, Landau, Sidney Coleman, Murray Gell-mann, Nambu, Steven Weinberg, Ken Wilson, Curtis Callan etc. I just randomly picked a few names before the 90s but these are all scientific giants. For example, Schwinger's papers are notoriously hard to read but his books are great after a first course. Sidney Coleman gave beautiful lectures on QFT. Landau is extremely famous for his 9 books with Lifshitz. It definitely is very surprising that Feynman has such an outsized share of interest. Maybe because he was a gregarious outgoing character?

Another interesting aspect is how a person is often viewed as an authority or even a genius because their work introduces an audience to the subject. Feynman with his lectures. To a far lesser extent (in my opinion), one sees this with Andrej Karpathy and Jeremy Howard. This is not to take away from their wonderful teaching work. I know how hard it is to distill material and convey it. But, there's a whole web of contributions that leads to a subject maturing enough to be taught clearly.

As I get older, I find it less useful to assign labels (names) to discoveries and contributions. As Feynman himself said in a lecture after drawing a Feynman diagram, "this is THE diagram" (and not the Feynman diagram).

▲

Starman_Jones 35 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

I believe this is the point you are making, but it's worth clarifying that NDT is a technically sophisticated astrophysicist who is best known for his non-technical communication targeted at a non-technical audience. Part of the genius of Feynman is that he could communicate to a technical audience in a way that was still accessible to the lay audience. Tyson can't communicate to both groups at once like Feynman (or Tyson's mentor, Carl Sagan) could. It's a rare gift.

▲

ThrowawayR2 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Feynman had the vanishingly rare combination of being at world-shaking (literally) historical events like the Manhattan Project and the Trinity test that ordinary people can relate to¹, actual scientific contribution enough to merit a Nobel Prize in Physics, and being an engaging storyteller and educator. I don't think it's all that surprising that his recognizability very high.

¹ Ordinary people can relate to a giant industrial project and a huge boom. They cannot relate to some person sitting in a room writing arcane symbols and muttering to themselves until one day they yell "Heureka! Ich hab es gefunden!" or whatever the proper German is and rush off to publish a paper.

▲

assemblyman 4 hours ago | parent [-]

My point is that it's really the storytelling/gregarious nature character. There is no shortage of people who were at the Manhattan project and won Nobel prizes or were prominent. A partial list: Oppenheimer, Bethe, Rabi, Teller, von Neumann, Compton, Fermi, Segre, Ramsey, Alvarez. There are easily many more. Schwinger was at Rad lab.

Schwinger was considered a tremendous educator. I think he had ~90 PhD students and four won Nobel prizes. His lectures were often described as Mozart symphonies. I have studied parts of his books and the experience was always eye-opening. But, his education was focused on students, mostly graduate students. He was also a shy character.

In any case, I still love reading Feynman and Schwinger's works. I would also include Sommerfeld, Pauli, Landau, Weinberg in that list.

	▲	ThrowawayR2 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Sorry, my wording was imprecise; when I said "educator", I meant popular science educator, along the lines of Asimov, Sagan, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, etc. I can't think of anything Schwinger ever wrote or a public lecture that he gave that would be accessible to a general or even a semi-technical, non-physicist audience. But, beyond that, yes, I think we're largely in agreement.