I think tomes 1 and 2 are still awesome ways to study the given topics. I do not feel as strongly about tome 3, but I still do like it.
Imagine, during the time the Feynman Lectures were created, trying to study using 60-year-old material. Utterly unthinkable. You wouldn't even know about neutrons. In fact, you would barely be able to understand what an atom is. You would be completely ignorant of quantum mechanics. Relativity would be cutting edge, with many important models not yet known.
But today, despite immense research effort over decades, using some of the most expensive equipment ever built, there isn't much fundamentally new to add to the Lectures, except a few more particles and a couple new quantum phenomena.
Scientists generally explore the biggest, most fundamental questions first, which ends up being foundational knowledge for students generations later. Most of the modern advances in physics have been past the undergraduate level.
However, there were pedagogical discoveries since then. We have better mathematical notation / conventions / naming for some of these topics that makes them easier to teach today.
But should you expect advances in physics to affect an introductory physics resource? It's not like people learning general physics are exposed to quantum field theory in any case.
Yes just like computers. Since 70 years they still fetch instructions and execute them, no improvement in this field. /s
New areas build on those areas so we don't expect them in a course about the fundamentals.
It would be concerning if every 20 years the lessons got completely turned upside down.
But there is some evidence that this is not the case. For example, quantum field theory and general relativity are not quite compatible. [1][2] The mechanism for charge formation in triboelectric effect (when you rub things together) isn't well-understood. [3][4] Turbulence still cannot be analyzed satisfactorily. [5] This last one is even mentioned in the Feynman Lectures [6].
Also, generally, I think we should be very skeptical of the claim that we live at the pinnacle of human achievement and the end of the history. It seems quite arrogant to me, and it's against the spirit of the Copernican principle.
[1] https://www.npl.washington.edu/av/altvw204.html (Renormalization: Dodging Infinities)
[2]: https://arxiv.org/abs/1009.2157 (The Problem of Time in Quantum Gravity)
[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Triboelectric_eff...
[4]: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40820-020-0373-y
[5] https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/10/turbulence-the-oldes...
[6]: "Finally, there is a physical problem that is common to many fields, that is very old, and that has not been solved. It is not the problem of finding new fundamental particles, but something left over from a long time ago—over a hundred years. Nobody in physics has really been able to analyze it mathematically satisfactorily in spite of its importance to the sister sciences. It is the analysis of circulating or turbulent fluids." (https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_03.html)
Did someone claim this?
Not you, but I think it's a common sentiment.
I think we have a skewed view of physics research because many discoveries were simply done by sharing between fields and generally global instantaneous communication/universal access to information - before we had the phone or the internet, good luck learning about as many things as you could in the 60's - or today!
The last century was kind of science on steroids, since for the first time in history everyone could connect many others ideas - everyone suddenly was standing on the shoulders of all the giants the wanted. But at some point, we'll have went through everything there is to see up there, and we'll need to go down, and look for new heights.
It's entirely possible that we've ran through the " low hanging fruit" of physics discoveries, as there are virtually no barriers between individuals and information since a good two decade I'd say, and sharing globally for about 100 years.
Maybe sharing and learning from one another is not fertile anymore, and we need to support smaller quirkier experiments and fundamental research to discover more tidbits to connect and make new discoveries.
Judging a field by what's taught to freshman is a poor metric for progress on the frontier.
Not quite "quantum information science" per se, but Feynman's "Lectures on Computation" (1996) provides fascinating insights into information theory as well as quantum physics in micro-chips. Again, as it is always the case with Richard Feynman, you will find lots of interesting non-trivial ideas in his books whether you are novice or expert.
Is that because QM has moved on or is it now viewed from a somewhat different perspective and thus taught in slightly different ways?