I've been on a particle physics kick for a few months, and have read three books:

Schrodinger's Kittens, by John Gribbin, about quantum mechanics.

The Hunting of the Quark, by Michael Riordan, about the search for fundamental particles during the '60's and 70's, which led to the acceptance of quarks, and what is now known as the standard model of particle physics.

Dreams of a Final Theory, by Stephen Weinberg, who received the Nobel prize for work unifying electromagnetism and the weak force.

Weinberg's has been a fascinating read (so were the others in different ways.) Weinberg writes very clearly and directly - I like his tone and voice. His book is less about the details of particle physics and more about the broader issues of what is science and what is a scientific theory. In particular, he is interested in what it would mean to develop a final theory of particle physics, and whether such a theory might or might not explain why the universe is as it is, and not another way.

Towards the end, Weinberg addresses the question of "What About God?". This chapter was excellent, and many of you here would find it very interesting. It's a very good read even if you haven't read any of the rest of the book. If I could copy and paste parts in I would, but I don't have time to type a report. So if you're interested in the topic of "What about God?, and can find a copy, even at the library, I highly recommend you take a look at this chapter.

Thanks, Jack, When I get some time I'll hunt it down.

I was wondering if you ever read The Dancing Wu Li Masters? And if you had an opinion. I read it a couple of years ago, thinking it would be a good intro to quantum physics. The first chapter or two seemed a little weird and New Age-y, and I started to grow skeptical. But his later chapters of the wave-particle duality of light, relativity, schrodinger's cat, etc, were very readable and understandable. Just curious what someone with a little more knowledge would say about the book.

I remember reading that long ago, but I think now there is quite a bit of skepticism, if not disdain, for trying to make QM New Agey, as the book does.

More specifically, in Hunting of the Quark, Riordan says that the book was written from a view that eventually lost out to the standard model of quarks, and that it was ten years behind current research even when it was written. I'm sure it covers some basics, but I thought about and then decided against re-reading it.

My very laypersonish 2 cents.

The answer to Weinberg's question is simple. He is a blatant atheist and does not beat around the bush announcing it.

I actually respect Weinberg for being up front about it, and admitting that he thinks science supports his position.

Of course, what he is preaching is not science, but he doesn't hedge his bets.

Weinberg doesn't claim to be talking about science in this chapter. In fact, on page 244 he writes, "It should be apparent that in discussing these things I am speaking only for myself and that in this chapter I leave behind me any claim to special expertise."

And what's the difference between an atheist and an blatant atheist?

And yes, he does believe that science supports his position, which is different than saying either that science proves his position or that his position is science.

Did you read the chapter, or are you just responding to other things you know about Weinberg?

I read the book some time ago, and have it in storage at my parents house. By "blatant" I mean outspoken, as opposed to someone who does not try to say that science supports his position, which is atheism.

blatant atheist = out-of-the-closet gay = liberated woman = uppity negro

can you feel the love?

Not really, what I read is a libelous Straw Man.