If it's gotten onto quarks in chapter one, I wouldn't be too worried about the rest of the book not going into much detail.

Sentynel wrote: People read physics books generally because they want to learn about physics...

And why would you want to do that? :P

Cos physics is interesting! Tsk, you people who never wonder why the universe does what it does...

Also, there are lots of job opportunities for physicists.

Gladstone wrote:

Sentynel wrote: People read physics books generally because they want to learn about physics...

And why would you want to do that? :P

$$$ :D

Mostly 'cause I find it interesting.

Up to Chapter 3, on gravitons, gluons, photons, and the weak nuclear force particles that I forgot the names of. I think they're W+, W-, and Z0. Vector bosons. Aha, I remembered.

Sentynel wrote: Cos physics is interesting! Tsk, you people who never wonder why the universe does what it does...

I may wonder why the universe does what it does, but that doesn't mean I'll actually try to find out.
Besides, quarks don't seem all that relevant to the entire universe.

Particle physics are the path to understanding the whole universe.

Well, you're never going to understand the whole universe.
But, kudos for trying I guess.

Technically, the +, - and 0 should be superscript.
Exchange particles. Fun fun.

Quarks make up 99.9% or thereabouts of the visible mass in the universe, so they're pretty important.

It should also be noted that particle physics (or more specifically the Uncertainty Principle) is what actually prevents us from understanding the whole universe, because it says that we cannot know both the momentum and the position of a particle at the same time.

I'm glad I have quarks in me, I suppose. Actually this stuff just freaks me out.
That does sound kinda cool, the uncertainty principle.
Really, though, don't you have other things to do than read physics books?
Please don't comment on the fact that I spend much of my time on bartiforums, I know I don't have a life.

I have lots of other things to do than read physics books (most equally nerdy, heh). I don't spend very long reading them - I've got, what, five books to read in nine weeks? Plenty of time for other stuff.

Like hang out on Bartiforums? Technically, would that be nerdy or just plain crazy?

Sentynel wrote: Tsk, you people who never wonder why the universe does what it does...

It's up to God, what the universe does :P

If there is a god or gods, he/she/it/they are either within the universe and thus bound by the uncertainty principle or outside of it and thus unable to influence it. If you can influence something, the act of observing it influences it and thus screws up other properties.

(Incidentally, if it wasn't for the uncertainty principle, you could theoretically find out all the information about every single particle and quantum of energy in the universe and thus be able to predict exactly what would happen, rendering the course of the universe wholly determined and destroying free will, but because you can't do that you can't, even theoretically, predict what will happen, and thus the universe is not deterministic and we can have free will.)

Or the god/gods is beyond the uncertainty principle and doesn't have to bother with it.
I mean, I don't think a god would be bound by a physics principle.
How does that second paragraph work, anyway, if it's all theory?
You still couldn't predict things if it was all theory.

I'm fully prepared to accept that god/gods are beyond the limits of the uncertainty principle, but that would preclude them actually being able to affect anything.

Because, while it's completely unrealistic to be able to gather all relevant information on every quantum of energy in the universe and calculate their interactions at faster-than-real-time speed in order to predict the future, the fact that it *could* be done if you have a near-infinitely powerful computer means that there is only one path the universe can take forward because the interactions of everything in it is predictable with the right data. The point isn't being able to predict it, the point is that this would prevent you having free will.
The uncertainty principle means you cannot have all the right data and thus there are multiple forward paths, and free will is possible.

If someone's future is predicted, that doesn't prevent that person having free will.
That person will still do as they choose, the only difference being that the results of that person's free choice will already be known.

That's simply the illusion of free choice, though. You can't actually do something different. Your behaviour can be accurately predicted.
With true free choice, you can't predict behaviour no matter how much information you have - you can only talk in probabilities of something happening.

Heisenberg was a genius, but he allied himself with the Nazis. If it wasn't for his bad experimentation, Germany would have developed the atomic bomb first.

Also, in a sample of antihydrogen, there would be one antiproton and one positron, unless it was an ion, right?

rubberchickenben wrote: Also, in a sample of antihydrogen, there would be one antiproton and one positron, unless it was an ion, right?

In a single atom of antihydrogen, assuming it wasn't an ion or a non-standard isotope, yes.

Sentynel wrote:

rubberchickenben wrote: Also, in a sample of antihydrogen, there would be one antiproton and one positron, unless it was an ion, right?

In a single atom of antihydrogen, assuming it wasn't an ion or a non-standard isotope, yes.

antideuterium :D