Wyz_sub10

Yes, but understanding the basics of what QM is and is not is quite possible (and I can think of no better person than Feynman for demonstrating this).

The details of evolution, for example, are quite complex and require an intimate understanding of chemistry. But learning the basics - what it is, is not, does and does not - is easy enough.

NialScorva

But at the same time, I think that Feynman and Hawking are about the limit of what you can understand without digging into the math.

Wyz_sub10

You're probably right, but that doesn't mean there isn't another bok or two that might clarify some details (with a bit of a different spin).

For instance, I though Paul Davies' "About Time" help my understanding of relativity.

There's a book...can't think of it right now...that explains the oddity of paired quarks. Something like that might be useful.

Damn...oh....Entanglement: The Greatest Mystery in Phyics by Amir Aczel.

asvani

I feel a little doubtful about that. To understand what QM isn't, you have to be able to distinguish it from stuff like eletromagnetism (Maxwell's equations), classical mechanics and thermodynamics. If a person understands 'classical' physics, he is simply in a better position to grasp the significance of the underlying principles (and mathematics) of QM.

You can only go so far with a qualitative understanding.

deathofamind

Maybe you misunderstood my post. I never said that I expect to become a QM expert by reading books by Hawking and Feynman. All I said was that I like lay-person books like these, because they are written at my level. Surely you don't think books such as these are useless.

Should I not be allowed to ask questions about things like QED and QCD, because I don't have the proper education? That's what you and AdamWho seem to be implying. I don't get it. Are people without physics degrees not allowed to be curious?

Wyz_sub10

That's fine. But it seems that "so far" is where deathofamind wants to go and he doesn't feel he's there yet.

I have a hard time explaining what I do for a living to my parents, because unless you know the underlying information, what I do makes no sense.

But if I'm patient and choose my words carefully, I can still convey what I do well enough for them to understand it, without requiring that they understand the detail.

deathofamind,

Of course you should ask questions. My recommendation would be to head to a big bookstore (Barnes and Noble or Chapters or whatever) and browse through the physics section. I notice a lot of books being written with a populist slant lately. You should find something that gives you an idea.

And stuff like "Who's Afraid of Schroedinger's Cat" is not a bad place to start.

admice

Thank you from me also. I too am interested in Quantum Physics and haven't even read as much as th original poster. I'll check out those sites. I know Yahoo Groups has a physics one and usually there is someone who can actually answer questions live on it.

fando

Likewise with quantitiative. Math is just another language to help us understand things, it isn't meant to be the meaning of our reality (although that issue is open to debate). One doesn't need to understand tensors to grasp how Einstein's field equations work, and one doesn't need calculus to grasp Maxwell. Essentially, all we need is an intuition developed to understand the underlying relationships, and it need not be exclusively spoken in the language of math. Sure math helps a lot -- the whole reason we use it is because of convenience. It is hard to misinterpret a differential equation, easier so to get confused by the same equation put to words. But if math is the only language which one can use to communicate his intuition, then we have merely discovered something new about the universe which is unfamiliar to us (e.g., the concept of quanta). In time, we develop colloquial terms to communicate our discoveries to our fellow humans. The benefits of doing so are intangible, but substantal: Public support motivated from interest in the natural sciences, inspiration for future scientists, and a method which to improve our own intuitions (explaining the math to someone else helps us further develop our
own understanding of the subject).

Basically, my point is that there's no reason to say that certain philosophical knowledge is inaccesible merely because one doesn't know Latin, or that the Quaran cannot be understood by non-Arabic speakers. We are more than capable of attempting to describe Science to ordinary people using ordinary terms and a couple of creative analogies. Let us not dismiss the effort merely because the math is too difficult or becausee scientific illiteracy is rampant. Science should be humanist, not selfish -- it should attempt outreach.

deathofamind

Thank you, fando.

cfgauss

http://particleadventure.org/particleadventure/ has a really good overview of particle physics, including stuff about the color fields, IIRC.