Particle Physics For Non Physicists: A Tour Of The Microcosmos

by Steven Pollock

12 hours 23 mins

Would you like to know how the universe works? Scientists have been asking that question for a long time and have found that many of the answers can be found in the study of particle physics, the field that focuses on those impossibly tiny particles with unbelievably strange names - the hadrons and leptons, baryons and mesons, muons and gluons - so mystifying to the rest of us.

And now, in a fascinating and accessible series of 24 lectures, you can take the mystery out of the remarkable field that in only 100 years has unlocked the secrets of the basic forces of nature.

Professor Pollock will make you familiar with the fundamental particles that make up all matter, from the tiniest microbe to the sun and stars. And you'll also learn the "rules of the game" - the forces that drive those particles and the ways in which they interact - that underlie the workings of the universe.

The lectures have been designed to be enriching for everyone, regardless of scientific background or mathematical ability. Virtually all you'll need as you enter this fascinating world are your curiosity, common sense, and, as Professor Pollock notes, "an open mind for the occasional quantum weirdness." As you move through the lectures, you'll also gain a knowledge of how those particles fit into perhaps the greatest scientific theory of all time: the Standard Model of particle physics; a grasp of key terms like "gauge symmetry," "quantum chromodynamics," and "unified quantum field Theory;" and an appreciation of how particle physics fits in with other branches of physics - including cosmology and quantum mechanics - to create our overall understanding of nature.

Genres: Science, Physics, Nonfiction, Audiobook, History

13 pages, Audiobook

First published January 1, 2003

Reviews

[Beauregard Bottomley · Rating 5 out of 5]

The choice is yours. You can let the popular media and the Mystics continue to tell you that particles physics is woo and mysticism or you can listen to this highly accessible lecture and realize what particle physics is all about and learn why neutrinos are so important, what c-p violation means, and what makes up the universe at the most fundamental level.

The lecturer doesn't tell you anything without first telling you the context and how we know what we know. I still don't understand what a photon really is or what exactly is meant by spin, but that's not the fault of the lecture. It's more that their real meaning is tied up with esoteric mathematics and the lecture stays away from the math.

[Mark · Rating 4 out of 5]

FANTASTIC, but dated. I'd totally give this 5 stars for performance, but must add the caveat that it's quite old now (15 or more years). That's ancient by particle physics standards. But EVEN THEN, this guy is great at explaining and given a bit of a feel for a heady subject. I still recommend it for that reason.

[Joseph L. · Rating 2 out of 5]

Watch a detailed review along with my favorite ideas and takeaways at:
https://youtu.be/q_BMKZPYerw

[Mack · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fascinating overview. Dr. Pollock is clear and decent about explaining the intuitive side of a mathematical field.

[Graeme Newell · Rating 3 out of 5]

Diving into the world of particle physics can feel like embarking on an expedition to an uncharted territory, especially for those of us whose daily encounters with physics might not go beyond dropping toast on the kitchen floor. That's precisely why I picked up this book. I was hoping it would serve as a friendly guide through the maze of quarks, leptons, and bosons.

First off, Pollock’s book aims high. It attempts to distill complex concepts into digestible chunks for readers who might not have a robust background in physics. The ambition is commendable, and in several places, the book hits the mark. There are chapters where Pollock's explanations illuminate the dark corners of particle physics with the grace of a well-handled flashlight, making you appreciate the beauty and intricacy of the universe's fundamental building blocks. These moments are genuinely satisfying, offering glimpses into a world that often feels beyond grasp.

However, it wasn't all smooth sailing. Despite the book's target audience being non-physicists, I have to admit that I got lost quite a few times. My lack of physics knowledge definitely got the best of me, leaving me adrift in a sea of terminologies and theories that I couldn't quite anchor to my understanding. It's a bit like being given a map without the legend; you know there's a way to navigate the terrain, but the symbols remain cryptic. This is not to say the book is overly technical—it's more about the challenge of translating a deeply complex subject into layman's terms without losing its essence. Honestly, I don’t fault the author. Goodness he really tries hard to keep it approachable and non-threatening.

One of the book’s strengths is its structured approach to introducing concepts gradually. Pollock doesn't throw you into the deep end right away but instead builds up from more familiar ideas. This scaffolding is invaluable, offering a ladder out of the confusion for those willing to climb it. Yet, there were times when the rungs felt too far apart. The leap from basic principles to more advanced theories sometimes felt like a stretch, requiring a leap of faith (or understanding) that I wasn't always prepared to make.

On the flip side, Pollock's enthusiasm for the subject is evident and infectious. Even when I was bogged down by confusion, there was something utterly compelling about the way the material was presented. The passion behind the words often served as a beacon, encouraging me to press on even when the going got tough. Moreover, the inclusion of historical anecdotes and the stories of the physicists behind the theories added a much-needed human element to the narrative, reminding me that behind every abstract concept are people driven by curiosity and determination.

The book's attempt to make particle physics accessible is a noble endeavor. However, the path it carves is not without its pitfalls. For readers entirely new to physics, it might feel like being asked to run before you've mastered walking. That said, for those with a smattering of physics knowledge or a strong willingness to learn, Pollock's book can be a rewarding journey through the quantum world.

While I struggled with this book, the journey was not without its rewards, offering a peek into the fascinating world that underpins our reality. For those willing to navigate its complexities, Pollock's book can be a valuable companion. Just be prepared for a bit of turbulence along the way.

[Sebastian · Rating 5 out of 5]

Oh, this was pure delight. A very accessible and clear description of particle physics that brought order and clarity to the particle zoo that kinda already filled my head from reading other, less well organized guides to the same rough territory. It is clear that in addition to being a physicist, Prof. Pollock is an avid educator and an excellent lecturer (how he times each of his lectures to come out at 30 minutes is beyond me), keenly aware of the boundaries and (lack of) intersection of the sets of “common knowledge for a layperson” and “common knowledge for a physicist”, and very good in developing the material in gradual, baby steps. As others have noted, it is mildly dated in that at the time of publication LHC was not yet fully up, so the Higgs was not yet confirmed, and finding supersymmetric particles was still a hope for the LHC energies, but as an equation-free primer of particle physics, you cannot ask for a better (audio)book.

[Biblioworm · Rating 5 out of 5]

Насколько это возможно, профессор дает обзор состояния квантовой физики на данный момент (точнее это где-то 90е насколько я понял).

По сути это совсем-совсем базовые вещи, и в общем понятно что без математики это скорее философия.

Но материал вполне качественный.
Меня только несколько напрягали периодические паузы очень остро обрабатываемые подавителем шумов - пусть и на секунду возникает абсолютная тишина, пока профессор собирается с мыслями и начинаешь беспокоится не отвалились ли наушники.

[Dani Pongratz · Rating 4 out of 5]

How I hate that Americans spent so much time in these explaining the metric system. Whoever wants to listen to particle physics knows what a nanometer is.

[J.D. Steens · Rating 2 out of 5]

There are two ways to cut into a complex subject like this one on particle physics. A lecturer can start in the middle of the topic and delve into the details, or the lecturer can place the details within a larger picture, which is suited best for the layperson. While the title of this Great Course suggests the latter, this course takes the former approach, and I often got lost, though what he did say prompted questions.

Pollock says that force and energy, matter, and space and time are the five fundamental ingredients of cosmology, with force, energy, and matter being central to his topic of particle physics. But, these concepts are not in the glossary so the listener has to intuit their meaning as these terms are used throughout the lectures.* In common language, we might see force as a pull-push phenomenon that involves movement (a mover and the moved, or is it the mover that pushes away?), but then Pollard says that “Today, instead of force, physicists usually use the term interaction,” so we have that term rather than force to deal with, thereby raising a question about why force is referenced as one of the five fundamental ingredients, as opposed to interaction. I suppose that “force” is a “thing” whereas Interaction is what a “thing does,” but then an interaction can’t be an “ingredient.”

There are other questions that go beyond the nuances of word usage. It’s not clear, for example, how the weak force - which is matter that radiates in some sort of self-expressive way - is a force. With a weak force, what is moving in a push-pull, interactive way? The way that Pollock describes the particles that are force carriers is also not clear. A gluon and a photon are force carriers, so this means that the carrier is different from the force (a force carries). Doesn’t this then beg the question: What is a force (that carries)?

We hear energy referenced throughout the lectures, but there is no reference in the course (or the glossary) what it is or how it might be thought to be. Per Einstein, we also know that energy is in matter, and that matter has energy so we have this definition problem as to why the two are separated (didn’t Einstein combine energy and matter with a hyphen?). It seems really that energy, whatever it is, is the umbrella term, that is concentrated particle-matter (thus mass) on the one hand and, when released, manifests itself as kinetic mass (speed of light) and waves (?). It would then seem that, while matter contains energy, energy in its pure form is that which, simply, moves.

Then, there is this issue of gravity as only an attractive force between two (particle-laden) masses. By this formulation, the physics world omits the integral role of inertial movement. Is there an equal, counter (resisting) force involved: A body wants to go straight, or remain in place, and resists the accelerating force of attraction toward a gravitational center? Isn’t that why there are orbits? Without inertial movement, a lesser massive body would move into the larger body. (Inertial movement is also affected by speed of movement and distance). Seen this way, doesn’t the electron function in the same way - it’s drawn to the positive proton, but keeps its distance too because of its own inertia-like “need” (its negative charge), so that its resulting equilibrium state is like an orbit?**

Speaking of orbits, Pollock in passing refers to orbiting galaxies but isn’t the rotation of a galaxy something quite different than orbits? Orbits reflect a balance between matter-energy and inertia (staying at rest; moving in a straight line) and the movement toward the center of a greater mass, such as a solar system and a planet and its moons. Don’t the arms of a spiral galaxy move inward toward the bulge at the center, which means that gravity prevails over inertial resistance with the end result being a black hole (i.e., there’s no real orbiting)? Pollock also notes that the observable mass of a galaxy is not - not even close, really - massive enough to keep the spiral arms from “flinging outward,” (his words) escaping the clutches of the overall galactic mass. To explain this, Pollock quotes the standard explanation that posits the presence of dark matter, whatever that is (officially, it’s a mystery). But if the spiral arms are flowing inward - demonstrating in real time, in effect, Einstein’s general theory of relativity (thus the bulge and the black hole at the center***) - wouldn’t this, and not dark matter, keep the arms from escaping?

As a final note, Pollock notes that the only characteristics-qualities of quarks - the most fundamental particles have mass, charge and spin. Do these qualities manifest themselves (and give form to physical phenomena) at the macro level: Mass, collectively, provides mass and the stuff of gravity; charge pertains to the electro-magnetic force forming atoms and molecules and larger structures; and is spin at all relevant - this is probably too far fetched?**** - to the rotation and direction of large-scale structures with mass?*****


*Might a working definition of these ingredients be as follows: Energy is that which moves, and that movement is teleological - it’s where it wants to go i.e. energy moves from high to low, or low to high, to form equilibrium states. [Note Penrose’s objection to entropy which is generally understood as one-way movement from concentrated states to diffuse - and equilibrated - states, whereas in a big crunch scenario (or black hole scenarios), energy-matter progressively moves toward highly condensed states.] Matter is the “object,” the what that is moved, and force is that which moves matter (explaining “how” matter is moved) or energy itself (as massless objects)?

**Pollock says that an electron (“the carrier of electricity”) has angular momentum (spin), which means what: Being drawn inward by an attractive force and a pushing of itself away via its inertial movement (He says an electron “wants to spin away”)? Is anti-matter related and are there really two particles involved versus one charged particle with two (positive, negative) aspects, i.e. is the electron that is drawn inward toward the proton in its positive aspect, and is the aspect of the electron that follows its own inertial tendency its negative (resisting) aspect?

***In various references to galaxy classifications, it’s commonly said that older stars
exist at the galactic center and younger stars in the spiral arms (for spiral galaxies). If the arms are being drawn inward, then age-wise, the older stars would have to be closer to the galactic center, and the younger, and even newly forming, stars would be on the outer edges of the galaxy.

****Or maybe not so far fetched per this link: https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperin... with the key sentences as follows: "In all these rotational/orbital motions, we believe, the axial rotation and gravity collaborate with the resultant centrifugal force, which prevents the satellite bodies from crashing into the mother bodies. We have inferred from the above observations that the axial spin is a fundamental property of matter, akin to gravity, electromagnetism, and strong and weak nuclear forces. This inherent property of matter to spin on its axis is what initiates all celestial body motions and makes such motions perpetual. "

*****Bodies with mass just don’t move in a straight line (inertial motion), but don’t they also spin (rotate) as they move and doesn’t that spin have a direction? What’s the difference between rotation and spin? Rotation it is said comes via angular momentum - via gravity, for example, the movement inward creates rotation, which is faster the closer toward the gravitational center. But how is spin accounted for? With spin, there’s a direction to the rotation. Here it is said, commonly, that after the big bang, masses hit masses, and the direction of the spin (rotation) depends on the angle of the collision, and then over cosmic time, this process is repeated until one direction to the rotation becomes dominant for a planetary, solar or galactic structure. But, as a far-fetched question, is it possible that the spin comes from within the body itself, as a macro expression of what was originally a factor at the subatomic level?

[Nilesh Jasani · Rating 5 out of 5]

About the best book i have listened to on particle physics. Despite being branded as a course, the lectures make a better book on particle physics for normal readers than almost any popular books. This is possibly one of the best early courses for anyone studying the standard model.

The author has a knack of keeping extremely complicated things extremely simple. He covers many grounds in a relatively short time but while rarely appearing superficial. His description on various particles, their discoveries and concepts like spin, colour etc is one of the best I have read. For example, the lucidity with which he explains how these concepts are nothing but quantum states is quite remarkable.

The same holds true when he introduces various types of quarks and neutrinos. He manages to keep the framework simple and understandable despite adding particles by dozens. The author successfully shows why the standard model, despite its lack of deterministic construction and other oddities is remarkable and a great representation of the universe around us.

As the book is written before the Higg's discovery, it may appear a bit dated. The sections on dark energy in particular could have been more detailed. Yet, all in all a remarkable book.

[Michael · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is hard to rate, because I'm not sure how much of the difficulty of this topic is due to its complexity, and how much is due to my density. I feel like I learned a lot of physics nomenclature, and now I can impress my friends with terms like lepton and W boson and renormalisation... But I still don't really get what any of it is, fundamentally. I don't think electrons are tiny dots, but the lecturer described them that way. He also gave at least a whole lecture saying how good the standard model is, and that he can't imagine it being falsified, and believe me, it's just good, and the problems aren't a big deal, even though it can't it explain a few things, like, oh, say, gravity. I really liked Pollock's style though. He cares about the content and making sure that his audience understands him. This series is also dated (2003), so it doesn't include the results of the LHC tests and the Higgs field/boson.

[Nicholas Dummer · Rating 5 out of 5]

I've spent the last few weeks listening to this at work. It is a great synopsis of our current understanding of particle physics (up to 2009 so it doesn't include the discovery, only the theory of the Higgs). I enjoyed the discussion of the history and Pollock's stories about some of the physicists. At times, he really makes an effort to tell the story which is so often lost in such technical subjects such as these. I highly recommend this to anyone with the slightest interest in fundamental physics. These lectures were very approachable and generally fascinating.

[Ralph Trickey · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent introduction
My only quibble is that it's a bit dated. That doesn't change any of the material, but it ends before the LHC was online and has missed a few of the latest developments.

[Ayushi Shukla · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book gives me insight in particle physics and the performance was quite energetic

[Alex Shrugged · Rating 4 out of 5]

The lecturer has an easy-going personality. He seems a little young. He avoids math, but he gets into jargon, defining and then using the names of the various sub-atomic particles. I had no problem keeping them straight since I've heard the names before. If you are a first-timer to this subject, you might have to listen to some lectures twice to make sure you don't get lost later on.

Warning: The lectures were produced in 2003 before the Large Hadron Collider found the Higgs Boson in 2012. The Higgs Boson is discussed, but only as a potential discovery and with various guesses.

Quantum mechanics is mentioned briefly, but generally it is avoided. While the lecturer acknowledges that sub-atomic particles are not little balls orbiting each other, he generally talks about them as if they are solid balls rather than probabilities unless it interferes with understanding. Thus this lecturer assumes a certain type of reality that contradicts current thought. Nevertheless, I benefited from the lectures.

I'd like to listen to these lectures again, but I think there are ones better now.

The Higgs Boson and Beyond

Einstein's Relativity and the Quantum Revolution: Modern Physics for Non-Scientists

Spooky Action at a Distance: The Phenomenon That Reimagines Space and Time—and What It Means for Black Holes, the Big Bang, and Theories of Everything

[Sudarshan m · Rating 4 out of 5]

As everyone who gets into reading popular science books would say, it takes more than a dozen books on a single topic to even start to wrap your head around the concept.

Although not exactly a book, Particle Physics for Non-Physicists definitely did feel like it was one. Packing long and rigorous concepts into simple and understandable snippets was something I enjoyed all throughout the read.

One extra thing that I really enjoyed was that I finished the book long after it was written. And because a lot of the popular achievements like finding the Higgs and the introduction of the top quark, among others, perspired after the book was published, it was liberating to see the confidence that the scientific community had in their understanding of the world and the predictions that could be made because of it.

[Erin T · Rating 5 out of 5]

I am writing this review as a regular person who is highly interested in physics.

This course for you if you want to properly understand physics. It is rather detailed and harder to follow. It is not a popular science book. It will bore you if that's what you are looking for.

However, it is great if you are thinking of getting to a level of, maybe, academical knowledge. This is a first step. Later as I continued onto study other physics topics, I really did feel the benefit of this course.

[Jonathan Clauss · Rating 3 out of 5]

So the first 4 ‘lectures’ you can mostly skip because it’s just either intro or basics.

He likes to get into the drama/politics of the physics community and that’s fine but I came here to learn not for the tea.

Knowledgeable. Insightful. Depth. Guy knows his stuff and taught me a lot.

Having a chart of the quarks and their combinations would have been great but that’s what I get for using audio books. Also if you have to use an example from a different branch of physics to explain something in “simple terms” to someone it’s not going to help them understand.

[Prajwal Paudyal · Rating 5 out of 5]

The fundamentals into the fundamentals. The book demystifies the building blocks of the world as postulated and discovered by the standard model. I only realized the book was older when Higgs boson was mentioned and the fact that its discovery was predicted a long time ago. It was my first reintroduction to physics after what I had learned in high school. Now Im curious enough, I'll pursue a few more books just to keep informed. Great job by the author Dr. Pollock.

[Jack · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting course. Lots of history of science. Probably more history than discussion of concepts. I didn’t get a lot of insight into how quantum physics really works.maybe that’s not possible without covering the math. Lots of discussion about the residents of the particle zoo, but something felt like it was missing. In a way it was a lot like a biology course with lots of emphasis on taxonomies and naming conventions.

[Elizabeth · Rating 4 out of 5]

I really liked this course, which is a very non-technical overview of particle physics. The lecturer make the topics easy to understand (from a basic high level non physicists POV) and it entertaining. Tee biggest problem is that the info is now nearly 20 years out of date which is a lot when he gets to the last few chapters! I'd love to listen to an updated version of this course.

[Shockvalue · Rating 5 out of 5]

Just the right book for me. I love the subject but am unlikely to sit down with a pencil and paper to do the math (it's only an interest, not a job). This allows me to grasp the ideas and have a crude understanding of what is going on in there. Pollock is an entertaining instructor.

[Curtis · Rating 4 out of 5]

This kept me engaged the whole time, and I felt I was able to keep up with the material throughout the course. Pollock keeps math out of it, which was good for me as I was mostly listening to this while cycling.

[Stefan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Really great lecture. As someone studying a degree in physics this is super accessible and gives you enough information to read the news stories and appreciate whats going on without getting overly bogged down in the maths. A must have for anyone with an interest in this kind of thing.

[Larry · Rating 5 out of 5]

It is nice to know this stuff. It was nice to get a bird's-eye view of these various particles. Since this was recorded the Higgs boson was finally discovered at CERN. It was also nice to get an overview of the string theory in relation to the standard model of the particles.

[Danielle · Rating 3 out of 5]

I thought I should brush up on some basics on Particle Physics. The Great Courses series is useful for this kind of thing. I thought the lecturer was engaging and did his best to create workable metaphors for non-physicists.

[Jan · Rating 4 out of 5]

One of the best overviews of Particle Physics.

[Andy Boyan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Everybody should read this. Especially anyone in any of the social sciences. Excellent excellent.

[Ed · Rating 4 out of 5]

Much easier to understand that the Elegant Universe. Though, truth be told it was still confusing and the thought of studying physics for fun sounds very daunting past the first couple of lessons.

[Frank Davis · Rating 5 out of 5]

Well delivered, easy to follow and absolutely fascinating. I was captivated from beginning to end.