American theoretical physicist (1933-2021)
Steven Weinberg (born 3 May 1933 – 23 July 2021) was an American physicist. He was awarded the 1979 Nobel Prize in Physics (with colleagues Abdus Salam and Sheldon Glashow) for combining electromagnetism and the weak force into the electroweak force.
From: Wikiquote (CC BY-SA 4.0)
Showing quotes in randomized order to avoid selection bias. Click Popular for most popular quotes.
I decided to exclude material that was highly speculative... cosmological theory in higher dimensions... anthropic reasoning... holographic cosmology... conjectures about the details of inflation, or many other new ideas. ...The present book is largely concerned with ...mainstream cosmology: ...inflation driven by one or more scalar fields ...followed by a big bang dominated by radiation, , baryonic matter, and .
Works in ChatGPT, Claude, or Any AI
Add semantic quote search to your AI assistant via MCP. One command setup.
The years since the mid-1970s have been the most frustrating in the history of particle physics. We are paying the price of our own success: theory has advanced so far that further progress will require the study of processes at energies far beyond the reach of existing facilities. In order to break out of this impasse, physicists began in 1982 to develop plans for a scientific project of unprecedented size and cost, known as the Superconducting Super Collider.
I have a friend — or had a friend, now dead — Abdus Salam, a very devout Muslim, who was trying to bring science into the universities in the Gulf states and he told me that he had a terrible time because, although they were very receptive to technology, they felt that science would be a corrosive to religious belief, and they were worried about it... and damn it, I think they were right. It is corrosive of religious belief, and it's a good thing too.
So what happens to the effective field theories of electroweak, strong, and gravitational interactions at energies of order 10<sup>15</sup>–10<sup>18</sup> GeV? I know of only two plausible alternatives. One possibility is that the theory remains a quantum field theory, but one in which the finite or infinite number of renormalized couplings do not run off to infinity with increasing energy, but hit a fixed point of the renormalizable group equations. ... The other possibility, which I have to admit is a priori more likely, is that at very high energy we will run into really new physics, not describable in terms of a quantum field theory. I think that by far the most likely possibility is that this will be something like a string theory.
Thomson used Newton's Second Law to obtain a general formula... to interpret measurements of the cathode-ray deflection... produced by... electric or magnetic forces... In his cathode ray tube, the ray particles pass through... the deflection region... subjected to electric and magnetic forces... at right angles to their original direction... then through a much longer force-free... drift region... in which they drift freely until they hit the end of the tube... [a] glowing spot... The forces exerted on the cathode ray particles give them an acceleration at right angles to the axis of the tube, so... the particles have a small component of velocity at right angles to their original motion... equal to the product of the acceleration and the time... in the [very short] deflection region... [T]he downward displacement of the ray when it hits the end of the tube is the downward velocity produced in the deflection region times the length of time... in the drift region... [T]he electric force... on a particle is proportional to the [particle's] electric charge... [U]nlike the electric force, the magnetic force... on a particle is proportional to the particle's velocity as well as its charge. By measuring... deflections due to... [both] forces, Thomson... could determine both the ray-particle velocities and the ratio of their charge and mass.
As you will never be sure which are the right problems to work on, most of the time that you spend in the laboratory or at your desk will be wasted. If you want to be creative, then you will have to get used to spending most of your time not being creative, to being becalmed on the ocean of scientific knowledge.
So much has happened in cosmology since the 1960s that this book... bears little resemblance to... Gravitation and Cosmology. On occasion I refer back to (..."G&C") for material that does not seem worth repeating... Classical general relativity has not changed much since 1972 (apart from a great strengthening of its experimental verification) so it did not seem necessary to cover gravitation... I provide a brief introduction in Appendix B. Other appendices deal with technical material... I have also supplied a glossary of symbols...