He was the one who gave the theory the name "Standard Model" - which in my opinion is such an understatement to a theory that unifies EM & Weak forces. He was a great story teller too. will be missed.
it’s really sad that we average out at around 100 years currently at least. there is so much more we can understand the world around us, so much more we can discover in the world. anyways, rip weinberg, your legacy lives on.
This is why it is important that we all learn to be both learners and teachers. We can learn so much about the world, but what we fill our minds with is lost when the mind is gone. What we teach to others lives on.
> it’s really sad that we average out at around 100 years currently at least.
If we lived to 200, no doubt many would be saying how sad it is that we average out to around 200 years. To me, that we have what we have against all odds is anything but sad.
I take Richard Dawkins' view on this.
"We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born. The potential people who could have been here in my place but who will in fact never see the light of day outnumber the sand grains of Arabia."
Sad news. Weinberg was the kind of scientist I like the most: very important results in his career, deep love for what he did and an absolutely no non-sense attitude. It was pretty inspirational to see him always so lucid well into his 80s. Rest in peace professor.
Steven Weinberg made his career as an accomplished disciple of orthodox quantum theoretical physics, making it to the top of the physics/social food chain via hard work developing quantum field theory and getting acknowledged as one of the fathers of Standard Model. But all this without really "rocking the boat" of quantum theory. For a long time he believed quantum theory is fine and was not interested in the deeper questions about it.
He eventually came around and realized and acknowledged that quantum theory has serious systemic problems of arbitrariness/internal consistency related to dichotomy unitary evolution/measurement, to dismay of some self-assured fanboys of QT orthodoxy. This gets him to the Feynman/Schwinger level, as in "did lots of great work, inspired lots of people, and realized the standard narratives have serious problems and wasn't afraid to say it and go his own way".
His last textbook Lectures on Quantum Mechanics is one of the few extraordinarily notable textbooks on quantum theory that came out in last decades. If you want to get deeper into QT after you get through the standard superficial and hand-wavy college course, this is a very good and concise book.
I grabbed a copy because it's a Weinberg book, and although I found it a little same-y (i.e. it covers similar bases to his previous books of the same level - not much electromagnetism), it's a nice one to have on the shelf.
Sad news. I mostly remember him from my early childhood. He and my Dad were in the Physics Department at Berkeley. He and his beautiful and charming wife were often at my parents’ parties. My condolences to his family.
I’ll share what to me was one of the most impressive aspects of Weinberg’s work. I’ve seen him described as a battle tank — not the fastest to get moving, but basically unstoppable once he does.
As I was digging into the literature during my research, I noticed an interesting pattern to his work over the decades. There would erupt a “hot” area in applying quantum field theory, and have lots of back and forth and papers making claims, correcting each other, and being corrected. And then a few months/years later would come a Weinberg paper, handling the matter so systematically & thoroughly that there likely won’t be any more low-hanging fruit in the area!
The whole thing was really impressive given that he worked largely by himself (most of his papers are single-author), and had among the highest average citation count I’ve seen for a theoretical physicist. There is a reason his quantum field theory textbook series is highly respected — he wrought the field piece by piece with his own hands.
Finally, he was an extremely articulate writer, and I have a huge soft spot for his “Dreams of a final theory” — especially his comments on the relationship between theory & experiment, and the scientific method more generally. I really wish more people read that and got influenced by its depth and nuance.
> The effort to understand the universe is one of the very few things which lifts human life a little above the level of farce and gives it some of the grace of tragedy.
Weinberg was fortunate to die before grand unification of Science and State. When Science became the official religion of the military state, tyranny became the only law of physics.
23 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 62.6 ms ] threadIf we lived to 200, no doubt many would be saying how sad it is that we average out to around 200 years. To me, that we have what we have against all odds is anything but sad.
I take Richard Dawkins' view on this.
"We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born. The potential people who could have been here in my place but who will in fact never see the light of day outnumber the sand grains of Arabia."
Steven Weinberg made his career as an accomplished disciple of orthodox quantum theoretical physics, making it to the top of the physics/social food chain via hard work developing quantum field theory and getting acknowledged as one of the fathers of Standard Model. But all this without really "rocking the boat" of quantum theory. For a long time he believed quantum theory is fine and was not interested in the deeper questions about it.
He eventually came around and realized and acknowledged that quantum theory has serious systemic problems of arbitrariness/internal consistency related to dichotomy unitary evolution/measurement, to dismay of some self-assured fanboys of QT orthodoxy. This gets him to the Feynman/Schwinger level, as in "did lots of great work, inspired lots of people, and realized the standard narratives have serious problems and wasn't afraid to say it and go his own way".
His last textbook Lectures on Quantum Mechanics is one of the few extraordinarily notable textbooks on quantum theory that came out in last decades. If you want to get deeper into QT after you get through the standard superficial and hand-wavy college course, this is a very good and concise book.
Steve Weinberg returning from Texas
Brings dimensions galore to perplex us
But the extra ones all
Are rolled up in a ball
So tiny they barely affect us
As I was digging into the literature during my research, I noticed an interesting pattern to his work over the decades. There would erupt a “hot” area in applying quantum field theory, and have lots of back and forth and papers making claims, correcting each other, and being corrected. And then a few months/years later would come a Weinberg paper, handling the matter so systematically & thoroughly that there likely won’t be any more low-hanging fruit in the area!
The whole thing was really impressive given that he worked largely by himself (most of his papers are single-author), and had among the highest average citation count I’ve seen for a theoretical physicist. There is a reason his quantum field theory textbook series is highly respected — he wrought the field piece by piece with his own hands.
Finally, he was an extremely articulate writer, and I have a huge soft spot for his “Dreams of a final theory” — especially his comments on the relationship between theory & experiment, and the scientific method more generally. I really wish more people read that and got influenced by its depth and nuance.
Steven Weinberg, The First Three Minutes
Someone says "Steven, what do you think?"
He replied "Swan Lake it's not".