Does anyone here have any interest in physics at all?

I absolutely love it! I've read A Brief History of Time and I'm currently reading The Grand Design but apart from that I have a general interest and keenness to read about it.

What I really enjoy is trying to comprehend the incomprehensible concepts that are thrown up by quantum physics.

Heisenburg's uncertainty, Feynmann's many histories and many paths, Einstein's relativity, etc... Most of them are truly incomprehensible to us mere human beings but to think o them is something I think everyone should do.

I was thinking of doing an Open University maths degree a couple of years ago. Since then things have happened and the course hasn't. However, I'm now thinking of possibly doing a physics course.

I always enjoyed physics at school and was always good at it but I don't think I had the openness to think about quantum physics and got lost a bit when learning about them. But now, I just love it.

I wasn't that good at Physics at school (and that wasn't the only subject ) and find that I have more interest now. A book that I found useful and interesting is In Search Of Schrödinger's Cat by John Gribbin which concerns itself with quantum physics but puts it in a historical context so it isn't just a textbook but quite an involving story too.

So....wave or particle? And what do you mean the observer affects the outcome?

Yes.

Yeah, I'm just reading about Feynmann's multiple paths and multiple histories.

You can emit a photon from a source and see it hit a destination but there is no way of knowing what path it took. In fact it may have travelled in a straight line, it may also have gone via the dark side of the moon and 3 times around Jupiter before getting there.

Even more bizarre is that not only CAN it take all these possible routes but it actually DOES take all these routes.

It is only when observing the route taken by the particle that it actually determines which route it took but frustratingly by observing the route taken you actually alter the route the particle takes.

The double-slit experiment is even more mind boggling.

Anyway, I need to read whilst not watching TV

If you didn't watch it, you should go now and watch tonight's Horizon on iPlayer. About as good an explanation of current cosmology theory as you're likely to get on mainstream television. I particularly liked the swiss cheese analogy..

Yep, was watching whilst posting.

Detecting a single electron passing through two slits at once kind of alters your world view.

Yeah, the fact that a single electron passing through a double slit still forms an interference pattern is definitely a WTF moment.

It's when low-momentum electrons pass through your transistor gate, change precisely nothing and hit the screen on the other side that you say WTF

Loudly.

Thanks for the heads up, will be heading over to iPlayer now.

When the interviewer asks: "and how many universes did that give you?" I was waiting with baited breath for him to answer: "42".

This is gripping and so refreshing, compared with the brain ache of "something from nothing". However I can't help feel that it's just shifting the question back one level with no real insight.

I studied A-level Physics and have always been fascinated by it. I've always considered doing a physics degree, but unfortunately never did A-level Maths so although I understand various concepts, I cannot comprehend the maths behind it.

Last night's program was pretty good in terms of showing the various theories. At times, it seemed a bit patronising. I'm also very sure I've seen the physicist at the end (who came up with string theory) before, in another program on string theory a few years ago. Personally I've always favoured a bouncing universe but that doesn't make things easier IMO - it just brings up more questions.

Me likey spacey stuff.

A bit like a tourist getting a taxi in London then

I dropped out of a physics degree two years in because at that point it was pretty much all maths, and it didn't look like getting any less so in the future. These days actual new experiments are few and far between, mainly because physicists are now working at such extreme ends of what we know that the experiments to find anything new always require extreme conditions, so you end up needing to use vast vacuum chambers or four mile km tunnels or filling salt mines full of distilled water. I suspect these days it's a once-in-a-lifetime thing that you get an experiment you can do in your lab that actually shows something new. pretty much everything else is either theoretical (which is all maths) or simulation, which is maths with a bit of programming thrown in.