As an adherent to Francis Collins’ principles of theistic belief in the midst of scientific truth,
I am not antagonistic to science, but much in accord with its requirements of evidentiary testimony that explain the natural world. Inasmuch as many scientists had hedged their bets in the 1920′s on George LeMaitre’s theory of the Big Bang because of his Catholic priesthood, it was necessary for me to know that he had based his research directly on Einsteins field equations to arrive at his concept of the primeval atom.

The reason is abundantly clear in both scientific and religious disciplines – that man should find signifcant meaning to his existence both in the natural and spiritual worlds. But it does not help to have a Nobel Laureate in particle physics announce to the world that he finds the universe “meaningless.”It is only by cooperation in the most cosmic sense of the word, that we can mitigate the hostility that has been generated by the current crop of atheists who themselves are not scientists and have no connections to the scientific world. There is evil apparent in all human endeavor, and we need to seek the paradise together that demonstrates our own human capacities to achieve this ideal world.

Since you asked for input, here is one of my great wants:
An explanation of quantum entanglement and waveform collapse in such a fashion that I have some slam-dunk material to use next time my annoying new age friends and family start trying to talk about energy fields healing them, and their thoughts directly influencing the cosmos. Ugh!
Even if this does not go in your book, please do a blog post.

Or if a fellow reader knows of somewhere something like this already exists, please post a link.
Thank you!

Maybe I’m just proving why I don’t write books on particle physics myself…

But I’ll put it out there, nonetheless: An explication of the role of gauge invariance and the Lie groups at the heart of the Standard Model. Is there any way to intuitively grasp the nature of these symmetries as they relate to the forces the SM describes? I’ve never felt like I could. I sort of get the idea that spatial rotations don’t change certain laws, yadda yadda, but there are many kinds of “local transformations”.

This is the real meat of particle theory, it seems, what really makes it remarkable. It’s these symmetries that confer beauty, and it’s arguably this kind of beauty most theorists search for as they attempt to go beyond the SM. And for all that I’ve read about it, I’m convinced that I don’t really understand it at all. Maybe I never will, but I’m always open to new takes on that subject.