The most misleading stereotypes about physics

[Loren Booda]

How does the general public most misconstrue the personalities, theories, observations, achievements and goals of physics?

[Rach3]

You're too optimistic. The general public isn't aware of the personalities, theories, observations, achievements, or goals of physics. We'd be lucky to even have a stereotype for our field...

[Alkatran]

You're too optimistic. The general public isn't aware of the personalities, theories, observations, achievements, or goals of physics. We'd be lucky to even have a stereotype for our field...

*cough* What the BLEEP?! *cough*

I'd call that a serious misrepresentation of quantum physics, and it's not the first time quantum's been used for spiritual purposes. "Quantum physics proves (insert new age crap) works!"

[Rach3]

Insignificant fringe crackpots.

[dav2008]

Evolution is "just a theory"

Edit: Not physics but still...

I guess it could work for the big bang as well.

[heartless]

I think one of them is the scientific method. That every scientist uses scientific method to test out his idea and do the experiment. Another one is that there is no gravity in space <- this one I heard personally from my history teacher.

[Beeza]

Skinny or fat out-of-shape geeks with no social skills or life. I'm not even close to being a physicist yet, but damnit when I am, I'll also be a natural pro bodybuilder with social skills and a life.

[Rach3]

Evolution is "just a theory"

Edit: Not physics but still...

I guess it could work for the big bang as well.

Biologists are orders of magnitude better-known than physicsts. Marine biologists are portrayed by movie actors. So are zoologists. And that gorilla lady. In contrast, the general public isn't really sure what 'physics' is, or perhaps never heard of it. The best we can do is call ourselves "scientists" and leech off of the popularity of others.

[Rach3]

I think one of them is the scientific method. That every scientist uses scientific method to test out his idea and do the experiment. Another one is that there is no gravity in space <- this one I heard personally from my history teacher.

Scientific method? You mean there's a method behind the 'mad scientist' persona? Again, far too optimistic.

[Rach3]

via Cosmic Variance (http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/01/21/you-would-constantly-be-depressed-and-tired/):
The Science Learning Centre in London asked 11,000 pupils for their views on science and scientists. Around 70% of the 11-15 year olds questioned said they did not picture scientists as “normal young and attractive men and women”...

[Rach3]

Skinny or fat out-of-shape geeks with no social skills or life.


Actually, to a large degree this is true.

[Pengwuino]

Actually, to a large degree this is true.

A friend of mine went to this SPS conference this semeseter and he said it was just geeks geeks geeks.... and then our university half drunk.

[Pengwuino]

Oh i got one

They all wear white coats

[heartless]

Skinny or fat out-of-shape geeks with no social skills or life [...]

Reveal me your astonishing way of life, oh master :rolleyes:

Scientific method? You mean there's a method behind the 'mad scientist' persona? Again, far too optimistic.

Yepp, every REAL scientists must use a secret method when conducting his experiment. I'd rather say scientific method taught in h-schools is depressing than optimistic :biggrin:

[Rach3]

Yepp, every REAL scientists must use a secret method when conducting his experiment. I'd rather say scientific method taught in h-schools is depressing than optimistic :biggrin:

This is speculation on your part. Point me a single movie reference in which scientists are portrayed as rational, methodical empiricists.

[Rach3]

Oh i got one

They all wear white coats

Again, that's a scientist stereotype, not a physicist stereotype. Chemists do were white lab coats, universally. Physicsts never do. Not even experimentalists.

I'll point this out again - Biologists are extremely popular (by our standards). Chemists have their existance acknowledged. Physicsts are just plain obscure.

[Pengwuino]

Shut up, it works

[heartless]

This is speculation on your part. Point me a single movie reference in which scientists are portrayed as rational, methodical empiricists.

here's a single one you've asked for: The Scientific Method DVD (2004)
(please don't ask for any more references :tongue2: )

[Rach3]

Current science stories in Reuters (http://today.reuters.com/news/newsChannel.aspx?type=scienceNews). Zero physicsts!

New Orleans sinking - geophysics, soil scientists
Indonesian skulls - anthropology, evolution, archaeology
Space shuttle launch - politicans (and some oppressed engineers...)
Prehistoric cave ecosystem - biologists, marine biology
Mona Lisa - forensics
Arctic sediment core - geologists
Wind turbines & birds - biologists


As the evidence shows, soil scientists are sexy. Physicists aren't.

[Rach3]

here's a single one you've asked for: The Scientific Method DVD (2004)
(please don't ask for any more references :tongue2: )

Educational material. Pathetic attempt. That's as much a cultural reference as "Goldstein's Classical Mechanics".

[heartless]

it's because physicists had done the job and work to open all of the mentioned fields to the geo-scientists.
Physicists are driven by intelligence and don't care about skulls from *billions years ago...* as that wouldn't benefit them in any way. If there were no phycists your space craft would have never been launched, nor you wouldn't be able to discover the underground cave ecosystem, test the age of the skull, and do other things.
The evidence shows that physicists are more sexy than sexy soil scientists.

[Rach3]

Physicists are driven by intelligence and don't care about skulls from *billions years ago...* as that wouldn't benefit them in any way.
:rolleyes:
What a fantastically narrow-minded worldview.

[heartless]

:rolleyes:
What a fantastically narrow-minded worldview.

How would a skull benefit a physicist?

[Rach3]

It keeps his brain from being squished.

[heartless]

ok, and how would somebody else's skull benefit a physicist?

[franznietzsche]

It keeps his brain from being squished.

:rofl: :rofl:

[Rach3]

ok, and how would somebody else's skull benefit a physicist?

Extra protection.

[Moonbear]

Again, that's a scientist stereotype, not a physicist stereotype. Chemists do were white lab coats, universally. Physicsts never do. Not even experimentalists.
That's why it's a misleading stereotype. I think if you asked a kid to draw a picture of a physicist, they'd draw the same thing as if you asked them to draw a picture of a chemist, except the chemist would be holding some bubbling flask, and the physicist would have a telescope (yes, another stereotype, that all physicists do is stare at the stars all day...erm...night).

[Pengwuino]

That's why it's a misleading stereotype. I think if you asked a kid to draw a picture of a physicist, they'd draw the same thing as if you asked them to draw a picture of a chemist, except the chemist would be holding some bubbling flask, and the physicist would have a telescope (yes, another stereotype, that all physicists do is stare at the stars all day...erm...night).

I always thought physicists worked with bubbly chemicals too when i was a kid.

[heartless]

Extra protection.

Implementation of 2 skulls in one person is quite impossible due to differet sizes and shapes of skulls

[Moonbear]

I always thought physicists worked with bubbly chemicals too when i was a kid.
That's probably the most pervasive misconception...all scientists look alike. They're male, wear a white lab coat, Coke-bottle glasses, their hair sticks up always looking like they're overdue for a haircut, they wear plaid pants that are a bit too short, and a red bowtie with a white shirt. Phew! Good thing us biologists missed that memo! :rofl: At least Hollywood makes us look sexy once in a while, even if we're usually destroying the planet with some plague unleashed from a lab. :biggrin:

[Pengwuino]

I never imagined them with a bowtie

[Beeza]

Reveal me your astonishing way of life, oh master :rolleyes:
:

Roll your eyes all you want. I choose to spend my spare time being healthy instead of eating chocolate and sitting on my butt:zzz: . Maybe being healthy isn't for everyone, but as for me, I most definitely will not fit into the stereotype, and will reach both my academic and fitness goals.

And heres my not-so-astonishing way of life, but my own individual passion that isn't for everyone.

Me on stage at 18 years old in my first teen bodybuilding competition, and then 2 years later and 30lbs heavier.

[Pengwuino]

Good luck spending 14 hours a day doing research while you're lifting weights for 14 hours a day.

[franznietzsche]

Good luck spending 14 hours a day doing research while you're lifting weights for 14 hours a day.


And to top it off there's the problem of general laziness! Between work, the gym and slacking off, I just don't have enough to fit everything it.

[Pengwuino]

And to top it off there's the problem of general laziness! Between work, the gym and slacking off, I just don't have enough to fit everything it.

Maybe you should stop going to work.

[Moonbear]

Me on stage at 18 years old in my first teen bodybuilding competition, and then 2 years later and 30lbs heavier.
And Woolie thought the sisterhood was weakening! With guys like you around, we should have no problem recruiting new members! :biggrin: :tongue2:

[heartless]

Roll your eyes all you want. I choose to spend my spare time being healthy instead of eating chocolate and sitting on my butt:zzz: . Maybe being healthy isn't for everyone, but as for me, I most definitely will not fit into the stereotype, and will reach both my academic and fitness goals.

And heres my not-so-astonishing way of life, but my own individual passion that isn't for everyone.

Me on stage at 18 years old in my first teen bodybuilding competition, and then 2 years later and 30lbs heavier.

Oh boy, too much stereotype and movies. Almost everyone does some kind of sports no matter whether you study physics or mathematics or are a geek, a nerd or whatever. I play soccer and do biking everyday, some other people do basketball or weightlifting, after all, healthy life style is important. Being healthy lowers the risk of experiencing pain, something that everyone should rather avoid. If you're healthy, you possibly live longer, and if you live longer you can devote yourself more to reasearch and further studies. It's good to do sports, but I wouldn't rather make them the way of one's life. There's so much to discover, learn and experience here in the world, that indifference to science, may prevent you from getting them all, just my 7 cents.

//edit

wow, how long have you been practicing/doing weighlifting?

[franznietzsche]

Maybe you should stop going to work.


Thats the sad part, I don't even have to go anywhere. incidently, you are distracting me from it right now. I've got a paper sitting in front of me I need to read, and here I am replying to you. Its all your fault. Clearly.

[Pengwuino]

Thats the sad part, I don't even have to go anywhere. incidently, you are distracting me from it right now. I've got a paper sitting in front of me I need to read, and here I am replying to you. Its all your fault. Clearly.

That's what i do

[franznietzsche]

That's what i do

Jerk .

[SimplySolitary_]

That they're all guys.

Blah. I hate "Physics? But you're a girl, why would you go to school for Physics?" Or "More power to ya, sister!"
What the hell? Come on, now...

[Pengwuino]

My friend got that from her friends. She is the absolute antithesis of the stereotypical physics major. She's a high school dropout, she does drugs, shes smarter then pretty much everyone at her level in the department, she's hot by absolutely any standard, and she plans on getting her phd. None of us are really sure what's going on....

[Gokul43201]

Chemists do were white lab coats, universally. Another misleading stereotype.

[Rach3]

Another misleading stereotype.

How so? Lab coats are a standard of safety - chemical spills you know. The majority of chemists I know wear them when doing research. What's misleading?

[Gokul43201]

Perhaps you've interacted only with a certain specific group of chemists. I've spent hundreds of hours in Chemistry labs and found that on average hardly about 20% of the folks are lab-coated. Lab coats are almost universal, however, in Industry (as opposed to Academia).

[Mk]

Lab coats are almost universal, however, in Industry
Another misconception. I thought you lived in India?

[Gokul43201]

Not for the last 5 years.

First person to 10 misconception wins!

[Curious3141]

I can tell you that proper Clinical Microbiology labs absolutely demand long white lab coats with full sleeves and a narrow cuff while working. It's a safety issue.

[kaos]

All physicists have einstein's hair. Or that most phycisists work in cosmology.

[neutrino]

Newton discovered gravity.

[Chi Meson]

I think one of them is the scientific method. That every scientist uses scientific method to test out his idea and do the experiment. Another one is that there is no gravity in space <- this one I heard personally from my history teacher.
Even the people at NASA keep referring to gravity in orbit as "microgravity." One astronaut interviewed a couple of years ago said that "the earth's gravitational field is weakened to almost nothing out in orbit." (Obvious question would be: how did it stay in orbit?)

[Astronuc]

You're too optimistic. The general public isn't aware of the personalities, theories, observations, achievements, or goals of physics. We'd be lucky to even have a stereotype for our field... :rofl: There are those who when they hear the term physics think of E=mc2 and relativity, and the fact that they really don't understand it.

When I informed people whom I met for the first time that I was studying nuclear/astrophysics, I would invariably receive a response like - "Oooh! You must be smart." :rolleyes: And then I would be asked to explain the latest theory on topics like Warp Drive, FTL, . . . . I suppose these days it's String Theory.

[Alkatran]

Newton discovered gravity.

I remember being confused as a child as to why people didn't know they fell down until Newton told them.

Then I found out, in university (finally), that the real break-through was the idea that stuff in space was ALSO falling in the same way. He combined the two.

[Moonbear]

I can tell you that proper Clinical Microbiology labs absolutely demand long white lab coats with full sleeves and a narrow cuff while working. It's a safety issue.
That's true...and the best way to tell a PhD from an MD is that the PhDs don't wear their lab coats to the cafeteria. :yuck: Lab coats are for lab safety, not for showing off your status in the cafeteria. They are only worn when working with hazardous materials (biological, chemical or radiological) to protect against spills, and are taken off as soon as you're done so you don't transfer anything that got onto the labcoat to someplace else outside the lab. Another difference between PhDs and MDs in the cafeteria are the MDs have pagers while the PhDs (and grad students) have timers clipped to their belts. :biggrin:

[neutrino]

I remember being confused as a child as to why people didn't know they fell down until Newton told them.

Then I found out, in university (finally), that the real break-through was the idea that stuff in space was ALSO falling in the same way. He combined the two.
I especially dislike those TV commercials (at least the ones I've seen) where a guy with long hair is sitting under a tree, an apple falls on his head and he exclaims gravity! (as if he discovered the phenomenon itself).

There's a joke that does the rounds in this part of the world (India).

Q. Why didn't an Indian discover gravity?
A. It's most likely that a coconut fell on his head.

[Jimmy Snyder]

Einstein's e=mc2 lead to the creation of the atomic bomb.

[Pengwuino]

:rofl: There are those who when they hear the term physics think of E=mc2 and relativity, and the fact that they really don't understand it.

When I informed people whom I met for the first time that I was studying nuclear/astrophysics, I would invariably receive a response like - "Oooh! You must be smart." :rolleyes: And then I would be asked to explain the latest theory on topics like Warp Drive, FTL, . . . . I suppose these days it's String Theory.

I get that crap too, what's with people :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: I wonder how people feel when i tell them i have no idea. What's even worse is when i do know a decent amount about something like that but i know any explanation is going to be over their head from the very beginning.

[Moonbear]

What's even worse is when i do know a decent amount about something like that but i know any explanation is going to be over their head from the very beginning.
I tell my students that that's probably the most difficult skill to learn as a scientist. It's easy to talk to other scientists about what you do, because they understand the terminology and have the background so you can omit things and they'll still keep up, but to explain what you do to a non-scientist in a way that does not confuse them and does not misinform them and does not patronize, that's really very challenging to learn to do. It's certainly something to practice though, because you will have to do it.

[Pengwuino]

I've learned one thing: Don't assume anything. Don't assume they know the most basic, simple, common facts about life. I was doing some presentation last semester at my university and what i realized in the end was that... not many people know atoms exist... even at a university level. I mean, i hated biology in high school but i would be embarassed if i didn't know the fundamentals from back then in biology. Is physics that much of a turn off? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[selfAdjoint]

I tell my students that that's probably the most difficult skill to learn as a scientist. It's easy to talk to other scientists about what you do, because they understand the terminology and have the background so you can omit things and they'll still keep up, but to explain what you do to a non-scientist in a way that does not confuse them and does not misinform them and does not patronize, that's really very challenging to learn to do. It's certainly something to practice though, because you will have to do it.

There needs to be an intermediate level of explainer; some one who is very good with language, and sufficiently expert in the field that he doesn't make boners ( the explanatory books/articles should also be vetted by scientist in the field, a sort of sub-fusc peer review). There is no reason to expect - in fact regression on the mean drives our expectations against - that someone who is good in a science discipline will also be a talented explainer.

[Moonbear]

There is no reason to expect - in fact regression on the mean drives our expectations against - that someone who is good in a science discipline will also be a talented explainer.
Very few start out good at it, but the skill can be developed. I don't know what the format for grant proposals is in other science disciplines, but every one I've submitted has required a short explanation of the research for the non-scientific public. That's so that the funding agencies can continue to justify their budget and need to people who hold the purse strings, such as those in congress, who are not literate in science. We need to explain it well enough that they can understand why what we are doing is different from what's been done before, and why it's important.

It's also important if one's experimental results become newsworthy. A lot of scientists outright avoid publicizing interesting findings simply because they want to avoid the reporters who will botch the explanation. But, if you can learn to explain things to them in a way that they can digest, then the reports become a bit more accurate.

I don't actually think someone with only an "intermediate" understanding can do that as well as someone with the real expertise in a subject. I think it actually takes a greater level of understanding to know how to say it in a different way that doesn't change the fundamental meaning of what you're trying to convey. But, like I said, it does not come without practice.

[Pengwuino]

There needs to be an intermediate level of explainer; some one who is very good with language, and sufficiently expert in the field that he doesn't make boners ( the explanatory books/articles should also be vetted by scientist in the field, a sort of sub-fusc peer review). There is no reason to expect - in fact regression on the mean drives our expectations against - that someone who is good in a science discipline will also be a talented explainer.

It's also curious to note that scientists aren't that much more logical then the general public. One of my professors was telling me about studies that had been done and, contrary to what i assumed, scientists were almost as likely as the general public to act illogical in their daily lives. I guess we're all actually kinda prone to doing illogical things... It actually feels kinda depressing when you actually catch yourself doing something illogical.

[Jimmy Snyder]

what i realized in the end was that... not many people know atoms exist... even at a university level.
You reminded me of a paper writen by Sokal concerning his famous hoax in Social Text. It turns out that he was quoting another:

As C.P. Snow observed in his famous ``Two Cultures'' lecture 35 years ago:


A good many times I have been present at gatherings of people who, by the standards of the traditional culture, are thought highly educated and who have with considerable gusto been expressing their incredulity at the illiteracy of scientists. Once or twice I have been provoked and have asked the company how many of them could describe the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The response was cold: it was also negative. Yet I was asking something which is about the scientific equivalent of: Have you read a work of Shakespeare's?
I now believe that if I had asked an even simpler question -- such as, What do you mean by mass, or acceleration, which is the scientific equivalent of saying, Can you read? -- not more than one in ten of the highly educated would have felt that I was speaking the same language. So the great edifice of modern physics goes up, and the majority of the cleverest people in the western world have about as much insight into it as their neolithic ancestors would have had

[SpaceTiger]

How does the general public most misconstrue the personalities, theories, observations, achievements and goals of physics?

When people hear "astronomer", they think of a telescope monkey or horoscope reader. When people hear "astrophysicist", they think of Stephen Hawking or Einstein -- a math genius of some kind (in their perception). Neither is really an accurate depiction of your average astronomer or astrophysicist and, in professional circles, the words are often used interchangably.

The misconceptions can be useful, though. If I meet someone on a plane or bus and I want the conversation to be short, I just tell them I'm an astrophysicist (after they ask, of course). They're usually unsure of how to talk to me at that point.

[silkworm]

It's been my experience that the ignorance of physics by the average person leads them to live in a frightening world of action movie physics, where ridiculous and nonsensical things can happen all the time or are not accounted for - especially when operating a motor vehicle.

The image of physics needs to be dealt with but I don't know how to deal with it though. Math is seen is so difficult when it's really just spelling with numbers.

[Pengwuino]

It's been my experience that the ignorance of physics by the average person leads them to live in a frightening world of action movie physics, where ridiculous and nonsensical things can happen all the time or are not accounted for - especially when operating a motor vehicle.


:cry: :cry: :cry: I like that world! Maybe if i just put one 9mm bullet into the tire,the car will explode! Now thats cooooooooooooooooooooooool!

[franznietzsche]

When people hear "astronomer", they think of a telescope monkey or horoscope reader. When people hear "astrophysicist", they think of Stephen Hawking or Einstein -- a math genius of some kind (in their perception). Neither is really an accurate depiction of your average astronomer or astrophysicist and, in professional circles, the words are often used interchangably.

The misconceptions can be useful, though. If I meet someone on a plane or bus and I want the conversation to be short, I just tell them I'm an astrophysicist (after they ask, of course). They're usually unsure of how to talk to me at that point.

When I was working last summer, one of my coworkers asked me what I was studying. When I said I planned to go into astrophysics the first thing out of their mouth was "Oh, is that like astrology?" I wanted to slap 'em so hard....

[SpaceTiger]

When I was working last summer, one of my coworkers asked me what I was studying. When I said I planned to go into astrophysics the first thing out of their mouth was "Oh, is that like astrology?" I wanted to slap 'em so hard....

Wow, that's the first I've heard of someone confusing astrophysics and astrology. So far, I've only seen that confusion with astronomy.

[franznietzsche]

Wow, that's the first I've heard of someone confusing astrophysics and astrology. So far, I've only seen that confusion with astronomy.


I was actually taken off guard by it, I really wasn't expecting a response like that, even from a person working in a pizza delivery place. All I was able to say at the time was 'Not really...' and kinda dropped the subject and went back to work.

[Astronuc]

It's been my experience that the ignorance of physics by the average person leads them to live in a frightening world of action movie physics, where ridiculous and nonsensical things can happen all the time or are not accounted for - especially when operating a motor vehicle.

The image of physics needs to be dealt with but I don't know how to deal with it though. Math is seen is so difficult when it's really just spelling with numbers.That's very much my experience.

For the vast majority of the public, who do not participate in science or engineering, their principal understanding of science is that its something that scientists do. The principal understanding of technology is push a button (telephone, electrical appliance), flip a switch (as in electricity), turn a key (car, door) and it works.

On the other hand, I am sometimes surprised by understanding of some people in science and technology, usually in areas outside of their usual experience.

[Beeza]

Good luck spending 14 hours a day doing research while you're lifting weights for 14 hours a day.

4-5 hours a week at the most is all that is required, and I know that I can manage this throughout my undergrad. If I manage to make it to graduate school, I'm still fairly certain that I will have a few hours a week to spare-- as a close friend of mine is in his 3rd year as a PhD student in nutritional biochemistry just recently attained professional status in two natural bodybuilding organizations. If he can do it, I'd like to think that I can.

[Beeza]

Oh boy, too much stereotype and movies. Almost everyone does some kind of sports no matter whether you study physics or mathematics or are a geek, a nerd or whatever. I play soccer and do biking everyday, some other people do basketball or weightlifting, after all, healthy life style is important. Being healthy lowers the risk of experiencing pain, something that everyone should rather avoid. If you're healthy, you possibly live longer, and if you live longer you can devote yourself more to reasearch and further studies. It's good to do sports, but I wouldn't rather make them the way of one's life. There's so much to discover, learn and experience here in the world, that indifference to science, may prevent you from getting them all, just my 7 cents.

//edit

wow, how long have you been practicing/doing weighlifting?

I might have come off wrong, but I wasn't assuming that no other physicists (or aspiring students) were active in sports. However, I do believe that a part of the stereotype is that most are sedative.

I've been an athlete for a long time, but when I turned 17, I decided that I had to give up boxing if I wanted to avoid having mush for brains. I then took up consistent, dedicated weighlifting. So, right now, I've been weightlifting for 3.5 years.

[Pengwuino]

4-5 hours a week at the most is all that is required, and I know that I can manage this throughout my undergrad. If I manage to make it to graduate school, I'm still fairly certain that I will have a few hours a week to spare-- as a close friend of mine is in his 3rd year as a PhD student in nutritional biochemistry just recently attained professional status in two natural bodybuilding organizations. If he can do it, I'd like to think that I can.

but nutrtional biochemistry... come on :tongue2:

[Beeza]

but nutrtional biochemistry... come on :tongue2:

:grumpy: I give up :cry: But, I think that biochemistry is a difficult major, and The University of Illinois is a good school.

[Pengwuino]

Yah im sure it is. Its chemistry.

[Moonbear]

:grumpy: I give up :cry: But, I think that biochemistry is a difficult major, and The University of Illinois is a good school.
If you throw the penguin a fish, he goes away for a while. :rolleyes:

4-5 hours a week isn't that hard to find. I didn't realize you could reach your level of bodybuilding with that few of hours working out. You might find it more challenging to get time away from the lab to travel to competitions, but taking time out for a workout, no matter whether it's competition level body building or some much "wimpier" level of exercise, is a good way to manage the stress of grad school and give yourself a daily mental break, which you'll find you'll need.

[Pengwuino]

:cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: I was having fun teasing him

*goes and chews on the fish*

[neutrino]

When I was working last summer, one of my coworkers asked me what I was studying. When I said I planned to go into astrophysics the first thing out of their mouth was "Oh, is that like astrology?" I wanted to slap 'em so hard....
I've heard such stories from the amateur community. They felt the same way as you did. :biggrin:

[rcgldr]

I've been weightlifting for 3.5 yearsWeightlifting or body-building? Getting ready for a contest, dehydrating by not drinking and sometimes taking diuretics, never seemed very healthty to me. It took a few days to a week or so for the bodybuilders I saw to recover from a contest. Then again, running a marathon probably does more harm than good, and the 100 mile super marathons are even worse.

A gym I used to work out at was taken over by the Gold's gym chain. We had a few current and ex-body builders. For the most part they were in descent shape, except most of them had back problems from doing squats. They now recommend using the hack squat machine instead of traditional squats. Front squats don't put as much strain on your back, but it seemed only the power lifters were doing front squats. Still the hack squat machine seems the least likely to cause back strain.

[Loren Booda]

At Yale for many years was a physics professor named Peter Parker! He seemed your average Ivy League overachiever. There were rumors, however, that he originated the Web.

[keinve]

um, i doubt many even know a small bit of physics. of course, not many of us are physics experts, so your really asking the general public.

[Ivan Seeking]

um, i doubt many even know a small bit of physics. of course, not many of us are physics experts, so your really asking the general public.

Actually, we have many physics experts here.

I had posted this in the joke thread as an engineer joke [as told by an engineer] but thought it worked well here.

How can you tell if a physicist is an extravert?

He looks at your shoes when he talks to you.

[Loren Booda]

No need to make a physicist look like a heel.

[gallifreyboun]

Whenever people ask what I did my undergrad in (I'm in a master's of education program...gonna teach high school) they're always shocked and the general reply is "...but you're a girl." Who knew? It really explains a lot about my life since, well, puberty.