Exploring the Divide: Pop-Science vs. Real Science in Physics

  • Thread starter fondamental
  • Start date
  • #1
fondamental
Hi, I'm new on the board but been reading since a long while. The end of the discussion in this particular thread:

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/extra-dimensions.838327/

has been enlightening (they're talking about pop-science vs real science).

Since as far as I can remember I've been interested in physics and how the universe works. I watched countless documentaries about this subject and I always find there is something that cannot work. Now I get that there is "pop-science" and there is real science. And pop-science is all about being spectacular, not accurate nor complete. (quantum is not as weird as they say, membranes, multiverse and relativity are counter-intuitive, but not completely crackpot has they often depict them etc).

So I plan in studying the real thing (in my spare time, by myself for now). My week spot is math. I have no problem with solving a formula (did calculus etc..) But I have difficulties transposing all this into a concrete thing in the real world. What should I begin with ?
 
  • Like
Likes Primordial Sea and Greg Bernhardt
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #3
Thank you Greg. Yes I did most of the classical stuff, also by myself. To be honest, I got stuck at the math in the electro-magnetism. Master Maxwell and Lorentz showed to be hard to follow for me ;)
 
  • #4
I realize this is not the best intro ever. I basically said "hello, I'm not good at math"... While true, I'm good at other things. Conceptualizing, making sense of a bunch of data, analyzing, being rigorous. Can I make my way in physics with average math, or should I put all I can in studying it ?

BTW, I'm 49, and always been autodidact. I thought myself calculus. I have a nice career in computer/telecom. I'm not a complete idiot, but I have no diploma except my Mensa membership card. So I'm not here to acquire diplomas, but to learn how the universe works. And why it exists,... (even if this is seen as more philosophical, I think we can address this with a scientific approach). I saw a TV show where Krauss was explaining how it could appear out of nothing, but it looked more like a fairy tale than a scientific theory (at least, in that TV show...). I think I should read the (original) paper about that.

Well that's one of my questions: where can we find all those original papers and books outside of a university, how can I stop loosing my time and energy reading or watching shows that tells only sensational things and misses the point (because most people find the real point to be boring) ?
 
  • #5
Welcome to the PF.

For technical questions or advice on books and studying, please post in the main forums (rather than the Introductions forum). The Academic Guidance forum or the Textbooks forum may be good places to start. :smile:
 
  • #6
Thank you. I am in the insights section now... a gold mine :) In fact all this site is a tresor trouve
 
  • Like
Likes berkeman

1. What is the difference between pop-science and real science in physics?

The main difference between pop-science and real science in physics is the level of rigor and accuracy. Pop-science often simplifies complex scientific concepts and may present them in an entertaining or sensationalized manner, while real science in physics involves rigorous experimentation, data analysis, and peer-reviewed research to support theories and conclusions.

2. How does pop-science impact the public's understanding of physics?

Pop-science can have both positive and negative impacts on the public's understanding of physics. On one hand, it can spark interest and curiosity in science and make it more accessible to a wider audience. However, it can also lead to misconceptions and misunderstandings about complex scientific concepts.

3. Can pop-science be considered a legitimate form of science communication?

While pop-science may not always adhere to the strict standards of scientific research, it can still be a legitimate form of science communication. It can engage and educate the general public about scientific concepts and inspire interest in further exploration of the topic.

4. How can we ensure that pop-science does not overshadow real science in physics?

It is important for scientists and science communicators to actively engage in promoting and sharing real science in physics through accessible and engaging means. This can include public lectures, interactive demonstrations, and social media outreach. Additionally, critical thinking skills and media literacy can help individuals distinguish between pop-science and real science.

5. What role do scientists play in bridging the gap between pop-science and real science in physics?

Scientists have a crucial role in bridging the gap between pop-science and real science in physics. They can work to communicate their research in a way that is engaging and accessible to the general public, while also ensuring accuracy and avoiding sensationalism. Scientists can also collaborate with science communicators to create engaging and accurate pop-science content. Additionally, scientists can actively engage in debunking misconceptions and promoting critical thinking about scientific information in the media.

Similar threads

  • STEM Career Guidance
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • Feedback and Announcements
3
Replies
71
Views
3K
  • Other Physics Topics
2
Replies
56
Views
6K
  • General Discussion
Replies
14
Views
991
  • Feedback and Announcements
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • Science and Math Textbooks
Replies
4
Views
892
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
15
Views
1K
  • Classical Physics
3
Replies
85
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
892
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
3
Replies
76
Views
5K
Back
Top