How is Michio Kaku regarded in the Physics world?

[Yanick]

I've skimmed the Kaku AMA a little bit and noticed that he keeps saying that his day job is a string theory physicist and that he's working out M-theory in some amount of dimensions and such. I'm no theoretical physicist by a long shot (and have no idea what who publishes what in that field) but I've read on here and elsewhere that he hasn't really published anything in 10+ years. If that is all true then I have completely lost all respect for the guy, pushing his pop-sci/sci-fi nonsense under the guise of a working scientist.

 

[micromass]

I've skimmed the Kaku AMA a little bit and noticed that he keeps saying that his day job is a string theory physicist and that he's working out M-theory in some amount of dimensions and such. I'm no theoretical physicist by a long shot (and have no idea what who publishes what in that field) but I've read on here and elsewhere that he hasn't really published anything in 10+ years. If that is all true then I have completely lost all respect for the guy, pushing his pop-sci/sci-fi nonsense under the guise of a working scientist.

Yes, I've read that too and it surprised me. So I thought that perhaps we're wrong and he does still publish.

I checked arxiv: http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND+Michio+Kaku/0/1/0/all/0/1
I saw no recent publications.

His university page http://www.ccny.cuny.edu/profiles/michio-kaku.cfm seems to have no recent publications other than his pop-sci books and two recent string theory books (those seem to me the only advanced thing he published the last 10 years).

On his university website, he refers to google scholar: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=author:+Michio+Kaku&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0,33 but I don't see much recent activity there as well.

Somebody please prove me wrong and show me that he does still publish papers regularly.

 

[strangerep]

What about odd animals? Is there some deep argument about the symmetry of space-time that says odd animals are not conscious?

:rofl:

 

[WannabeNewton]

What about odd animals? Is there some deep argument about the symmetry of space-time that says odd animals are not conscious?

Does that count as animal abuse?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Somebody please prove me wrong and show me that he does still publish papers regularly.

Nope, can't find anything this side of the millennium. His university physics department page claims he is working on a theory of everything but no articles showing that.

 

[arildno]

Nope, can't find anything this side of the millennium. His university physics department page claims he is working on a theory of everything but no articles showing that.

He's getting old, and it is not surprising if his creative juices have dried up. Nor would it at all be bad that previously active physicists involved them in popularization of the topic. But, it is rather sad that he is still so pretentious that he won't admit his active physics days are long gone. I'm not surprised,though, it is in tune with his character to still waffle about being in the forfefront of everything.

 

[Yanick]

I don't even care if he's made any major breakthroughs at the forefront of string theory. I don't even care if he actively announces his lack of work. Its simply the number of times I saw his comments alluding to his "day job" as a physicist and that he spends "most of his time" thinking about such and such theory. Its those types of comments coupled with his reluctance to answer any real scientific questions (from what I saw and others directly commented on) and his constant shows and other celebrity duties which made me lose all of my respect for the guy. He's trying to validate his pop-sci/sci-fi mumbo jumbo by claiming that he's just doing all this other stuff on the side.

Come on, the guy figured out a new (quantitative) model of conscious on the side? Like, he spent an hour or two after working on string theory all day and has revolutionized the field of neuroscience in his spare time? I have lost all respect for the guy. This isn't even crackpot territory, its morally and ethically reprehensible.

 

[DennisN]

but he [Kaku] also said the best way for humanity to explore space...

So far so good.

...is to upload our consciousness into machines...

Say what? :uhh:

...and blast that data in every direction.

That's not exploration. That's spamming.

 

[Astronuc]

Agreed.

But I think bad science popularization creates more distrust than no popularization at all. I've heard enough laymen say things like "what they showed in that documentary can't be real, it goes against common science. All those scientists are idiots and shouldn't be trusted". I think that's a normal reaction to bad popularizations like "through the wormhole". However, it's not something that somebody will say after watching something divine like Feynman:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3pYRn5j7oI

Seriously, you just got a video of a guy sitting in a chair and it makes you excited to learn physics. It's much better than fancy graphics, but rubbish explanations you see most of the time.

And really, how much science documentaries do you see where they attempt some dubious explanation of what magnetism or some other concept is. Feynman is again far superior with his answer that it can't be explained in familiar terms:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMFPe-DwULM

I like Feynman's style. He is down-to-earth, as well as knowledgeable and insightful - and he's not pretentious. In fact I found him rather modest and sometimes self-deprecating.

I watched the Feynman lectures from Cornell University (in black and white) when I was in high school. I thoroughly enjoyed his lectures, but I would expect that the majority of fellow students in high school would be thoroughly uninterested or bored. I think Feynman appealed to students who were keenly interested in science, particularly math and physics. Feynman discusses this matter in the first video.

I don't care for pop-sci celebrities, especially when they misrepresent or hype science.


I think Kaku follows somewhat in the footsteps of Teller in terms of hype and celebrity.

 

[arildno]

To me, I do not see the existence of Kaku as needed or justified as long as Stephen Haking is around. Existence as popularizer of science, that is, if somebody mistook my meaning.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I've been doing some googling to try and find out exactly what his new theory of consciousness is. Not having much luck but did find one reference in a review;

The problem is that we still don’t have much in the way of a working model of consciousness. With a physicist’s eye for economy, Kaku tries to provide one through what he calls a “space-time theory.” It’s a model of consciousness with a graded scale of awareness based on the number of feedback loops between environment and organism. Thus, in Kaku’s view, a thermostat has the lowest possible level of consciousness while humans, with our ability to move through space and project ourselves mentally backward and forward in time, represent the highest level currently known.

Can't really parse that but it doesn't sound like a description of consciousness that makes any sense.

The review itself is pretty good at highlighting what's wrong with his style of public communication; it's pretty much all science fiction drawn from baseless extrapolations of current technology.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/09/books/review/michio-kakus-future-of-the-mind.html?_r=0

 

[Curious3141]

What about odd animals? Is there some deep argument about the symmetry of space-time that says odd animals are not conscious?

And don't even get me started on lolcats. That would open up a whole new can of tuna. As we post, Schrodinger is loling in his grave.

 

[DennisN]

And don't even get me started on lolcats. That would open up a whole new can of tuna. As we post, Schrodinger is loling in his grave.

Get started right meow, what are you waiting for? Schrodinger can't be loling, his wavefunction has definitely collapsed.

 

[Enigman]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/09/books/review/michio-kakus-future-of-the-mind.html?_r=0

Sounds like an attempt to imitate Emperor's New Mind...
(that and and an EE doing brain surgery.)

 

[mheslep]

I like Feynman's style. He is down-to-earth, as well as knowledgeable and insightful - and he's not pretentious. In fact I found him rather modest and sometimes self-deprecating.

I watched the Feynman lectures from Cornell University (in black and white) when I was in high school. I thoroughly enjoyed his lectures, but I would expect that the majority of fellow students in high school would be thoroughly uninterested or bored. I think Feynman appealed to students who were keenly interested in science, particularly math and physics. Feynman discusses this matter in the first video.

I don't care for pop-sci celebrities, especially when they misrepresent or hype science.I think Kaku follows somewhat in the footsteps of Teller in terms of hype and celebrity.

+1. Thanks for this, great post. I so miss Feynman, bongo drums and all.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

But I think bad science popularization creates more distrust than no popularization at all. I've heard enough laymen say things like "what they showed in that documentary can't be real, it goes against common science. All those scientists are idiots and shouldn't be trusted". I think that's a normal reaction to bad popularizations like "through the wormhole". However, it's not something that somebody will say after watching something divine like Feynman:

Sure, except nobody would watch Feynman except those who already have an avid interest and don't need motivation.

The man who developed an ion propulsion systems for one of NASA's deep space probes comes to mind. He, along with countless scientists and engineers, were first motivated by Star Trek, not Feynman. If you want to keep the public's interest, which can have a direct bearing on funding, then you have to sell the dream. Imo that's what Kaku and Through the Wormhole do. Kaku has made a career for himself but there is a very good reason why he is so popular. Feynman would bore most people to death. Kaku helps to fire the imagination, as did Star Trek.

 

[micromass]

Sure, except nobody would watch Feynman except those who already have an avid interest and don't need motivation.

The man who developed an ion propulsion systems for one of NASA's deep space probes comes to mind. He, along with countless scientists and engineers, were first motivated by Star Trek, not Feynman. If you want to keep the public's interest, which can have a direct bearing on funding, then you have to sell the dream. Imo that's what Kaku and Through the Wormhole do. Kaku has made a career for himself but there is a very good reason why he is so popular. Feynman would bore most people to death. Kaku helps to fire the imagination, as did Star Trek.

Star Treks never claims to be scientifically accurate. Kaku does. I think there is where your analogy fails.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Star Treks never claims to be scientifically accurate. Kaku does. I think there is where your analogy fails.

Kaku generally qualifies what he says. Maybe you can cite an example of how he misrepresents science.

 

[micromass]

Kaku generally qualifies what he says. Maybe you can cite an example of how he misrepresents science.

If you read this thread, you'll see examples enough. For example, see the interview on reddit, or the interview with Deepak Chopra.

 

[micromass]

Here you go, Ivan, for some specific sources:

Deepak Chopra interviews Michio Kaku: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deepak-chopra/michio-kaku-interview-by_b_614971.html

Art Bell (Coast to Coast) interviews Michio Kaku: https://archive.org/details/MichioKaku-QuantumPhysicsOnCoastToCoastAmWithArtBell

Why, Professor Kaku, why?

Speaking of which, http://profmattstrassler.com/2013/03/19/why-professor-kaku-why/



Apologies in advance to Evo for linking to a crackpot sources (Deepak Chopra and Coast to Coast). It's important in this case.

 

[DHF]

Kaku generally qualifies what he says. Maybe you can cite an example of how he misrepresents science.

Well I don't know about misrepresenting science but he misrepresents himself. In the following interview at 2:15 he takes credit for string theory, boldly claiming that it is his own contribution to science.

"www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBB2qHgZvLY"

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Well I don't know about misrepresenting science but he misrepresents himself. In the following interview at 2:15 he takes credit for string theory, boldly claiming that it is his own contribution to science.

"www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBB2qHgZvLY"

It is bold and he should have added "helped" but still I take it as if he were saying "I worked on it". Interviews are tough because you can't edit what you say after the fact. We'd all say poorly worded things.

 

[arildno]

It is bold and he should have added "helped" but still I take it as if he were saying "I worked on it". Interviews are tough because you can't edit what you say after the fact. We'd all say poorly worded things.

Consistent with his personality as a vain, conceited blatherboy, though...

 

[DHF]

It is bold and he should have added "helped" but still I take it as if he were saying "I worked on it". Interviews are tough because you can't edit what you say after the fact. We'd all say poorly worded things.

yes it is possible to make verbal typos but in this case I don't believe it was. he seems fairly specific in what he was saying. things like "that is my equation " "my own contribution to science" . This is directly misleading.

 

[phinds]

Consistent with his personality as a vain, conceited blatherboy, though...

+1 on that

 

[phinds]

It is bold and he should have added "helped" but still I take it as if he were saying "I worked on it". Interviews are tough because you can't edit what you say after the fact. We'd all say poorly worded things.

Hah! Speak yourself for, Greg, I say never word poorly things !

 

[Vahsek]

I know this question is going to sound stupid, but... Why would he do such things? Can't he just do his physics stuff and stop trying to get into the spotlight on TV?

 

[micromass]

I know this question is going to sound stupid, but... Why would he do such things? Can't he just do his physics stuff and stop trying to get into the spotlight on TV?

Good question. Why do Lady Gaga and Miley Cyrus do what they do? Fame? Money? I don't know...

 

[Vahsek]

Good question. Why do Lady Gaga and Miley Cyrus do what they do? Fame? Money? I don't know...

:tongue2: Very funny. But, what I mean is that the guy is a physicist, and he was pretty smart too if I believe what I have already read about him. It's not like he was some random "lady Gaga" or "Miley Cyrus"...

 

[micromass]

:tongue2: Very funny. But, what I mean is that the guy is a physicist, and he was pretty smart too if I believe what I have already read about him. It's not like he was some random "lady Gaga" or "Miley Cyrus"...

It was only meant half as a joke. I just mean, people do crazy things to keep being in the spotlights. Modern musicians try to keep an audience by going naked or just weird. Maybe Kaku has to go all speculative in order to keep the audience. Or perhaps it's because his books sell well and he gets rich. Or maybe it's because he genuinly believes he's doing a good job. Perhaps a combination of those.

 

[Vahsek]

It was only meant half as a joke. I just mean, people do crazy things to keep being in the spotlights. Modern musicians try to keep an audience by going naked or just weird. Maybe Kaku has to go all speculative in order to keep the audience. Or perhaps it's because his books sell well and he gets rich. Or maybe it's because he genuinly believes he's doing a good job. Perhaps a combination of those.

Yeah... That makes sense now.

 

[DHF]

There have been numerous threads on this forum slamming Kaku for the nonsense that he spouts to make money. Yes, he WAS a serious scientist but that stopped some 20 years ago. Now he's a fantastical popularizer of the worst sort.

I think that sums it up pretty nicely. yes there is no denying he is intelligent. yes he has his advanced degrees and has written many papers. but as Phinds says, that is very much in the past. He was an accomplished physicist, but for many years now he has become more of a celebrity then a scientist. Now I am all for popularization of science and I think people like Tyson do a good job but I have watched many clips of Kaku and to date all he ever seems to do is talk about the most far fetched science fiction. He loves to wildly speculate on what is possible but I see very little education is what he is saying. While people like Greene and Tyson are describing space time in laymen terms so people like me can understand them, Kaku is talking about pills that will make you God. The former is useful to me, the latter...not so much.

 

[Intrastellar]

Well I don't know about misrepresenting science but he misrepresents himself. In the following interview at 2:15 he takes credit for string theory, boldly claiming that it is his own contribution to science.

"www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBB2qHgZvLY"

I don't know enough physics, so I hope someone can correct me on this.
But didn't he take credit of String Field Theory ? Is String Field Theory specifically his work ? As far as I can tell ((mis)read from wikipedia), this is different from taking credit of all of String Theory.

Edit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_field_theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory

After getting his PhD from the University of California, Berkley, Michio joined in on this challenge. He co-founded string field theory, a subset of string theory. String field theory uses the mathematics of fields to explain string theory.

http://www.aps.org/careers/physicists/profiles/kaku.cfm

 

[DHF]

Ok then I mis-heard him, it sounded like he was laying claim to String Theory. if he was talking about String field theory then that would clear that bit up but he still should have admitted that he co founded instead of claiming it as his own. And he is still on trial for being a "vain, conceited blatherboy". :D

 

[Intrastellar]

Ok then I mis-heard him, it sounded like he was laying claim to String Theory. if he was talking about String field theory then that would clear that bit up but he still should have admitted that he co founded instead of claiming it as his own. And he is still on trial for being a "vain, conceited blatherboy". :D

You jumped the gun. If you really misheard him then you didn't even bother to re-watch the video, and even if you did, you didn't try to see if there is a misunderstanding from your part.
Put yourself in his shoes, would you have liked people to call you a "vain, conceited blatherboy" for something you didn't even say ?

To be more specific, he said that the equation in SFT that combines both is his equation (whatever that meant), not all of SFT. I don't know much about SFT, and I would like someone who knows about it to correct me. But even if that is wrong, compared to your "he takes credit for string theory" you jumped the gun again.