How is Michio Kaku regarded in the Physics world?

[Jamin2112]

As a Physics ignoramus, I'm curious. This guy was recently on The Daily Show: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-february-25-2014/michio-kaku. Talks about how we'll be able to upload (download?) memories to our brain. If you type his name into Youtube, you'll see that he has tons of highly viewed videos where he talks about science-fictiony topics. However I can't find any where he talks with much scientific or mathematical rigor. I wondered whether he might be some sort of pretend-Physicist, but I can't argue with the fact that he apparently graduated at the top of his class at Harvard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michio_Kaku#Early_life_and_education). Is he one of those overrated intellectuals like Richard Dawkins, i.e. a scientist who has an impressive resume but at some point decided to sell out to a mainstream audience by delivering soundbites that young people can regurgitate to pretend like they understand evolutionary biology and philosophy and theoretical physics?

 

[micromass]

He graduated summa cum laude from Harvard. He had a PhD from a top university like Berkeley. He's the author of several textbooks on QFT and string theory. He published over 70 papers.

So there is no question about that he knows his science very well. I would certainly not dare to call him a "pretend physicist".

I do question his ability to convey science to the general public.

 

[Bandersnatch]

Is he one of those overrated intellectuals like Richard Dawkins, i.e. a scientist who has an impressive resume but at some point decided to sell out to a mainstream audience by delivering soundbites that young people can regurgitate to pretend like they understand evolutionary biology and philosophy and theoretical physics?

I do not understand why you view popularising science as selling out. It's an important pursuit, to keep the public in touch with what's going on in science.
Sure, some may do it better than others(and I'm not too sure if Kaku is doing it all that well), but surely you need educators and public outreach personalities to keep science from becoming the new occult - there's enough mistrust as it is.

 

[DrewD]

I don't think he has done anything of note recently (but then again, neither has Feynman!). I wouldn't listen to anything he says, but he definitely knows more about physics than I do. Anything that he says that is true can be found elsewhere without the BS that he often throws in.

I really dislike Kaku, but when I am too quick to judge, I recall how Newton spent his later years.

 

[micromass]

I do not understand why you view popularising science as selling out. It's an important pursuit, to keep the public in touch with what's going on in science.
Sure, some may do it better than others(and I'm not too sure if Kaku is doing it all that well), but surely you need educators and public outreach personalities to keep science from becoming the new occult - there's enough mistrust as it is.

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:



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:

 

[micromass]

I don't think he has done anything of note recently (but then again, neither has Feynman!).

OK, but Feynman has been dead for over 20 years, so he has an excuse.

 

[256bits]

Michio Kaku was a guest on C___ 2 C____ radio program on February 25, 2014 takling about neuroscience and physics. His talk included discussion about memory uploads/downloads, avatars, smart pills, implanted chips to give quasi-telepathic abilities to control devices, dreams, MRI devices that will take a simplistic picture ( and apparently can already ) of what you are thinkng whether awake or asleep.

This was all futuristic stuff which lends itself to the program and its audience. Michau has no qualms about lending his voice to the program, as some would consider the whole radio station as complete hogwash, especially with some of its guests. As a PR tool for a guest, the radio station does complete that task.

From what I know, the smart pill might not be an actual product that comes out. But oxytocin and certain monetary decisions has been investigated in regards to generosity. Brain chemistry does indeed influence how we act.
http://im-09-tb.blogspot.ca/2009/03/oxytocin-and-generosity.html

Kaku seems to take a little bit of true information and expand on it too easily. Entertaining and interesting for the public.

 

[sa1988]

I honestly thought Michio Kaku was a total non-scientist who just liked big ideas. Ever since I saw him championing the idea of a space elevator, I passed him off as a quack.

If he's been through those top institutions and has various PhDs etc, I guess he deserves a fair amount of credit. He'll know more about physics than I do, that's for sure. The space elevator thing really does chop off a lot of my respect though.

Spoiler

(Not wanting to derail this into a debate on a new topic, but for those who may be questioning the space elevator thing - Kaku claims carbon nanotechnology means we have a material strong enough to create and suspend an elevator cable from a space station all the way to a base on earth. He forgets the fact that anything at a lower altitude than that of the space station in geosynchronous orbit will not be going fast enough to sustain its own orbit, and hence will accelerate towards the ground. The space station can't 'hold' the cable in place because it's in freefall, so the weight of the cable will be the only force acting on the space station. Hence the current space elevator idea will just result in the space station being pulled to Earth by the weight of the cable. The only possible solution is to have a rigid elevator firmly based on earth. Which is also obviously ridiculous because the structure would have to be 36'000km tall. There may also be other workarounds, but going by what Kaku had to say, my respect for his intuition has been greatly reduced.)

 

[Bandersnatch]

elevator

It seems you've misunderstood how it's supposed to work. Have a read through this feasibility studies for a start, then reconsider lambasting Kaku(well, at least for this particular bit):

http://www.mill-creek-systems.com/HighLift/contents.html
http://www.nss.org/resources/library/spaceelevator/2000-SpaceElevator-NASA-CP210429.pdf

The obstacle is not in the physical implausibility of the idea, but in the lack of the technology to produce carbon nanotube material on large enough scale.

 

[Jamin2112]

I would certainly not dare to call him a "pretend physicist".

We certainly can agree that there are a lot of wannabe-intellectuals who are celebrities in the internet culture, as well as a lot of people with the title Doctor or Professor or Scientist who technically deserve those titles but are mediocre or subpar at what they do and yet are able to appear to ordinary people as accomplished experts in their fields.

Like this guy:

Dr. Drew Pinsky of Celebrity Rehab and a lot of other shows is an actual M.D. and Addiction Specialist. However, my impression after comparing him to other psychiatrists is that he's far less smart and is only convincing to people because he's good-looking and eloquent.

I was just saying what my initial impression of Michio Kaku was, based off popular videos that I had seen. Now I see that he's really a smart guy who I should listen to.

 

[WannabeNewton]

You get what you pay for. If you can't learn the physics properly from a textbook and you settle for popular accounts (nothing wrong with that of course) then you'll have to accept the cheap quality of physics that comes with it. Don't blame Michio Kaku for not being able to successfully convey general relativity or QFT to the public when he isn't allowed to use any formal apparatus whatsoever. Criticizing the man on a forum is quite sad really, especially given that most of you have admitted you don't even know as much as physics as him.

 

[D H]

So there is no question about that he knows his science very well. I would certainly not dare to call him a "pretend physicist".

I do question his ability to convey science to the general public.

There is no question about that he knows his HEP physics very well. That does not mean he knows his science very well. He's made a number of embarrassing and glaring mistakes in fields outside of HEP physics on his numerous TV appearances.

I'm hoping that Neil deGrasse Tyson does a much better job as the host of the soon to appear remake of Cosmos.

 

[micromass]

There is no question about that he knows his HEP physics very well. That does not mean he knows his science very well. He's made a number of embarrassing and glaring mistakes in fields outside of HEP physics on his numerous TV appearances.

I'm hoping that Neil deGrasse Tyson does a much better job as the host of the soon to appear remake of Cosmos.

Yes, fair enough.

 

[micromass]

Criticizing the man on a forum is quite sad really, especially given that most of you have admitted you don't even know as much as physics as him.

I don't see how it's sad. I don't think anybody is questioning his physics knowledge at this stage, just his teaching abilities. You seem to be saying you can't question the teaching abilities of your prof or teacher if you don't know as much physics as him. That's a bit of a weird statement.

And I've referred to Feynman in this thread, and I'll do it again. He was able to convey physics in a correct and understandable way to the layman. Kaku doesn't seem to have this ability in my opinion.

Considering that a lot of theoretical physics and science is actually paid with the money of the people, I think it's fair that some people try to explain back to the people what they're doing with that money. Just saying "You can't understand until you have the formal apparatus" creates a lot of distrust in the eyes of the public.

 

[russ_watters]

So if Dr. Drew is famous because he's good looking, is Kaku famous because of his hair? 65% serious question.

 

[Dembadon]

...

I'm hoping that Neil deGrasse Tyson does a much better job as the host of the soon to appear remake of Cosmos.

I'm both excited and nervous about this. I love Carl Sagan, and he set the bar pretty high with the original.

 

[Jamin2112]

So if Dr. Drew is famous because he's good looking, is Kaku famous because of his hair? 65% serious question.

I think that looks and speaking ability are most important in convincing people that you're smart. Richard Dawkins seems like such a convincing guy because he has that handsome scientist look to him and that crisp English accent (that almost seems fake).

 

[WannabeNewton]

I don't see how it's sad. I don't think anybody is questioning his physics knowledge at this stage, just his teaching abilities. You seem to be saying you can't question the teaching abilities of your prof or teacher if you don't know as much physics as him.
That's a bit of a weird statement.

You're comparing apples to oranges. Teaching in a classroom is a completely different art. Your goal is to make sure students properly understand the subtleties of the underlying physics. You're not aiming to give a completely hand-wavy and watered down exposition of a complicated physical theory. Physics popularization nowadays is totally different from what it used to be in the time of Faraday when public demonstrations could arguably be called teaching. Feynman's Cornell lectures would be more aligned with popular expositions that hinge on teaching.

EDIT: Also there are physics popularizations in which Daniel Kleppner and Walter Lewin try to explain things like BECs and the double-slit experiment. They don't explain it perfectly by any means and the lack of rigor in their explanations owes to inaccurate accounts of the underlying physics. Are you going to claim Kleppner and Lewin aren't good physics teachers? Michio Kaku teaches physics at CUNY and I have a friend who's taken his classes and has no problem with his teaching.

And I've referred to Feynman in this thread, and I'll do it again. He was able to convey physics in a correct and understandable way to the layman. Kaku doesn't seem to have this ability in my opinion.

Even Feynman's QED lectures were completely innocuous. He wasn't aiming to explain the complicated aspects of QED. He stuck to the basics that can be explained with minimal theoretical apparatus. You're comparing two completely different levels of exposition. Most of his other lectures were on classical mechanics and classical electromagnetism. These are much easier to explain at a basic level to laymen than more advanced theories-of course there are a plethora of aspects of even classical mechanics that cannot be explained to laymen without some sophisticated machinery such as gyroscopic precession but there are some BBC documentaries that do these things justice.

Considering that a lot of theoretical physics and science is actually paid with the money of the people, I think it's fair that some people try to explain back to the people what they're doing with that money. Just saying "You can't understand until you have the formal apparatus" creates a lot of distrust in the eyes of the public.

This does nothing to change the fact that physics is extremely hard to explain without a formal apparatus. In Faraday's time the public could be given simple demonstrations of electromagnetic inductance using ordinary permanent magnets and solenoids and more importantly the formal apparatus was also simple-it doesn't take much effort to teach someone Lenz's law. You can show someone using magnetic fields and interferometry that spinors flip sign after a 360 degree rotation but actually explaining why this happens is next to impossible without formal apparatus so it's ridiculous to impose such pressure on the people partaking in physics popularization. You know what you're getting and you settle for hand-wavy explanations.

 

[sophiecentaur]

Even genii have flaws and the Media are often responsible for playing on this. I respect Feynman a lot but I think his success in not 'offending' PF types could be partly due to the different attitude that the media had in those days. He would not have given some of todays presenters and easy time if they had tried to treat him as they all do these days. Really grumpy sod when out of sorts, I believe.
Even Sagan could be a bit too 'Brian Cox' for my liking at times.

 

[phinds]

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.

 

[micromass]

You're comparing apples to oranges. Teaching in a classroom is a completely different art. Your goal is to make sure students properly understand the subtleties of the underlying physics. You're not aiming to give a completely hand-wavy and watered down exposition of a complicated physical theory.

Not at all. I remember learning in HS chemistry about the uncertainty principle without knowing any details of QM or even linear algebra. I doubt the teacher would be trying to teach us the subtleties of the underlying physics.

Now that I remember, our HS teachers did a lot of quite advanced physics in a watered down way in order to get us interested in it. A good teacher should be able to motivate advanced science to laymen, and I personally know quite some people who are able to do this. I don't think Kaku is able to do it.

This does nothing to change the fact that physics is extremely hard to explain without a formal apparatus. In Faraday's time the public could be given simple demonstrations of electromagnetic inductance using ordinary permanent magnets and solenoids and more importantly the formal apparatus was also simple-it doesn't take much effort to teach someone Lenz's law. You can show someone using magnetic fields and interferometry that spinors flip sign after a 360 degree rotation but actually explaining why this happens is next to impossible without formal apparatus so it's ridiculous to impose such pressure on the people partaking in physics popularization.

Well, it's their job to explain us the best they can. So if the audience is not satisfied, then we have the right to criticize them. I'm fully aware of how difficult it is, but Kaku goes way out of line sometimes.

Also, you should be aware of how your words sound to laymen. For example, modern art is (in my country at least) funded by the government. I don't think I would buy it if some artist came up to me and said "oh, it's too difficult to explain art to the general public". Let's try to actually create more passion for science and let's not put people off with "it's too difficult".

 

[WannabeNewton]

Even genii have flaws and the Media are often responsible for playing on this. I respect Feynman a lot but I think his success in not 'offending' PF types could be partly due to the different attitude that the media had in those days.

There are a lot of people jumping on the bandwaggon without knowing even the slightest how hard it is to actually convey complicated physics to complete laymen.

Although in the words of Julian Schwinger with regards to Feynman diagrams, "Feynman brought quantum field theory to the masses," so he did go above and beyond when it came to popularization

 

[micromass]

There are a lot of people jumping on the bandwaggon without knowing even the slightest how hard it is to actually convey complicated physics to complete laymen.

Sounds a lot like "you shouldn't criticize the politicians because you don't know the slightest how hard their job is". I think this kind of reasoning is flawed.

And for the record, I do know the challenges. I occasionally talk in high schools trying to convince people to go into mathematics. And I have taught some classes in high school for a month or two (for free). If anybody saw me doing these things and would have criticized me, then I for sure won't respond with 'You know how difficult this job is' or 'you don't have the formal apparatus so you can't say anything negative'.

 

[WannabeNewton]

Sounds a lot like "you shouldn't criticize the politicians because you don't know the slightest how hard their job is". I think this kind of reasoning is flawed.

Ok. So what would you have the popularizers do? How do you suppose they "successfully" explain general relativity to complete laymen? I'm all ears.

 

[micromass]

Ok. So what would you have the popularizers do? How do you suppose they "successfully" explain general relativity to complete laymen? I'm all ears.

You know very well that I don't know general relativity at all, so you know I can't answer that. If you would ask about math on the other hand

My point is that you don't need to be an expert in the field in order to criticize science popularizers. Just like you don't have to be a top politician in order to criticize Obama.

I know when I like something and when I don't. And I don't like most of what Kaku does. And maybe I'm quite wrong and maybe Kaku is the best you could possibly popularize science, but I kind of doubt it.

Here is an example of a brilliant popularization of advanced mathematics:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wO61D9x6lNY

I don't quite believe you can't do something like this for relativity.

 

[WannabeNewton]

You know very well that I don't know general relativity at all, so you know I can't answer that. If you would ask about math on the other hand

I'm just trying to draw some sympathy towards his case is all. It's often easy to criticize someone without being in their shoes. And I on the other hand know next to nothing in math in comparison to you but I've had more success with popularizations of math than of physics. I think it's safe to say those of math are rarer but they tend to be much better quality. Actually if you recall one of the videos we watched a while ago, , would this count as a popularization? I think so but it's also done very well along with the other ones from the same series of seminars. I can't say the same of many accounts of modern day physics popularizations.

I know when I like something and when I don't. And I don't like most of what Kaku does. And maybe I'm quite wrong and maybe Kaku is the best you could possibly popularize science, but I kind of doubt it.

Well you can certainly dislike it if you want no problem there. It's not like I like his shows either. I can't sit through them without clawing my eyes out. But the only modern day shows I've seen on popular physics that are above the lackluster level most others lie on are a select set of BBC ones.

I don't quite believe you can't do something like this for relativity.

It's probably possible but forum posts seem to suggest otherwise :p

 

[micromass]

Well I on the other hand know next to nothing in math in comparison to you but I've had more success with popularizations of math than of physics. I think it's safe to say those of math are rarer but they tend to be much better quality. Actually if you recall one of the videos we watched a while ago, , would this count as a popularization? I think so but it's also done very well along with the other ones from the same series of seminars. I can't say the same of many accounts of modern day physics popularizations.

Maybe you're right and math is easier to popularize than physics. I don't know. In my opinion, there are two rules for popularization/teaching/similar stuff:

1) Tell the truth and nothing but the truth
2) Don't tell the whole truth

Whenever I'm teaching and I think about what to include, I think of this. I think it has rarely mislead me.

I do remember that video of Atiyah from a while ago. I don't think many laymen would understand a word of that though. It seems like it's meant more for fellow mathematicians (or math students) who are just not into the research in question. I had the idea that the room was actually filled with mathematicians, so you can't call them laymen

 

[jesse73]

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.

He is a bit shameless.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ouvj0MHFEk

If I was him I would suggest they get a geophysicist and make a recommendation for a colleague in the geo sciences.

 

[D H]

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.

 

[lendav_rott]

I see him in physics "documentaries" that deal with the abstract, so I consider these shows as after-work entertainment, something to fall asleep to. I have researched this guy, I don't doubt for a second that he is very knowledgeable in physics, but the TV appearances look more like commercial art: Kaku shows up, money comes out, scripts ready.

An analogy from the opera world. People know Andrea Bocelli well and he can sing his own repertoire very well: Nessun dorma, for example - but compare him to Pavarotti or Domingo or Alagna or Kauffmann in terms of opera singing, he just doesn't match up. Bocelli is more like a mass entertainer, just as I see Kaku.

 

[Enigman]

mmm...didn't Kaku have his own forum here? _{Or did I mix up sites?}

 

[micromass]

mmm...didn't Kaku have his own forum here? _{Or did I mix up sites?}

You're right, we hosted Kaku's official forum in the begin stages of PF!

 

[micromass]

You're right, we hosted Kaku's official forum in the begin stages of PF!

See here for example, to see what PF looked like: http://web.archive.org/web/20040321150249/https://www.physicsforums.com/

And here:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=5375

And here:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=87996

 

[julcab12]

Here is an example of a brilliant popularization of advanced mathematics:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wO61D9x6lNY

Very nice.

With regards to Kaku. I won't criticize a person for spewing some info's of certain inaccurate/over-simplistic degree. It took a lot of creativity to simplify science, more like art, in the hope of giving the public an abstract foundation, encouragement to explore and engage in science. Besides it will never be perfect even with the best analogy turn-to visuals presentation. The media should put advisory for the audience about the constraint of the context/subject(like the explosion(s) and good to be true visuals/effects and so on)to avoid the emergent of extending meaningless exploration of beyonds(crackpots or so they say) that came from misconceptions.

Anyways. If a presentor can provide accurate/spot on science that is appealing, marks the audience, sparks the imagination and 'easily' understood by a laymen? then... It is impossible lol^^ bec of the incompatibility of the statement.

 

[stardust]

I can honestly say that guys like Richard Feynman, Brian Greene, Michio Kaku, Neil Degrasse Tyson, and hell even Bill Nye the science guy, helped to spark my love of physics and indeed all science. Don't underestimate the need for public relations.

 

[adjacent]

I can honestly say that guys like Richard Feynman, Brian Greene, Michio Kaku, Neil Degrasse Tyson, and hell even Bill Nye the science guy, helped to spark my love of physics and indeed all science. Don't underestimate the need for public relations.

I agree

 

[sa1988]

It seems you've misunderstood how it's supposed to work. Have a read through this feasibility studies for a start, then reconsider lambasting Kaku(well, at least for this particular bit):

http://www.mill-creek-systems.com/HighLift/contents.html
http://www.nss.org/resources/library/spaceelevator/2000-SpaceElevator-NASA-CP210429.pdf

The obstacle is not in the physical implausibility of the idea, but in the lack of the technology to produce carbon nanotube material on large enough scale.

The first link didn't seem to cover the things I wanted to know, and the NASA file wouldn't open, so I decided to look into this a little further myself

Emailed my mechanics/relativity lecturer to ask his opinion. Here's the reply (his responses to each part are in bold)

Spoiler

Hi Professor XXXXXXX,

Since you taught us so well for the mechanics module last semester, I thought I might be best contacting you about this subject.

You've probably come across the topic before and will have your own opinion on it, so I'd just like to ask - What are your thoughts on the suggestion of a satellite-tethered elevator cable into space?

I enjoyed very much the Arthur C Clarke fiction - I think there were short stories as well as a major novel - in which it is introduced.


I personally think it's impossible. For me the issue is mostly relating to the weight of the cable alone,

Yes. This is the weak point. No materials short of carbon nanotube would do it.

and also with energy conservation - if the thing were to somehow be successfully built, surely when using it to raise a payload into space, any extra force on the cable would pull the tether satellite down and cause it to move to an undesirable and non-geosynchronous orbit; the satellite would need its own propulsion/control systems to counter the force of the payload on the elevator, hence the energy dependence is the same, regardless of whether you try to reach space with a standard rocket at ground level or take it up on this theorized elevator cable.

No, this is not an issue - to first order. If you arrange the tether satellite so that it keeps the cable under tension, it is in an orbit a bit further out than geosynchronous. That is stable. Then payload merely reduces the tension in the cable below it, while not changing what the tether satellite sees.

I am not aware that anyone has thought through the second-order effects - Coriolis forces = the gain in angular momentum that a rising payload needs, etc - my guess is a combination of averaging of payloads going up and coming down, and the feeling that once the cable is under significant tension the tether satellite always has a restoring force if it gets out of position.


I'd just like to know what you personally think on the subject as I'm sure you're far more knowledgeable on it than I am. Even a simple 'yes' or 'no' response would be good enough for me... I'm just surprised by the amount of support this idea seems to have, so I wonder if my scepticism is correct, or I should have a bit of a rethink.

Thanks, and I hope you don't find this sort of an email too absurd!

Very sensible - one great point of understanding physics is exactly that it let's one and encourages one to think about things like this.

Cheers, XXXXX

So I was a little bit wrong and will try to be more open to new ideas in the future. I can't say any more than that really..! Haha.

Maybe I just don't like Michio Kaku for other reasons. I suppose I could argue that he has a problem of putting forward big ideas without actually explaining how they might work. Or maybe I just don't like his character. From what I've seen of him, he comes across as a little too childish or fanciful, even if it's more a case of how he presents his ideas, rather than the accuracy in his logic.

I wouldn't be surprised if he came across this thread at some point in the future, or is even following it right now. So I'll just add - as is the case for most long-distance anonymous criticisms, I'm pretty sure you're actually a brilliant guy and my judgement is entirely flawed because all I know of you is your TV personality :thumbs:. Just don't start championing time travel.

 

[phinds]

I can honestly say that guys like Richard Feynman, Brian Greene, Michio Kaku, Neil Degrasse Tyson, and hell even Bill Nye the science guy, helped to spark my love of physics and indeed all science. Don't underestimate the need for public relations.

That was not the OP's question. He asked how Kaku is viewed in the physics community. I think he is viewed with contempt (and probably envy for his bank account).

 

[micromass]

I can honestly say that guys like Richard Feynman, Brian Greene, Michio Kaku, Neil Degrasse Tyson, and hell even Bill Nye the science guy, helped to spark my love of physics and indeed all science. Don't underestimate the need for public relations.

Very true. But there's a danger too. Most of the shows today are about topics like wormholes, time travel, black holes, multiple dimensions, ... Things that interest most laymen.

So what happens a lot is that people go into physics with the thought "I want to be a theoretical physicist because I like pondering about time travel". This really happens more than you think. Those people get very disillusioned in physics because none of the physics courses actually talk about the exciting stuff that they saw on television! So these people end up dropping out at one point or another.

So I find pop-sci programs and books very dangerous because they show a wrong image about physics. A realistic image is almost never shown because it is way too boring for the layman.

Second, if you ask somebody what theoretical physics or even physics is about, they'll end up saying stuff like string theory. This however is such a small subset of even theoretical physics. Other (more important and more applicable) stuff never get in the picture.

See also the excellent stuff by ZapperZ, for example https://www.physicsforums.com/blog.php?b=3727

 

[lisab]

Very true. But there's a danger too. Most of the shows today are about topics like wormholes, time travel, black holes, multiple dimensions, ... Things that interest most laymen.

So what happens a lot is that people go into physics with the thought "I want to be a theoretical physicist because I like pondering about time travel". This really happens more than you think. Those people get very disillusioned in physics because none of the physics courses actually talk about the exciting stuff that they saw on television! So these people end up dropping out at one point or another.

So I find pop-sci programs and books very dangerous because they show a wrong image about physics. A realistic image is almost never shown because it is way too boring for the layman.

Second, if you ask somebody what theoretical physics or even physics is about, they'll end up saying stuff like string theory. This however is such a small subset of even theoretical physics. Other (more important and more applicable) stuff never get in the picture.

See also the excellent stuff by ZapperZ, for example https://www.physicsforums.com/blog.php?b=3727

I agree with micro. We've seen so many people come here who have read laymen-level books, which light them up with passion and curiosity. Then they take actual physics and BOOM, they hit reality...

Not to say these materials are bad, per se, they just give a deceptive, albeit very pretty, picture of physics.

 

[sophiecentaur]

At one time, Science was presented to the 'public' and, because of the way it was presented (no Jazzing up involved) would appeal to some but not others. But everyone was aware that it was actually 'hard stuff' and the fact that it involved rigour was acknowledged.
It now seems that the popular presentation of a topic never seems to point out the fact that is complex and doesn't work by arm waving. Animations and simulations are used as 'proofs', rather than models. Being 'clever' is looked upon in the same way as 'fame', as with the lovely Victoria Beckham, who just loves being 'famous' as an end in itself.

Frankly, I can't see how any really top exponent of any Science would have time for the sort of stuff that's peddled on TV these days. They would surely realize that what they are presenting is mostly a vacuous sub-set of their field. They are actually fooling themselves if they think the important message often gets across to the audience. All the adulation goes to their heads and their human weaknesses are exploited. I would never be surprised to find one of them in the 'Celebrity House' - not tha I have ever actually watched it.
It puts me in mind of Matthew 4:

Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. And he fasted forty days and forty nights, and afterward he was hungry. And the tempter came and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, command these stones to become loaves of bread.” But he answered, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.’” Then the devil took him to the holy city, and set him on the pinnacle of the temple, and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down; for it is written: etc. etc.

This is not propaganda, btw. I am an atheist who 'did church' as a child.

The problem of funding cannot help matters. Popular modern Science greats must sell themselves at times if they want money for their projects and they have to repeat their TV acts all over again.

 

[FVS]

I do not understand why you view popularising science as selling out. It's an important pursuit, to keep the public in touch with what's going on in science.
Sure, some may do it better than others(and I'm not too sure if Kaku is doing it all that well), but surely you need educators and public outreach personalities to keep science from becoming the new occult - there's enough mistrust as it is.

Quite agree with you. We need physicists at all level. In "the Physics world", we not only need physicists like Newton, Einstein,... who have breakthrough ideas to lead our knowledge about nature go deeper but we also need others to do lots of other important things like this case, I think what he is doing gives sense to public, let them know "what's going on in science", or even entertains (still positive).
I respect all people who love and really do physics even they have their limitation ;)

 

[sophiecentaur]

There is nothing wrong with making Science popular, in fact I am all in favour. But there are good and bad ways of doing it. If the publicity only leads people to believe they can 'understand' things without applying some rigour (I am not talking about ability, here) and to believe that their own personal ideas count as much as the accepted ones, then it is only doing harm. The recent immunisation fiasco is a great example of that sort of thing.
A lot of popular Science is far too near the realms of Science Fiction and it is difficult to avoid it when all questions need to be answered in a polite and encouraging way, even when they are totally wrong. That's to satisfy the ratings; you can't have a grumpy presenter telling someone their idea is totally crackpot.
The idea of some starchy old Professor always being right doesn't go down well these days. However, a lot of them actually are right and they can show how they are right but they wouldn't get onto the TV because the program maker wouldn't know right from wrong. (I know from experience, when a well known Science broadcaster of a few years ago went into a total sulk when I told him, at a script meeting, that he couldn't really talk about Red Green and Blue electrons in a TV tube. ) That rubbish could have gone out to be watched by a few million people, if I had let it.

 

[jesse73]

Very true. But there's a danger too. Most of the shows today are about topics like wormholes, time travel, black holes, multiple dimensions, ... Things that interest most laymen.

So what happens a lot is that people go into physics with the thought "I want to be a theoretical physicist because I like pondering about time travel". This really happens more than you think. Those people get very disillusioned in physics because none of the physics courses actually talk about the exciting stuff that they saw on television!

To confirm this I would spend some time in academic guidance section. This is really common.

 

[D H]

Maybe you're right and math is easier to popularize than physics.

I think you were right the first time around. While writing A Brief History of Time, the editor reportedly told Stephen Hawking that every equation in a popularization of science book reduces the readership by a half. He had one equation in the book, $E=mc^2$, and that doesn't really count because everyone has seen that equation. That equation is apparently exemplary of the hard mathematics that physicists do.

How do you popularize mathematics and at the same time not write about mathematics? How do you communicate basic concepts of what mathematicians do when $E=mc^2$ is perceived as extremely difficult mathematics?

 

[stardust]

There is nothing wrong with making Science popular, in fact I am all in favour. But there are good and bad ways of doing it. If the publicity only leads people to believe they can 'understand' things without applying some rigour (I am not talking about ability, here) and to believe that their own personal ideas count as much as the accepted ones, then it is only doing harm. The recent immunisation fiasco is a great example of that sort of thing.
A lot of popular Science is far too near the realms of Science Fiction and it is difficult to avoid it when all questions need to be answered in a polite and encouraging way, even when they are totally wrong. That's to satisfy the ratings; you can't have a grumpy presenter telling someone their idea is totally crackpot.
The idea of some starchy old Professor always being right doesn't go down well these days. However, a lot of them actually are right and they can show how they are right but they wouldn't get onto the TV because the program maker wouldn't know right from wrong. (I know from experience, when a well known Science broadcaster of a few years ago went into a total sulk when I told him, at a script meeting, that he couldn't really talk about Red Green and Blue electrons in a TV tube. ) That rubbish could have gone out to be watched by a few million people, if I had let it.

I do agree with this. I think sometimes the whole STEM recruitment efforts to be a little nefarious. Granted, I know STEM is a great pursuit and that it helps to advance our species farther, but people who get a false sense of what STEM entails just to boost numbers are sort of getting screwed.

 

[micromass]

I think you were right the first time around. While writing A Brief History of Time, the editor reportedly told Stephen Hawking that every equation in a popularization of science book reduces the readership by a half. He had one equation in the book, $E=mc^2$, and that doesn't really count because everyone has seen that. That's apparently exemplary of the hard mathematics that physicists do.

How do you popularize mathematics and at the same time not write about mathematics?

Mathematics is more than a bunch of equations though. I don't think it's totally impossible to make some video series about mathematics that uses very little equations. It's certainly going to be difficult, but there are "ideas" enough that can be shared without equations.

For example, see that video about turning the sphere inside out. I think it's totally brilliant. It goes into quite some deep topology and the only equations it uses is basic addition.

Now that I think about it, the issue with popularizing science doesn't seem to be that it's impossible to explain concepts at a low level with equations. I just think that if you manage to do so, then the general public will find it boring.

I mean, once you start presenting ideas of physics or mathematics, I think most people couldn't care less. The one about turning the sphere inside out was neat, but even there you can see in the comment section a lot of people complaining that this is totally useless and boring. Once you start explaining science/math at a mundane level, I fear that is the common reaction you're going to get. For example, I think I can explain many ideas of differential geometry quite well to laymen, but I can't stop them from thinking "who cares".

The only thing people like to see is when it's about "cool stuff" like time travel and wormholes. Or when it's hyperspeculative, like somebody saying that taking a pill will make you immortal.

 

[stardust]

I think you were right the first time around. While writing A Brief History of Time, the editor reportedly told Stephen Hawking that every equation in a popularization of science book reduces the readership by a half. He had one equation in the book, $E=mc^2$, and that doesn't really count because everyone has seen that equation. That equation is apparently exemplary of the hard mathematics that physicists do.

How do you popularize mathematics and at the same time not write about mathematics? How do you communicate basic concepts of what mathematicians do when $E=mc^2$ is perceived as extremely difficult mathematics?

I read something similar with Feynman. His editor told him that for every equation, he needed a human reference that appealed to the layman.

 

[stardust]

Lisab, I absolutely love that cat picture. Gave me a long chuckle.

 

[Curious3141]

I don't think he has done anything of note recently (but then again, neither has Feynman!).

Feynman can be given a pass. It's quite difficult to compose new physics when you're busy decomposing.