How Michio Kaku, Alex Filippenko, Laura Danly, et al. earn their pay

  • Thread starter Thread starter DiracPool
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    alex Michio kaku
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The forum discussion centers on the communication strategies of popular physicists like Michio Kaku, Alex Filippenko, and Laura Danly, particularly focusing on Kaku's technique of delivering impactful "6 second scare soundbytes" (6SSS) to engage audiences. Participants share examples of dramatic statements made by these physicists, highlighting how they simplify complex scientific concepts for mass appeal. The conversation critiques the balance between entertainment and scientific integrity in popular science media, with some contributors expressing concern over the potential trivialization of physics.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of basic physics concepts, including forces and energy.
  • Familiarity with popular science communication techniques.
  • Knowledge of notable physicists and their contributions, particularly Michio Kaku.
  • Awareness of the impact of media on public perception of science.
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the concept of "soundbytes" in science communication.
  • Explore the role of popular physicists in media and their influence on public understanding of science.
  • Investigate the balance between entertainment and education in science programming.
  • Learn about the criticisms of popular science figures and their impact on scientific discourse.
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for science communicators, educators, and anyone interested in the intersection of physics and media, particularly those analyzing how popular figures shape public understanding of complex scientific ideas.

  • #31
Number Nine said:
"If the Universe were any different, it wouldn't be the same!"

bp_psy said:
That was so deep man!
Dude guy

Of course the statement is trivial. It is not trivial to say that if the Universe were a little different it would be a lot different, see e.g. #2.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Mentalist said:
According to this website Michio Kaku is the 5th best theoretical physicist, right after Richard Feynman.

http://www.mytopdozen.com/Best_Theoretical_Physicists.html

Gosh, what precision of measurement is achieved by modern physics!

Did they say by what percent this Kaku was better than Maxwell?

I think we should be told.
 
  • #33
That website says

The ranking is in particular based on the number of occurences of each theoretical physicist in web pages, news, pictures and people votes in corresponding context.
 
  • #34
Mentalist said:
According to this website Michio Kaku is the 5th best theoretical physicist, right after Richard Feynman.

http://www.mytopdozen.com/Best_Theoretical_Physicists.html

And Hawking is #1, ranked above Einstein, Feynman, Maxwell, and Newton.

Gordon Freeman, the fictional protagonist of the Half-Life video game series, is ranked above Isaac Newton. :smile:
 
  • #35
I have stopped watching any show that has Sean Carroll or Kaku or Filipenko or Morgan Freeman as the goto physicist or astrophysicist. IMO those people have trashed their physicist careers and are now only interested in being cool with huge numbers of facebook fans or twitter followers and are more interested in updating their two paragraph blog posts then they are about writing new papers. And Carroll wonders why he is never tenured at Cal Tech ...
 
Last edited:
  • #36
At least Bob Wald hasn't gone TV on us. :)
 
  • #37
CFDFEAGURU said:
I have stopped watching any show that has Sean Carroll or Kaku or Filipenko or Morgan Freeman as the goto physicist or astrophysicist. IMO those people have trashed their physicist careers and are now only interested in being cool with huge numbers of facebook fans or twitter followers and are more interested in updating their two paragraph blog posts then they are about writing new papers. And Carroll wonders why he is never tenured at Cal Tech ...

I hope you're not saying that Morgan Freeman is a physicist...
 
  • #38
No, I am not. That was my poor attempt at humor here.
 
  • #39
CFDFEAGURU said:
No, I am not. That was my poor attempt at humor here.

One does not simply make fun of Morgan Freeman!
 
  • #40
CFDFEAGURU said:
At least Bob Wald hasn't gone TV on us. :)
The day Wald goes TV is the day I stop learning GR. It's sad enough Carroll did. Maybe if he spent less time writing pop sci books and more time writing a 2nd edition of his GR book, I wouldn't have to deal with typos that use the word embedding where one should use the word immersion.
 
  • #41
WannabeNewton said:
The day Wald goes TV is the day I stop learning GR. It's sad enough Carroll did. Maybe if he spent less time writing pop sci books and more time writing a 2nd edition of his GR book, I wouldn't have to deal with typos that use the word embedding where one should use the word immersion.

I have read blog posts by Carroll where he states that writing his GR textbook was a horrible decision because it took him away from research. Yet he wastes who know how much time with those horrible TV shows and pop sci books which don't really do much in the way of teaching.
 
  • #42
CFDFEAGURU said:
I have read blog posts by Carroll where he states that writing his GR textbook was a horrible decision because it took him away from research. Yet he wastes who know how much time with those horrible TV shows and pop sci books which don't really do much in the way of teaching.
I'm glad he did write it because there doesn't seem to be much middle ground between Wald and the lower level stuff but it still behooves me why he decided to go TV. I mean he was even on the Colbert report for pete's sake. Oh well :[
 
  • #43
WannabeNewton said:
I'm glad he did write it because there doesn't seem to be much middle ground between Wald and the lower level stuff but it still behooves me why he decided to go TV. I mean he was even on the Colbert report for pete's sake. Oh well :[

I totally agree with you. I am very glad he wrote it too. I am not a watcher of most TV shows especially the Colbert report. I think his wife, Jennifer Oulette, should be the one writing blogs and pop sci books because that is what her career is about.
 
Last edited:
  • #44
CFDFEAGURU said:
I totally agree with you. I am very glad he wrote it too. I am not a watcher of most TV shows especially the Colbert report. I think his wife, Jennifer Oulette, should be the one writing blogs and pop sci books because that is what her career is about.
Indeed. Well at least Wald hasn't succumbed yet to the pressures lol. I could never imagine the man who included the most annoying tensor calculus problems in his text suddenly talking about the crud on those sci channel shows.
 
  • #45
WannabeNewton said:
I'm glad he did write it because there doesn't seem to be much middle ground between Wald and the lower level stuff but it still behooves me why he decided to go TV. I mean he was even on the Colbert report for pete's sake. Oh well :[

What's wrong with the Colbert Report?
 
  • #46
WannabeNewton said:
I'm glad he did write it because there doesn't seem to be much middle ground between Wald and the lower level stuff but it still behooves me why he decided to go TV. I mean he was even on the Colbert report for pete's sake. Oh well :[

You should learn what the word "behooves" means before you use it.
 
  • #47
Maybe baffles would be a better term.
 
  • #48
You, me, and everyone else on the planet are literally just stardust! We are all made of the remnants of an exploding supernova.

I think the producers have made all of them say this corny line at one time or another. I just about hurl my lunch whenever I see one of them say it in a new show as if it just came to them as some kind of epiphany. It must take practice to get that good at acting.
 
  • #49
But that is also true... Why shouldn't great scientists share great science to get people excited?
 
  • #50
mathskier said:
But that is also true...
not sure what you are referring to here.

Why shouldn't great scientists share great science to get people excited?

The problem is that they do NOT share great science ! They "share" stuff they have made up that is incorrect in terms of actual science.
 
  • #51
Kaku does worse. He calls unified field theory "the theory of everything," I believe he even went as far as to call it "the mind of God" I never quite understood that.
 
  • #52
phinds said:
not sure what you are referring to here.



The problem is that they do NOT share great science ! They "share" stuff they have made up that is incorrect in terms of actual science.

I was referring to our elements coming from stars, which is true. And it's great science, in that it excites people to study more.
 
  • #53
mathskier said:
I was referring to our elements coming from stars, which is true. And it's great science, in that it excites people to study more.

This is a great example. It is NOT entirely true but is presented as gospel as being exactly true.

Let me ask you ... how much of the human body is water?

How much of water is hydrogen?

How much hydrogen is created in stars?

When you follow this through you find that we are NOT all star-stuff, we are just mostly star-stuff. This is the kind of detail that they ignore on television because it sounds SO much more cool when you leave out the correct details.
 
  • #54
Julio R said:
Kaku does worse. He calls unified field theory "the theory of everything," I believe he even went as far as to call it "the mind of God" I never quite understood that.

Yes, this is the kind of thing that has caused me to say repeatedly that Kaku is in a class all by himslelf when it comes to making ridiculous statements. I think it is completely unfair to equate the others to him.
 
  • #55
Since I stopped watching those years ago. Does Garret Lissi still do them or has he resigned to doing research?
 
  • #56
I don't see what the issue is.

As long as they are correct, then there is no harm. All it does is potentially entice people to studying Physics or at least be more interested in it.
 
  • #57
The issue is that these physicists stop doing real research and just hop from TV show to TV show. They become more interested in being famous and delivering silly one liners then doing work.

Yes, it is good to inspire and that is best done thru hype. Just like a coach revs up his team in the locker room.

Pop sci books are all they produce or maybe a slightly more insightful overpriced Teaching Company lecture. To me that is not acceptable and they are cutting themselves very short.

I would like to see them deliver some Arnold one liners like: RUN, GET TO DA CHOPPA!

:)
 
Last edited:
  • #58
Those shows make physics seem a lot different to what real physics is.
 
  • #59
I believe the interesting thing is that there aren't any generalizations. Once you begin to generalize the universe or world into these simple, easily explained, categories. This makes the universe boring and plain. If there aren't any intricacies, nothing is exciting.
 
  • #60
CFDFEAGURU said:
The issue is that these physicists stop doing real research and just hop from TV show to TV show. They become more interested in being famous and delivering silly one liners then doing work.

Is this a joke?

And even if you're right, who is to say what they should be doing with their time?
 

Similar threads

How Can the Philosophies of Great Physicists Guide Us Beyond the Standard Model?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K