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

[DiracPool]

I just watched this movie last night on Netflix called "Chain reaction" (with Morgan Freeman of course). In the beginning of the movie, a physicist is giving a lecture and holds up a glass of water (about 12 ounces) and states, "there's enough energy in this glass of water to power the city of Chicago for weeks!"

Is this a true statement?

Also, kind of funny, but when I was watching the opening credits it said that Brian Cox was in the film. It came out in 1996. I thought, wow, Brian's in a movie from 1996? I kept looking for him to no avail, though. Found out it was a different Brian. Lol.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Cox_(actor )

 

[CFDFEAGURU]

Is this a joke?

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

No, it is not a joke. Why would it be a joke?

Yes, you are right I have no busy to tell them what to do with their time. Really? Do you think they are reading this. However, when Carroll complains about not being tenured at Cal Tech in his blogs, I understand why.

Those of us that agree with each other have used these physicists textbooks, read their research papers and were inspired by those alone. We have had to watch them change into something else; no textbook updates, no new research papers and the only new work is a pop sci book that might have a single simplified equation in it.

 

[phinds]

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.

But they are NOT correct. That is the whole point of this thread. Have you not read the other posts in the thread?

 

[DiracPool]

But they are NOT correct. That is the whole point of this thread. Have you not read the other posts in the thread?

Actually, as the OP of this thread, the point initially was just to have fun with the corny lines these guys say on TV. But it's OK that its scope has spread out a bit. What I actually think is funnier than anything are the statements which are so obviously correct that it is absurd to even say them.

Like, "If there were no electrons, there would be no you, no me, and no Earth." I mean, c'mon, this is hysterical, to see these otherwise erudite physicists say something like that cracks me up.

 

[SnapDragon]

No, it is not a joke. Why would it be a joke?

Define what doing real research means.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michio_Kaku#Academic_career

 

[CFDFEAGURU]

SnapDragon I am not disputing that they did do research. All I am saying is that the tv shows they are on and their silly one liners have tarnished their reputations. This thread was just for fun and you might be taking it too seriously.

 

[SnapDragon]

I've thought about it more and I've realized that pop science, while it won't harm academia, it might actually contribute to ignorant snobbery in our society.

If you've ever browsed a website like reddit, you might have noticed that the users there have a real hard-on for "science". You'll see posts about how much they love science and logic. They do "science" by merging quotations by popular physicists on to images of space. Subreddits like /r/atheism are notorious for this. Their perception of what academia/science actually is, is totally wrong.

 

[phinds]

Actually, as the OP of this thread, the point initially was just to have fun with the corny lines these guys say on TV. But it's OK that its scope has spread out a bit. What I actually think is funnier than anything are the statements which are so obviously correct that it is absurd to even say them.

Like, "If there were no electrons, there would be no you, no me, and no Earth." I mean, c'mon, this is hysterical, to see these otherwise erudite physicists say something like that cracks me up.

Fair enough. It offends me (what they do) but I see your point.

What I DO find hilarious (in VERY small doses) is Ancient Aliens. If you really listen, you'll notice that they NEVER actually say they believe ANYTHING. Everything is an over-the-top staggeringly stupid conjecture, like this:

"And if, as Ancient Alien theorists believe, the existence of the pyramids proves conclusively that aliens have visited Earth in the past might is also be true that they are still among us?"

 

[ZombieFeynman]

I don't think it's fair to lump Sean Carrol in with some of these people. He recently delivered a popular science talk at my university sponsored by our physics department. It was very good and was very well attended by a lay audience as well as faculty and fellow graduate students.

I also think it's important to note that these TV shows probably interview these people for much longer than you'd expect. Then they snip out little sound bites that seem amazing, even if they are out of context. I am not defending any of the misinformation they sometimes spew, it is indeed nauseating at times. But I think it's worth noting that ANYTHING on television is designed, first and foremost, to obtain viewership through entertainment. Unfortunately, anything educational is just gravy on the top, not the primary goal.

Personally, I have a (perhaps too soft) spot in my heart for these kinds of ventures. As a high schooler I became enraptured by popular science accounts by Brian Greene. While I now scoff at the slight inaccuracies and mis-portrayals found in The Elegant Universe, as well as the gross overstatement of the acceptance of String Theory, if I hadn't encountered his books I may have never gone into science at all. While I long ago abandoned wanting to do research in high energy physics (I now find studying theoretical condensed matter physics to be far more interesting/rewarding), I don't think I am alone in having been inspired by gratuitously stylized accounts of science.

I wish the these populizers would state things more carefully (Sagan and Feynman come to mind as scientists able to strike a fine balance between awe and accuracy), these folks serve a necessary role in drumming up support for scientific endeavors.

 

[DiracPool]

I also think it's important to note that these TV shows probably interview these people for much longer than you'd expect. Then they snip out little sound bites that seem amazing, even if they are out of context.

I don't think for a second that any of these people (save Michio) would just say these things off the cuff, and then the producers isolate those clips. These lines are obviously coached by the producers for commercial appeal. They probably say things like, "less technical, say something that the audience can relate to their daily lives." And then they come up with these stupid one-liners. Either that or the one-liners are actually given them to say specifically as a script.

My guess is that they are probably as embarassed to say them as we are to hear them, but, hey, its a chance to get on TV, and they probably think, rightly so, that any serious physicist knows that they are coached to say these things. That's why I don't really hold it against them, I just like laughing at them making clowns of themselves.

 

[Julio R]

Fair enough. It offends me (what they do) but I see your point.

What I DO find hilarious (in VERY small doses) is Ancient Aliens. If you really listen, you'll notice that they NEVER actually say they believe ANYTHING. Everything is an over-the-top staggeringly stupid conjecture, like this:

"And if, as Ancient Alien theorists believe, the existence of the pyramids proves conclusively that aliens have visited Earth in the past might is also be true that they are still among us?"

I actually have a thread on the History channel with a lot of funny comments on ancient aliens.

 

[AnTiFreeze3]

The problem is behind these stupid TV shows that bring on the same physicists and astronomers to everything, even when it isn't their specialty.

I adored the show The Planets, primarily because they had experts in their respective fields commenting on something that they clearly knew.

Are we discussing volcanism on the moons of Jupiter? Let's bring in the first person to discover a live volcano somewhere else in the universe.

Are we discussing the characteristics of Venus's surface? Let's bring in a prominent space geologist.

Instead, channels like Discovery and History and whatever else do this:

So, Michio, what do you think about volcanoes in space??!?

So, Michio, what do you think about Venus?

So, Michio, [insert a question asking about something other than string theory, which is all he knows]?

It's pitiful.

 

[WannabeNewton]

I want to see popularized math shows. Did you know that the well ordering lemma implies the existence of an uncountable well ordered set where every element only has countably many predecessors - THIS MEANS THE WORLD IS ENDING! And omg how bout Urysohn's lemma? That's bound to change the face of the universe as we know it - ALIENS! Lol it would be great. Unfortunately it is hard to make up random crap about math like it is for physics and get away with it.

 

[Evo]

I want to see popularized math shows. Did you know that the well ordering lemma implies the existence of an uncountable well ordered set where every element only has countably many predecessors - THIS MEANS THE WORLD IS ENDING! And omg how bout Urysohn's lemma? That's bound to change the face of the universe as we know it - ALIENS! Lol it would be great. Unfortunately it is hard to make up random crap about math like it is for physics and get away with it.

I read "lemmings" and I was confused.

 

[WannabeNewton]

I read "lemmings" and I was confused.

If we weren't divorced I would say awww that's so adorable, here are some very expensive diamonds. Too bad you divorced me.

 

[Evo]

If we weren't divorced I would say awww that's so adorable, here are some very expensive diamonds. Too bad you divorced me.

Wait, you divorced ME! <takes the diamonds>

 

[WannabeNewton]

Wait, you divorced ME! <takes the diamonds>

Woah! So is this what the courts are going to hear? YOUR LIES? Good thing I have micromass as my backup. He can bore them to death with his thesis topic on non commutative geometries.

 

[DiracPool]

Michio on Einstein's General relativity theory...

"If there were one data point out of place, we would have to throw the ENTIRE theory out."

 

[Mentalist]

What about Neil Tyson? I've recently come across him, mentioned by a few friends. He is currently the head of the Hayden Planetarium and from what it seems, pretty popular.

 

[AnTiFreeze3]

What about Neil Tyson? I've recently come across him, mentioned by a few friends. He is currently the head of the Hayden Planetarium and from what it seems, pretty popular.

Being popular doesn't mean that he has to be a catchphrase-slinging fool

 

[DiracPool]

What about Neil Tyson? I've recently come across him, mentioned by a few friends. He is currently the head of the Hayden Planetarium and from what it seems, pretty popular.

Neil is actually super-cool. I think he gets away with being a popularist because he doesn't pretend to be anything else. He doesn't present himself as a serious physicist, he's an astronomer, and not only that, but an astronomer PR guy for the Hayden Planetarium. Of all the people mentioned in this thread, I think he gets a pass. He really has to be able to communicate with children as well as a mass of ignorant adults at the planetarium, I'm guessing, so he probably breathes corny lines in his sleep. In addition, he's probably the best discussion moderator "us physicists" have, if you've ever seen him in action. Not a bad skill to have keeping all the prima donnas in check.

Michio Kaku, on the other hand, gets no pass. Why? Because he does present himself as a serious physicist and former whiz kid as is witnessed by the fact that everytime he gives a talk, we are forced to be reminded of the Tevatron he build in his parents garage when he was a kid.

 

[tade]

NO! Stop ruining my image of the author of one of my most favorite GR texts

You see, they're more like celebrities now.

I'm glad some of you feel the same way, I can't stand all that Kaku worship.

 

[tade]

Neil is actually super-cool. I think he gets away with being a popularist because he doesn't pretend to be anything else. He doesn't present himself as a serious physicist, he's an astronomer, and not only that, but an astronomer PR guy for the Hayden Planetarium. Of all the people mentioned in this thread, I think he gets a pass. He really has to be able to communicate with children as well as a mass of ignorant adults at the planetarium, I'm guessing, so he probably breathes corny lines in his sleep. In addition, he's probably the best discussion moderator "us physicists" have, if you've ever seen him in action. Not a bad skill to have keeping all the prima donnas in check.

Michio Kaku, on the other hand, gets no pass. Why? Because he does present himself as a serious physicist and former whiz kid as is witnessed by the fact that everytime he gives a talk, we are forced to be reminded of the Tevatron he build in his parents garage when he was a kid.

Neil is like the black Carl Sagan

He's less showy than Kaku, but still showy by far.

 

[tade]

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.

Writing a textbook, a horrible decision? Guess what, it probably was, textbook wasn't so great anyway.

Can't believe Carroll said that.

 

[tade]

But that is also true... Why shouldn't great scientists share great science to get people excited?

It's like getting excited over the latest Star trek, it's just another form of entertainment, like what TED has become.

 

[tade]

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?

Oh, they definitely love to be on TV. But they're probably better at popularizing than doing research.

Hmm, their mothers? Or fathers?

 

[tade]

I don't think it's fair to lump Sean Carrol in with some of these people. He recently delivered a popular science talk at my university sponsored by our physics department. It was very good and was very well attended by a lay audience as well as faculty and fellow graduate students.

I also think it's important to note that these TV shows probably interview these people for much longer than you'd expect. Then they snip out little sound bites that seem amazing, even if they are out of context. I am not defending any of the misinformation they sometimes spew, it is indeed nauseating at times. But I think it's worth noting that ANYTHING on television is designed, first and foremost, to obtain viewership through entertainment. Unfortunately, anything educational is just gravy on the top, not the primary goal.

Personally, I have a (perhaps too soft) spot in my heart for these kinds of ventures. As a high schooler I became enraptured by popular science accounts by Brian Greene. While I now scoff at the slight inaccuracies and mis-portrayals found in The Elegant Universe, as well as the gross overstatement of the acceptance of String Theory, if I hadn't encountered his books I may have never gone into science at all. While I long ago abandoned wanting to do research in high energy physics (I now find studying theoretical condensed matter physics to be far more interesting/rewarding), I don't think I am alone in having been inspired by gratuitously stylized accounts of science.

I wish the these populizers would state things more carefully (Sagan and Feynman come to mind as scientists able to strike a fine balance between awe and accuracy), these folks serve a necessary role in drumming up support for scientific endeavors.

Wow, I didn't know that Brian Greene had such...power.

I don't think it drums up support, it's just a form of entertainment, a form of get-together.


Just give Sean Carroll a while more. He'll leave his desk for the studio, that's for sure.

 

[epenguin]

Of course outside the popularisation area, within strict science, there is nothing remotely reminiscent of sleb cult is there?

 

[CFDFEAGURU]

Just give Sean Carroll a while more. He'll leave his desk for the studio, that's for sure.

I agree. Just wonder how soon it will be.

 

[Julio R]

How about Morgan Freeman? He's not even a physicist yet he narrates a show that is as bad as Kaku's pop sci talks. He can be excused though because he does not know better he's only an actor yet the other guys know about physics yet they blab cheesy lines.