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.

  • #91
I think a lot of these physics celebrities do more harm than good to the public understanding of science and physics in particular. I think it even goes as far as to encourage public distrust of science, I even had a PhD student in immunology who had seen a lot of Stephen Hawking ask me jokingly on the subject of the twin paradox and time dilation "but this doesn't REALLY happen right?". All this romanticizing of some specific consequences of relativity or QM taken to their extreme hypothetical regimes do a huge disservice, I think they're making it even easier for the public to drop support of fundamental physics research altogether, if it isn't in the gutter already.

Cosmos was as good as it gets. IMO the only reasonably faithful modern documentaries out there right now are Jim Al-Kalil's "Atom" (not any of his other ones, as far as I'm aware), but even that one stretches things a bit.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #92
Lavabug said:
All this romanticizing of some specific consequences of relativity or QM taken to their extreme hypothetical regimes do a huge disservice, I think they're making it even easier for the public to drop support of fundamental physics research altogether, if it isn't in the gutter already.

That's a good point Lavabug. It really rubs me raw how the only thing you see on these popular shows is what? Wormholes, warp drive through bending space, and teleportation through quantum entanglement. These things take up 85% of the programming time, and are technologies that will NEVER come to fruition. At least never in the lifetime of the current viewing populace or even their grandkids. It's almost as if a fraud is being put over on the public, and when people find out that these things aren't going to happen, it might compromise the science budget.

The sad thing is that the things that science is actually making possible today and in the near future is wondrous and fascinating, but not necessarily "sizzling" like quantum teleportation, so you never hear of them on popular TV.
 
  • #93
Julio R said:
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.

They ain't too different. Kaku's just milking his screen time.



Lavabug said:
I think a lot of these physics celebrities do more harm than good to the public understanding of science and physics in particular. I think it even goes as far as to encourage public distrust of science, I even had a PhD student in immunology who had seen a lot of Stephen Hawking ask me jokingly on the subject of the twin paradox and time dilation "but this doesn't REALLY happen right?". All this romanticizing of some specific consequences of relativity or QM taken to their extreme hypothetical regimes do a huge disservice, I think they're making it even easier for the public to drop support of fundamental physics research altogether, if it isn't in the gutter already.

Cosmos was as good as it gets. IMO the only reasonably faithful modern documentaries out there right now are Jim Al-Kalil's "Atom" (not any of his other ones, as far as I'm aware), but even that one stretches things a bit.
I miss the good ol' days of Nat Geo. They actually produced some pretty good engineering documentaries.

But TV producers think the masses will find this boring, so they opt for fanciful entertainment.


Kalili does a lot of hosting for BBC Horizon. That series looks awesome cinematically, but it is actually a major waste of time. They stretch 10 mins worth of content into one hour.
 
  • #94
epenguin said:
Of course outside the popularisation area, within strict science, there is nothing remotely reminiscent of sleb cult is there? o:)

Hopefully not :-p
 
  • #95
Six posts in a row, Tade. Not bad, not bad at all :smile:
 
  • #96
  • #97
Neil deGrasse Tyson is amazing. I love his analogies. His analogies are logical and truthful, where you will learn an idea and never forget it.
 
  • #98
collinsmark said:
Speaking of Neil deGrasse Tyson and quotes,
If you removed all the arteries, veins, & capillaries from a person's body, and tied them end-to-end...the person will die.
-- Neil deGrasse Tyson​
[Source: https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/73426843239333888]

:smile:


If Thor's hammer is made of neutron-star matter, implied by legend, then it weighs as much as a herd of 300-billion elephants.
-- Neil deGrasse Tyson​
 
  • #99
bp_psy said:
If Thor's hammer is made of neutron-star matter, implied by legend, then it weighs as much as a herd of 300-billion elephants.
-- Neil deGrasse Tyson​

No wonder the Hulk could not lift it in The Avengers :eek:
 
  • #100
bp_psy said:
If Thor's hammer is made of neutron-star matter, implied by legend, then it weighs as much as a herd of 300-billion elephants.
-- Neil deGrasse Tyson​


It seems to have been Marvel comics legend. Well, I guess their mythology is about as good as their science.
 
  • #101
AnTiFreeze3 said:
Six posts in a row, Tade. Not bad, not bad at all :smile:

Lol. I was reading and replying at the same time. I was too lazy to put everything in one post :smile:
 
  • #102
ImaLooser said:
It seems to have been Marvel comics legend. Well, I guess their mythology is about as good as their science.

There is "soft" science fiction and "hard" science fiction.

Unfortunately, most attempts at hard sci-fi are really cringe-worthy. :-p
 
  • #103
collinsmark said:
Speaking of Neil deGrasse Tyson and quotes, If you removed all the arteries, veins, & capillaries from a person's body, and tied them end-to-end...the person will die.
-- Neil deGrasse Tyson

:smile:

Whoa, watch out we've got some badass over there.
 
  • #104
mathsciguy said:
Whoa, watch out we've got some badass over there.

i wish i could "like" this post.
 

Similar threads

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