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

In summary, some physicists think that the universe would be different if it weren't for the laws of physics that we currently know.
  • #71
phinds said:
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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #72
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.
 
  • #73
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.
 
  • #74
WannabeNewton said:
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.
 
  • #75
Evo said:
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.
 
  • #76
WannabeNewton said:
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>
 
  • #77
Evo said:
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.
 
  • #78
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."
 
  • #79
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.
 
  • #80
Mentalist said:
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 :wink:
 
  • #81
Mentalist said:
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.
 
  • #82
WannabeNewton said:
NO! Stop ruining my image of the author of one of my most favorite GR texts :frown:

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.
 
  • #83
DiracPool said:
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 :biggrin:

He's less showy than Kaku, but still showy by far.
 
  • #84
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.

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

Can't believe Carroll said that.
 
  • #85
mathskier said:
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.
 
  • #86
SnapDragon said:
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?

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

Hmm, their mothers? Or fathers?
 
  • #87
ZombieFeynman said:
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.
 
  • #88
Of course outside the popularisation area, within strict science, there is nothing remotely reminiscent of sleb cult is there? o:)
 
  • #89
tade said:
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.
 
  • #90
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.
 
  • #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.
 
  • #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 :tongue:
 
  • #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]

:rofl:


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. :tongue2:
 
  • #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

:rofl:

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.
 

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top