Suggestion Pop Physics Forum: Will It Help Organize Postings?

[Pjpic]

Would a pop physics forum help organizing postings?

 

[DaveC426913]

What is pop physics that this isn't?

 

[JaredJames]

What is pop physics?

 

[Borek]

For sure it differs from classical physics, folk physics and hard metal physics.

 

[gb7nash]

http://www.bobsomers.com/files/1stQtrProject.pdf

maybe?

 

[FtlIsAwesome]

For sure it differs from classical physics, folk physics and hard metal physics.

Can we have rock physics?

 

[enigma]

Can we have rock physics?

We have that. It's called geology.

 

[micromass]

And Jazz physics would be chaos theory??

 

[SW VandeCarr]

What is pop physics that this isn't?

I would like clarification on this. My own definition would be books written by qualified physicists for educated readers who are not physicists; for example, books by Brian Greene re the latest views on string theories. These books tend to be light on the mathematics and some say mathematical treatment is necessary to really get anything of value on the subject. The math of string theories seems out of reach for many non-theoretical physicists (or at least they're not interested in learning it) not to mention the educated non-physicist. Does that mean someone is not qualified to post questions on string theory if it's based on reading Brian Greene?

Another author, Nick Herbert (a Stanford educated PhD physicist) was recommended to me by a physicist friend some years ago as good explicator of quantum theory and some basic QM. I mentioned his name in posting a question about a year ago and was criticized for referencing "pop-physics" sources. By the way, I've seen references to Stephen Hawking as "a crackpot" in physics sub-forums.

So two questions: Are there acceptable and unacceptable pop-physics books (only considering that all such books are written by physicists)? Who decides?

 

[DaveC426913]

Personally, I think we've already got a pop physics forum, It's called the https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=104715".

 

[Pjpic]

[
So two questions: Are there acceptable and unacceptable pop-physics books (only considering that all such books are written by physicists)? Who decides?[/QUOTE]

If someone goes to the trouble to write a phys-pop book, I decided that it should be accepted. Anyway, such a forum might keep the hard-core types from getting tangled up with the amatures.

 

[JaredJames]

If someone goes to the trouble to write a phys-pop book, I decided that it should be accepted.

1) Just because someone goes to the 'trouble' of writing it, doesn't make it valid / worthwhile.

2) Science doesn't care for what you "decide should be accepted", and neither does this forum. The rules are clear in this regard.

Anyway, such a forum might keep the hard-core types from getting tangled up with the amatures.

Amateur what though?

From what I've seen on the subject, if it can be discussed within the mainstream it is valid on this forum. However, discussing what amounts to science fiction in a serious manner is worthless for PF and will only serve to attract and allow crackpots operating under this pretence.

 

[DaveC426913]

1) Just because someone goes to the 'trouble' of writing it, doesn't make it valid / worthwhile.

Are you insinuating that the venerable von Daniken and Velikovsky don't deserve a voice here on PF?

 

[JaredJames]

Are you insinuating that the venerable von Daniken and Velikovsky don't deserve a voice here on PF?

I have no idea who those two are, so a quick Google and here's what I see.

From Velikovsky's wiki page:

In general, Velikovsky's theories have been vigorously rejected or ignored by the academic community.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Velikovsky

From Von Daniken's wiki page:

His ideas are not accepted by mainstream scientists and academics who categorize his work as pseudohistory and pseudoarchaeology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_von_Däniken

I think it's safe to say your conclusion on my writing is correct.

I'm sure there are some lovely arguments as to why they should be acceptable here... ...but please feel free to keep them to yourself*.

_{* Not you Dave, to anyone contemplating trying it.}

 

[DaveC426913]

I guess I'm dating myself.

Velikovsky and von Daniken were very well-known in the 70's. They invented crackpot science.

 

[cobalt124]

Are you insinuating that the venerable von Daniken and Velikovsky don't deserve a voice here on PF?

I believe von Daniken can be excluded for crackpottery and not putting the effort in as Chariots of the Gods at the least was ghost written.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

I believe von Daniken can be excluded for crackpottery and not putting the effort in as Chariots of the Gods at the least was ghost written.

Eric von Daniken was a Swiss hotel manager with an undergraduate degree from St. Michael's College in Fribourg, Switzerland. Immanuel Velikovski had a medical degree from the University of Moscow and practiced psychiatry for a time. Neither was a "qualified" physicist or cosmologist.

PF rules are clear that referenced published articles must be from peer reviewed journals, but don't refer directly to books. If a qualified physicist (let's say a PhD from an accredited internationally recognized university) writes a "pop physics" book, does that automatically qualify as a basis for an acceptable question in a PF physics subforum or does some further qualification need to be met? If so, what is it?

EDIT: I'm assuming that the book is not obviously overly speculative, but that can be difficult to judge for the non-physicist.