Seeing Michio Kaku today. Any questions you'd like me to ask?

  • Thread starter Thread starter SeventhSigma
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Michio kaku
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around Michio Kaku's approach to popularizing science, particularly through his television shows and books. Participants express concern that Kaku often presents speculative science as fact, which can mislead the public and blur the lines between science and science fiction. While some acknowledge that he inspires interest in science among younger audiences, others argue that his exaggerations and lack of concrete scientific grounding diminish his credibility. There is a call for Kaku to focus more on realistic scientific advancements rather than far-fetched theories that may not be achievable. Overall, the conversation highlights a tension between engaging storytelling and the responsibility of accurately representing scientific concepts.
  • #51
Misericorde said:
It's the sheer variety and madness that arises from that kind of search that drew me here in the in the first place.

To GD?
I'm done justifying my question, although if you have some scholarly articles to link I'll be happy to read them.

Justifying it? Who asked you to do that?

What you are looking for can be found in the relevant PF section. Not in GD.
Your view is noted, but my question remains and that says a lot about your ability to answer it perhaps. It's possible that answers like yours are the reasons I'm not asking you, and why I would like the opinion of a man who does tend to speculate in the realm of wormholes and such.

You're in GD. You are asking people like me. You hijacked the thread to do so.

You want better answers, go to the right place, Astrophysics, Cosmology etc.

Everything about wormholes is speculative. So any answer you get is going to be so. You are the one speculating about it by asking they're possible.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
This is about asking someone who will in turn be able to ask Michio Kaku, right? How would starting another thread lead to this individual possibly asking that specific person this question? As for being drawn to "gd", believe me when I say I couldn't be more repelled; a quick perusal shows this to be the slum of the site.
 
  • #53
Misericorde said:
a quick perusal shows this to be the slum of the site.
Ooooh, guys, he called GD a slum.
 
  • #54
Lets tie him up and whack him with fishes. :devil:
 
  • #55
glueball8 said:
Lets tie him up and whack him with fishes. :devil:
Spiny fishes! :mad:
 
  • #56
I think he wanted to ask Michio Kaku the question about magic and wormholes because he was a day late to ask Michio Kaku the question about magic and wormholes :)
 
  • #57
fuzzyfelt said:
I think he wanted to ask Michio Kaku the question about magic and wormholes because he was a day late to ask Michio Kaku the question about magic and wormholes :)

Nah, because I'm interested in something that doesn't allow for time travel against the thermodynamic arrow, but cute notion. It is true that I didn't realize I was a day late though, which probably could have been the first thing cat-boy mentioned.

As for a slum, other than quotes, this is what I've seen and read some of the politics. It's a startling contrast with the rest of the site, and if you don't think so, maybe you ate too many spiny fishes and the TTX is kicking in? :)

Nothing personal you know; every city needs a slum, and it's not a commentary on the entire city. In fact, to recognize a slum you need to appreciate the contrast with the city. Beyond that, you guys realize that, once again I state this, I'm talking about fiction? I'm going out on a limb and guessing that most of you like science fiction, so I'd have guessed the distinction between a question of what IS, vs. a book scenario would have been clear.

It seems strange that this would be seen as an odd question for a scientist who spends at least as much time in front of a green-screen talking about what most here would consider magic and fancy, but hey, slum-dwellers are idiosyncratic by nature.
 
  • #58
Alright, enough with the slum thing.

This is the lounge and the rules here are not as strict. It is where members come to have fun and have less serious discussions. It is for people to get to know each other on a more personal level.
 
  • #59
Evo said:
Alright, enough with the slum thing.

This is the lounge and the rules here are not as strict. It is where members come to have fun and have less serious discussions. It is for people to get to know each other on a more personal level.

Wow, excitement, all I can say is DUCK ! I don't thrive on stress. I am outta here...

This is turning into a PF Dogpile, have fun guys... Evo, QuarkCharmer, Jimmy, lisab, fuzzy, russ, lacy, andre, play nice, I can't remember a pile like this in a long time.

Rhody... :rolleyes: hits the un-subcribe button, whew, now I feel better...
 
  • #60
Nicook5 said:
Without people like him, although in my case it was more Ian Stewart with Flatterland, I would probably not have much of a serious interest in math/physics as a career.

That's a bad analogy IMO. I've never read anything by Ian Stewart that was matheatical speculation. Mostly, he writes about mathematical history.

Sure, he sometimes mixes science fiction with solid mainstream science (as in the collaborations with Terry Pratchett), but anybody with a reasonable amount of intelligence should be able to tell which is which, and there are nice helpful graphics at the top of each chapter, in case anybody gets confused.

And in any case, you need to have a very good and very wide general education to pick up all the jokes and references to the real world in Pratchett's fantasy books. I keep finding new ones years after the first time I read them.
 
  • #61
SeventhSigma said:
Can you explain to me exactly when Kaku is demonstrating hyperbole/misrepresentation? I've never heard him say anything that's exaggerated or incorrect with respect to science. There's plenty that's extrapolated, but I think that's a different story.
I would direct you to any of his books.
If you've read them, you know what I mean.
To prove my point, I've flipped to a random page of his latest book, "Physics of the Future".
The paragraph my finger lands on starts off:
We might be able to reverse engineer the brain within ten years ...
No joke.
Hyperbole: He goes on to say this will never happen for economic reasons. He is using hyperbole to catch the readers attention with a tantalizing possibility, only to back down from this strong claim later in the text. If this isn't hyperbole, I don't know what is.
Incorrect: The brain was not engineered to begin with, so it cannot be reverse engineered.

Do the same thing, flip to a random page, and put your finger on the first sentence of a random chapter.
Whatever you read there will very likely contain an incorrect and hyperbolic statement.
This is his literary bread and butter!
 
  • #62
I would disagree that that is hyperbole.

I mean, consider stuff like the Blue Brain Project: http://www.boingboing.net/2011/05/11/blue-brain-project-b.html

It doesn't seem unreasonable to think that the nature of neuron processing can be unraveled more intimately within the decade, but I do agree that there are economic obstacles. So I wouldn't disregard Kaku as using hyperbole -- but rather being frank about the fact that the technology/methodologies exist but there may be problems. I'd consider hyperbole to be something like "We will invent superluminal travel in the next 100 years" or something similar.
 
  • #63
SeventhSigma said:
I would disagree that that is hyperbole.

I mean, consider stuff like the Blue Brain Project: http://www.boingboing.net/2011/05/11/blue-brain-project-b.html

It doesn't seem unreasonable to think that the nature of neuron processing can be unraveled more intimately within the decade, but I do agree that there are economic obstacles. So I wouldn't disregard Kaku as using hyperbole -- but rather being frank about the fact that the technology/methodologies exist but there may be problems. I'd consider hyperbole to be something like "We will invent superluminal travel in the next 100 years" or something similar.

Neurologists are still trying to reverse engineer the actions of individual neurons, never mind the entire brain. The notion that it could be replicated in 10 years is either laughable or truly insane. Frankly, it's right up there with saying that we'll be traveling FTL in a few decades... if we could just debunk Einstein. :rolleyes:
 
  • #64
Misericorde said:
Neurologists are still trying to reverse engineer the actions of individual neurons, never mind the entire brain. The notion that it could be replicated in 10 years is either laughable or truly insane. Frankly, it's right up there with saying that we'll be traveling FTL in a few decades... if we could just debunk Einstein. :rolleyes:

Eh, I really, really disagree with that. We know a lot more about the brain than we do FTL travel, and the progress is already being made at pretty rampant speeds. Maybe 10 years is too aggressive of an estimation, sure -- that's entirely debatable. But even if it winds up being "way off" to the tune of 50 years, I'd say that's a pretty wild step forward.
 
  • #65
glueball8 said:
Lets tie him up and whack him with fishes. :devil:

Let's tie him up and whack him with some rotten fishes we've got wasting away in the ditches of our slum. Nothing like a head flying off a fish during a whacking...
 
  • #66
SeventhSigma said:
Eh, I really, really disagree with that. We know a lot more about the brain than we do FTL travel, and the progress is already being made at pretty rampant speeds. Maybe 10 years is too aggressive of an estimation, sure -- that's entirely debatable. But even if it winds up being "way off" to the tune of 50 years, I'd say that's a pretty wild step forward.

We know that both are so far off that speculation like his is absurd, that's what we know.
 
  • #67
Misericorde said:
We know that both are so far off that speculation like his is absurd, that's what we know.

You should probably stop and think about all the things that people have "known" over human history. In practice, I agree w/ your assesment, but I think stating it as a fact is a real stretch.
 
  • #68
phinds said:
You should probably stop and think about all the things that people have "known" over human history. In practice, I agree w/ your assesment, but I think stating it as a fact is a real stretch.

I'm not stating a fact, just refuting absurd claims made by "futurists". I don't claim to know much, but reverse engineering the BRAIN in 10 years is probably one of the more absurd claims I've heard since 'Indigo Children'. So, I won't claim what I say is fact, but it's closer than 10 years by (I THINK) orders of magnitude. Better?
 
  • #69
Misericorde said:
I'm not stating a fact, just refuting absurd claims made by "futurists". I don't claim to know much, but reverse engineering the BRAIN in 10 years is probably one of the more absurd claims I've heard since 'Indigo Children'. So, I won't claim what I say is fact, but it's closer than 10 years by (I THINK) orders of magnitude. Better?

it is a question of ambition really. if 1 or 2 percent of the population contributed we could give achieve much. complacency kills progress. standards kill intuition. we kill everything alive. sorry had to add that last bit.
 
  • #70
Let me go through the section of Kaku's book where he talks about reverse engineering the brain. I'll summarize it by points and you tell me if it sounds crazy:

From pages 87-95 of Physics of the Impossible:

Future of AI: Reverse Engineering the Brain:

1. By midcentury, we should be able to complete the next milestone in the history of AI: reverse engineering the human brain.

2. Optogenics is a first, modest step. The next step is to actually model the entire brain, using the latest in technology. There are at least two ways to solve this colossal problem, which will take many decades of hard work. The first is by using supercomputers to simulate the behavior of billions of neurons, each one connected to thousands of other neurons. The other way is to actually locate every neuron in the brain.

3. The key to the first approach, simulating the brain, is simple: raw computer power. The bigger the computer, the better. Brute force, and inelegant theories, may be the key to cracking this gigantic problem. And the computer that might accomplish this herculean task is called Blue Gene, one of the most powerful computers on earth, built by IBM [...] which is capable of 500 trillion operations per second.

4. What I was interested in was the fact that Blue Gene was simulating the thinking process of a mouse brain, which has about 2 million neurons (compared to the 100 billion neurons that we have). Simulating the thinking process of a mouse brain is harder than you think, because each neuron is connected to many other neurons, making a dense web of neurons. But while I was walking among rack after rack of consoles making up Blue Gene, I could not help but be amazed that this astounding computer power could simulating only the brain of a mouse, and then only for a few seconds. This does not mean that Blue Gene can simulate the behavior of a mouse. At present, scientists can barely simulate the behavior of a cockroach. Rather, this means that Blue Gene can simulate the firing of neurons found in a mouse, not its behavior.

5. Henry Markram [...] began in 2005 when he was able to obtain a small version of Blue Gene, with only 16,000 processors, but within a year he was successful in modeling the rat's neocortical column, part of the neocortex, which contains 10,000 neurons and 100 million connections. That was a landmark study because it meant that it was biologically possible to completely analyze the structure of an important component of the brain, neuron for neuron.

6. In 2009, Markram said optimistically, "It is not impossible to build a human brain and we can do it in ten years. If we build it correctly, it should speak and have an intelligence and behave very much as a human does." He cautions, however, that it would take a supercomputer 20,000 times more powerful than present supercomputers, with a memory storage 500 times the entire size of the current Internet, to achieve this.

7. So what is the roadblock preventing this colossal goal? To him, it's simple: money. [...] "It's not a question of years, it's one of dollars... it's a matter of if society wants this. If they want it in ten years, they'll have it in ten years. If they want it in a thousand years, they can wait."

8. A rival group [...] called Dawn [...] is truly a sight, with 147,456 processors with 150,000 gigabytes of memory. It is roughly 100,000 times more powerful than the computer sitting on your desk. [...] In 2006, it was able to simulate 40 percent of a mouse's brain. In 2007, it could simulate 100 percent of a rat's brain (which contains 55 million neurons, much more than the mouse brain). And in 2009, the group broke yet another world record. It succeeded in simulating 1 percent of the human cerebral cortex, or roughly the cerebral cortex of a cat, containing 1.6 billion neurons with 9 trillion connections. However, the simulation was slow, about 1/600th the speed of the human brain. If it simulated only a billion neurons, it went much faster, about 1/83rd the speed of the human brain.

9. We might be able to reverse engineer the brain within ten years, but only if we had a massive Manhattan Project-style crash program and dumped billions of dollars into it. However, this is not likely to happen any time soon, given the current economic climate. Crash programs like the Human Genome Project, which cost nearly $3 billion, were supported by the US government because of their obvious health and scientific benefits. However, the benefits of reverse engineering the brain are less urgent, and hence will take much longer. More realistically, we will approach this goal in smaller steps, and it may take decades to fully accomplish this historic feat.

10. It will take many decades, even after the human brain is finally reverse engineered, to understand how all the parts work and fit together.
 
  • #71
Misericorde said:
I'm not stating a fact, just refuting absurd claims made by "futurists". I don't claim to know much, but reverse engineering the BRAIN in 10 years is probably one of the more absurd claims I've heard since 'Indigo Children'. So, I won't claim what I say is fact, but it's closer than 10 years by (I THINK) orders of magnitude. Better?

Yep, better. As I said, I agree w/ you in principle. I disagree w/ the statements in seventhsigma's post, quoting the book, as I'm sure you do. I do not find it believable that even given the application all of the resources currently avaialble to the human race, the human brain could be reverse engineered (a concept that I don't even think makes much sense regarding the brain) in 10 years. 100 years MAYBE. There's just no way we could figure out enough in 10 years to do it. AHAH ... now I'm stating facts that I can't prove. OK, make it ... I'm REALLY, REALLY sure ...
 
  • #72
My only hesitations about the brain engineering aspect is that it's hard enough to simply simulate the hardware -- the literal neurons that fire everything off. The next step would be to integrate it with an environment in such a way that it could interact and behave, which would be a property of genetic and external inputs. A tall order, indeed.
 
  • #73
Darken-Sol said:
it is a question of ambition really. if 1 or 2 percent of the population contributed we could give achieve much. complacency kills progress. standards kill intuition. we kill everything alive. sorry had to add that last bit.

Do you have anything like backing for that ridiculous claim? No, of course not; I can't believe I came back here.

Goodbye
 
  • #74
SeventhSigma, I'm sorry to say TLDR to your book report...
It's entirely possible my example wasn't the best (worst) in the book.
I did turn to a random page, after all!
There are plenty of great futurist writers out there, Feynman, Sagan, Asimov.
IMHO Kaku is NOT one of them.
Sure, there is sound science behind the speculations he makes in his books.
So, you can take any of his bad sentences and defend the underlying claim.
They're still bad sentences!
 
Last edited:
  • #75
Are Kaku and Tyson crackpots?

Maybe not, but they're not really practicing scientists either.

Kaku: number of papers published since 1995: 3 (all before 2000)
Tyson: number of papers published since 1995: 4 (all having at least 6 other authors, usually many more)
 
  • #76
If you can meet him again, ask him if he still looking
 
  • #77
I still like Professor Kaku. Unfortunately, before I went to see him, in preparation for asking him a question, I read a slew of his interviews and articles. After doing that, I couldn't think of anything to ask him. He's simply an incredible source of information.

I'm not sure why people insist on bad mouthing him. Perhaps they simply don't understand him.

Here's something someone once wrote in his defence:

Michio Kaku is 61 years old. He will be long dead by the time any of his ideas come to pass. And anyways, most of the things he talks about aren't even his ideas. He just has very good science feeds.

On a side note:
I think the thing I don't like about this thread is how someone can question whether or not someone who built a particle accelerator in their parents garage while in high school is a buffoon. I'm amazed that such a geek nerd can function normally in society.

---------------------------------
Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people - ER
 
  • #78
He's no buffoon, he's just decided to do something else in his golden years than knit socks. Is what he's doing really any worse than Einstein railing against quantum theory around the same age? There is a highly productive period in a theoretical physicist's life, so when it's over why not think of the future and educate people? He doesn't need to publish or perish, and he's making money; I don't think that's buffoonery.
 
  • #79
Misericorde said:
He doesn't need to publish or perish, and he's making money; I don't think that's buffoonery.

No comment on the guy, but the above is the general theme of most crackpots.
 
  • #80
JaredJames said:
No comment on the guy, but the above is the general theme of most crackpots.

It's also the theme of everyone making money in industry. I wouldn't think that's a very good metric for finding crackpots, who don't need to be making money to be loony toons.
 
  • #81
Misericorde said:
He's no buffoon, he's just decided to do something else in his golden years than knit socks. Is what he's doing really any worse than Einstein railing against quantum theory around the same age? There is a highly productive period in a theoretical physicist's life, so when it's over why not think of the future and educate people? He doesn't need to publish or perish, and he's making money; I don't think that's buffoonery.

That's well said, but he DOES know better than some of what he propounds as likely science ... to be charitable, maybe that's how he figures he can get kids interested in science the way he was and of course I'm sure he DOES like the attention and the money.
 
  • #82
Oh I don't think anyone is questioning his abilities as a scientist.

Its how he talks about science to be public. There are a lot of things where there is nothing wrong. But once in a while he talks about things like extra dimensions/time travel/etc. like its 99.99% sure or its accepted in the scientific community which is not.

This type of wordings or topics isn't really science or scientifically talked about. It might/has caused people (mostly teens) to talk about crackpottary/ cause them not to know the difference between something ABOUT science and science/have a 16 years old that doesn't know calculus and think they found unification. Again comparing his way of informing the public about science vs Richard Feynman way of informing the public about science, Richard Feynman's wordings are perfectly clear nothing can be turned into bs and there is a real understand science. (I don't expect anyone to be the same as Feynman, but if he could be more "Feynman like" on his shows then I think it would be much better. (I'm a big Feynman fan :biggrin:))

Also, I don't consider Neil deGrasse Tyson to be in the same categorize as Prof. Kaku. In fact, if Prof.Kaku could be more like Neil deGrasse Tyson, it would be great.
 
  • #83
Misericorde said:
It's also the theme of everyone making money in industry. I wouldn't think that's a very good metric for finding crackpots, who don't need to be making money to be loony toons.

But the theme of discussion is science, not general industry. Let's not twist what I say.

In science, when pushing new theories and especially what appear to be "out there" ideas you generally publish in order to gain acceptance. Those who don't, and work solely on the basis of making money are dubious. You can find a lot of crackpots this way.
 
  • #84
I used to think he was going to be the next Carl Sagan. Then he put on a leather jacket and went into 'sciencetainment' instead.
 
  • Like
Likes AlexB23
  • #85
is there proof time travel and other dimensions aren't possible?
 
  • #86
Darken-Sol said:
is there proof time travel and other dimensions aren't possible?

No, the question is is there any evidence it does exist.

You can't prove a negative.
 
  • #87
JaredJames said:
No, the question is is there any evidence it does exist.

You can't prove a negative.

and is he claiming these things exist or may exist in the future? i got the impression he is doing science fiction from the earlier posts. i still haven't had a chance to check out this kaku fellow. at what point does he degenerate to this heretic everyone paints him as?
 
  • #88
JaredJames said:
But the theme of discussion is science, not general industry. Let's not twist what I say.

In science, when pushing new theories and especially what appear to be "out there" ideas you generally publish in order to gain acceptance. Those who don't, and work solely on the basis of making money are dubious. You can find a lot of crackpots this way.

He's on pop-tv, not pushing new theories; his very lack of publications should tell you that. My point is simply that instead of being a pauper in retirement he's chosen to teach, and be fast and loose with what he teaches on television. There's a world of difference between popsci, and crackpot, but you seem like you're wound pretty tight so maybe you don't see that.

If he claimed that he had a wormhole in his basement, now that would be a crackpot; describing what it would be like to fall into a black hole, is just a fun and loose way to rope in newbies, make money, and get a bit of fame. You should get some sleep, a massage, maybe a mud-bath, but damn you need to relax.
 
  • #89
Misericorde said:
He's on pop-tv, not pushing new theories; his very lack of publications should tell you that. My point is simply that instead of being a pauper in retirement he's chosen to teach, and be fast and loose with what he teaches on television. There's a world of difference between popsci, and crackpot, but you seem like you're wound pretty tight so maybe you don't see that.

If he claimed that he had a wormhole in his basement, now that would be a crackpot; describing what it would be like to fall into a black hole, is just a fun and loose way to rope in newbies, make money, and get a bit of fame. You should get some sleep, a massage, maybe a mud-bath, but damn you need to relax.

You must have missed the part where I said I "have no comment on the guy".

I don't know who he is, don't care, just pointing out a few things I've noted in a general sense.

I've not commented on any distinction between crackpot/mainstream/'popsci' etc, only on what is a common trait.

Again, misreading/misinterpreting/misrepresentation of what I actually have said.

If you really want to get into it, I've had a look at some of his stuff and it seems he pushes certain areas as though they are certainly possible or incredibly likely when in reality there is nothing to support it at all.
 
  • #90
Has anyone here mentioned Kaku's scholarly book (700+ pages) on quantum field theory? It's mostly beyond me.
 
  • #91
JaredJames said:
You must have missed the part where I said I "have no comment on the guy".

I don't know who he is, don't care, just pointing out a few things I've noted in a general sense.

I've not commented on any distinction between crackpot/mainstream/'popsci' etc, only on what is a common trait.

Again, misreading/misinterpreting/misrepresentation of what I actually have said.

If you really want to get into it, I've had a look at some of his stuff and it seems he pushes certain areas as though they are certainly possible or incredibly likely when in reality there is nothing to support it at all.

Yeah, you definitely need a vacation.
 
  • #92
Loren Booda said:
Has anyone here mentioned Kaku's scholarly book (700+ pages) on quantum field theory? It's mostly beyond me.

I used to hang out at Kaku's forum. It was a crazy fun kind of place. All areas were GD. I think one person was banned in the 3 years I was there. It did attract some smart people, who of course I could not understand. There was one very smart mathematician that tried to explain string theory to us laymen, but of course we did not understand. One day I told him that I'd like to understand string theory, and he told me that I should start by getting John M. Lee's book "Introduction to Smooth Manifolds". So I did. Unfortunately, it had been 30 years since I'd taken a calculus class, and the first 3 pages were all Greek, so I put it on the bookshelf with all my other "Gads I want to understand this stuff" books.

I think the forum was most fun in that it introduced me lots of scientists. I actually sent and received a response from Max Tegmark. That was pretty cool. Not since Tim Berners-Lee refused my box of chocolates, was I so delighted.

hmm...

I should go home.

btw, does anyone know who Sunfist was?
 
  • #93
This is not "today" anymore...
 
  • #94
flyingpig said:
This is not "today" anymore...

No, it's still today. It's not yesterday anymore, though.
 
  • #95
Ask him if he smokes a lot of pot, or if it just seems that way.
 
  • #96
Darken-Sol said:
and is he claiming these things exist or may exist in the future? i got the impression he is doing science fiction from the earlier posts. i still haven't had a chance to check out this kaku fellow. at what point does he degenerate to this heretic everyone paints him as?

bump
 
  • #97
lisab said:
No, it's still today. It's not yesterday anymore, though.

Looks like proof of time travel to me. Thanks!
 
  • #98
OmCheeto said:
Looks like proof of time travel to me. Thanks!

I guess not, as it will never be tomorrow. So if you are never there, how can you get back?
 
  • #99
Andre said:
I guess not, as it will never be tomorrow. So if you are never there, how can you get back?

If you don't choose yourself as a preferred reference frame...
 
  • #100
Misericorde said:
If you don't choose yourself as a preferred reference frame...

Is there any reference frame that would permit that?
 
Back
Top