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.
  • #36
At least Bob Wald hasn't gone TV on us. :)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
CFDFEAGURU said:
I have stopped watching any show that has Sean Carroll or Kaku or Filipenko or Morgan Freeman as the goto physicist or astrophysicist. IMO those people have trashed their physicist careers and are now only interested in being cool with huge numbers of facebook fans or twitter followers and are more interested in updating their two paragraph blog posts then they are about writing new papers. And Carroll wonders why he is never tenured at Cal Tech ...

I hope you're not saying that Morgan Freeman is a physicist...
 
  • #38
No, I am not. That was my poor attempt at humor here.
 
  • #39
CFDFEAGURU said:
No, I am not. That was my poor attempt at humor here.

One does not simply make fun of Morgan Freeman!
 
  • #40
CFDFEAGURU said:
At least Bob Wald hasn't gone TV on us. :)
The day Wald goes TV is the day I stop learning GR. It's sad enough Carroll did. Maybe if he spent less time writing pop sci books and more time writing a 2nd edition of his GR book, I wouldn't have to deal with typos that use the word embedding where one should use the word immersion.
 
  • #41
WannabeNewton said:
The day Wald goes TV is the day I stop learning GR. It's sad enough Carroll did. Maybe if he spent less time writing pop sci books and more time writing a 2nd edition of his GR book, I wouldn't have to deal with typos that use the word embedding where one should use the word immersion.

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.
 
  • #42
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.
I'm glad he did write it because there doesn't seem to be much middle ground between Wald and the lower level stuff but it still behooves me why he decided to go TV. I mean he was even on the Colbert report for pete's sake. Oh well :[
 
  • #43
WannabeNewton said:
I'm glad he did write it because there doesn't seem to be much middle ground between Wald and the lower level stuff but it still behooves me why he decided to go TV. I mean he was even on the Colbert report for pete's sake. Oh well :[

I totally agree with you. I am very glad he wrote it too. I am not a watcher of most TV shows especially the Colbert report. I think his wife, Jennifer Oulette, should be the one writing blogs and pop sci books because that is what her career is about.
 
Last edited:
  • #44
CFDFEAGURU said:
I totally agree with you. I am very glad he wrote it too. I am not a watcher of most TV shows especially the Colbert report. I think his wife, Jennifer Oulette, should be the one writing blogs and pop sci books because that is what her career is about.
Indeed. Well at least Wald hasn't succumbed yet to the pressures lol. I could never imagine the man who included the most annoying tensor calculus problems in his text suddenly talking about the crud on those sci channel shows.
 
  • #45
WannabeNewton said:
I'm glad he did write it because there doesn't seem to be much middle ground between Wald and the lower level stuff but it still behooves me why he decided to go TV. I mean he was even on the Colbert report for pete's sake. Oh well :[

What's wrong with the Colbert Report?
 
  • #46
WannabeNewton said:
I'm glad he did write it because there doesn't seem to be much middle ground between Wald and the lower level stuff but it still behooves me why he decided to go TV. I mean he was even on the Colbert report for pete's sake. Oh well :[

You should learn what the word "behooves" means before you use it.
 
  • #47
Maybe baffles would be a better term.
 
  • #48
You, me, and everyone else on the planet are literally just stardust! We are all made of the remnants of an exploding supernova.

I think the producers have made all of them say this corny line at one time or another. I just about hurl my lunch whenever I see one of them say it in a new show as if it just came to them as some kind of epiphany. It must take practice to get that good at acting.
 
  • #49
But that is also true... Why shouldn't great scientists share great science to get people excited?
 
  • #50
mathskier said:
But that is also true...
not sure what you are referring to here.

Why shouldn't great scientists share great science to get people excited?

The problem is that they do NOT share great science ! They "share" stuff they have made up that is incorrect in terms of actual science.
 
  • #51
Kaku does worse. He calls unified field theory "the theory of everything," I believe he even went as far as to call it "the mind of God" I never quite understood that.
 
  • #52
phinds said:
not sure what you are referring to here.



The problem is that they do NOT share great science ! They "share" stuff they have made up that is incorrect in terms of actual science.

I was referring to our elements coming from stars, which is true. And it's great science, in that it excites people to study more.
 
  • #53
mathskier said:
I was referring to our elements coming from stars, which is true. And it's great science, in that it excites people to study more.

This is a great example. It is NOT entirely true but is presented as gospel as being exactly true.

Let me ask you ... how much of the human body is water?

How much of water is hydrogen?

How much hydrogen is created in stars?

When you follow this through you find that we are NOT all star-stuff, we are just mostly star-stuff. This is the kind of detail that they ignore on television because it sounds SO much more cool when you leave out the correct details.
 
  • #54
Julio R said:
Kaku does worse. He calls unified field theory "the theory of everything," I believe he even went as far as to call it "the mind of God" I never quite understood that.

Yes, this is the kind of thing that has caused me to say repeatedly that Kaku is in a class all by himslelf when it comes to making ridiculous statements. I think it is completely unfair to equate the others to him.
 
  • #55
Since I stopped watching those years ago. Does Garret Lissi still do them or has he resigned to doing research?
 
  • #56
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.
 
  • #57
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.

Yes, it is good to inspire and that is best done thru hype. Just like a coach revs up his team in the locker room.

Pop sci books are all they produce or maybe a slightly more insightful overpriced Teaching Company lecture. To me that is not acceptable and they are cutting themselves very short.

I would like to see them deliver some Arnold one liners like: RUN, GET TO DA CHOPPA!

:)
 
Last edited:
  • #58
Those shows make physics seem a lot different to what real physics is.
 
  • #59
I believe the interesting thing is that there aren't any generalizations. Once you begin to generalize the universe or world into these simple, easily explained, categories. This makes the universe boring and plain. If there aren't any intricacies, nothing is exciting.
 
  • #60
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?
 
  • #61
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 )
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #62
SnapDragon said:
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.
 
  • #63
SnapDragon said:
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?
 
  • #64
phinds said:
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.
 
  • #66
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.
 
  • #67
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #68
DiracPool said:
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?"
 
  • #69
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.
 
  • #70
ZombieFeynman said:
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.
 

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top