Addressing Misconceptions in Popular Science: A Call for Clear Communication

[RussZ]

How did you find PF?

Accidently when I did a Google search on a physics issue.

I am not a Physicist. I am a retired Social Worker and Public Health Administrator who has taken an interest in Cosmology and Quantum Mechanics/Quantum Field Theory. I am reading as much popular literature in the field as I can as well as watching the excellent presentations on YouTube. I try to research questions that I might have but sometimes need more help on questions, often basic. It will be helpful to have somewhere to post questions as well as observations of interest. Thanks for the opportunity to participate and learn.

 

[berkeman]

Welcome to PF!

Be mindful that the pop-sci articles and many YouTube videos oversimplify many concepts, and in the process can cause you to learn incorrect things. A much better source of information is the PF forums of course, but also our Insights articles (see the INSIGHTS BLOG link at the top of the page). Enjoy!

 

[phinds]

Hey, Russ, welcome to the forum. I'd like to second what Mike (@berkeman) said about pop-sci presentations. I read/watched a TON of them before coming here and was a bit shocked to find out that most of what I had "learned" was wrong. There are some decent ones but the problem is that there is no control so you never know what's good and what's bad. If it's on TV you can pretty much be sure it's bad (albeit done with terrific production values). I've seen some decent YouTube videos, but again, no control.

 

[RussZ]

Welcome to PF!

Be mindful that the pop-sci articles and many YouTube videos oversimplify many concepts, and in the process can cause you to learn incorrect things. A much better source of information is the PF forums of course, but also our Insights articles (see the INSIGHTS BLOG link at the top of the page). Enjoy!

Thanks for the tip. I am aware of misleading articles and try to discern junk/sensationalized from reputable sources. Many of the readable books and presentations out there are done by reliable scientists such as Brian Greene, Sean Carrroll, Leonard Susskind, Carlo Rovelli, Stephen Hawking, and others. I look forward to the information on this website.

 

[DaveC426913]

...reliable scientists such as Brian Greene...

(I devoured Brian Greene's works. Amazing brain-stretching stuff for us laypeople. But even he is considered arguably 'pop-sci' by most PF standards.)

 

[Frabjous]

You might enjoy

Huang, Fundamental Forces of Nature
Schmitz, Particles Fields and Forces
Liddle, Introduction to Modern Cosmology
Lindley, Where does the Weirdness Go
Ghirardi, Sneaking a Look at God’s Cards

You should look at the books before purchasing to make sure that you find them readable.

 

[RussZ]

Hey, Russ, welcome to the forum. I'd like to second what Mike (@berkeman) said about pop-sci presentations. I read/watched a TON of them before coming here and was a bit shocked to find out that most of what I had "learned" was wrong. There are some decent ones but the problem is that there is no control so you never know what's good and what's bad. If it's on TV you can pretty much be sure it's bad (albeit done with terrific production values). I've seen some decent YouTube videos, but again, no control.

Thanks. I appreciate the guidance. I try to watch for consistency with what I've read or researched but I'm sure you're right and there is a lot of misinformation. I'm actually focused on the Standard Model right now and that seems to be somewhat consistent among sources. On a larger scale, I know there are people who don't agree with the Inflationary process but it is seemingly well accepted and represents another consistency. Much of Theoretic Physics is just that, theoretical. So the best we non-Physicists can do is look at the source and support for the "theory" and understand that it is only one approach. For the non-scientist, it has to be an accumulation of consistent information from reliable sources. But I will start checking the sources more carefully.

 

[RussZ]

You might enjoy

Huang, Fundamental Forces of Nature
Schmitz, Particles Fields and Forces
Liddle, Introduction to Modern Cosmology
Lindley, Where does the Weirdness Go
Ghirardi, Sneaking a Look at God’s Cards

You should look at the books before purchasing to make sure that you find them readable.

Thanks so much for the recommendations. The other big issue is how recent the material was published.

 

[Frabjous]

Thanks so much for the recommendations. The other big issue is how recent the material was published.

2007, 2019, 2015, 1997, 2005

 

[RussZ]

Thank you but I didn't mean for you to go to all that trouble.

 

[RussZ]

View attachment 319512
(I devoured Brian Greene's works. Amazing brain-stretching stuff for us laypeople. But even he is considered arguably 'pop-sci' by most PF standards.)

I know Brian Green is known for String Theory which has had its problems in terms of evidence but he is understandable and interviews some great Physicists. I doubt that he intentionally misleads the reader.

 

[berkeman]

Here is a good example of a current thread where we try to repair the misconceptions caused by videos...

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/quantum-field-theory-and-wave-particle-duality.1048609/

But notice how one mitigating factor in the thread start is that the Original Poster (OP) marked their thread with the "B" = Basic prefix. That means that they would like the replies to be at a Basic level (as opposed to Intermediate/undergrad or A/Advanced/graduate school level). The PF thread prefix system that is available in some of the subforums is meant to help the responders to understand the background of the poster in the subject and to guide their responses.

 

[RussZ]

Sorry to be so dense but are you saying that the video is full of misconceptions that the the forum is trying to correct or that this video is so clear and accurate as to clarify many misunderstandings in other video presentations?

 

[berkeman]

Sorry to be so dense but are you saying that the video is full of misconceptions that the the forum is trying to correct or that this video is so clear and accurate as to clarify many misunderstandings in other video presentations?

(a), but I wouldn't say "so full of misconceptions" necessarily. It just represents at least one common pop-sci misconception about the old wave-particle duality paradigm.

 

[phinds]

I know Brian Green is known for String Theory which has had its problems in terms of evidence but he is understandable and interviews some great Physicists. I doubt that he intentionally misleads the reader.

If you do a forum search with the keywords "brian green misconceptions" you will find a great many threads in which someone mentions how often we here on PF have to clear up misconceptions he creates in his pop-sci presentations. Here is one such

I think scientists themselves, at least the ones that go in for pop science books and TV specials (Brian Greene is my go to example for this, because of the number of threads in the physics forums here that have been based on misconceptions a lay person has gotten from one of his books or shows) are partly to blame, by not carefully distinguishing varying levels of confidence in different parts of science. Greene, for example, will talk about way-out speculations or extrapolations of quantum physics (such as saying that QM says there is some small probability that you can teleport through a wall) the same way he talks about results with strong experimental confirmation (such as the behavior of individual qubits in quantum computing). It's natural enough for the audience to think that Science is telling them the first is just as well confirmed as the second.

In short, scientists who do popularizations often succumb to the temptation to portray science as an Authority, instead of as a tool for everyone to use to develop their own independent understanding. And then, when the Authority ends up saying things that turn out to be wrong, people flip to the other extreme and don't believe anything scientists say.