How is Michio Kaku regarded in the Physics world?

[adjacent]

I can honestly say that guys like Richard Feynman, Brian Greene, Michio Kaku, Neil Degrasse Tyson, and hell even Bill Nye the science guy, helped to spark my love of physics and indeed all science. Don't underestimate the need for public relations.

I agree

 

[sa1988]

It seems you've misunderstood how it's supposed to work. Have a read through this feasibility studies for a start, then reconsider lambasting Kaku(well, at least for this particular bit):

http://www.mill-creek-systems.com/HighLift/contents.html
http://www.nss.org/resources/library/spaceelevator/2000-SpaceElevator-NASA-CP210429.pdf

The obstacle is not in the physical implausibility of the idea, but in the lack of the technology to produce carbon nanotube material on large enough scale.

The first link didn't seem to cover the things I wanted to know, and the NASA file wouldn't open, so I decided to look into this a little further myself

Emailed my mechanics/relativity lecturer to ask his opinion. Here's the reply (his responses to each part are in bold)

Spoiler

Hi Professor XXXXXXX,

Since you taught us so well for the mechanics module last semester, I thought I might be best contacting you about this subject.

You've probably come across the topic before and will have your own opinion on it, so I'd just like to ask - What are your thoughts on the suggestion of a satellite-tethered elevator cable into space?

I enjoyed very much the Arthur C Clarke fiction - I think there were short stories as well as a major novel - in which it is introduced.


I personally think it's impossible. For me the issue is mostly relating to the weight of the cable alone,

Yes. This is the weak point. No materials short of carbon nanotube would do it.

and also with energy conservation - if the thing were to somehow be successfully built, surely when using it to raise a payload into space, any extra force on the cable would pull the tether satellite down and cause it to move to an undesirable and non-geosynchronous orbit; the satellite would need its own propulsion/control systems to counter the force of the payload on the elevator, hence the energy dependence is the same, regardless of whether you try to reach space with a standard rocket at ground level or take it up on this theorized elevator cable.

No, this is not an issue - to first order. If you arrange the tether satellite so that it keeps the cable under tension, it is in an orbit a bit further out than geosynchronous. That is stable. Then payload merely reduces the tension in the cable below it, while not changing what the tether satellite sees.

I am not aware that anyone has thought through the second-order effects - Coriolis forces = the gain in angular momentum that a rising payload needs, etc - my guess is a combination of averaging of payloads going up and coming down, and the feeling that once the cable is under significant tension the tether satellite always has a restoring force if it gets out of position.


I'd just like to know what you personally think on the subject as I'm sure you're far more knowledgeable on it than I am. Even a simple 'yes' or 'no' response would be good enough for me... I'm just surprised by the amount of support this idea seems to have, so I wonder if my scepticism is correct, or I should have a bit of a rethink.

Thanks, and I hope you don't find this sort of an email too absurd!

Very sensible - one great point of understanding physics is exactly that it let's one and encourages one to think about things like this.

Cheers, XXXXX

So I was a little bit wrong and will try to be more open to new ideas in the future. I can't say any more than that really..! Haha.

Maybe I just don't like Michio Kaku for other reasons. I suppose I could argue that he has a problem of putting forward big ideas without actually explaining how they might work. Or maybe I just don't like his character. From what I've seen of him, he comes across as a little too childish or fanciful, even if it's more a case of how he presents his ideas, rather than the accuracy in his logic.

I wouldn't be surprised if he came across this thread at some point in the future, or is even following it right now. So I'll just add - as is the case for most long-distance anonymous criticisms, I'm pretty sure you're actually a brilliant guy and my judgement is entirely flawed because all I know of you is your TV personality :thumbs:. Just don't start championing time travel.

 

[phinds]

I can honestly say that guys like Richard Feynman, Brian Greene, Michio Kaku, Neil Degrasse Tyson, and hell even Bill Nye the science guy, helped to spark my love of physics and indeed all science. Don't underestimate the need for public relations.

That was not the OP's question. He asked how Kaku is viewed in the physics community. I think he is viewed with contempt (and probably envy for his bank account).

 

[micromass]

I can honestly say that guys like Richard Feynman, Brian Greene, Michio Kaku, Neil Degrasse Tyson, and hell even Bill Nye the science guy, helped to spark my love of physics and indeed all science. Don't underestimate the need for public relations.

Very true. But there's a danger too. Most of the shows today are about topics like wormholes, time travel, black holes, multiple dimensions, ... Things that interest most laymen.

So what happens a lot is that people go into physics with the thought "I want to be a theoretical physicist because I like pondering about time travel". This really happens more than you think. Those people get very disillusioned in physics because none of the physics courses actually talk about the exciting stuff that they saw on television! So these people end up dropping out at one point or another.

So I find pop-sci programs and books very dangerous because they show a wrong image about physics. A realistic image is almost never shown because it is way too boring for the layman.

Second, if you ask somebody what theoretical physics or even physics is about, they'll end up saying stuff like string theory. This however is such a small subset of even theoretical physics. Other (more important and more applicable) stuff never get in the picture.

See also the excellent stuff by ZapperZ, for example https://www.physicsforums.com/blog.php?b=3727

 

[lisab]

Very true. But there's a danger too. Most of the shows today are about topics like wormholes, time travel, black holes, multiple dimensions, ... Things that interest most laymen.

So what happens a lot is that people go into physics with the thought "I want to be a theoretical physicist because I like pondering about time travel". This really happens more than you think. Those people get very disillusioned in physics because none of the physics courses actually talk about the exciting stuff that they saw on television! So these people end up dropping out at one point or another.

So I find pop-sci programs and books very dangerous because they show a wrong image about physics. A realistic image is almost never shown because it is way too boring for the layman.

Second, if you ask somebody what theoretical physics or even physics is about, they'll end up saying stuff like string theory. This however is such a small subset of even theoretical physics. Other (more important and more applicable) stuff never get in the picture.

See also the excellent stuff by ZapperZ, for example https://www.physicsforums.com/blog.php?b=3727

I agree with micro. We've seen so many people come here who have read laymen-level books, which light them up with passion and curiosity. Then they take actual physics and BOOM, they hit reality...

Not to say these materials are bad, per se, they just give a deceptive, albeit very pretty, picture of physics.

 

[sophiecentaur]

At one time, Science was presented to the 'public' and, because of the way it was presented (no Jazzing up involved) would appeal to some but not others. But everyone was aware that it was actually 'hard stuff' and the fact that it involved rigour was acknowledged.
It now seems that the popular presentation of a topic never seems to point out the fact that is complex and doesn't work by arm waving. Animations and simulations are used as 'proofs', rather than models. Being 'clever' is looked upon in the same way as 'fame', as with the lovely Victoria Beckham, who just loves being 'famous' as an end in itself.

Frankly, I can't see how any really top exponent of any Science would have time for the sort of stuff that's peddled on TV these days. They would surely realize that what they are presenting is mostly a vacuous sub-set of their field. They are actually fooling themselves if they think the important message often gets across to the audience. All the adulation goes to their heads and their human weaknesses are exploited. I would never be surprised to find one of them in the 'Celebrity House' - not tha I have ever actually watched it.
It puts me in mind of Matthew 4:

Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. And he fasted forty days and forty nights, and afterward he was hungry. And the tempter came and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, command these stones to become loaves of bread.” But he answered, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.’” Then the devil took him to the holy city, and set him on the pinnacle of the temple, and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down; for it is written: etc. etc.

This is not propaganda, btw. I am an atheist who 'did church' as a child.

The problem of funding cannot help matters. Popular modern Science greats must sell themselves at times if they want money for their projects and they have to repeat their TV acts all over again.

 

[FVS]

I do not understand why you view popularising science as selling out. It's an important pursuit, to keep the public in touch with what's going on in science.
Sure, some may do it better than others(and I'm not too sure if Kaku is doing it all that well), but surely you need educators and public outreach personalities to keep science from becoming the new occult - there's enough mistrust as it is.

Quite agree with you. We need physicists at all level. In "the Physics world", we not only need physicists like Newton, Einstein,... who have breakthrough ideas to lead our knowledge about nature go deeper but we also need others to do lots of other important things like this case, I think what he is doing gives sense to public, let them know "what's going on in science", or even entertains (still positive).
I respect all people who love and really do physics even they have their limitation ;)

 

[sophiecentaur]

There is nothing wrong with making Science popular, in fact I am all in favour. But there are good and bad ways of doing it. If the publicity only leads people to believe they can 'understand' things without applying some rigour (I am not talking about ability, here) and to believe that their own personal ideas count as much as the accepted ones, then it is only doing harm. The recent immunisation fiasco is a great example of that sort of thing.
A lot of popular Science is far too near the realms of Science Fiction and it is difficult to avoid it when all questions need to be answered in a polite and encouraging way, even when they are totally wrong. That's to satisfy the ratings; you can't have a grumpy presenter telling someone their idea is totally crackpot.
The idea of some starchy old Professor always being right doesn't go down well these days. However, a lot of them actually are right and they can show how they are right but they wouldn't get onto the TV because the program maker wouldn't know right from wrong. (I know from experience, when a well known Science broadcaster of a few years ago went into a total sulk when I told him, at a script meeting, that he couldn't really talk about Red Green and Blue electrons in a TV tube. ) That rubbish could have gone out to be watched by a few million people, if I had let it.

 

[jesse73]

Very true. But there's a danger too. Most of the shows today are about topics like wormholes, time travel, black holes, multiple dimensions, ... Things that interest most laymen.

So what happens a lot is that people go into physics with the thought "I want to be a theoretical physicist because I like pondering about time travel". This really happens more than you think. Those people get very disillusioned in physics because none of the physics courses actually talk about the exciting stuff that they saw on television!

To confirm this I would spend some time in academic guidance section. This is really common.

 

[D H]

Maybe you're right and math is easier to popularize than physics.

I think you were right the first time around. While writing A Brief History of Time, the editor reportedly told Stephen Hawking that every equation in a popularization of science book reduces the readership by a half. He had one equation in the book, $E=mc^2$, and that doesn't really count because everyone has seen that equation. That equation is apparently exemplary of the hard mathematics that physicists do.

How do you popularize mathematics and at the same time not write about mathematics? How do you communicate basic concepts of what mathematicians do when $E=mc^2$ is perceived as extremely difficult mathematics?

 

[stardust]

There is nothing wrong with making Science popular, in fact I am all in favour. But there are good and bad ways of doing it. If the publicity only leads people to believe they can 'understand' things without applying some rigour (I am not talking about ability, here) and to believe that their own personal ideas count as much as the accepted ones, then it is only doing harm. The recent immunisation fiasco is a great example of that sort of thing.
A lot of popular Science is far too near the realms of Science Fiction and it is difficult to avoid it when all questions need to be answered in a polite and encouraging way, even when they are totally wrong. That's to satisfy the ratings; you can't have a grumpy presenter telling someone their idea is totally crackpot.
The idea of some starchy old Professor always being right doesn't go down well these days. However, a lot of them actually are right and they can show how they are right but they wouldn't get onto the TV because the program maker wouldn't know right from wrong. (I know from experience, when a well known Science broadcaster of a few years ago went into a total sulk when I told him, at a script meeting, that he couldn't really talk about Red Green and Blue electrons in a TV tube. ) That rubbish could have gone out to be watched by a few million people, if I had let it.

I do agree with this. I think sometimes the whole STEM recruitment efforts to be a little nefarious. Granted, I know STEM is a great pursuit and that it helps to advance our species farther, but people who get a false sense of what STEM entails just to boost numbers are sort of getting screwed.

 

[micromass]

I think you were right the first time around. While writing A Brief History of Time, the editor reportedly told Stephen Hawking that every equation in a popularization of science book reduces the readership by a half. He had one equation in the book, $E=mc^2$, and that doesn't really count because everyone has seen that. That's apparently exemplary of the hard mathematics that physicists do.

How do you popularize mathematics and at the same time not write about mathematics?

Mathematics is more than a bunch of equations though. I don't think it's totally impossible to make some video series about mathematics that uses very little equations. It's certainly going to be difficult, but there are "ideas" enough that can be shared without equations.

For example, see that video about turning the sphere inside out. I think it's totally brilliant. It goes into quite some deep topology and the only equations it uses is basic addition.

Now that I think about it, the issue with popularizing science doesn't seem to be that it's impossible to explain concepts at a low level with equations. I just think that if you manage to do so, then the general public will find it boring.

I mean, once you start presenting ideas of physics or mathematics, I think most people couldn't care less. The one about turning the sphere inside out was neat, but even there you can see in the comment section a lot of people complaining that this is totally useless and boring. Once you start explaining science/math at a mundane level, I fear that is the common reaction you're going to get. For example, I think I can explain many ideas of differential geometry quite well to laymen, but I can't stop them from thinking "who cares".

The only thing people like to see is when it's about "cool stuff" like time travel and wormholes. Or when it's hyperspeculative, like somebody saying that taking a pill will make you immortal.

 

[stardust]

I think you were right the first time around. While writing A Brief History of Time, the editor reportedly told Stephen Hawking that every equation in a popularization of science book reduces the readership by a half. He had one equation in the book, $E=mc^2$, and that doesn't really count because everyone has seen that equation. That equation is apparently exemplary of the hard mathematics that physicists do.

How do you popularize mathematics and at the same time not write about mathematics? How do you communicate basic concepts of what mathematicians do when $E=mc^2$ is perceived as extremely difficult mathematics?

I read something similar with Feynman. His editor told him that for every equation, he needed a human reference that appealed to the layman.

 

[stardust]

Lisab, I absolutely love that cat picture. Gave me a long chuckle.

 

[Curious3141]

I don't think he has done anything of note recently (but then again, neither has Feynman!).

Feynman can be given a pass. It's quite difficult to compose new physics when you're busy decomposing.

 

[Curious3141]

Deepak Chopra interviews Michio Kaku: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deepak-chopra/michio-kaku-interview-by_b_614971.html

Art Bell (Coast to Coast) interviews Michio Kaku: https://archive.org/details/MichioKaku-QuantumPhysicsOnCoastToCoastAmWithArtBell

Why, Professor Kaku, why?

Speaking of which, http://profmattstrassler.com/2013/03/19/why-professor-kaku-why/



Apologies in advance to Evo for linking to a crackpot sources (Deepak Chopra and Coast to Coast). It's important in this case.

I was about to make a post referencing the Chopra-Kaku interview, but you saved me the trouble. Anyway, this website summarises my thoughts on the matter.

 

[Dembadon]

I'm not one for Consequentialism (the end justifies the means), thus am not excited about popularizing science at the expense of science.

 

[arildno]

As for Kaku himself, I regard him as a pretentious blatherboy, too often blathering on topics he does NOT know about.

Not very different from any other "media goblin", as we call them in Norwegian.

But, then again, I can hardly be called a member of the "Physics World".

 

[sophiecentaur]

Seems to me that you have a very healthy attitude.

 

[DataGG]

Michio Kaku is doing an AMA right now, on reddit. For those interested:

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1ztgy9/im_dr_michio_kaku_a_physicist_co_founder_of/

 

[phinds]

As for Kaku himself, I regard him as a pretentious blatherboy, too often blathering on topics he does NOT know about.

+1 on that !

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Michio Kaku is doing an AMA right now, on reddit. For those interested:

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1ztgy9/im_dr_michio_kaku_a_physicist_co_founder_of/

I'm in agreement with some of the top comments that Kaku is disappointing in this AMA. He's avoiding the serious scientific questions and responding to the vague ones with science fiction speculation. If you told me that this was a Kurzweil AMA I'd believe it.

 

[Dembadon]

I'm in agreement with some of the top comments that Kaku is disappointing in this AMA. He's avoiding the serious scientific questions and responding to the vague ones with science fiction speculation. If you told me that this was a Kurzweil AMA I'd believe it.

Agreed. He seems to be cherry picking questions that will allow him to plug his new book.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Agreed. He seems to be cherry picking questions that will allow him to plug his new book.

Definitely. A book in which he claims to have created a new theory of consciousness allowing the classification of levels of consciousness:

I have devised an entirely new theory of consciousness, allowing one to numerically calculate the level of consciounsess of humans and even animals. Its all in my new book.

 

[Evo]

Definitely. A book in which he claims to have created a new theory of consciousness allowing the classification of levels of consciousness:

Wow, just wow.

 

[lisab]

Definitely. A book in which he claims to have created a new theory of consciousness allowing the classification of levels of consciousness:

Oh noes. I can see them now, threads started to discus "numerically calculating the level of consciousness of humans and even animals".

Sigh.

 

[micromass]

Oh noes. I can see them now, threads started to discus "numerically calculating the level of consciousness of humans and even animals".

Sigh.

Help, I calculated my own level consciousness and I'm below the level of a tomato. Can I still be a theoretical physicist?

 

[lisab]

Help, I calculated my own level consciousness and I'm below the level of a tomato. Can I still be a theoretical physicist?

A green tomato, or a red tomato?

 

[micromass]

A green tomato, or a red tomato?

I am colorblind and I find this offensive.

 

[AlephZero]

I have devised an entirely new theory of consciousness, allowing one to numerically calculate the level of
consciounsess of humans and even animals.

What about odd animals? Is there some deep argument about the symmetry of space-time that says odd animals are not conscious?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Yup. I read a couple of his books when I was a teen, don't really remember them but always had it in my mind that he was a typical popsci communications guy. Probably simplifying things too much and sensationalising a bit but otherwise not a negative factor in public communication of science. At least he was doing things to get people interested, even if others are or were better.

But the things he said in that AMA set off so many alarm bells for me. Not just the bizarre claim to have developed whole cloth a theory of consciousness (and honestly when cognitive neuroscientists are struggling with even defining the problem I take any attempt from someone not even in a biology field with a massive dollop of skepticism) but he also said the best way for humanity to explore space is to upload our consciousness into machines and blast that data in every direction. I haven't read his new book so can't definitively pass judgement but he seems to be going off the deep end.

Incidentally for those unfamiliar with reddit it can be a pain to find exactly where someone has posted in a long thread. A little tip is to go to Kaku's profile and just read through the posts he has made:
http://www.reddit.com/user/DrMichioKaku

 

[jobyts]

Wow, just wow.

It's possible that if Michio Kaku joins and writes in this forum, he could get banned within a week.

 

[lisab]

I am colorblind and I find this offensive.

 

[Evo]

It's possible that if Michio Kaku joins and writes in this forum, he could get banned within a week.

Probably more like first post if this is what he posted about.

 

[jesse73]

You missed how some of his answers on the AMA assume string theory will be the successful grand unification and it will be confirmed in the next collider.

That consciousness thing is weird too.