How is new information in quantum mechanics/science in general released out to the public?

[Achilles]

How is information like new discoveries, quantum mechanic discoveries released into the public? Is there a main website where that happens, is it by law information must be released to public or do scientists have a belief information must be shared. How do we know so much about what scientists do and know, how is this information distributed to public and for even sites like Wikipedia to know about tons of stuff

[Strange]

Interesting question. There is (of course) no single source. Some of the sources I am aware of are ...

The main way that science is disseminated is via papers and letters to (peer reviewed) journals. Scientists and journalists read the journals relevant to their fields. Journalists then write articles about the things they think are most interesting or significant. Journal access normally depends on a subscription but you can find pre-prints of many papers on Arxiv. Several journals also have blogs/websites where they post news about interesting developments. 

Research institutions (universities, labs, etc) publish news about the work being done at their sites.

Many scientists also blog, write articles and tweet about their work.  (I follow CERN and some cosmologists and other scientists on Twitter.) Some are also active on forums such as this one and post about interesting developments they have come across.

 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

Interesting question. There is (of course) no single source. Some of the sources I am aware of are ...

The main way that science is disseminated is via papers and letters to (peer reviewed) journals. Scientists and journalists read the journals relevant to their fields. Journalists then write articles about the things they think are most interesting or significant. Journal access normally depends on a subscription but you can find pre-prints of many papers on Arxiv. Several journals also have blogs/websites where they post news about interesting developments. 

Research institutions (universities, labs, etc) publish news about the work being done at their sites.

Many scientists also blog, write articles and tweet about their work.  (I follow CERN and some cosmologists and other scientists on Twitter.) Some are also active on forums such as this one and post about interesting developments they have come across.

 

Also, many scientists attend conferences and present their work there. Some fraction of this does not make it into journal articles — some talks are simply progress reports or initial findings that don't pan out, neither of which tends to get published. And a lot of what gets discussed during the breaks is stuff that doesn't get published. There's a good amount of networking/word-of-mouth that doesn't get published.

The bridge to wider public dissemination is not a priority for a lot of scientists. I suspect one reason is the effort to make the research accessible to that wider audience when they don't have the background to understand the details.

[Phi for All]

4 hours ago, swansont said:

The bridge to wider public dissemination is not a priority for a lot of scientists. I suspect one reason is the effort to make the research accessible to that wider audience when they don't have the background to understand the details.

And this is where the popular science dilemma begins. There is a need to encourage new scientists to study mainstream theories, but the pop-sci sources, in order to tap that wider audience, have to either dumb the article down or sensationalize some of the aspects to keep the reader interested.

Do popular-science articles cause more interest or more misunderstandings? 

[Strange]

20 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Do popular-science articles cause more interest or more misunderstandings? 

Perhaps both in equal measure. I really wish every popular science article would include a disclaimer to say that it describes is a series of approximate analogies and that they should not be taken too literally (and certainly shouldn't be used as the basis of "new theories").

[beecee]

43 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

 but the pop-sci sources, in order to tap that wider audience, have to either dumb the article down or sensationalize some of the aspects to keep the reader interested.

Do popular-science articles cause more interest or more misunderstandings? 

Overall I believe popular science articles in the mainstream press, do far more good then any potential misunderstandings due to sensationalism. And while recognising that, any potential misunderstanding/s can be alleviated by further checking out news outlets and asking questions if one is interested in any particular item that is revealed. In fact I will go as far as to say mainstream press popular science outlets are totally necessary if scientific discoveries etc, are to spark any interest in science at the public level..eg: The recent discoveries of GW's sparked tremendous interest in my country, and were publicised as "ripples in spacetime". With that example, in my opinion at least, not enough information was released at least with regards to what a GW would actually do if it were large enough and should pass our way. 

Finally I believe any thinking person should know, that journalistic sensationalism is par for the course and exists in near all forms of news item releases. And obviously if any form of personal involvement was to be anticipated [say buying a new car after seeing an advert] then further research into said car is a must.

20 minutes ago, Strange said:

Perhaps both in equal measure. I really wish every popular science article would include a disclaimer to say that it describes is a series of approximate analogies and that they should not be taken too literally (and certainly shouldn't be used as the basis of "new theories").

Good idea!

 

Edited August 15, 2018 by beecee

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

Perhaps both in equal measure. 

If it balances out, it's worth it.

1 hour ago, Strange said:

I really wish every popular science article would include a disclaimer to say that it describes is a series of approximate analogies and that they should not be taken too literally (and certainly shouldn't be used as the basis of "new theories").

Those who need something like this the most are protected from such warnings by a thin layer of aluminum. You lost those folks at "analogies".

[jajrussel]

Considering a wasted education in my youth and the limited ability to remember that seems to come with my age. I like SFN, and several YouTube host, I also have an app that lets my download k12 textbooks, and I am not ashamed to download the lowest grade text I can find to try and get a feel for the basics. I'm not afraid of getting it wrong because SFN members are gratefuly quick to set me straight when needs be. Though at times I feel puzzled especially when I ask a question about spacial density and it seems I'm sent on a snipe hunt. I can only guess that my question was so far off the mark that they were trying to help me along by making it sound like I had asked an intelligent question. I read those articles over and over to the point that I should know them verbatim, Sadly the only thing I can remember about them is that I never did figure out what they had to do with my question.

Pretty much everything is new to me. Sometimes even the answers I thought I knew, are new to me, like the conversation about why electrons don't fall into the nucleus. An amazing question followed by an amazing conversation. I wanted to upvote the whole conversation, and I'm glad you Achilles thought to ask the question, cause I was apparently clueless.