Physics and personality cults

[bascule]

This is a question mainly for the physicists here... do you feel that laymen's perceptions of physics are overwhelmingly shaped by personality cults?

 

There's three I'm thinking of in particular: Einstein, the granddaddy of Physics personality cults, but more recently there's Brian Greene and Lee Smolin. Brian Greene evangelizes string theory to interested laymen, and Smolin, well, generally evangelizes the idea that string theory is "not even wrong." (actually that's Woit, but who's counting...)

 

Most of what I know about physics comes directly out of these three individuals and their work towards evangelizing physics to laymen, but at the same time this brings with it a certain religiosity which grows around these individuals. I'm sure many people here have read Relativity, or The Elegant Universe, or The Trouble With Physics (or all three) and feel some connection with the authors and their intense passion.

 

Are cults of personality surrounding physicists bad? Are attempts to inundate mathophobes with physics knowledge through use of extended metaphors actually worthwhile? Is it weird for people who have never heard of the Hamiltonian to run around extolling the virtues (or vices) of string theory?

[swansont]

I don't really know what the lay perceptions of physics are, other than that the ones portrayed here are often wrong. I don't think you can get anything but a superficial understanding of physics from a popularization — they skip over too many of the details. That cult of personality has an apparent influence in what physics people accept tells you it's not the value of science that driving it. In that regard it's no different than a persuasive con artist scamming you with a perpetual motion machine.

 

The value of popularization is getting people interested in science, not in how much science they actually learn from that popularization.

[ajb]

The value of popularization is getting people interested in science, not in how much science they actually learn from that popularization.

 

That is an interesting point. I always worry about the value of popularisation as it gets "watered down" and analogies come into it etc...

[swansont]

That is an interesting point. I always worry about the value of popularisation as it gets "watered down" and analogies come into it etc...

 

Yes. IMO, it's a veneer. A thin and polished cover, while the science beneath it is complex and deep.

[Sisyphus]

I'd also be interested to hear more actual physicists' opinions about various popularizers. For example, how do you feel about Einstein's own writings as a basic guide to relativity? Are the Feynman lectures hopelessly out of date yet? Which guys, to use some Wikipedia slang, are "POV-pushers?"

[Pangloss]

I don't really know what the lay perceptions of physics are, other than that the ones portrayed here are often wrong. I don't think you can get anything but a superficial understanding of physics from a popularization — they skip over too many of the details. That cult of personality has an apparent influence in what physics people accept tells you it's not the value of science that driving it. In that regard it's no different than a persuasive con artist scamming you with a perpetual motion machine.

 

The value of popularization is getting people interested in science, not in how much science they actually learn from that popularization.

 

I think your point there is largely valid, especially the last bit, and you may well be right across-the-board, but whenever I ponder that notion I bolded above I'm always skeptical about it. Einstein used to say that it's not a valid theory until it can be explained in plain English, or words to that effect. Of course he didn't mean everyone, but I think there's a reasonable axiom there regarding the common layman. Even the gritty details should be explainable.

 

Maybe it's time for graduate-level studies in "explaining science". Think of it as the "Management Information Science" equivalent for Physics, et al. Of course, thousands of companies need practical computer people. I don't know who would hire physics explainers. Congress, perhaps?

[PhDP]

...it's not just about physics, most people have only heard of Darwin, and sometime Gould and Dawkins. Some people also think "great science popularizer = great scientist", even if the great science popularizer in question made no original contribution in the field.

 

I'm also not sure of how far you can get in science with plain English. I cannot imagine how someone with a good understanding of the mathematical structure of physics could support the crazy interpretations of quantum physics, or the notion that thermodynamics prove evolution is wrong. It's possible, but it seems much easier to believe that quantum physics proves that telepathy is possible when you think the uncertainty principle means the mind can change the behavior of matter at distance.

 

Those weird interpretations exist because of how much information we lose when we try to translate equations into plain English, after all, concepts such as entropy and energy are clearly defined in physics, but not so easy to define with simple words.

 

I'm convinced that most basic concepts in science can be explained with only a little algebra, a little probability theory, and with basic knowledge of differential equations. But of course, it requires a little effort...

[ajb]

I'd also be interested to hear more actual physicists' opinions about various popularizers. For example, how do you feel about Einstein's own writings as a basic guide to relativity? Are the Feynman lectures hopelessly out of date yet? Which guys, to use some Wikipedia slang, are "POV-pushers?"

 

I have got a copy of one of Einstein's popular accounts on special relativity. I can't actually find it, but I know I have it somewhere!

 

Anyway, the book is very hard to read and not what I would recommend as a place to start.

 

I doubt that any well written book on modern physics will date any time soon. It is true that some things that are "speculation" in the older text are now fact or have been disproved. Indeed, new techniques and mathematical constructions have appeared. However, the basic framework and ideas still hold and as such the books remain a valuable resource.

 

As for popular science books, I have not actually read any.

[swansont]

I think your point there is largely valid, especially the last bit, and you may well be right across-the-board, but whenever I ponder that notion I bolded above I'm always skeptical about it. Einstein used to say that it's not a valid theory until it can be explained in plain English, or words to that effect. Of course he didn't mean everyone, but I think there's a reasonable axiom there regarding the common layman. Even the gritty details should be explainable.

 

 

Having something explained and actually learning it are two different things, in my view. Someone can explain X to me and have it make sense, but the true test is when I can explain it to someone else — to me, that's understanding, that's learning. Can I answer a question asked of me on the topic? It includes knowing when the principles do and don't apply to a given circumstance (i.e. knowing what assumptions are present in the model), and the many layers of 'infrastructure' that we have.

 

I can explain laser cooling, but it's based on knowing photons have momentum, knowing about resonances, the Doppler shift, and several other concepts. These, in turn, are based on other concepts. Turtles all the way down. Plus, in doing this I have explained nothing, really, of how all of this actually happens. Even if I did, and explained a DIY experiment, could you troubleshoot it if something was set up incorrectly? That's what level of detail is missing in popularizations.

 

Maybe it's time for graduate-level studies in "explaining science". Think of it as the "Management Information Science" equivalent for Physics, et al. Of course, thousands of companies need practical computer people. I don't know who would hire physics explainers. Congress, perhaps?

 

When there were only two physicists in congress, they had a meet-n-greet to discuss this topic, basically telling the scientists that they need to do a better job of explaining why science is important (to me the admission that Congress needs this is really scary). But it was mostly a meeting with staffers. The person who told me this story was there with his former boss, a Nobel prize-winner, and he said it was clear that some of the staffers' jobs were to keep others from interrupting the conversation with the bigwigs. He was constantly being nudged away from his former boss.

[Klaynos]

Oh the whole I feel these books are good as it gets people interested in and talking about science, the problems occur when they don't go any deeper and feel that that's all physics is now. A symptom of this seems to be people feeling that physics is waiting for the next Einstein or that once the theory of everything is created then that will be the end of physics. IMO this is a failing of schools teaching what science really is.

 

As for the older books, I'm part way through reading QED by Feynman, and as I've not learnt anything new yet, it is a great read. It is completely accurate unlike the majority of pop sci books, and very enjoyable, I'd recommend it to anyone who thinks they might be interested in physics...

[iNow]

For me, I find that the popularized books have a great potential for offering an intuitive grasp of a concept. They provide me with that sense of, "yeah, okay... that makes sense. I can explain it to others, but if they ask why or for more detail, I will fail miserably.... but I have that gut feeling of "getting it" now."

 

I've never formally studied anything beyond basic physics in high school and university, and at uni I only took one course in physics (as an elective). Those provided me with a good starting point, as we calculated force and momentum and we did cool experiments with superconduction at extremely low temperatures... but I wouldn't be able to teach it to anybody.

 

What really made me "comfortable" with these topics was reading "Black Holes and Time Warps" by Kip Thorne. I read it twice, actually. Could I teach a class on the dynamics of black holes and spacetime curvature? Absolutely not, but despite not having a grasp on the "how," I am comfortable with the "why," the "what," and also the history that got us here.

 

 

With all of that said, popularized books are like gateway drugs. There are some kids who are just going to want more after getting that first taste, who will seek out additional information and ask questions to clarify their new uncertainties. In some sense, popularized books are the "pot smoking" that has the potential to eventually lead to "heroine" use.

[DJBruce]

As previously said I think the thing pop physics does is interest people in science. I know it has done that with me.

 

As for the older books, I'm part way through reading QED by Feynman, and as I've not learnt anything new yet, it is a great read. It is completely accurate unlike the majority of pop sci books, and very enjoyable, I'd recommend it to anyone who thinks they might be interested in physics...

 

Is QED a book that a person with little physics background could read?

[Klaynos]

Is QED a book that a person with little physics background could read?

 

Very much so. It is based on 4 lectures he gave which were aimed at non-physicists.

[swansont]

In some sense, popularized books are the "pot smoking" that has the potential to eventually lead to "heroine" use.

 

 

I could use more heroine use, myself.

[CDarwin]

What really made me "comfortable" with these topics was reading "Black Holes and Time Warps" by Kip Thorne. I read it twice, actually. Could I teach a class on the dynamics of black holes and spacetime curvature? Absolutely not, but despite not having a grasp on the "how," I am comfortable with the "why," the "what," and also the history that got us here.

 

Really I think that last bit is a real strength of popular science: history. I read a lot of human evolution books, and I certainly wouldn't be able to piece together a fossil skeleton, no, but by gods I could tell you the history of paleoanthropology, or of the Dayton trial, or of the Leakeys, or of Lucy, etc.

 

They're also not bad for leading you further into more technical reading. And of course popular or semi-popular books in the social sciences can be serious scholarship in their own right.

[Pangloss]

Having something explained and actually learning it are two different things, in my view. Someone can explain X to me and have it make sense, but the true test is when I can explain it to someone else — to me, that's understanding, that's learning. Can I answer a question asked of me on the topic? It includes knowing when the principles do and don't apply to a given circumstance (i.e. knowing what assumptions are present in the model), and the many layers of 'infrastructure' that we have.

 

Oh yes, definitely, and well put. I consider it one of my greatest personal revelations in life when I got into teaching and discovered that I was learning more about the subjects because I was teaching them. What an unexpected rush! (Not to mention a powerful motivator for continuous improvement.)

 

 

I can explain laser cooling, but it's based on knowing photons have momentum, knowing about resonances, the Doppler shift, and several other concepts. These, in turn, are based on other concepts. Turtles all the way down. Plus, in doing this I have explained nothing, really, of how all of this actually happens. Even if I did, and explained a DIY experiment, could you troubleshoot it if something was set up incorrectly? That's what level of detail is missing in popularizations.

 

I see your point.

 

 

When there were only two physicists in congress, they had a meet-n-greet to discuss this topic, basically telling the scientists that they need to do a better job of explaining why science is important (to me the admission that Congress needs this is really scary). But it was mostly a meeting with staffers. The person who told me this story was there with his former boss, a Nobel prize-winner, and he said it was clear that some of the staffers' jobs were to keep others from interrupting the conversation with the bigwigs. He was constantly being nudged away from his former boss.

 

Interesting! I'll bet that's a fascinating story. If you come across anything written down on the particulars of that I sure would appreciate your passing it along.

[bascule]

Einstein's "Relativity" is a bit different from other popular science books, I believe. It includes copious amounts of math, particularly in the appendices (although relatively little is included in the actual chapters).

 

Einstein's analogies are all a lead up to the introduction of mathematical concepts, such as the train analogy (one person on a moving train and one outside) which is used to introduce the Lorentz transformation.

 

I think the same can be said for Penrose's Road to Reality, which is aimed at mainstream audiences and spends practically the first half of the book just teaching you the math you need to understand physics.

 

Then there's Brian Greene's book, which takes Einstein's train analogy, replaces A and A' with two Simpsons characters, and doesn't go on to introduce the Lorentz transformation.

 

What I'd like to see is something between Greene and Penrose... just enough math for the casually interested layman to actually get an inkling of what's going on, with the math introduced as needed.

[swansont]

Oh yes, definitely, and well put. I consider it one of my greatest personal revelations in life when I got into teaching and discovered that I was learning more about the subjects because I was teaching them. What an unexpected rush! (Not to mention a powerful motivator for continuous improvement.)

 

Indeed. It's humbling to think you know something and then find you can't explain it coherently, and have to admit that you don't really know.

[iNow]

I could use more heroine use, myself.

 

Couldn't we all, though?

[swansont]

Couldn't we all, though?

 

That would depend on your gender and orientation, I suppose.

[bascule]

swansont, what's your take on a book like the Road to Reality?

[swansont]

swansont, what's your take on a book like the Road to Reality?

 

Haven't read it.