The Field of Physics

Off Topic
61

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]spar4tee wrote:

[quote]Swolegasm wrote:
I will say one thing for physics, your guys ability to hype the shit out of things is quite impressive.[/quote]
I haven’t seen that from pioneering bodies[/quote]

Ach, come on, Hawkins book was pure pandering to the masses.

A cheap shot if you will.

Anyone with an IQ of a mere 140 has certainly grasped the gist of it?

Possibly?

In short, it was a species of literary slumming. [/quote]

All of the major authors are like that: Hawking, Kaku, Greene, all their books are full of garbage and false claims of what theories mean and possible applications of things like string theory. I admire the goal of explaining physics to lay people, but doing so by misrepresenting modern physics theories and their applications with overhyped claims is just plain wrong.
[/quote]

Somehow I think you missed the gist of my argument.

It matters little if he was right or wrong, his idea of slumming is talking down to people who are leagues beyond the ordinary.

That this guy can order a sandwich is a small miracle, I would not be surprised if he starved because of a failure to communicate with supermarket cashiers.

62

[quote]orion wrote:
That this guy can order a sandwich is a small miracle, I would not be surprised if he starved because of a failure to communicate with supermarket cashiers. [/quote]

not necessary at all.

63

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
Hawking, Kaku, Greene
[/quote]
honestly, when I think of pioneering bodies, I don’t even think of those three

64

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]spar4tee wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]spar4tee wrote:

[quote]Swolegasm wrote:
I will say one thing for physics, your guys ability to hype the shit out of things is quite impressive.[/quote]
I haven’t seen that from pioneering bodies[/quote]

Ach, come on, Hawkins book was pure pandering to the masses.

A cheap shot if you will.

Anyone with an IQ of a mere 140 has certainly grasped the gist of it?

Possibly?

In short, it was a species of literary slumming. [/quote]
I haven’t read it[/quote]

Then, please do.

It is a very educational experience when someone tries to be as simple and straightforward as he can and yet you have no idea what he is talking about.

Of course, if we must force blame on anyone, it is him, for failing to bridge the gap, but that is hardly a consolation. [/quote]

In fairness to Hawking and other mainstream physics authors, keep in mind that they are writing about topics that most actual physicists spend over a decade in school and several years or more in postdoc research before they really have a grasp of the topic at hand and it is only possible to simplify it so much before you lose too much of the material. It is pretty much impossible to take topics like string theory, quantum mechanics, and astrophysics and explain them to people with with little to no formal education in physics and math. If people buy a book on those topics and expect to fully grasp a significant portion of the material are kind of kidding themselves.

I am not trying to sound conceited here, either, this works for almost all fields. I wouldn’t pick up a book, even an overly simplified one written for lay people, on theoretical computer science or advanced topics in biology or chemistry that are not covered until graduate study in that field and expect to understand more then a fraction of the information being presented to me.

65

[quote]orion wrote:
Then, please do.
[/quote]
What’s the title? I may already have it saved.

66

[quote]spar4tee wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
Hawking, Kaku, Greene
[/quote]
honestly, when I think of pioneering bodies, I don’t even think of those three[/quote]

Neither do I. In fact, I barely consider them physicist since most of the stuff they write is closer to science fiction.

67

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]spar4tee wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]spar4tee wrote:

[quote]Swolegasm wrote:
I will say one thing for physics, your guys ability to hype the shit out of things is quite impressive.[/quote]
I haven’t seen that from pioneering bodies[/quote]

Ach, come on, Hawkins book was pure pandering to the masses.

A cheap shot if you will.

Anyone with an IQ of a mere 140 has certainly grasped the gist of it?

Possibly?

In short, it was a species of literary slumming. [/quote]
I haven’t read it[/quote]

Then, please do.

It is a very educational experience when someone tries to be as simple and straightforward as he can and yet you have no idea what he is talking about.

Of course, if we must force blame on anyone, it is him, for failing to bridge the gap, but that is hardly a consolation. [/quote]

In fairness to Hawking and other mainstream physics authors, keep in mind that they are writing about topics that most actual physicists spend over a decade in school and several years or more in postdoc research before they really have a grasp of the topic at hand and it is only possible to simplify it so much before you lose too much of the material. It is pretty much impossible to take topics like string theory, quantum mechanics, and astrophysics and explain them to people with with little to no formal education in physics and math. If people buy a book on those topics and expect to fully grasp a significant portion of the material are kind of kidding themselves.

I am not trying to sound conceited here, either, this works for almost all fields. I wouldn’t pick up a book, even an overly simplified one written for lay people, on theoretical computer science or advanced topics in biology or chemistry that are not covered until graduate study in that field and expect to understand more then a fraction of the information being presented to me.[/quote]

Sooooo, planets being older in the galactic core, more ELEs or not?

Are we saved from intergalactic, excuse me, intragalactic conquerors by the mere fact that they get wiped out any time that they develop, I dunno, artificial fertilizer and gunpowder?

68

[quote]orion wrote:

Sooooo, planets being older in the galactic core, more ELEs or not?

Are we saved from intergalactic, excuse me, intragalactic conquerors by the mere fact that they get wiped out any time that they develop, I dunno, artificial fertilizer and gunpowder?[/quote]

Well, it is not so much the age of planets (I am actually not sure if planets near the galactic core are older or not) that would cause more ELEs there, but rather the density of the area near the galactic core, the greater percentage of events like supernovas and the extremely high levels of radiation that would prevent life from developing, at least to an advanced degree, in the core. Any alien conquerors are likely to come from a planet closer to our own region of the galaxy, since it is more conducive to life forming and evolving.

69

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
In fairness to Hawking and other mainstream physics authors, keep in mind that they are writing about topics that most actual physicists spend over a decade in school and several years or more in postdoc research before they really have a grasp of the topic at hand and it is only possible to simplify it so much before you lose too much of the material. It is pretty much impossible to take topics like string theory, quantum mechanics, and astrophysics and explain them to people with with little to no formal education in physics and math. If people buy a book on those topics and expect to fully grasp a significant portion of the material are kind of kidding themselves.

I am not trying to sound conceited here, either, this works for almost all fields. I wouldn’t pick up a book, even an overly simplified one written for lay people, on theoretical computer science or advanced topics in biology or chemistry that are not covered until graduate study in that field and expect to understand more then a fraction of the information being presented to me.[/quote]

Well said. I have enough trouble explaining (basic) theoretical computer science topics to people with CS degrees.

It’s not that the simplifications are necessarily “wrong”, it’s people like to fill in the gaps, ultimately making their understanding and assumptions wrong. But most of those people would really be better suited with a hard sci-fi novel, to be perfectly honest. For them it’s “interesting” and that’s entertaining. They don’t really care if they’re wrong.

Of course that could be a complete misunderstanding on my part.

70

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
In fairness to Hawking and other mainstream physics authors, keep in mind that they are writing about topics that most actual physicists spend over a decade in school and several years or more in postdoc research before they really have a grasp of the topic at hand and it is only possible to simplify it so much before you lose too much of the material. It is pretty much impossible to take topics like string theory, quantum mechanics, and astrophysics and explain them to people with with little to no formal education in physics and math. If people buy a book on those topics and expect to fully grasp a significant portion of the material are kind of kidding themselves.

I am not trying to sound conceited here, either, this works for almost all fields. I wouldn’t pick up a book, even an overly simplified one written for lay people, on theoretical computer science or advanced topics in biology or chemistry that are not covered until graduate study in that field and expect to understand more then a fraction of the information being presented to me.[/quote]

Well said. I have enough trouble explaining (basic) theoretical computer science topics to people with CS degrees.

It’s not that the simplifications are necessarily “wrong”, it’s people like to fill in the gaps, ultimately making their understanding and assumptions wrong. But most of those people would really be better suited with a hard sci-fi novel, to be perfectly honest. For them it’s “interesting” and that’s entertaining. They don’t really care if they’re wrong.

Of course that could be a complete misunderstanding on my part.[/quote]
it depends on the person

71

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

Sooooo, planets being older in the galactic core, more ELEs or not?

Are we saved from intergalactic, excuse me, intragalactic conquerors by the mere fact that they get wiped out any time that they develop, I dunno, artificial fertilizer and gunpowder?[/quote]

Well, it is not so much the age of planets (I am actually not sure if planets near the galactic core are older or not) that would cause more ELEs there, but rather the density of the area near the galactic core, the greater percentage of events like supernovas and the extremely high levels of radiation that would prevent life from developing, at least to an advanced degree, in the core. Any alien conquerors are likely to come from a planet closer to our own region of the galaxy, since it is more conducive to life forming and evolving.
[/quote]

72

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]spar4tee wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]spar4tee wrote:

[quote]Swolegasm wrote:
I will say one thing for physics, your guys ability to hype the shit out of things is quite impressive.[/quote]
I haven’t seen that from pioneering bodies[/quote]

Ach, come on, Hawkins book was pure pandering to the masses.

A cheap shot if you will.

Anyone with an IQ of a mere 140 has certainly grasped the gist of it?

Possibly?

In short, it was a species of literary slumming. [/quote]
I haven’t read it[/quote]

Then, please do.

It is a very educational experience when someone tries to be as simple and straightforward as he can and yet you have no idea what he is talking about.

Of course, if we must force blame on anyone, it is him, for failing to bridge the gap, but that is hardly a consolation. [/quote]

In fairness to Hawking and other mainstream physics authors, keep in mind that they are writing about topics that most actual physicists spend over a decade in school and several years or more in postdoc research before they really have a grasp of the topic at hand and it is only possible to simplify it so much before you lose too much of the material. It is pretty much impossible to take topics like string theory, quantum mechanics, and astrophysics and explain them to people with with little to no formal education in physics and math. If people buy a book on those topics and expect to fully grasp a significant portion of the material are kind of kidding themselves.

I am not trying to sound conceited here, either, this works for almost all fields. I wouldn’t pick up a book, even an overly simplified one written for lay people, on theoretical computer science or advanced topics in biology or chemistry that are not covered until graduate study in that field and expect to understand more then a fraction of the information being presented to me.[/quote]

You are being too modest. Advanced topics in physics really are much harder to grasp than advanced topics in biology, chemistry and computer science.

73

So, Dr. Matt, which authors do you recommend for the non-physicist who would like to find out more about physics?

74

Doc, what do you think of CTMU and Christopher Langan?

75

I think the most likely way for humans to colonize other worlds would be to develop AI technology to the point AI’s could journey for hundreds of years to another world then prepare it for human life. The AI’s would then need to raise test tube babies and be able to love, educate and otherwise prepare them. The challenges of terraforming another world or genetically modifying humans to live on another world would be staggering but probably more surmountable than living humans making the journey and doing all that.

76

[quote]Consul wrote:
So, Dr. Matt, which authors do you recommend for the non-physicist who would like to find out more about physics? [/quote]

The Physics Demystified series is good, I usually recommend it to my students taking my physics for scientists and engineers classes as a supplement to the textbook. If you are looking for something on topics like quantum mechanics or string theory, I don’t really know of any “good” ones. I guess any of them are going to be about the same and will be better then nothing.

In order to get much of an understanding of those topics, you really do have to have an in depth understanding of classical physics topics as well as differential geometry, partial and ordinary differential equations, linear algebra, complex variables, and vector calculus among others. It is very, very hard to talk to people about those topics who have not at least completed a three semester calculus sequence as well as an intro class in differential equations and linear algebra.

77

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]chillain wrote:

[quote]yolo84 wrote:
Does anyone think humans will colonize planets say one thousand years from now (or much sooner) or do you guys think we will always live on Earth, bar say maybe a few hundred or thousand people dotted around on a couple of planets?[/quote]

Well you know we can’t always live here on Earth, that we will eventually have to leave.

And despite being a (likely) optimist in this regard, I’ll still say less-than-zero chance of interstellar travel in next thousand years (or less).

[/quote]

Less than zero chance? How’s that work?[/quote]

Our current limitations re: energy, propulsion, shielding, and the fact that our bodies literally start to disintegrate outside of a gravity field… well, that all gets combined with the unfathomable interstellar distances and likely terraforming requirements before we even get there and so on…

(ie. too many HUGE problems to solve in the next thousand years, and don’t forget, I’m an optimist here)

78

[quote]on edge wrote:

You are being too modest. Advanced topics in physics really are much harder to grasp than advanced topics in biology, chemistry and computer science.
[/quote]

I don’t know, man. My fiance is a biologist and when she talks about her research I am completely lost. I usually just zone out and think about or stare at her boobs.

79

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
It is very, very hard to talk to people about those topics who have not at least completed a three semester calculus sequence as well as an intro class in differential equations and linear algebra.[/quote]

80

[quote]Consul wrote:
So, Dr. Matt, which authors do you recommend for the non-physicist who would like to find out more about physics? [/quote]

Or alternatively what topics, I find making the connection between the mathematical numbers and the concept to clear up the confusion a lot.