Michio Kaku has he got public reputation by not solving something?

a reply to: werewolf99

I like Michio Kaku because he is the spokesman who makes me see the beauty in science of people trying to make new solutions to problems. We need the dreamers.

I like the fact that Hawkings allows people to enjoy his uniqueness and even have sometimes a laugh at his expense like in Big Bang Theory.

a reply to: LittleByLittle
I would define that quite apart from popularity he has gaines a reputation, but is it because of not solving a problem. This has happened before there was a person in the past who held the Lucasian chair for mathematics, and people were always told he was working on something very difficult, however on his death people searched his rooms looking for something publishable and found only crap/nothing: it was a scam or a self delusion. So it is perfectly possible to become professor, etc.. based upon not solving so there is a historical presidence.

I think that whoever these major television stations decide to put on the air for their science shows will get famous, IF they have a knack for explaining things in a way people can understand. The theoretical physics that people like Kaku deal in are highly abstract concepts that are often hard to grasp. He does a fairly good job at explaining them to people who do not know what is going on in that regard. I'm sure this has helped his reputation with the general population.

What I do not like however is the way that String Theory or M-Theory gets all this attention, when there are other theories out there that either are just as viable, or could be just as viable. None of it is proven. It is mathematical gymnastics at this stage, nothing more. If the mathematics allow it to be possible then it is possible and thus a viable theory.

a reply to: Snarl

Just for reference, the LHC is the most expensive scientific apparatus ever constructed. Forbes suggests that it may have cost $13.25 billion to find the Higgs boson.

However, compare that cost over the life of the LHC so far, which has been active since 2008, with the cost of ONE YEAR of US defence spending, and you will see that the LHC did not actually cost an awful lot. Think about it. Compare a budget which is expressly used to improve a nations ability to kill its enemies, with one bit of kit that gives us a chance to understand and unlock the secrets and power in the deepest structures of the universe.

I know which I would rather have spent my money on.

a reply to: TrueBrit

I know which I would rather have spent my money on.

I'm hearing you. But, bang for the buck, my $14B's getting spent on

Speaking of colliders though, I've always wondered why they shut down production on the one laid out in Texas. There's gotta be something more recent than my knowledge and I'm off to have a look see.

-Cheers

The OP makes it sound like just anyone can decide to write a book about physics and being a professor at a university is no biggie. First of all, even if he hadn't ever written a book, it took years of hard work and long hours of study to get an undergraduate degree and PHD in a highly competitive field that few could get through. He had to do the math on a deep level. Then he got hired at a university, which again, requires lots of hardwork and time. His duties include teaching. As someone else noted, theoretical physics is not something you solve like a Sudoku puzzle. Even if the math works, until you can prove a model through experiment (which may or may not be possible at our level of technology,) you never know. Often the experiments point towards a math that shouldn't work, and is not clean. My dad is a mathematician and he knows many physicists. He says mathematicians are usually trying to clean up the math that physicists postulated 10 years earlier. So the physicist with his particle accelerators makes some crazy model of what happens that fits the empirical data, and years later mathematicians are grappling over the math with a fine tooth comb to try to make it make sense on a purely mathematical front. At least that is how it was explained to me.

originally posted by: minusinfinity
Who the hell is Michio Kaku?

Kaku means to "write" かく　in japanese

a reply to: AudioOne

Neil degrade explains it. I am on phone so I can't pull up info easily but you can search it


Essentially. 1 billion was spent then some conservative nut jobs in Congress canceled it because they didn't Se the value. They also used some religious references. This is also why the Higgs boson is called the god particle .

They irrecoverably destroyed the 1 billion dolllars of effort they had already put in.

a reply to: AudioOne

I am not saying that getting phd is easy but like it or not he does have a higher status in the publics mind, not just because he is on TV but mainly because of his unsolved problems. Also as I mentioned if you think that someone cannot get to the highest level without proving unequivically anything you are wrong, and as I mentioed there was a prof and chair of lucasian mathematics who did just that: everyone was told by him he was working on something important and when he dies and they went into his rooms they fould nothing at all publishable it was all crap. His status when alive was gotten through this difficult work he was supposed to be doing: as I mentioned this got him the Lucasian chair of mathematics. Things aren't always as they seem: maybe I am jus a cynic.

originally posted by: werewolf99
a reply to: AudioOne

I am not saying that getting phd is easy but like it or not he does have a higher status in the publics mind, not just because he is on TV but mainly because of his unsolved problems.

And what can you support this statement with to usher it into the realm of fact and away from the realm of being simply your opinion? You seem really hung up on the fact that Dr. Kaku has not "solved" string theory while completely ignoring the efforts and endeavors involved in creating an entire new subset of a scientific discipline and the math that goes along with it. As many others have pointed out, Dr. Kaku is far more popular for popularizing and making physics easily digestible by the average reader or viewer. He has made science interesting to people as well as made kids want to explore science more in depth and that alone is one heck of an accomplishment considering the demonization of most scientific disciplines I see on ATS on a daily basis. Your thesis is kind of like claiming Einstein was a bum because someone else proved general relativity based on his calculations and predictions.

Also as I mentioned if you think that someone cannot get to the highest level without proving unequivically anything you are wrong,

Right, because you can only chair a department or receive a higher degree if you do something Nobel worthy. Dr. King was very accomplished and acknowledged by his peers to be far beyond them in his mathematical abilities.

and as I mentioed there was a prof and chair of lucasian mathematics who did just that: everyone was told by him he was working on something important and when he dies and they went into his rooms they fould nothing at all publishable it was all crap.

while only one paper during his life, dr king did publish. He was far more focused on the inner political mechanations of his post. Some people end up not wandering down a path of original research, it doesn't mean however that he was a fraud or not particularly adept at his field, especially when looking at some of the honors and titles bestowed upon him by his peers.

His status when alive was gotten through this difficult work he was supposed to be doing: as I mentioned this got him the Lucasian chair of mathematics. Things aren't always as they seem: maybe I am jus a cynic.

No his status while alive,( since you don't name the mathematician in question I have to assume that you're referring to Joshua King who was professor of Lucasian Mathematics from 1839-1849) was based on his academic performance, particularly in his undergrad studies when he was named Senior Wrangler, which at last back then was considered the greatest intellectual achievement attainable in Britain. From there he became President of Queen College via unanimous decision by his fellows. In 1832 he became vice chancellor before being elected in 1839 to the Lucasian chair. Just because someone didn't focus on a path of original investigation doesn't mean they're a fraud or incompetent. Do you have any citations showing that Dr. King made claims bat working on something big that never materialized? You're right about one thing though, things aren't always as they seem. Especially if you look beyond your own preconceptions and do a little research.

a reply to: peter vlar

Isn't it a bit of a fraud for you to talk about the mathematics he invented: yes thring theory has inspires pure mathematicians but is supposed to be a theory of physics and so it is only true if it can be proved true, and as yes Michio Kauku is a theoretical physicist then that for his part would mean a finished equation or equations? As for Dr King
here is a link
en.wikipedia.org...

Also if you think it is impossible to get on without doing what you say, then you have a serious misunderstanding of the british class system: in fact any class system.

I will also add this link to show how it is possible to get on without doing what is requires: but in no way accuse Michio Kaku or anyone else of this immorality other than those mentioned
www.nairaland.com...

Yes Michio Kaku has got his qualifications, but like it or not when a person gets these they define themselves differently in terms of how they are thought of by people: a person with a phd and is defines as an academic and essentially is compared to other academics, and yes there are terrible physicists, and lecturers and so lets not assume that all are brilliant or even competent( some bad ones do fall through the cracks). But as he is defined differently and he chose to be, then it is perfectly reasonable to ask is his reputation enhanced by having not solved a problem: because it is thought of as difficult. Perhaps the real problem is that some people seem to see string theory and physics are like philosophy: it doesnt matter that philosphy has not proved anything since Rene Descartes said "I think therefore I am." if you think that because it is philosophy then it's ok. Perhaps the real problem is that many people revel in the reputation they get by not producing things.

I would furthermore state that Micheo Kaku obviously isn't bothered by this thread in the least and probably doesn' t care after all there is no such thing as bad publicity: but what this thread has revealed is that many people love not solving things, not just some physicists and philosophers. They find it easier to get respect by working in a field which they are not expected to produce a result, than by impressing people and garnering praise by producing truly great results. Perhaps the problem the big problem is how many other people are working in string theory: or claiming to be: without the slightest thought that they will actually solve it? How many just decide to revel in the reputation of being a string theorist, and don't really care if they solve it or not, and some may not really be trying at all.

a reply to: werewolf99

I don't think you understand how higher level mathematics and physics work. First of all, you don't solve for x in higher level mathematics necessarily, like you do when you try to figure out how much to tip a waitress. String theory is not some big equation with an x at the end of it, and everyone else is to lazy to figure out that x equals 42. You are mistaking the words prove and solve. String theorists look at behavioral empirical data from experiments and try to create equations and math that fits those behaviors and may be able to predict behavior that has not been tested yet. At least a decade ago there was a problem with string theory in the fact that it didn't predict anything, however it was deemed beautiful by some because the math fit (as in solved both sides of the equation, such a poor metaphor for higher math,) the behavior we knew of. I believe recently there has been renewed interests in string theory as certain new observations fit with string theory. You are mixing up proving a theory with solving an equation. They are not the same thing. Other physicists can look at this math change it and make it work as our knowledge progresses.

My dad works in high level math that is purely theoretical, including infinite dimensional spaces and such. As pointless as that might sound, those types of equations eventually are taken to help explain and predict turbulence and air flow and stock market fluctuations, for instance. Sometimes they are like a tool set. By figuring something out in an abstract mathematical way and writing a paper on it, eventually someone else applies that method as a tool to figure out how to make sense of seemingly chaotic or random data in applied fields like engineering (or physics.)

While he is not one of the great research physicists, from what I understand, he does work his butt off from what I have read of him. 70 published papers in peer reviewed journals that are not half assed half equations like you are completely misunderstanding, several books popularizing physics (each one can be a monumental task in writing,) as well as being on several committees. That said it seems that he is more the popularizer these days then a researcher, but he did his time in research. This guy is an extremely productive member of society. I think you misunderstand high level physics as being some sort of simple arithmetic that you solve for. These people are trying to broaden our knowledge of the universe. How have you contributed to the world of knowledge since you think his accomplishments are so devoid of value?

a reply to: AudioOne

I have not said his accomplishments are devoid of value. Also I do not think theoretical physics easy, or simple arithmetic as you suppose I do. But not solving a problem is not solving it. I think the main problem is that many people get reputations based upon not solving things: philosophers publish many papers but prove nothing, The last thing proven in philosophy was "I think therefore I am" which was produces by Rene Diescartes in 1637. There have ben hundreds of years of philosophers who have garnered a reputation through not solving or producing anything provable.

The question is why are people inpressed by people not producing anything. It seems that after a certain length of time, the longer it takes to come up with a solution the more celebrated and intelligent they look: not necessarily drawing the conclusion that they aren't intelligent but that much praise and stats can be gotten through not solving problems and not proving things.

originally posted by: werewolf99
a reply to: peter vlar

Isn't it a bit of a fraud for you to talk about the mathematics he invented

No, its a fraud to misinterpret my statement. I said that you were completely ignoring all of the work and effort that was involved in creating a new subset of a scientific discipline and the math that goes along with it. Perhaps I could have been more concise, so to clarify my meaning, it was a reference to the multitude of new calculations and equations that were worked up in the search for corroboration and evidence supporting string theory. So is it a fraud on my part? You tell me.

: yes thring theory has inspires pure mathematicians but is supposed to be a theory of physics and so it is only true if it can be proved true, and as yes Michio Kauku is a theoretical physicist then that for his part would mean a finished equation or equations?

Outstanding, now that you've rearranged the parameters for how theoretical physics operates you should let everyone else in on it so that science can acquiesce to how you believe it works. However, despite your reworking of science, you have still failed to support your statements that Dr. Kaku is only well known because of his failure to definitively prove all of the varies aspects of string theory to you. You can reword the statement to your hearts content but it is not substantiative of anything let alone your thesis that failure is the key to popularity.

As for Dr King
here is a link
en.wikipedia.org...

Your claim was that Dr. King was telling everyone that he was working on something spectacular, which is what his reputation hinged on. And that when he died they found nothing in his possessions meaning he was a fraud.

What your link states is-

They expected his work as a mathematician to make an epoch in the science.

When he died, it was felt that the memory of such an extraordinary man should not be permitted to die out, and his papers should be published. So his papers were examined, and nothing whatever worth publishing was found."

This is a testament to other people's expectations of Dr. King, not to what Dr. King claimed to be working on. Is it a let down to have massive expectations from someone and be disappointed? Sure, but it doesn't mean they didn't earn their place at the table, didn't deserve the accolades or were frauds. It's a pretty bold charge you're making with, again, nothing to support it.

Also if you think it is impossible to get on without doing what you say, then you have a serious misunderstanding of the british class system: in fact any class system.

I didn't say that at all. I just think that the notion of someone trying to be famous for failure to deliver, which is the crux of your thesis, is ludicrous and you many substantiate it.

I will also add this link to show how it is possible to get on without doing what is requires: but in no way accuse Michio Kaku or anyone else of this immorality other than those mentioned

Then why Include it if its not pertinent?

Yes Michio Kaku has got his qualifications, but like it or not when a person gets these they define themselves differently in terms of how they are thought of by people:

Are you implying that Dr. Kaku is acting out a caricature of hi self to please an audience?

a person with a phd and is defines as an academic and essentially is compared to other academics,

Again, you're just hung up on what you perceive as failure while entirely ignoring all of the real science and work that has gone into forwarding string theory. It's either a willfully ignorant or an intellectually dishonest way of seeing it.

I'm not sure what your vision of it all is but the Impression you leave me with is that you think it's as easy as sitting down and writing out a magic equation, problem solved when it sometimes is a years long process before something can even be tested or even before a way of testing can be developed.

For example: www.theguardian.com...
phys.org...

But as he is defined differently and he chose to be, then it is perfectly reasonable to ask is his reputation enhanced by having not solved a problem: because it is thought of as difficult.

Sure, you can ask, but you also have to be able to justify and support your position, especially when making accusations of the nature you are.

Perhaps the real problem is that some people seem to see string theory and physics are like philosophy: it doesnt matter that philosphy has not proved anything since Rene Descartes said "I think therefore I am." if you think that because it is philosophy then it's ok. Perhaps the real problem is that many people revel in the reputation they get by not producing things.

Not nearly as much as you revel in repeating that last line like a mantra but you have nothing to back it up.

I would furthermore state that Micheo Kaku obviously isn't bothered by this thread in the least and probably doesn' t care after all there is no such thing as bad publicity: but what this thread has revealed is that many people love not solving things, not just some physicists and philosophers.

How exactly has it revealed that many people love to NOT solve problems? Are we reading the same thread?

They find it easier to get respect by working in a field which they are not expected to produce a result, than by impressing people and garnering praise by producing truly great results. Perhaps the problem the big problem is how many other people are working in string theory: or claiming to be: without the slightest thought that they will actually solve it? How many just decide to revel in the reputation of being a string theorist, and don't really care if they solve it or not, and some may not really be trying at all.

Where do you come up with this inane notion? It seems both arrogant and ludicrous to me, to see someone all but admitting they believe that scientists, or at least a certain segment thereof, are lazy and in it for a paycheck and some camera time.

a reply to: peter vlar
What do you mean where is the proof that some people like to not solve something. Philsophy lasy proved something in1637 It was the statement "I think therefore I am": which I will not fully describe here. How can anyone who is an academic philosopher like to solve anything who chooses to work in a subject without anyfindings for the lastb 367 years: the only possible reason is that they know they get status for beign part of a supposedly difficult subject. How can anyone possibly refute this.

originally posted by: werewolf99
a reply to: peter vlar
What do you mean where is the proof that some people like to not solve something. Philsophy lasy proved something in1637 It was the statement "I think therefore I am": which I will not fully describe here.

Hooray for Descartes? Notsuremif anyone told you but we're talking abut a physicist so your random allusion to philosophy has no bearing here.

How can anyone who is an academic philosopher like to solve anything who chooses to work in a subject without anyfindings for the lastb 367 years:

the only possible reason is that they know they get status for beign part of a supposedly difficult subject. How can anyone possibly refute this.

Even IF any of the above were true, it still doesn't support your position. Simply because you are incapable of fathoming any other alternative doesn't mean there are no alternatives. But it's entirely irrelevant because quoting Descartes doesnt lend any support let alone prove a single one of your points/accusations/charges. These are your claims, the onus is yours to substantiate them. Yet you fail to do so and utterly fail to acknowledge the amount of work involved while continuing to insinuate intellectual dishonesty as a motivating factor for professional academics.

a reply to: peter vlar

I think people class him as a mathematician: inventor of cartesian coordinates.

a reply to: werewolf99

He(dr. Kaku) currently holds the Henry Semat Chair and Professorship in theoretical physics at the City College of New York. That means he's considered a physicist.

a reply to: peter vlar

You said Rene Descatres was a physicist when he was a mathematician.

originally posted by: werewolf99
a reply to: peter vlar

You said Rene Descatres was a physicist when he was a mathematician.

No. I never said Descartes was a physicist. I said Kaku was a physicist. I think you misunderstood my remarks about the lack of relevance I thought Descartes had in the topic as we were discussing a physicist, Dr. Kaku