[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 52 KB, 388x448, ats56220_michio_kaku_ATSMIX.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2356118 No.2356118 [Reply] [Original]

what does /sci think of Dr.Kaku? is he the new Sagan or full of shit?

also thinking about buying hyperspace, anyone read it? his other books were great.

>> No.2356123

He's like Sagan in that he is naively optomistic. He is not like Sagan in that he isn't nearly as fun to watch, nor is he nearly as good at waxing poetically about nature.

>> No.2356129

New Sagan? There will never be a new Sagan.

>> No.2356135

Very different from Sagan.

>> No.2356136

Hey... I like im...
I read "Physics of the Impossible" and I quite enjoyed it. He seems like a friendly and knowledgable guy...

>> No.2356142

But he's also not Sagan...

>> No.2356146
File: 43 KB, 330x267, 1294559656862.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2356146

>> No.2356159

He just goes on and on about the fringe predictions of QM and GR that are popular in science fiction.

You do not have to go on and on about bullshit like time travel, worm holes, and parallel universes to make science sound interesting.

You do not have to tell people how "weird" QM and GR when most people would find basic Newtonian physics "weird" just because their education is so bad.

Honestly he is just another form of entertainment for nerds who like to feel smart and he can only be forgiven if he encourages a few of those nerds to actually learn some science before they realize what a crackpot he is.

>> No.2356163

He attracts people to pop sci and not actual science, unlike Sagan

So no

>> No.2356186

his interviews with art bell on coast to coast many years ago were mind blowingly epic, pretty much the reason why i got into science

>> No.2356228

>>2356123
Seconding this. Sagan gave me an appreciation for science, astronomy, and the natural world because his awe and enthusiasm were infectious. Kaku has enthusiasm, but he I can never quite get past his zealous pushing of string theory in everything he does.

Sagan wasn't trying to sell a pet theory, he just wanted to say "Hey guys, look at how awesome everything is. Isn't that great?" Kaku always seems to end up bringing it all back to string theory. It's kind of off-putting.

>> No.2356281
File: 67 KB, 450x450, 1288731018494.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2356281

According to Evolution, will we eventually evolve to the point where we no longer recognize social hierarchy, territory, ritual, and aggression?

>> No.2356287

>>2356281
>according to evolution
wow evolution sure is set in stone

>> No.2356507

In the end, Evolution doesn't make sense, even more so Humanity, which is the punchline in the evolution joke.

>> No.2356520

>>2356507
>implying the mechanics of evolution (the laws of physics) give a fuck what you think

>> No.2356534

>>2356520
>Implying it has actual mechanics and not just the cosmic equivalent of scrambled eggs as cooked by an enraged gorilla.

>> No.2356536

>>2356520

>implying evolution has anything to do with physics

I guess it does if you boil it down enough, but it's really just biology.

>> No.2356542

>>2356281
Evolution makes sense when you're dealing to how we got there. However, I think with the advent of intelligence and us better understanding the natural world, we might "outevolve" ourselves eventually by enhancing/changing ourselves by ourselves. A human is free to alter his existence or the existence of his own "creations". If we have no need for certain ways of thinking, we can discard them. Even so, evolution is just a process which follows from physical laws. What we can't change is physical law, however we can do whatever we want within those physical laws, including making ourselves something we want to be or even going extinct.

>> No.2356559

STRING THEORY MAKES EVERYTHING POSSIBLE*

*disclaimer: there is no observational evidence for string theory. your mileage may vary.

>> No.2356558

I don't know much about sagan but I thought he was a shitty scientist.

While Kaku is a real math guy.

>> No.2356563

>>2356542
Judging from the usual choices made by humanity, extinction is more likely to happen than those previously mentioned.

>> No.2356573

>>2356559
String theory has already been disproven, a couple months ago, I believe.

>> No.2356585

>>2356159
>invents string-field theory
>is a crackpot
mwf

>> No.2356592

>>2356573
>>2356573

Citation please

>> No.2356595

>>2356585
Michio Kaku did not invent string theory.
He is a crackpot because he promotes and revels in the parts of science most likely to be falsified after we have a theory of everything.

>> No.2356596

>>2356573
Not really, only one minor possibility.
String theory is just a way of building models which account for both general/special relativity and quantum mechanics in a non-contradictory way. It is a general way of describing n-dimensional models of quantum gravity of certain geometries, basically a template for theories, one of which is likely our reality or isomorphic to it. Which means you have millions of possible hypotheses, and one of them is the case of our reality, however the majority of them are consistent with both QM and relativity. Through better observation of reality, you can say that our reality is not of "model nr. xxxxxx" of string theory, or discard even entire ranges of models. What the recent discovery did was discard certain types of models, however it didn't "disprove" it in any form. I hold the view that even if our reality doesn't work via string theory, there will be some string theory model which is isomorphic to it, and any kind of experiment ran in reality will still yield consistent results to what the model predicts. What physics can do is narrow down the possibilities, or make different models, however since the only way we can find out about reality is to interact with it (since we are part of it), we will never know the exact theory that reality is based upon, however we'll probably reach a theory which for all intents and purposes is 100% consistent with reality.

>> No.2356679

I'm currently reading HYPERSPACE
I love the book, it keeps the reader hooked, you should buy it

>> No.2356699

Kaku is a pop culture scientist.

He is not interested in advancing science at all. All he wants to do is make himself famous.

He cares more about having his name in every physics book than he does about understanding the universe.

He makes up theories and then adjusts the math so that his theory looks good on paper, but for some reason no one calls him out on it.

String theory failed its first experiment last year even thought "the math was perfect"

>> No.2356718

>>2356699
Why is it so hard to understand that string theory is not a theory? It's a template for building hypotheses, however since the majority of these hypotheses will be consistent with both QM and relativity, they will all be consistent with reality, at least until some of them will be experimentally shown to be false (and the majority WILL be shown to be false, at least until we bump into more physical limits), and the rest can be given the name "theory" until disproven. However, it's okay, if you want to disprove string theory, you just have to show supersymmetry false, or QM false or relativity false.

Science can't "prove" anything, it can only show you what something ISN'T. It can only constrain models, that's the scientist's job.

To disprove string theory you have to break one of its basic premises (QM, relativity and supersymmetry).

>> No.2358261

>>2356699
>String theory failed its first experiment last year even thought "the math was perfect"

source

>> No.2358309

>>2356596
Wow. Only every so often do I read or hear a really good concept. And the idea that we're bound to isomorphic mathematical systems to make predictions and formulate patterns of our own universe is a really good concept. It seems obvious when I read and think about it, but my mind never made the connection between group theory and physics as a whole.

>> No.2358324
File: 70 KB, 387x386, sagan_uc.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2358324

>>2356118

He`s worse then aether and tautoulogic together.

>> No.2358328
File: 15 KB, 202x320, carl_sagan-745751.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2358328

>>2356118

He`s worse then aether and tautoulogic together.

>> No.2358331

>>2356118
>Implying Sagan is not full of shit

Enjoy being 12 bro

FYI: Pop science = shit-tier

>> No.2358349

>>2356596
A general problem I have with stringtheory is its lack of background independence. You have to assume some background spacetime manifold with some dimensionality and geometry, this doesn't emerge from the model (more than the required dimensionality, ofc).

On another note, have anyone really showed that string theory actually contains the entire GR, not just the correct weak limits? That is, can you do non-pertubative calculations on gravity in string theory at all?

>> No.2358462

Rather than Popularizing science by pointing out the implicit beauty and incredibleness of it all, he tries to connect it to fantasy and fiction we're already mesmerized by. The problem with this is the people in this case aren't actually interested in science, just how close it will get them to their own idealized fantasy worlds.

That's really the only problem I have with the guy. He still does wonders for people and science, and is a great physicist.

>> No.2358488

>>2356118
He should have stayed in theoretical physics. That pop shit he's doing now is terrible and he was quite useful while he was doing actual science.
What he's doing now is just ridiculous.