3 ms·

Forget it. Nothing is going to make the general public excited about theoretical physics. The general public wouldn't be excited about physics even if they did

Forget it. Nothing is going to make the general public excited about theoretical physics. The general public wouldn't be excited about physics even if they did understand the math of quantum physics. For the general public, the question of what makes up matter is as interesting as the question of how beer is made. Matter, they say, is just like beer -- sometimes it tastes different, but it's just there to quench my thirst and mellow me out. I suppose there are interesting details involved in making beer, but let's leave those to the experts. When a prophet of beer (beer snob) does show up, I listen to a lot of descriptive words that don't mean much to me, learn some fascinating history, but then the next evening I'll still be ordering the same regular as I did last night. And yet, against all that, Feynman and Hawking have sparked many peoples' interest in physics, even among those who will never run an experiment, or take a formal course. Computer science is not about computers, and there's no need to conflate it with using a computer. See http://csunplugged.com http://csunplugged.com for some attempts to make CS interesting while teaching it to primary- and secondary- school aged children without using actual computers, for example.

mquander 15y ago
OK, but has there ever been a "prophet" of any field of mathematics who sparked people's interest like Hawking or Sagan? (I disagree that Feynman had this impact.) I don't think there has been and I don't think that there will be until we all get to the Singularity. It's a lot easier to get someone interested in something that they can look up at in the sky than something which is totally abstract.
- eru 15y ago
  Chaos and fractals lead to some (superficial) interest in mathematics for some time. And they are totally abstract.
  - hugh3 15y ago
    You're right, the general public can be persuaded to get interested in anything that involves pretty pictures. This is part of the reason I switched from studying semiconductor physics to giant planets. Much prettier pictures on my slides, nowadays.
spottiness 15y ago
Nobody knows Feynman, believe me. Ask around on the streets and maybe one in 500 will have some idea (if you really ask randomly). Many people have "seen" Hawking, and they remember his physical condition and that he's very smart. Nobody knows what Hawking does and I'd even say that nobody knows that the name of the paraplegic genius is Stephen Hawking. Jeannette Wing (CMU's head of CS) started a project sponsored by Microsoft called "Computational Thinking" where she tried to make CS a mainstream tool to make decisions in life. She's probably still working on it, but I always found the idea too vague to have any impact. I remember that Daniel Sleator thought the same when she first talked about it (I was there). http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~CompThink/ http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~CompThink/
- patrickyeon 15y ago
  > Nobody knows Feynman, believe me. Unfortunately, I do [believe you]. Nonetheless, if Hawking, Feynman, Sagan (and I'm surprised we've forgotten Einstein until now) are the 'prophets' to be held up for physics, they are the examples I would start from to look for a CS prophet. Hofstadter or Turing, as have been mentioned elsewhere, would get my vote. The one is dead, though, and the other has an excellent book or two, but not at all the public image or body of "bite-sized" work that those prophets of physics have.

mquander 15y ago

OK, but has there ever been a "prophet" of any field of mathematics who sparked people's interest like Hawking or Sagan? (I disagree that Feynman had this impact.) I don't think there has been and I don't think that there will be until we all get to the Singularity. It's a lot easier to get someone interested in something that they can look up at in the sky than something which is totally abstract.

eru 15y ago
Chaos and fractals lead to some (superficial) interest in mathematics for some time. And they are totally abstract.
- hugh3 15y ago
  You're right, the general public can be persuaded to get interested in anything that involves pretty pictures. This is part of the reason I switched from studying semiconductor physics to giant planets. Much prettier pictures on my slides, nowadays.

spottiness 15y ago

Nobody knows Feynman, believe me. Ask around on the streets and maybe one in 500 will have some idea (if you really ask randomly). Many people have "seen" Hawking, and they remember his physical condition and that he's very smart. Nobody knows what Hawking does and I'd even say that nobody knows that the name of the paraplegic genius is Stephen Hawking. Jeannette Wing (CMU's head of CS) started a project sponsored by Microsoft called "Computational Thinking" where she tried to make CS a mainstream tool to make decisions in life. She's probably still working on it, but I always found the idea too vague to have any impact. I remember that Daniel Sleator thought the same when she first talked about it (I was there). http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~CompThink/ http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~CompThink/

patrickyeon 15y ago
> Nobody knows Feynman, believe me. Unfortunately, I do [believe you]. Nonetheless, if Hawking, Feynman, Sagan (and I'm surprised we've forgotten Einstein until now) are the 'prophets' to be held up for physics, they are the examples I would start from to look for a CS prophet. Hofstadter or Turing, as have been mentioned elsewhere, would get my vote. The one is dead, though, and the other has an excellent book or two, but not at all the public image or body of "bite-sized" work that those prophets of physics have.