3 ms·

For those popular science communicators that you mentioned, do you feel that they are misinforming their audience by oversimplifying? Or by leaving them with ge

For those popular science communicators that you mentioned, do you feel that they are misinforming their audience by oversimplifying? Or by leaving them with genuinely wrong ideas?

gowld 5y ago
For people who can study physics (such as students) it's confusing and misleading, and harms their efforts to understand the real material. (Source: studied physics in college, and had a hard time dislodging the nonsense metaphors about things like "virtual particles".) For people who can, it's just fairy tales, so what's the point of instilling a false sense of understanding? Physics is mathematical models + experimental data. Good physical intiution comes from familiarity bred of working through math problems and observing experiments. Bad intuition comes from metaphors.
- andi999 5y ago
  The 'virtual particle' non-sense (or very limited sense as artefacts of pertubation theory) goes very deep. Ask and 9 out of 10 physicists will tell you there are such thing (otherwise how do you explain Casimir effect), even at a reputable high energy lab the 'reason' for the range of interaction was given by Heisenbergs uncertainty applied to the creation of (massive) interactive virtual particles. If it is interesting: from 10:00 onwards discussion about the reality of individual terms of the pertubation series: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72us6pnbEvE&t=1367s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72us6pnbEvE&t=1367s
- wallfacer120 5y ago
  "For people who can, it's just fairy tales, so what's the point of instilling a false sense of understanding?" I think this statement is worth examining a little bit. This statement implies that, unless you are going to develop a working knowledge of the math and become a practicing physicist, then you shouldn't bother reading anything about it.
mrjangles 5y ago
They definitely misinform their audience for money.
bmitc 5y ago
All of the above for the three names I mentioned.

For those popular science communicators that you mentioned, do you feel that they are misinforming their audience by oversimplifying? Or by leaving them with genuinely wrong ideas?

gowld 5y ago

For people who can study physics (such as students) it's confusing and misleading, and harms their efforts to understand the real material. (Source: studied physics in college, and had a hard time dislodging the nonsense metaphors about things like "virtual particles".) For people who can, it's just fairy tales, so what's the point of instilling a false sense of understanding? Physics is mathematical models + experimental data. Good physical intiution comes from familiarity bred of working through math problems and observing experiments. Bad intuition comes from metaphors.

andi999 5y ago
The 'virtual particle' non-sense (or very limited sense as artefacts of pertubation theory) goes very deep. Ask and 9 out of 10 physicists will tell you there are such thing (otherwise how do you explain Casimir effect), even at a reputable high energy lab the 'reason' for the range of interaction was given by Heisenbergs uncertainty applied to the creation of (massive) interactive virtual particles. If it is interesting: from 10:00 onwards discussion about the reality of individual terms of the pertubation series: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72us6pnbEvE&t=1367s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72us6pnbEvE&t=1367s
wallfacer120 5y ago
"For people who can, it's just fairy tales, so what's the point of instilling a false sense of understanding?" I think this statement is worth examining a little bit. This statement implies that, unless you are going to develop a working knowledge of the math and become a practicing physicist, then you shouldn't bother reading anything about it.

mrjangles 5y ago

They definitely misinform their audience for money.

bmitc 5y ago

All of the above for the three names I mentioned.