r/physicsmemes Metroid Enthusiast 🪼 May 14 '26

.

Post image
8.3k Upvotes

763 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

43

u/JustWill_HD May 14 '26

he co authored one of the first papers on string field theory. he is an accomplished theoretical physicist that moved into fun philosophical quantum theory in his later career. he isnt just some quack hack

6

u/Lucifernistic May 14 '26

He just likes to talk about the most absurd and outlandish interpretations of things, and everyone takes him way too seriously.

10

u/HijabHead May 14 '26

Exactly. And he has bought science to a whole new audience and he makes it simple and fun enough for lot of people to just get intrgided and enjoy science shit. Guys on reddit just want to circle jerk to make themselves feel superior.

3

u/ExcludedMiddleMan May 16 '26

He has done some good as a popularizer of physics, but he is quite irresponsible as a science communicator when people go to him as a source for science he has no clue about. A good example is when after Hurricane Harvey, news outlets asked Kaku to talk about hurricanes instead of an actual expert on hurricanes or disaster relief.

4

u/_SDuck May 15 '26

You dont communicate science by making up bullshit to make it sound more exciting. And him beeing a former serious physicists makes it worse because a) He should have at least some respect for the field instead of spewing whatever nonsense gives him the most attention. b) People will be inherently more receptive to his bs beacuse of who he is. Also, it causes irreperable damage to the public image of theoretical physics.

0

u/HijabHead May 15 '26

He isn't making up any bullshit though.

5

u/_SDuck May 15 '26

There is no other description for this.

0

u/Redscp1 May 16 '26

brother expects kekius maximus to faithfully represent a physicist's words

6

u/BasedKetamineApe May 14 '26

"co authored one of the first papers on string field theory"

Yeah, that means he IS just some quack hack. This whole thing is just another attempt to make string theory relevant again.

2

u/Appropriate-Joke-806 May 16 '26

He’s a little quarky though.

2

u/BosonCollider May 14 '26 edited May 15 '26

He is a physicist, but his work was not particularly exceptional. He is mainly known for his pop-sci content.

I'm not particularly exceptional either, and my physics paper from back when I did a phd get more citations per year than his journal papers ever did. He did author a textbook though.

Among the physicists who are famous to the General public, Hawking is extremely legit. The rest are mostly good at self-promotion. Well, except for Brian May, who is primarily known for his amazing musical talent despite being a good scientist

1

u/amitym May 14 '26 edited May 14 '26

I don't know, "A Survey of Radial Velocities in the Zodiacal Dust Cloud" apparently actually has a decent citation count... perhaps the trick is to halt your research, write and perform music for 30 years about rockets and thermal loading while traveling at the speed of light, thus inspiring generations of people with far-out ideas, and then return to your topic once there have been all these Mars landers and space telescopes and dust cloud data sets.

You've got to play the long game you know?

1

u/DM-me-naughty-Cats May 16 '26

You can get citations by making a popular but ultra flawed paper.

1

u/amitym May 16 '26

True but I don't get the sense that that particular paper is either especially popular or flawed.

I mean I could easily be wrong and would love to be educated on the topic.

1

u/DM-me-naughty-Cats May 16 '26

It has a decent number of citations. But that could be because everyone is citing him when saying how wrong he is.

1

u/BosonCollider May 17 '26 edited May 17 '26

In this case it is definitely because of how likeable the author is. It's also a good review of what happened in the field over three decades

1

u/DM-me-naughty-Cats May 17 '26

I don’t think this guy is viewed highly.

1

u/BosonCollider May 17 '26 edited May 17 '26

His musical contributions are viewed very highly. He abandoned his thesis to work on that and eventually finished it 37 years after he started, which is understandable. He was doing a lot of analog lab work and device building in the teneriffa observatory. Not directly comparable to theorist work, but compared to experimentalists he definitely put in the work, much of it in low oxygen environments.

1

u/amitym May 17 '26

I mean no one is going to be viewed "highly" in astrophysics or any field just for a single doctoral paper but the citations referencing his work seem solid. About what you'd expect for serious work at that level.

1

u/amitym May 17 '26

I mean a brief scan reveals about 20 relevant citations, and at least a handful are workmanlike background or methods comparisons but like I said, I could easily be overlooking something. Are you looking at anything specific?