Popularizers who were good scientists
John Harper
connection with Galileo:
> It's virtually unheard of for one to be good at popularizing science
> and a brilliant theoretical scientist as well.
Really? Einstein, Jeans, Eddington and Hoyle are some counter-examples.
John Harper, School of Mathematical and Computing Sciences,
Victoria University, Wellington, New Zealand
e-mail john....@vuw.ac.nz phone (+64)(4)463 5341 fax (+64)(4)463 5045
andysch
news:98382333...@bats.mcs.vuw.ac.nz...
> Someone whose name has disappeared from my computer (apologies) said in
> connection with Galileo:
>
> > It's virtually unheard of for one to be good at popularizing science
> > and a brilliant theoretical scientist as well.
>
> Really? Einstein, Jeans, Eddington and Hoyle are some counter-examples.
Einstein did not spend much time on teaching or popularizing science. I
don't recall seeing him on the Tonight Show like Carl Sagan, for example.
Nor am I aware of Einstein writing any books for popular consumption, as
Galileo did.
As to Jeans, Eddington and Hoyle, please provide some substance to your
claim. I don't think any of them won a Nobel Prize. Nor are they
well-known to the public either.
Andy
Dan Drake
>>...
> Nor am I aware of Einstein writing any books for popular consumption, as
> Galileo did.
He wrote a book on Relativity, summarizing his major work for the public,
just like Galileo. Actually, it looks as if there are about three; I
haven't taken time to copy the citations because there are so many
editions in print and they're so easy to find at the giant booksellers on
the Web.
Einstein didn't get on television or sell a million copies, just like
Galileo.
>
> As to Jeans, Eddington and Hoyle, please provide some substance to your
> claim. I don't think any of them won a Nobel Prize. Nor are they
> well-known to the public either.
Is being well known to the public in 2001 a criterion? Didn't know that.
But Eddington got several mentions in mystery stories in the 1920s, which
seems to make him well known to his contemporaries. Likewise, winning a
Nobel prize is a criterion that you overlooked stating the first time. It
kinda makes it hard on Huxley and Tyndall, not to mention Galileo.
However, Eddington was taken seriously by scientists in his day, seriously
enough to be able to organize the famous solar eclipse expedition. Also,
he was one of the three people in the world -- or was it two? -- who
understood General Relativity, according to a much-told anecdote.
Didn't notice till just now that the title had morphed. If all we need
are _good_ scientists, and not world-shakers, then all the ones named
above qualify with ease.
Stephen Jay Gould, by the way, in case there isn't enough controversy
around here; Richard Dawkins; Lynn Margulis. You let in the "good"
scientists and you'll get a thundering herd.
--
Dan Drake
d...@dandrake.com
http://www.dandrake.com/index.html
andysch
news:vhIsdqY67dTD-p...@207-172-166-51.s51.tnt1.sfrn.ca.dialup.rc
n.com...
> On Tue, 6 Mar 2001 00:45:25, "andysch" <and...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >>...
> > Nor am I aware of Einstein writing any books for popular consumption, as
> > Galileo did.
>
> He wrote a book on Relativity, summarizing his major work for the public,
> just like Galileo. Actually, it looks as if there are about three; I
> haven't taken time to copy the citations because there are so many
> editions in print and they're so easy to find at the giant booksellers on
> the Web.
I don't think Einstein's efforts at selling to the public were very
successful. Stephen Hawkings was much better.
> Einstein didn't get on television or sell a million copies, just like
> Galileo.
You can bet Galileo would have gotten on TV if it had existed.
> > As to Jeans, Eddington and Hoyle, please provide some substance to your
> > claim. I don't think any of them won a Nobel Prize. Nor are they
> > well-known to the public either.
>
> Is being well known to the public in 2001 a criterion? Didn't know that.
> But Eddington got several mentions in mystery stories in the 1920s, which
> seems to make him well known to his contemporaries. Likewise, winning a
> Nobel prize is a criterion that you overlooked stating the first time. It
> kinda makes it hard on Huxley and Tyndall, not to mention Galileo.
> However, Eddington was taken seriously by scientists in his day, seriously
> enough to be able to organize the famous solar eclipse expedition. ...
The solar eclipse expedition was of dubious scientific value. Good at
generating press, though.
> Didn't notice till just now that the title had morphed. If all we need
> are _good_ scientists, and not world-shakers, then all the ones named
> above qualify with ease.
The title changed my claim, which was that "It's virtually unheard of for
one to be good at popularizing science
and a brilliant theoretical scientist as well." About as many of those as
top base-stealers who were also top home run hitters.
> Stephen Jay Gould, by the way, in case there isn't enough controversy
> around here; Richard Dawkins; Lynn Margulis. You let in the "good"
> scientists and you'll get a thundering herd.
Gould and Dawkins prove my point; so does Sagan.
Andy
Steve Harris
andysch wrote in message ...
>"John Harper" <har...@mcs.vuw.ac.nz> wrote in message
>news:98382333...@bats.mcs.vuw.ac.nz...
>> Someone whose name has disappeared from my computer (apologies) said in
>> connection with Galileo:
>>
>> > It's virtually unheard of for one to be good at popularizing science
>> > and a brilliant theoretical scientist as well.
It's becoming more common for Nobelists to write books. Think of Linus
Pauling (though he didn't do much for popularizing the science that got him
his first Nobel). However, Nobelist Leon Lederman wrote an outstanding
popular
book on particle physics called The God Particle. Highly recommended.
Dan Drake
>...
> You can bet Galileo would have gotten on TV if it had existed.
I think you're right about that. Assuming that national TV as a major
medium had existed when he was in his prime. Just as Einstein would have.
>... my claim, which was that "It's virtually unheard of for
> one to be good at popularizing science
> and a brilliant theoretical scientist as well." About as many of those as
> top base-stealers who were also top home run hitters.
Or first-rate composers of opera and symphony, or chemistry Nobel Prize
winners who win the Peace Prize, whatever: one of each in these cases.
But do define your terms in whatever way it takes to get a result you
like. Clearly the outcome would relate to whether Galileo really did top
science--your original context for the claim--only if we had no evidence
of what the man actually wrote.
Marcus H. Mendenhall
Other great examples in physics are Richard Feynman, Dave Goodstein (did
'The Mechanical Universe'), Linus Pauling, and Stephen Hawking. Of
course, with a few minutes thought one can generate a very long list of
the brilliant who were successful popularizers.
It also doesn't take to much effort to find counterexamples, though, who
are brilliant but terrible, or who are mediocre physicists but great presenters.
Marcus Mendenhall
Sam Wormley
A good scientist, in my opinion, is one that makes significant
contributions to the scientific knowledge base. Actually it seems
like most scientists (we know by name) wrote books or articles for
the larger audience.
Some scientist-authors who come to mind that wrote at least one book for
the lay audience:
Euclid
Galileo (Dialog)
Kepler (I'm including Harmonies of the World)
Bethe
Bohr
Bok
Cannon (Annie Jump)
Curie
Darwin
Dirac
Dyson
Einstein
Feynman
Gamow
Gould
Guth
Hawking
Heisenberg
Hofstadter
Horner
Krauss
Lemaitre
Lederman
Leightman
Pagels
Peebles
Penose
Planck
Rees
Rowan-Robinson
Sagan
Sandage
Shapely
Thomas, Lewis
Thorne
Turing
Von Neumann
Weinberg
Wheeler
Wilson, E.O.
Wigner
This is rediculous! There are hundreds if not thousands that belong
in such a list. It's rather futile for me to even try to compile such
a list.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
andysch
news:3AA457D9...@telalink.net...
>
>
> John Harper wrote:
> >
> > Someone whose name has disappeared from my computer (apologies) said in
> > connection with Galileo:
> >
> > > It's virtually unheard of for one to be good at popularizing science
> > > and a brilliant theoretical scientist as well.
> >
> > Really? Einstein, Jeans, Eddington and Hoyle are some counter-examples.
> >
> > John Harper, School of Mathematical and Computing Sciences,
> > Victoria University, Wellington, New Zealand
> > e-mail john....@vuw.ac.nz phone (+64)(4)463 5341 fax (+64)(4)463 5045
>
> Other great examples in physics are Richard Feynman, Dave Goodstein (did
> 'The Mechanical Universe'), Linus Pauling, and Stephen Hawking. Of
> course, with a few minutes thought one can generate a very long list of
> the brilliant who were successful popularizers.
And Barry Bonds both hits home runs and steals bases.
But like your list above, Barry Bonds is not one of the greatest home run
hitters. No one on your list won the Nobel Prize for Physics outright, for
example. Hawking, the most successful popularizer of science on your list,
has not won even a shared Nobel Prize.
> It also doesn't take to much effort to find counterexamples, though, who
> are brilliant but terrible, or who are mediocre physicists but great
presenters.
99% of the top theoretical scientists are relatively weak at or uninterested
in popularizing science, and 99% of the top popularizers of science are
relatively weak theoreticians. Like home runs and basestealing, it's oil
and water.
Andy
Ben Brothers
>But like your list above, Barry Bonds is not one of the greatest home run
>hitters. No one on your list won the Nobel Prize for Physics outright, for
>example. Hawking, the most successful popularizer of science on your list,
>has not won even a shared Nobel Prize.
Perhaps "has won an outright Nobel Prize for Physics" is too
narrow a definition of "good scientist".
Or maybe that's just par for your course. After all, Barry Bonds
has 494 home runs and counting, which is 19 more that Stan Musial
and 1 more than Lou Gehrig. He also hit more home runs than anyone
else during the 1990s. 471 career stolen bases isn't too shabby either.
--
Ben Brothers - <b...@crhc.uiuc.edu> - www.crhc.uiuc.edu/~bjb/
Ken Moore
andysch <and...@my-deja.com> writes
>As to Jeans, Eddington and Hoyle, please provide some substance to your
>claim. I don't think any of them won a Nobel Prize. Nor are they
>well-known to the public either.
They were when I was young. Please be aware that you are not the
general public of 1935.
--
Ken Moore
k...@hpsl.demon.co.uk
Web site: http://www.hpsl.demon.co.uk/
Katherine Tredwell
> John Harper wrote:
> >
> > Someone whose name has disappeared from my computer (apologies) said in
> > connection with Galileo:
> >
> > > It's virtually unheard of for one to be good at popularizing science
> > > and a brilliant theoretical scientist as well.
> >
> > Really? Einstein, Jeans, Eddington and Hoyle are some counter-examples.
> >
> > John Harper, School of Mathematical and Computing Sciences,
> > Victoria University, Wellington, New Zealand
> > e-mail john....@vuw.ac.nz phone (+64)(4)463 5341 fax (+64)(4)463 5045
>
> A good scientist, in my opinion, is one that makes significant
> contributions to the scientific knowledge base. Actually it seems
> like most scientists (we know by name) wrote books or articles for
> the larger audience.
Articles written for the 9th and 11th editions of the Encyclopaedia
Britannica are a good example of this phenomenon. A real shame
encyclopedias aren't like that anymore.
Katherine Tredwell
Neill Reid
>"John Harper" <har...@mcs.vuw.ac.nz> wrote in message
>news:98382333...@bats.mcs.vuw.ac.nz...
>> Someone whose name has disappeared from my computer (apologies) said in
>> connection with Galileo:
>>
>> > It's virtually unheard of for one to be good at popularizing science
>> > and a brilliant theoretical scientist as well.
>>
>> Really? Einstein, Jeans, Eddington and Hoyle are some counter-examples.
>
>Einstein did not spend much time on teaching or popularizing science. I
>don't recall seeing him on the Tonight Show like Carl Sagan, for example.
>Nor am I aware of Einstein writing any books for popular consumption, as
>Galileo did.
Einstein wrote a number of popular books - there's a short paperback
(well, it's available as a paperback now) entitled
Relativity: The special and general theory
which was written for the general public; there's also a number
of collections of essays and shorter works (as a quick search
through amazon.com would reveal).
>
>As to Jeans, Eddington and Hoyle, please provide some substance to your
>claim. I don't think any of them won a Nobel Prize. Nor are they
>well-known to the public either.
They're probably not well known to the public nowadays, and possibly
even less familiar to the American public, but all three were
extremely well known, to at least the British public, in their day -
which for Eddington and Jeans was ~1910-->1945, and for Hoyle
~1945 --> pretty close to the present. Eddington was one of the
pre-eminent astrophysicists of his day, making substantial contributions
to our understanding of stellar interiors as well as championing
relativity - both through experiments (such as the deflection
measurements made during the 1919 solar eclipse) and popular writing
(many of which are still available - as a cursory inspection of
amazon.com will reveal).
Jeans was more of a mathematical astronomer. His most famous
contribution is probably the conjecture that the solar system
had formed from material drawn from the Sun by a passing star (a
theory previously proposed by Chamberlin & Moultin) - a
now-discredited alternative to the Laplacian nebular theory. He
also made significant contributions to both stellar dynamics and
thermodynamics, and wrote several best-sellers on astronomy and
cosmogony. I'd bet that some of those books, notably "The Mysterious
Universe" and "The Stars in their courses", were sitting right next to
Eddington's "Nature of the Physical world" on most middle-class
British book shelves in the 1930s.
I don't know whether Eddington was ever in line for a Nobel pize - he
was only 62 when he died - but he received recognition through
numerous other prizes and medals (see
http://www.phys-astro.sonoma.edu/BruceMedalists/Eddington/
for example)
As astronomers, neither Jeans nor Hoyle are really in line for a Nobel
prize (although Hoyle could very well have been given a share in
Willy Fowler's prize for his (Hoyle's) contribution to the development
of nucleosynthesis theory). In any case, Hoyle was awarded the 1997
Crafoord prize (jointly with Salpeter), the prize designed to cover
fields not covered by the Nobel prize. You can get some details on the
latter prize by consulting today's astro-ph preprints - see the
article by Soares, which can be accessed through
http://xxx.lanl.gov/find/astro-ph/
[Parenthetically, the article is about Hubble, but seems to repeat some
of the errors in Christiansen's Hubble biography - specifically, the
claim that Hoyle was a frequent guest of Hubble in the 1930s; to the best
of my knowledge (based on Hoyle's own autobiography - which is well
worth reading), Hoyle visited Pasadena for the first time in the
late 1940s/early 1950s.]
Hoyle is perhaps most famous for his coining of the term "Big Bang"
(in a BBC radio talk in the early 50s), his close involvement in
the steady state model(s) and his (more recent) espousing of
panspermia, but his contribution to the development of stellar
astrophysics shouldn't be underestimated. One shouldn't let his,
umm, scientific individuality, drown that out.
(In fact, even the steady state theory had more going for it at its
inception than the big bang. )
Of the three, Jeans had probably the least long-term impact, but all
three were (in Hoyle's case, are) first-rate scientists who also happen
to have been great communicators.
In short, I suggest that you do some background reading before
making such sweeping pronouncements on historical matters
Neill Reid - i...@stsci.edu
>
>Andy
>
>
>
Dan Drake
wrote:
> John Harper wrote:
>... Actually it seems
> like most scientists (we know by name) wrote books or articles for
> the larger audience.
>
> Some scientist-authors who come to mind that wrote at least one book for
> the lay audience:
>
> Euclid
>
> Galileo (Dialog)
> Kepler (I'm including Harmonies of the World)
>
> Bethe
>... [And many more]
A fine list indeed. What makes it paticularly interesting is the
inclusion of the Dialog (meaning the Two Chief World Systems) and not Two
New Sciences.
For the last couple of days the talk of Galileo as a popularizer has
seemed not quite right, a little out of focus, and here is clarification.
Recall that the original query had to do with new physical theory and that
the Dialogue is only incidentally about physics; in fact, the original
query may have referred specifically to Two New Sciences as a presentation
of theory or alleged good theory. So is TNS popular or technical?
Broadly, there are two classes of popularizer. One, which includes all
the non-scientists and some scientists notable for their own work, such as
Gamow and T. H. Huxley, presents mainly the work that other people have
done. (Yes, _Birth and Death of the Sun, but also _One, Two,
Three...Infinity.)
For the other, Einstein is the great example. He published two theories
in scientific journals, with all the gory mathematics (not very gory for
the Special theory) and references to the advanced physics that his
readers already knew. Later, he published more than one piece that tried
to simplify it for the general public.
Galileo did something different. He had no Annalen der Physik, no Nature,
no Science. Two New Sciences _is_ the piece in which he published his
work in full technical detail, and on which he staked his reputation.
It's also a piece written in the layman's language, in a conversational
style so far as he found possible, intended to be comprehensible the
educated public. This isn't done much any more, and the reasons are not
hard to find. But if he's to be called a popularizer, and that seems to
make it implausible that he could also do good original work in theory,
one should remember the possibly unique nature of the popularizing itself.
Jonathan Silverlight
<k...@hpsl.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <FqWo6.6292$Ey1.3...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
>andysch <and...@my-deja.com> writes
>>As to Jeans, Eddington and Hoyle, please provide some substance to your
>>claim. I don't think any of them won a Nobel Prize. Nor are they
>>well-known to the public either.
>
>They were when I was young. Please be aware that you are not the
>general public of 1935.
Just to clear up any confusion, Fred Hoyle hadn't even graduated in 1935
:-) He's probably quite well known to the "general public", whoever they
are, for his slightly loopy ideas about diseases from space.
H Dziardziel
wrote:
With apologies to the non Americans here, Mickey Mantle would have
been my choice as an analogy. And I do not agree Hawkings has
popularized science as such. He has however of course generated great
curiousity in his achievements. Einstein would be my single choice
here. Whether he really wanted to or not there is no denying his name
symbolizes science to anyone in the world. And this was before media
really took control of the average person's thinking process.
zen...@mindspring.com
----------
In article <98382333...@bats.mcs.vuw.ac.nz>, har...@mcs.vuw.ac.nz (John
andysch
news:3aa57623....@news.kornet.net...
> With apologies to the non Americans here, Mickey Mantle would have
> been my choice as an analogy.
Good analogy. Mantle was, I think, pretty fast as a baserunner and probably
had the talent to steal some bases. But basestealing is really a different
mindset from homerun hitting. Even if someone can do both, that person is
likely to end up migrating to one or the other. Mantle migrated to
slugging.
> And I do not agree Hawkings has
> popularized science as such. He has however of course generated great
> curiousity in his achievements.
You might say that about Feynman as well. I read one of his books, and it
was entertaining. His encounter with the Queen and other curiosities. But
I don't recall learning much science from them.
Galileo was probably much more of a popularizer of actual science than
Hawking or Feynman.
> Einstein would be my single choice
> here. Whether he really wanted to or not there is no denying his name
> symbolizes science to anyone in the world. And this was before media
> really took control of the average person's thinking process.
The mass-consumption Time magazine named him man of the century, 45 years
after he died.
Andy
rich hammett
> "H Dziardziel" <h...@operamail.com> wrote in message
> news:3aa57623....@news.kornet.net...
>> With apologies to the non Americans here, Mickey Mantle would have
>> been my choice as an analogy.
> Good analogy. Mantle was, I think, pretty fast as a baserunner and probably
> had the talent to steal some bases. But basestealing is really a different
> mindset from homerun hitting. Even if someone can do both, that person is
> likely to end up migrating to one or the other. Mantle migrated to
> slugging.
>> And I do not agree Hawkings has
>> popularized science as such. He has however of course generated great
>> curiousity in his achievements.
> You might say that about Feynman as well. I read one of his books, and it
> was entertaining. His encounter with the Queen and other curiosities. But
> I don't recall learning much science from them.
This is similar to your and Roger's readong of Gould, where you learned _nothing_
about snails!
> Galileo was probably much more of a popularizer of actual science than
> Hawking or Feynman.
>> Einstein would be my single choice
>> here. Whether he really wanted to or not there is no denying his name
>> symbolizes science to anyone in the world. And this was before media
>> really took control of the average person's thinking process.
> The mass-consumption Time magazine named him man of the century, 45 years
> after he died.
Yep. And he wrote essays to the general (educated) public about his research and
theories. Just like Hawking, Gould, and Feynman.
rich
> Andy
--
-remove no from mail name and spam from domain to reply
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
/ hnoa...@eng.spamauburn.edu
\ ..basketball [is] the paramount
/ synthesis in sport of intelligence, precision, courage,
\ audacity, anticipation, artifice, teamwork, elegance,
/ and grace. --Carl Sagan
Bill Nelson
: Good analogy. Mantle was, I think, pretty fast as a baserunner and probably
: had the talent to steal some bases. But basestealing is really a different
: mindset from homerun hitting. Even if someone can do both, that person is
: likely to end up migrating to one or the other. Mantle migrated to
: slugging.
Actually, Mantle was rather fat and slow at base running. He wouldn't
have been much of a ball player if he hadn't been so good at hitting
home runs.
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
Daniel R. Reitman
<hnoa...@eng.spamauburn.edu> wrote:
>In sci.astro andysch <and...@my-deja.com> allegedly wrote:
>> You might say that about Feynman as well. I read one of his books, and it
>> was entertaining. His encounter with the Queen and other curiosities. But
>> I don't recall learning much science from them.
>This is similar to your and Roger's readong of Gould, where you learned _nothing_
>about snails!
>>. . . .
>. . . .
Surely you're joking, Mr. Hammett! It's clear that he read the wrong
book.
Andy: Try Five Easy Pieces and Five Not-So-Easy Pieces to start.
Dan, ad nauseam
Gregory L. Hansen
H Dziardziel <h...@operamail.com> wrote:
>been my choice as an analogy. And I do not agree Hawkings has
>popularized science as such. He has however of course generated great
I first learned of him when I saw his face on the cover of a popular news
magazine. His book _A Brief History of Time_ spent time on the New York
Times best seller list -- I've loaned my copy to two friends that are
high-school dropouts. For whatever reason, Hawking is a household name,
he's appeared on The Simpsons and on Star Trek, and wrote science stuff
that a lot of non-scientists have read. So I think I'll have to disagree
with you there.
--
"'No user-serviceable parts inside.' I'll be the judge of that!"
H Dziardziel
Perhaps when you saw him later in his career. His knees gave out much
too early in his career. Until then he may well have been the best
all around ballplayer. And he like Willie Mays generated terrific fan
interest. And I'm not even a Yankee fan.
H Dziardziel
Hansen) wrote:
>
>I first learned of him when I saw his face on the cover of a popular news
>magazine. His book _A Brief History of Time_ spent time on the New York
>Times best seller list -- I've loaned my copy to two friends that are
>high-school dropouts. For whatever reason, Hawking is a household name,
>he's appeared on The Simpsons and on Star Trek, and wrote science stuff
>that a lot of non-scientists have read. So I think I'll have to disagree
>with you there.
>
But that alone (being a media darling) does not generate interest in
science. And I do not think the average person knows about him
especially in non English speaking countries and even if they do that
is not science focused interest.
Gregory L. Hansen
They're admiring a scientist, rather than admiring another sports star or
actor. They're reading his books. I don't know what else Hawking could
hope for.
Ken Cox
> You might say that about Feynman as well. I read one of his books, and it
> was entertaining. His encounter with the Queen and other curiosities. But
> I don't recall learning much science from them.
Are you sure you were reading one of his science popularizations,
and not, say, his autobiography? I find it hard to believe that
anyone would not learn some science from "Six Easy Pieces" or
"The Character of Physical Law".
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
rich hammett
> On Wed, 07 Mar 2001 04:43:08 -0000, rich hammett
> <hnoa...@eng.spamauburn.edu> wrote:
>>In sci.astro andysch <and...@my-deja.com> allegedly wrote:
>>> You might say that about Feynman as well. I read one of his books, and it
>>> was entertaining. His encounter with the Queen and other curiosities. But
>>> I don't recall learning much science from them.
>>This is similar to your and Roger's readong of Gould, where you learned _nothing_
>>about snails!
>>>. . . .
>>. . . .
> Surely you're joking, Mr. Hammett! It's clear that he read the wrong
> book.
That was my point, in case it was lost in the sarcasm. He refuses to
read Gould's scientific, peer-reviewed papers, and yet criticizes Gould
for not being rigorous enough in his popSci.
rich
> Andy: Try Five Easy Pieces and Five Not-So-Easy Pieces to start.
> Dan, ad nauseam
--
rich hammett
You need to re-read what you wrote, Ken. Do you seriously doubt
that andy could, with great effort, decline to learn anything
from a book?
rich
Ken Cox
> In sci.astro Ken Cox <k...@research.bell-labs.com> allegedly wrote:
> > I find it hard to believe that
> > anyone would not learn some science from "Six Easy Pieces" or
> > "The Character of Physical Law".
> You need to re-read what you wrote, Ken. Do you seriously doubt
> that andy could, with great effort, decline to learn anything
> from a book?
There are many things that I know, intellectually, are
facts but that I still find hard to accept. Parts of
quantum mechanics, for example; Andy's inability to
learn, for another.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Dan Drake
> How about also Feynman?
Feynman is an interesting case. A fascinating man and a great physicist,
and everybody but Gell-Mann loves him. And his Lectures on Physics are
universally regarded as outstanding, and professors went to hear him
presenting them to physics underclassmen; but it's said that people
finally realized that the lectures were too hard for their audience of
beginning physics students. That could cast doubt on his standing as a
popularizer, however great his popularity.
But then, he wrote a short book on his own field of quantum
electordynamics, which I certainly would consider good popularization; and
recent posthumous publications of his less technical lectures seem to put
him in high standing as a posthumous popularizer. A quirky honor, but not
a bad one.
Katherine Tredwell
> On 7 Mar 2001 15:28:48 GMT, glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L.
> Hansen) wrote:
>
> >
> >I first learned of him when I saw his face on the cover of a popular news
> >magazine. His book _A Brief History of Time_ spent time on the New York
> >Times best seller list -- I've loaned my copy to two friends that are
> >high-school dropouts. For whatever reason, Hawking is a household name,
> >he's appeared on The Simpsons and on Star Trek, and wrote science stuff
> >that a lot of non-scientists have read. So I think I'll have to disagree
> >with you there.
> >
> But that alone (being a media darling) does not generate interest in
> science. And I do not think the average person knows about him
Good grief, someone even made a documentary about Hawking.
How can you be a "media darling" without being widely known?
As Gregory Hansen observed, he has been on two highly popular
television shows and had a book on *the* US best-seller list. That
is as good an index as one could reasonably hope for, of his being
widely recognized. Not everybody has heard of him; not everybody
has heard of *any* science popularizer. I would guess that the
average American today is about as likely to have heard of him as
of Carl Sagan. Do you consider Sagan a popularizer?
> especially in non English speaking countries
That would be true of any English-speaking popularizer for the last
few centuries, would it not? I'll wager there are French, German,
Russian, Chinese science popularizers of whom I have never heard.
Maybe even ones who are *really* well known in their countries.
> and even if they do that is not science focused interest.
Um...his readers do their best to figure out what his popular books
have to say about science. He gets them thinking about things like
black holes and the life of stars. Isn't that science?
Katherine Tredwell
Mike Dworetsky
Neill Reid wrote:
> As astronomers, neither Jeans nor Hoyle are really in line for a Nobel
> prize (although Hoyle could very well have been given a share in
> Willy Fowler's prize for his (Hoyle's) contribution to the development
> of nucleosynthesis theory). In any case, Hoyle was awarded the 1997
> Crafoord prize (jointly with Salpeter), the prize designed to cover
> fields not covered by the Nobel prize.
Of the four scientists involved in the first unravelling of
nucleosynthesis and cosmic abundances of the elements, the Burbidges,
Fowler, and Hoyle, it was Hoyle who provided the detailed theoretical
underpinning, Fowler who provided the measured nuclear reaction cross
sections, and the Burbidges who provided the analyses of stellar
spectra. Not to denigrate Fowler's achievement in the slightest, but the
Nobel should have at least included Hoyle. The difference may be that
Hoyle had irritated more people.
You can't take the award of a Nobel prize as proof of scientific
greatness, or the lack of one as an indicator of "second-raters". Look
up the names Otto Hahn and Lise Meitner if you want to understand this
fact.
Hahn took credit for Meitner's discoveries in nuclear fission, and got a
Nobel for it. But Meitner was Jewish, was persecuted, and was sacked
from her job at Hahn's institute and had to flee for her life from Nazi
Germany. After WW2, Hahn was awarded the Nobel largely for Meitner's
work and spent the rest of his life trying to pretend, in effect, that
she had never existed.
--
Mike Dworetsky
Roger Schlafly
> And Barry Bonds both hits home runs and steals bases.
> But like your list above, Barry Bonds is not one of the greatest home run
> hitters.
I disagree. Barry Bonds has 494 career home runs, putting him #17
on the all-time list.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/HR_career.shtml
He has passed up Gehrig, Musial, Stargell, Yastrzemski, etc. Everyone
above (who is eligible) is in the Hall of Fame. If he stays healthy, he will
surely end up around #5 on the list.
> No one on your list won the Nobel Prize for Physics outright, for
> example. Hawking, the most successful popularizer of science on your
list,
> has not won even a shared Nobel Prize.
In fairness, Nobel prizes are not given for the sort of work that Hawking
does. Hardly any prizes have gone for (non-phenomenological) theoretical
physics, or to astrophysics.
> 99% of the top theoretical scientists are relatively weak at or
uninterested
> in popularizing science, and 99% of the top popularizers of science are
> relatively weak theoreticians. Like home runs and basestealing, it's oil
> and water.
It is rare for anyone to excel at two different things.
Dan Drake
wrote:
>
>
> Neill Reid wrote:
>
>...
>
> Hahn took credit for Meitner's discoveries in nuclear fission, and got a
> Nobel for it. But Meitner was Jewish, was persecuted, and was sacked
> from her job at Hahn's institute and had to flee for her life from Nazi
> Germany. After WW2, Hahn was awarded the Nobel largely for Meitner's
> work and spent the rest of his life trying to pretend, in effect, that
> she had never existed.
What's shocking--honestly, I found it so--was that even in private, among
his friends the German nuclear physicist, and iirc before the prize was
announced, he casually dismissed any significance to her work as one of
his assistants. In fact she, assisted by her nephew Frisch, was the one
who figured out that fission had taken place when Hahn could make no sense
at all out of the results of his technically superb experiments.
Jeremy Bernstein's collection of the Farm Hall transcripts, _H*tler's
Uranuim Club_, is an eye-opener.
Steve Harris
Dan Drake wrote in message ...
>On Wed, 7 Mar 2001 00:16:14, zen...@mindspring.com wrote:
>
>But then, he wrote a short book on his own field of quantum
>electordynamics, which I certainly would consider good popularization; and
>recent posthumous publications of his less technical lectures seem to put
>him in high standing as a posthumous popularizer.
As far as I'm concerned the QED book, indeed the entire QED theory, puts
Feynman on the Mt. Everest of physics "explanation" in the sense of
making a stab at telling how things work, without math. The QED book has no
math at all, but it's still accurate. And it describes one of the more
complicated
physics theories (itself the most accurate we have to this date) completely
pictorially. Stuff with pictures and no math used to be caused "conceptual
physics," but what Feynman did really is something way beyond amazing.
jmfb...@aol.com
aren't scientists, interested in it.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
DAVID H LI
intended for non-specialists. After all, the world needs to know what
specialists -- in all fields -- are doing.
On this point, I read Columiba Professor Brian Greene's "Elegant
Universe" (superstring theory without math) with great interest. Though
it is substantially above my head, at least I can see what these
physicists (along with mathematicians) are doing. Indeed, in the book,
Prof Greene mentioned that, for one of his research projects, he and a
collaborator had, for quite a while, to lecture each other in math and
in physics in order to take care the intricacies involved.
I understand, even now, there is no math to take care oscillations in an
11-dimension space. On this front, could some knowledgeable people
direct me to recent developments in the Calabi-Yau space front? Also,
what is the latest on the supersymmetry front?
David Li
Mark VandeWettering
>"H Dziardziel" <h...@operamail.com> wrote in message
>news:3aa57623....@news.kornet.net...
>
>> With apologies to the non Americans here, Mickey Mantle would have
>> been my choice as an analogy.
>
>Good analogy. Mantle was, I think, pretty fast as a baserunner and probably
>had the talent to steal some bases. But basestealing is really a different
>mindset from homerun hitting. Even if someone can do both, that person is
>likely to end up migrating to one or the other. Mantle migrated to
>slugging.
"Probably had the talent to steal some bases."?
In 1957 he as 16 for 20 attempts, which was 4th best in the AL. In
1958, he was 18 for 22, another 4th best in the AL. In 1959 he went
21 for 23, which was second in the AL. For his career he had 153
stolen bases, and over an 80% success rate.
I'd say those are some pretty credible numbers, especially for someone
who didn't specialize in base stealing.
>> And I do not agree Hawkings has
>> popularized science as such. He has however of course generated great
>> curiousity in his achievements.
>
>You might say that about Feynman as well. I read one of his books, and it
>was entertaining. His encounter with the Queen and other curiosities. But
>I don't recall learning much science from them.
Gee, that is amazing. Reading a book which isn't about science and not
learning any science. Boy, that is amazing.
Hint: try "The Feynman Lectures on Physics".
Mark
--
/* __ __ __ ____ __*/float m,a,r,k,v;main(i){for(;r<4;r+=.1){for(a=0;
/*| \/ |\ \ / /\ \ / /*/a<4;a+=.06){k=v=0;for(i=99;--i&&k*k+v*v<4;)m=k*k
/*| |\/| | \ V / \ \/\/ / */-v*v+a-2,v=2*k*v+r-2,k=m;putchar("X =."[i&3]);}
/*|_| |_ark\_/ande\_/\_/ettering <ma...@telescopemaking.org> */puts("");}}
Mark VandeWettering
>"Marcus H. Mendenhall" <mend...@telalink.net> wrote in message
>news:3AA457D9...@telalink.net...
>>
>>
>> >
>> > Someone whose name has disappeared from my computer (apologies) said in
>> > connection with Galileo:
>> >
>> > > It's virtually unheard of for one to be good at popularizing science
>> > > and a brilliant theoretical scientist as well.
>> >
>> > Really? Einstein, Jeans, Eddington and Hoyle are some counter-examples.
>> >
>> > John Harper, School of Mathematical and Computing Sciences,
>> > Victoria University, Wellington, New Zealand
>> > e-mail john....@vuw.ac.nz phone (+64)(4)463 5341 fax (+64)(4)463 5045
>>
>> 'The Mechanical Universe'), Linus Pauling, and Stephen Hawking. Of
>> course, with a few minutes thought one can generate a very long list of
>> the brilliant who were successful popularizers.
>
>
>But like your list above, Barry Bonds is not one of the greatest home run
>hitters.
He isn't? How high on the list of career home runs does he has to get
before he's "one of the greatest"? He's currently #2 among active players,
only behind McGwire. He's 17th among players all time, and he should have
a few good years left slugging in him, he'll almost certainly break
into the top 10. He's been in the top 10 homerun hitters every year
since his 1988. He's been in the top 5 homerun hitters 8 times in that
span.
With all the things that Andy gets wrong, I suppose that asking him to get
baseball right is just wishful thinking on my part.
>No one on your list won the Nobel Prize for Physics outright, for
>example. Hawking, the most successful popularizer of science on your list,
>has not won even a shared Nobel Prize.
Gee, we set our standards pretty high, don't we? In order to qualify as a
top theoretical scientist who is also a populizer you have to begin by
winning a Nobel prize?
By the way, Linus Pauling has two, one for chemistry, and one for peace.
I suppose that winning one for chemistry doesn't count?
Maury Markowitz
news:rFXo6.5976$mM2.3...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> I don't think Einstein's efforts at selling to the public were very
> successful. Stephen Hawkings was much better.
I doubt it, unless you're willing to back that up with sales figures
adjusted for both relative price and overall population change. Books
weren't the disposible furnature they are today, which made sales smaller.
> You can bet Galileo would have gotten on TV if it had existed.
The same for Einstein. On the other hand he did end up on a lot of very
much more expensive film.
> The solar eclipse expedition was of dubious scientific value. Good at
> generating press, though.
Isn't that what this thread is about? He did more for the public knowledge
of GR than anyone other than Wheeler.
By the way, add Wheeler to the list. His "intro book" to gravity from a
few years back was fab.
> The title changed my claim, which was that "It's virtually unheard of for
> one to be good at popularizing science
> and a brilliant theoretical scientist as well."
How many hours are there there in a day again?
Heck, either one of these traits is rare enough, both in one person is
going to be rarer pretty much by default. It seems almost duh-like to me.
You may as well ask why there aren't a lot more defensive linemen that are
brilliant theoretical scientists.
> Gould and Dawkins prove my point;
Which is what then? Dawkins is certainly both an excellent popularizer, as
well as brilliant theoretisian.
Maury
Neill Reid
>"andysch" <and...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>news:rFXo6.5976$mM2.3...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>> I don't think Einstein's efforts at selling to the public were very
>> successful. Stephen Hawkings was much better.
>
> I doubt it, unless you're willing to back that up with sales figures
>adjusted for both relative price and overall population change. Books
>weren't the disposible furnature they are today, which made sales smaller.
It's possible that 'A Brief History of Time' has been sold more often
than Einstein's relativity book, even allowing for demographic changes.
But there's no question of the popular impact of Einstein's work - a
cursory inspection of newspapers (or literature) from the 20s and 30s
can establish that. (And Eddington, that great theoretical scientist and
renowned populariser, had a large part in publicising those results).
On the other hand, I've no doubt that both Einstein and Hawking are
more misunderstood than understood - I've heard ABHoT refered to as the
least read bestseller in history.
[... snip..]
>
>> The solar eclipse expedition was of dubious scientific value. Good at
>> generating press, though.
Balderdash - the 1919 eclipse expedition provided direct evidence in
favour of relativity: a deflection in position was predicted, and a
deflection was observed. That result had a significant impact on the
general acceptance of Einstein's work, irrespective of the inaccuracies
in the measurement itself. The same goes for Adam's measurement of
the gravitational redshift of Sirius B.
Put it another way, the individual measurements can be said to have
had little long-term scientific value, but the _result_ as a whole
had a substantial impact on physics.
Neill Reid - i...@stsci.edu
Daniel R. Reitman
wrote:
>. . . .
>On this point, I read Columiba Professor Brian Greene's "Elegant
>Universe" (superstring theory without math) with great interest. Though
>it is substantially above my head, at least I can see what these
>physicists (along with mathematicians) are doing. Indeed, in the book,
>Prof Greene mentioned that, for one of his research projects, he and a
>collaborator had, for quite a while, to lecture each other in math and
>in physics in order to take care the intricacies involved.
>. . . .
Strange, that's about where I am in the book right now.
Dan, ad nauseam
Hanging by a thread
Edward Hsu
news:3AA50666...@ou.edu...
> Articles written for the 9th and 11th editions of the Encyclopaedia
> Britannica are a good example of this phenomenon. A real shame
> encyclopedias aren't like that anymore.
>
Well, there is still a bit of that tradition around. For example, both
Stephen Jay Gould and Leon Litwack have contributed to Microsoft Encarta.
But you're right in that more scientists should be contributing.
======================================================================
Edward Hsu
University of California, Berkeley
Email: hsu...@uclink4.berkeley.edu
Web: http://thibs.menloschool.org/~hsu123/
"The sticky issue of population policy cannot be avoided. Whatever
your cause, it's a lost cause if humanity doesn't solve its popula-
tion problem."
-- Paul and Anne Ehrlich, Betrayal of Science and Reason, 1996.
Roger Schlafly
news:98a811$8l6$1...@agate.berkeley.edu...
> "Katherine Tredwell" <ktre...@ou.edu> wrote in message
> news:3AA50666...@ou.edu...
> > Articles written for the 9th and 11th editions of the Encyclopaedia
> > Britannica are a good example of this phenomenon. A real shame
> > encyclopedias aren't like that anymore.
> Well, there is still a bit of that tradition around. For example, both
> Stephen Jay Gould and Leon Litwack have contributed to Microsoft Encarta.
> But you're right in that more scientists should be contributing.
Huhh? Litwack is a historian. Gould is primarily known for being a science
expositor and historian.
Dan Drake
<roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>... Gould is primarily known for being a science
> expositor and historian.
And, independent of a recent stint as president of AAAS, which is a
political matter, a theoretician whose work remains controversial, as one
can see from an occasional research paper in _Science_.
Not to be ranked with Galileo and Darwin, however, if that's the criterion
for whatever it is that we're discussing.
Brian
"Roger Schlafly" <roger...@my-dejanews.com> skrev i melding
news:Er5q6.237$np2.74...@twister2.starband.net...
Isn't Gould's field about frogs ????
Brian
>
Ken Cox
> "Roger Schlafly" skrev:
> > Huhh? Litwack is a historian. Gould is primarily known for being a science
> > expositor and historian.
> Isn't Gould's field about frogs ????
Snails.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
andysch
news:98904p$vk6$1...@netnews.upenn.edu...
> In article <R%Rp6.46672$c7.13...@news3.rdc1.on.home.com> "Maury
Markowitz" <maury@remove_this.sympatico.ca.invalid> writes:
> >"andysch" <and...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> >news:rFXo6.5976$mM2.3...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> >> I don't think Einstein's efforts at selling to the public were very
> >> successful. Stephen Hawkings was much better.
> >
> > I doubt it, unless you're willing to back that up with sales figures
> >adjusted for both relative price and overall population change. Books
> >weren't the disposible furnature they are today, which made sales
smaller.
>
> It's possible that 'A Brief History of Time' has been sold more often
> than Einstein's relativity book, even allowing for demographic changes.
Hawking's book probably sold 10x or more as many copies as Einstein's book.
> But there's no question of the popular impact of Einstein's work - a
> cursory inspection of newspapers (or literature) from the 20s and 30s
> can establish that. (And Eddington, that great theoretical scientist and
> renowned populariser, had a large part in publicising those results).
That is a different point. Everyone concedes that Einstein was popularized.
> On the other hand, I've no doubt that both Einstein and Hawking are
> more misunderstood than understood - I've heard ABHoT refered to as the
> least read bestseller in history.
I agree. People bought Hawking's book because they want answers about how
and why we got here. But Hawking's book doesn't tell them. If it did, then
it would still top the bestseller lists.
> [... snip..]
> >
> >> The solar eclipse expedition was of dubious scientific value. Good at
> >> generating press, though.
>
> Balderdash - the 1919 eclipse expedition provided direct evidence in
> favour of relativity: a deflection in position was predicted, and a
> deflection was observed.
A change in positions was guaranteed based solely on measurement error.
> That result had a significant impact on the
> general acceptance of Einstein's work ....
I agree with that -- the expedition generated great press for GR.
> Put it another way, the individual measurements can be said to have
> had little long-term scientific value, but the _result_ as a whole
> had a substantial impact on physics.
Did it operate to delay the current research for string theory to replace
GR? Had the expedition declared that GR was imprecise, would we have
started the string theory research earlier?
Andy
Bill Hobba
My favorite popualiser is Feynman. To my way of thinking he was a lot
closer to Einstein as a great scientist than Hawking is.
I believe the publics perception of Hawking overestimates his actual
scientific worth. He is a good scientist but not a great one; Feynman was
great.
Bill
andysch
news:IKrq6.8810$0N3....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Popularizing science is very different from advancing science. The same
person really can't do both.
Trouble is, most people don't distinguish between the two. When we see a
scientist in the paper a lot, we assume he must be a great scientist. He
probably isn't.
One problem is that some people inherently trust the media, and just assume
that the media takes the trouble to find the great scientists for us and
only then print what they say. It doesn't work that way. Instead, the
media prefer those who are easy to access and deal with, can talk in
soundbites, don't mind having their work editted and revised, and who
actively spend time developing personal relationships with individuals in
the media.
That's quite far from the personality traits and interests of great
scientists.
Andy
Katherine Tredwell
Ah, but the title of the thread stipulates "good" scientists, which means
that Feynman, being "great," does not count :-)
Katherine Tredwell
Katherine Tredwell
[...]
> Galileo did something different. He had no Annalen der Physik, no Nature,
> no Science. Two New Sciences _is_ the piece in which he published his
> work in full technical detail, and on which he staked his reputation.
> It's also a piece written in the layman's language, in a conversational
> style so far as he found possible, intended to be comprehensible the
> educated public. This isn't done much any more, and the reasons are not
> hard to find. But if he's to be called a popularizer, and that seems to
> make it implausible that he could also do good original work in theory,
> one should remember the possibly unique nature of the popularizing itself.
While perhaps not common, it is not unique either. The last major
figure I know to have advanced a new theory in a work intended to
be read by a general audience was Darwin. I would be interested
to know of more recent scientists attempting to do the same.
Von Daniken does not count.
Katherine Tredwell
rich hammett
> "Bill Hobba" <bho...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
> news:IKrq6.8810$0N3....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> Interesting.
>>
>> My favorite popualiser is Feynman. To my way of thinking he was a lot
>> closer to Einstein as a great scientist than Hawking is.
>>
>> I believe the publics perception of Hawking overestimates his actual
>> scientific worth. He is a good scientist but not a great one; Feynman was
>> great.
> Popularizing science is very different from advancing science. The same
> person really can't do both.
Interesting. Do you have anything other than anecdotes to back this
assertion up?
rich
> Trouble is, most people don't distinguish between the two. When we see a
> scientist in the paper a lot, we assume he must be a great scientist. He
> probably isn't.
> One problem is that some people inherently trust the media, and just assume
> that the media takes the trouble to find the great scientists for us and
> only then print what they say. It doesn't work that way. Instead, the
> media prefer those who are easy to access and deal with, can talk in
> soundbites, don't mind having their work editted and revised, and who
> actively spend time developing personal relationships with individuals in
> the media.
> That's quite far from the personality traits and interests of great
> scientists.
> Andy
--
andysch
news:tal1r9c...@corp.supernews.com...
> In sci.astro andysch <and...@my-deja.com> allegedly wrote:
> > "Bill Hobba" <bho...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
> > news:IKrq6.8810$0N3....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> >> Interesting.
> >>
> >> My favorite popualiser is Feynman. To my way of thinking he was a lot
> >> closer to Einstein as a great scientist than Hawking is.
> >>
> >> I believe the publics perception of Hawking overestimates his actual
> >> scientific worth. He is a good scientist but not a great one; Feynman
was
> >> great.
>
> > Popularizing science is very different from advancing science. The same
> > person really can't do both.
>
> Interesting. Do you have anything other than anecdotes to back this
> assertion up?
Yes. The percentage of physicists who have both won a Nobel Prize outright
and written a bestseller, regular column, or appeared as a regular
commentator on TV is 0%.
It's the same percentage as the number of baseball players who have ever hit
50 home runs in a season and stolen 50 bases in a season.
It's the same percentage as the number of great athletes who have also
become great coaches.
It's the same percentage as the number of great teachers who have also
achieved great advances in their fields.
Andy
Gerry Quinn
I'm not sure if Feynman popularised science in the true sense of the
word - those of his writings that are popular with the public are not
science, and his science popularisations such as QED and The Character
of Physical Law are only seen on the coffee tables of those who are
hooked on science already.
- Gerry Quinn
rich hammett
> "rich hammett" <hnoa...@eng.spamauburn.edu> wrote in message
> news:tal1r9c...@corp.supernews.com...
>> In sci.astro andysch <and...@my-deja.com> allegedly wrote:
>> > "Bill Hobba" <bho...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
>> > news:IKrq6.8810$0N3....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> >> Interesting.
>> >>
>> >> My favorite popualiser is Feynman. To my way of thinking he was a lot
>> >> closer to Einstein as a great scientist than Hawking is.
>> >>
>> >> I believe the publics perception of Hawking overestimates his actual
>> >> scientific worth. He is a good scientist but not a great one; Feynman
> was
>> >> great.
>>
>> > Popularizing science is very different from advancing science. The same
>> > person really can't do both.
>>
>> Interesting. Do you have anything other than anecdotes to back this
>> assertion up?
> Yes. The percentage of physicists who have both won a Nobel Prize outright
> and written a bestseller, regular column, or appeared as a regular
> commentator on TV is 0%.
You have defined
A) Advancing science: winning a Nobel Prize outright.
B) Popularizing science: writing a best-seller, writing a regular column,
or appearing as a regular TV commentator.
I say two things:
A) You are allowed to make definitions, of course. I don't see why anyone
should accept these definitions of yours for any reason except to understand
what goes on in your head.
B) I'm willing to bet (but not willing to research, since you obviously are
not) that, even given your definitions, you are wrong.
> It's the same percentage as the number of baseball players who have ever hit
> 50 home runs in a season and stolen 50 bases in a season.
So nobody who steals only 49 bases is a great base-stealer? Nobody who
hits 30 home runs a year for 15 years is a great home run hitter?
> It's the same percentage as the number of great athletes who have also
> become great coaches.
Pat Riley? Rudi Tomjanovich (sp)? Do you care to share your definition
of greatness in these fields?
How about Whizzer White? I seem to recall him reaching the top of two
completely different careers.
> It's the same percentage as the number of great teachers who have also
> achieved great advances in their fields.
No. You're wrong.
rich
david raoul derbes
andysch <and...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>"Bill Hobba" <bho...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
>news:IKrq6.8810$0N3....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> Interesting.
>>
>> My favorite popualiser is Feynman. To my way of thinking he was a lot
>> closer to Einstein as a great scientist than Hawking is.
>>
>> I believe the publics perception of Hawking overestimates his actual
>> scientific worth. He is a good scientist but not a great one; Feynman was
>> great.
>
>Popularizing science is very different from advancing science. The same
>person really can't do both.
It's rare, but it happens.
Michael Faraday belongs on anyone's list of top ten physicists, and was
famously good at explaining science, especially to young people (e.g.,
"On the chemical history of a candle"; "On the forces of nature", and
other "Christmas Lectures" given at the Royal Institution in London.)
George Gamow, in my opinion, deserves the credit for predicting the
Big Bang, and actually came very close to determining the temperature
of the cosmic microwave background radiation. Gamow was also (with
Condon and Gurney, independently making the same discovery at the same
time) the first to come up with a good quantum mechanical description
of alpha decay. He was an exceptionally fine popularizer (see, e.g.,
"Thirty Years that Shook Physics", "One Two Three Infinity", and of
course "Mr. Tompkins".)
My understanding is that Brian Greene is on the cutting edge of string
theory, and his "Elegant Universe" is very highly regarded.
I'm not sure that Feynman's Lectures fall into the category of
"popularizing", but they are well below the level at which he usually
operated, and Feynman, with Einstein, was the greatest physicist of
the twentieth century (IMHO.) "QED" on the other hand, and "The Character
of Physical Law", are clearly successful efforts to explain fundamental
science to non-scientists.
David Derbes [lo...@midway.uchicago.edu]
Katherine Tredwell
On a more serious note than my last post, what defines a popularizer?
Does it include:
1. science explained for anyone who can read, or any adult?
2. science explained for the reasonably intelligent person with a
little curiosity or need-to-know?
3. science explained for someone with a college background?
4. science explained for someone with a considerable interest in
science, but no professional background?
5. science explained for a scientist who works in another field?
6. (add your own)?
I see no reason why a popularization must be aimed at at audience
that does not already have a strong interest in science. I could be
called "hooked on science," yet I do not read current theoretical
works, just explanations for nonscientists. Why should my reading
not be a popularization just because it "popularizes" to a smaller
audience than _National Geographic_?
Katherine Tredwell
Gregory L. Hansen
david raoul derbes <lo...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>In article <bWtq6.4393$Vg3.2...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
>andysch <and...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>"Bill Hobba" <bho...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
>>news:IKrq6.8810$0N3....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>> Interesting.
>>>
>>> My favorite popualiser is Feynman. To my way of thinking he was a lot
>>> closer to Einstein as a great scientist than Hawking is.
>>>
>>> I believe the publics perception of Hawking overestimates his actual
>>> scientific worth. He is a good scientist but not a great one; Feynman was
>>> great.
>>
>>Popularizing science is very different from advancing science. The same
>>person really can't do both.
>
>It's rare, but it happens.
I've said before, and didn't seem to stir much interest, that it's
probably likely that the percentage of great scientists that are also
great popularizers is probably about the same as the percentage of
non-great scientists that are great popularizers.
Unless there's a correlation between the two abilities (and there may be),
it shouldn't surprise anyone that what's rare among the entire population
of physicists might be rare among some given subset of physicists. If the
number of great physicists that are great popularizers is smaller than the
number of non-great physicists that are great popularizers, it could be
due to the simple fact that the number of great physicists is small
compared to the number of non-great physicists. (By definition, since
being "great" defines them as a small elite.)
--
"'No user-serviceable parts inside.' I'll be the judge of that!"
and...@attglobal.net
Feynman a popularizer? A lot of writers have chosen Feynman
as a subject, but the man himself produced very little material
directed at the public.
What are you thinking of? Not the Feynman lectures, I hope.
They were for physics freshmen at Caltech, so that's a pretty
select audience. And even they didn't find them very easy.
John Anderson
Paul Lutus
> Bill Hobba wrote:
> >
> > Interesting.
> >
> > My favorite popualiser is Feynman. To my way of thinking he was a lot
> > closer to Einstein as a great scientist than Hawking is.
> >
> > I believe the publics perception of Hawking overestimates his actual
> > scientific worth. He is a good scientist but not a great one; Feynman
was
> > great.
> >
>
> Feynman a popularizer? A lot of writers have chosen Feynman
> as a subject, but the man himself produced very little material
> directed at the public.
You clearly don't visit bookstores. Do the titles "Surely you're Joking, Mr.
Feynman," "Six Easy Pieces," "What do you care what other people think?",
"The Character of Physical Law," "QED, The strange theory of light and
matter," "The meaning of it all," and other popularly well-received titles
ring a bell?
--
Paul Lutus
www.arachnoid.com
Gerry Quinn
>Gerry Quinn wrote:
>> I'm not sure if Feynman popularised science in the true sense of the
>> word - those of his writings that are popular with the public are not
>> science, and his science popularisations such as QED and The Character
>> of Physical Law are only seen on the coffee tables of those who are
>> hooked on science already.
>
>On a more serious note than my last post, what defines a popularizer?
>Does it include:
>
>1. science explained for anyone who can read, or any adult?
>2. science explained for the reasonably intelligent person with a
>little curiosity or need-to-know?
>3. science explained for someone with a college background?
>4. science explained for someone with a considerable interest in
>science, but no professional background?
>5. science explained for a scientist who works in another field?
>6. (add your own)?
>
>I see no reason why a popularization must be aimed at at audience
>that does not already have a strong interest in science. I could be
>called "hooked on science," yet I do not read current theoretical
>works, just explanations for nonscientists. Why should my reading
>not be a popularization just because it "popularizes" to a smaller
>audience than _National Geographic_?
>
Well, I won't argue with the fact that there can be a zillion
definitions. Personally I'd be inclined to treat 1-3 as
popularisations, 4-5 not, but 3 and 4 are definitely close calls.
But do you read Feynman?
- Gerry Quinn
Katherine Tredwell
I am curious why you would choose to exclude #4. I think of "science
popularization" as aiming to explain scientific theories to people who
do not want to read the actual work, but a simplification.
> But do you read Feynman?
No, but I know other geeks ;-) who do, and they are not physicists
either.
Katherine Tredwell
and...@attglobal.net
The first and third are autobiographical and don't discuss much physics.
And those are the only ones that really had a popular impact.
John Anderson
Paul Lutus
> > You clearly don't visit bookstores. Do the titles "Surely you're Joking,
Mr.
> > Feynman," "Six Easy Pieces," "What do you care what other people
think?",
> > "The Character of Physical Law," "QED, The strange theory of light and
> > matter," "The meaning of it all," and other popularly well-received
titles
> > ring a bell?
> >
>
> The first and third are autobiographical and don't discuss much physics.
> And those are the only ones that really had a popular impact.
Well, the topic is "popularizing science," i.e. making information about
scientific topics and lives available to nonscientists. All these books do
just that.
Also, the specific statement I addressed was, "Feynman a popularizer? A lot
of writers have chosen Feynman as a subject, but the man himself produced
very little material directed at the public." This is trivially shown to be
untrue.
Even the movie that was loosely based on "Surely you're joking ..."
possessed quite a lot of interesting scientific material, toned down but
still recognizable, and certainly having the effect of popularizing science
per se.
I think Feynman fits the description of a popularizer. One could imagine a
litmus test for "popularizer" -- how many people who can name one scientist,
then recognize his name when it is offered?
You could go out and ask people to name a scientist. Those who answered
"Mary Baker Eddy" or "L. Ron Hubbard" would be sent away. The remainder
would be asked if they recognized, say, Feynman's name or Hawking's name.
Might be interesting.
--
Paul Lutus
www.arachnoid.com
Ken Muldrew
>While perhaps not common, it is not unique either. The last major
>figure I know to have advanced a new theory in a work intended to
>be read by a general audience was Darwin. I would be interested
>to know of more recent scientists attempting to do the same.
>Von Daniken does not count.
Jim Lovelock.
Ken Muldrew
kmul...@acs.ucalgary.ca
Neill Reid
>"Neill Reid" <i...@kepler.physics.upenn.edu> wrote in message
>news:98904p$vk6$1...@netnews.upenn.edu...
>>
>> It's possible that 'A Brief History of Time' has been sold more often
>> than Einstein's relativity book, even allowing for demographic changes.
>
>Hawking's book probably sold 10x or more as many copies as Einstein's book.
>
What's the basis for this statement? none at all, as far as I can see.
[.. stuff on popularising Einstein, by Eddington, well-renowned scientist,
amongt others....]
>> >
>> >> The solar eclipse expedition was of dubious scientific value. Good at
>> >> generating press, though.
>>
>> Balderdash - the 1919 eclipse expedition provided direct evidence in
>> favour of relativity: a deflection in position was predicted, and a
>> deflection was observed.
>
>A change in positions was guaranteed based solely on measurement error.
Let me rephrase the statement: a specific change in position, with a specific
magnitude and a specific direction, and a specific radial dependence on the
distance from the centre of the Sun, was predicted. There were, of course,
uncertainties (and errors) involved in measuring that displacement, but
those uncertainties were quantifiable. The initial observations included
only a handful of stars (7 and 5), but many more were measured during
the 1922 Australian eclipse. [There's an interesting article on this
very topic on astro-ph - see
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0102462 ]
>
>> That result had a significant impact on the
>> general acceptance of Einstein's work ....
>
>I agree with that -- the expedition generated great press for GR.
In the sense that any theoretical prediction is upheld by observations;
the `great press' came from the nature of the theory itself.
>
>> Put it another way, the individual measurements can be said to have
>> had little long-term scientific value,
Just to be clear - by this I mean that more accurate values were
forthcoming fairly quickly from higher quality observations. The
most stringent test is, I believe, currently provided by the
binary pulsar - the basis for a recent physics Nobel.
>>but the _result_ as a whole had a substantial impact on physics.
>
>Did it operate to delay the current research for string theory to replace
>GR? Had the expedition declared that GR was imprecise, would we have
>started the string theory research earlier?
Your question does not make sense - these observations displaced Newtonian
gravity from its central role. String theory wasn't waiting in the wings
in any shape or form; in fact, it's not quite clear to me how string
theory displaces/replaces GR. But then, that's not my speciality -
perhaps you can expand on that issue.
Neill Reid - i...@stsci.edu
Dan Drake
>... The last major
> figure I know to have advanced a new theory in a work intended to
> be read by a general audience was Darwin.
Quite true. Looking at _Origin of Species_, I'm reminded of someone's
ironic .sig line, "This *is* the simplified version for the general
public." But still, that's what O of S is. And it's interesting to note
this folkloric quasi-proportion among the unlearned in history of science,
physics: Galileo
chemistry: Lavoisier
biology: Darwin
(Being folklore doesn't make something false.)
> I would be interested
> to know of more recent scientists attempting to do the same.
> Von Daniken does not count.
CAN Von Daniken count?
Maybe we'll see it happen when <asbestos> the scientific revolution
reaches another discipline </asbestos>.
Ben Carter
>this folkloric quasi-proportion among the unlearned in history of science,
>physics: Galileo
>chemistry: Lavoisier
>biology: Darwin
>(Being folklore doesn't make something false.)
Here is a more sophisticated version:
>physics: Newton: conservation of momentum
>chemistry: Lavoisier: conservation of mass
>biology: Darwin: non-conservation of species
Caveat: not being folklore doesn't make it true ;)
andysch
> In article <32gq6.2373$fw6.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
"andysch" <and...@my-deja.com> writes:
> >"Neill Reid" <i...@kepler.physics.upenn.edu> wrote in message
> >news:98904p$vk6$1...@netnews.upenn.edu...
>
> [... snip ..]
>
> >>
> >> It's possible that 'A Brief History of Time' has been sold more often
> >> than Einstein's relativity book, even allowing for demographic changes.
> >
> >Hawking's book probably sold 10x or more as many copies as Einstein's
book.
> >
>
> What's the basis for this statement? none at all, as far as I can see.
I don't see anyone doubting my statement. Hawking's book spent a year on
the NY Times Bestseller list. I doubt Einstein's book spent a week there.
<...>
> >Did it operate to delay the current research for string theory to replace
> >GR? Had the expedition declared that GR was imprecise, would we have
> >started the string theory research earlier?
>
> Your question does not make sense - these observations displaced
Newtonian
> gravity from its central role. String theory wasn't waiting in the wings
> in any shape or form; in fact, it's not quite clear to me how string
> theory displaces/replaces GR. But then, that's not my speciality -
> perhaps you can expand on that issue.
GR has been the dogma for explaining gravity for 80 years, based on gravity
waves that have never been directly observed.
String theory is developing, but clinging to older theories can be an
obstacle. If another 80 years go by without directly observing gravity
waves, should we still be adhering to field theory for gravity?
Andy
Robert J. Kolker
andysch wrote:
> GR has been the dogma for explaining gravity for 80 years, based on gravity
> waves that have never been directly observed.
Electrons have never been directly observed. They are inferred from
their effects.
Bob Kolker
andysch
news:3AAD8EA2...@email.com...
Then modify my sentence above to read "GR has been the dogma for explaining
gravity for 80 years, based on gravity waves that have never been inferred
directly from effects in this solar system."
Will you now argue that the Mercury perihelion advance, explainable simply
by using a more precise value of n in Newton's 1/r^n, somehow demonstrates
the existence of gravity waves?
Andy
Robert J. Kolker
andysch wrote:
>
> Will you now argue that the Mercury perihelion advance, explainable simply
> by using a more precise value of n in Newton's 1/r^n, somehow demonstrates
> the existence of gravity waves?
If the precession of the perihelions was the only issue, your argument
might hold water, but GR predicts not only the precession of the
perihelions, but also the gravity red shift and the bending of light in
the vicinity of a massive body. It also predicts/explains "gravitational
lensing" (same thing as the bending of light). The nifty thing is that
at all follows from a simple sounding principle with profound
consequences, to wit the Equivalence Principle. So a relatively
simple basic principle predicts all this stuff. That is much better
than fiddling Newtonian gravity. What is also interesting is
that Newtonion Gravity matches GR to the first order of
approximation which is what you would expect by a theory
that corrects defects in another theory. This is much the
same thing as quantum theory matching classical physics for
large/heave macroscopic systems.
When the only way to "fix" a theory is diddling with constants
and constantly fiddling it to match new observations it is
time for a new theory. This was the problem with the Ptolemaic
geo-centric theory. Whenever a discrepancy occurred add another
epicycle. Highly unsatisfactory.
Bob Kolker
andysch
> andysch wrote:
> >
> > Will you now argue that the Mercury perihelion advance, explainable
simply
> > by using a more precise value of n in Newton's 1/r^n, somehow
demonstrates
> > the existence of gravity waves?
>
> If the precession of the perihelions was the only issue, your argument
> might hold water, but GR predicts not only the precession of the
> perihelions, but also the gravity red shift and the bending of light in
> the vicinity of a massive body. It also predicts/explains "gravitational
> lensing" (same thing as the bending of light). The nifty thing is that
> at all follows from a simple sounding principle with profound
> consequences, to wit the Equivalence Principle. So a relatively
> simple basic principle predicts all this stuff. That is much better
> than fiddling Newtonian gravity.
That summarizes much of the conviction about GR: it's mathematically pure,
so it must be right. It's a lot more elegant than n=2.00000016 in Newtonian
mechanics.
Philosophically, that's a throwback to Galileo's conviction that orbits must
be circular, with the Sun as the immobile center of the universe. Problem
is, nature isn't really mathematically pure.
> What is also interesting is
> that Newtonion Gravity matches GR to the first order of
> approximation which is what you would expect by a theory
> that corrects defects in another theory. This is much the
> same thing as quantum theory matching classical physics for
> large/heave macroscopic systems.
GR explains a handful of oddities, some known before GR was developed. But
at bottom GR is a field theory, dependent on the existence of gravity waves.
80 years later, still no real detection of the waves. Should we wait
another 80 years?
> When the only way to "fix" a theory is diddling with constants
> and constantly fiddling it to match new observations it is
> time for a new theory. This was the problem with the Ptolemaic
> geo-centric theory. Whenever a discrepancy occurred add another
> epicycle. Highly unsatisfactory.
Improving the accuracy of n from 2 to 2.00000016 based on more careful
observations is science at its best. The only objection to it seems to be
that it disturbs mathematical purity. I don't see anything scientific about
that.
BTW, I'm not opposed to GR. But it is worth scrutinizing in an objective
manner.
Andy
Richard Herring
> "Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@email.com> wrote in message
> news:3AAD8EA2...@email.com...
> > andysch wrote:
> >
> > > GR has been the dogma for explaining gravity for 80 years, based on
> gravity
> > > waves that have never been directly observed.
> >
> > Electrons have never been directly observed. They are inferred from
> > their effects.
> Then modify my sentence above to read "GR has been the dogma for explaining
> gravity for 80 years, based on gravity waves that have never been inferred
> directly from effects in this solar system."
Still wrong. Gravity waves are a consequence, not the basis,
of GR.
--
Richard Herring | <richard...@baesystems.com>
Richard Herring
> CAN Von Daniken count?
Only in dollars.
--
Richard Herring | <richard...@baesystems.com>
jmfb...@aol.com
I seem to remember reading something by him but I don't remember
what I read. I don't recall much science. Do you have a
favorite?
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
Ken Cox
> Then modify my sentence above to read "GR has been the dogma for explaining
> gravity for 80 years, based on gravity waves that have never been inferred
> directly from effects in this solar system."
This will come as something of a shock to Taylor and Hulse,
who received the 1993 Nobel Prize in Physics for their
observations of orbiting pairs of neutron stars and their
demonstration that the orbital changes are exactly in accord
with the loss of energy due to gravitational waves.
I'm pretty sure that Taylor and Hulse were working in this
solar system, and so were observing effects in this solar
system.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Neill Reid
Neill Reid
apologies for previous screwup
In article <mafr6.6428$Rb.5...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> "andysch" <and...@my-deja.com> writes:
>"Neill Reid" <i...@kepler.physics.upenn.edu> wrote in message
>news:98ji5u$nj2$1...@netnews.upenn.edu...
>> In article <32gq6.2373$fw6.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
>"andysch" <and...@my-deja.com> writes:
>> >"Neill Reid" <i...@kepler.physics.upenn.edu> wrote in message
>> >news:98904p$vk6$1...@netnews.upenn.edu...
>> >> It's possible that 'A Brief History of Time' has been sold more often
>> >> than Einstein's relativity book, even allowing for demographic changes.
>> >
>> >Hawking's book probably sold 10x or more as many copies as Einstein's book.
>>
>> What's the basis for this statement? none at all, as far as I can see.
>
>I don't see anyone doubting my statement. Hawking's book spent a year on
>the NY Times Bestseller list. I doubt Einstein's book spent a week there.
And Einstein published his book 40+ years beforehand, so there was a lot
more time, even if he sold less copies per year. The simple fact is
that you don't know who sold more copies, and neither do I, but you're
willing to make a bald assumption - pretty much in character, I'd say.
><...>
>> >Did it operate to delay the current research for string theory to replace
>> >GR? Had the expedition declared that GR was imprecise, would we have
>> >started the string theory research earlier?
>>
>> Your question does not make sense - these observations displaced Newtonian
>> gravity from its central role. String theory wasn't waiting in the wings
>> in any shape or form; in fact, it's not quite clear to me how string
>> theory displaces/replaces GR. But then, that's not my speciality -
>> perhaps you can expand on that issue.
>
>GR has been the dogma for explaining gravity for 80 years, based on gravity
>waves that have never been directly observed.
You have a somewhat imperfect notion of the origins of GR - under no
circumstances can it be regarded as a consequence of gravity waves.
I'd say it stemmed more from issues related to the Principle of Equivalence.
GR replaced Newtonian gravitational theory because it provided a
better explanation for several observations, including the anomalous
precession rate of Mercury's orbit, the magnitude of the astrometric
displacement due to solar gravitational lensing, and, later, the
measured magnitude of gravitational redshifts in white dwarfs. (The
latter effect has also been verified within the earth's gravitational
field.)
Gravitational radiation is predicted as a consequence of GR, and,
as is pointed out elsewhere, there are indirect observations which
suggest that such effects exist. The Taylor & Hulse binary pulsar
observations tested GR by comparing the rate of orbital decay with
that expected due to energy losses through gravitational radiation -
that's both a qualitative and a quantitative comparison; the results
are in excellent agreement with GR predictions (see Scientific
American, 245, 74, 1981).
GR arose from an internal contradiction - one gravity theory
replaced another through observational inconsistencies tied to
gravitational effects. The genesis of string theory (at least in
my imperfect understanding) stems from an _external_ inconsistency -
GR and quantum mechanics are inconsistent at a fundamental level.
String theory offers one possible mechanism for reconciling the
two - yet I'm not sure whether one can say that string theory
displaces, replaces or extends GR.
>
>String theory is developing, but clinging to older theories can be an
>obstacle.
True, but there's no point in dropping a theory without just cause,
and I don't know of any instance where string theory makes a
materially different prediction - at least, at a testable level.
One can hinder research just as much by jumping on the latest bandwagon
just because it happens to be passing.
>If another 80 years go by without directly observing gravity
>waves, should we still be adhering to field theory for gravity?
That depends - especially on whether gravitational wave experiments
achieve useful detection limits. As noted above, there is indirect
evidence for gravitational radiation, but the amplitude of most
events (short of merging neutron stars) is so slight that we'd require
acute proximity to detect anything, even with a fully working LIGO.
So if the experiments don't achieve stringent upper limits, and there's
no strong reason for prefering an alternative theory, then, yes, I
suspect our successors will be still using GR.
Neill Reid - i...@stsci.edu
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>
>
> GR arose from an internal contradiction - one gravity theory
>replaced another through observational inconsistencies tied to
>gravitational effects. The genesis of string theory (at least in
>my imperfect understanding) stems from an _external_ inconsistency -
>GR and quantum mechanics are inconsistent at a fundamental level.
Actually, GR arose from an external contradiction, i.e. inconsistency
between the (then) existing gravity theory and relativity. It wasn't
crafted to address observational inconsistencies (though it does
address them very nicely).
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
me...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Neill Reid
>In article <98ltrh$5o2$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>, i...@kepler.physics.upenn.edu (Neill Reid) writes:
>>
>> GR arose from an internal contradiction - one gravity theory
>>replaced another through observational inconsistencies tied to
>>gravitational effects. The genesis of string theory (at least in
>>my imperfect understanding) stems from an _external_ inconsistency -
>>GR and quantum mechanics are inconsistent at a fundamental level.
>
>Actually, GR arose from an external contradiction, i.e. inconsistency
>between the (then) existing gravity theory and relativity. It wasn't
>crafted to address observational inconsistencies (though it does
>address them very nicely).
So it did, and so much for that argument
- mixed up consequences and causes.
Neill Reid - i...@stsci.edu
Jonathan Silverlight
andysch <and...@my-deja.com> writes
>"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@email.com> wrote in message
>news:3AAD9FA1...@email.com...
>> andysch wrote:
>> >
>> > Will you now argue that the Mercury perihelion advance, explainable
>simply
>> > by using a more precise value of n in Newton's 1/r^n, somehow
>demonstrates
>> > the existence of gravity waves?
>>
>> If the precession of the perihelions was the only issue, your argument
>> might hold water, but GR predicts not only the precession of the
>> perihelions, but also the gravity red shift and the bending of light in
>> the vicinity of a massive body. It also predicts/explains "gravitational
>> lensing" (same thing as the bending of light). The nifty thing is that
>> at all follows from a simple sounding principle with profound
>> consequences, to wit the Equivalence Principle. So a relatively
>> simple basic principle predicts all this stuff. That is much better
>> than fiddling Newtonian gravity.
>
>That summarizes much of the conviction about GR: it's mathematically pure,
>so it must be right. It's a lot more elegant than n=2.00000016 in Newtonian
>mechanics.
You seem to have a fixation on 2.00000016. Have I missed something, or
do you have any theoretical justification for this number?
and...@attglobal.net
What effects would those be? You've made a provocative
statement, but you have presented no hypothesis to support
the statement.
John Anderson
rich hammett
What are you saying? That Taylor and Hulse were outside our
solar system when they did their measurements?
rich
> John Anderson
--
-remove no from mail name and spam from domain to reply
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
/ hnoa...@eng.spamauburn.edu
\ ..basketball [is] the paramount
/ synthesis in sport of intelligence, precision, courage,
\ audacity, anticipation, artifice, teamwork, elegance,
/ and grace. --Carl Sagan
Ben Carter
>Actually, GR arose from an external contradiction, i.e. inconsistency
>between the (then) existing gravity theory and relativity.
This is correct. The existing gravity theory (say, in 1915) was Newton's,
which involves instantaneous action at a distance and Galilean coordinate
transformations. Einstein recognized the need for a theory of which SR
and Newtonian gravitational theory would be limiting cases. It was also
necessary to explain the fact that inertial mass is proportional to
gravitational mass. GR accomplished all this by assuming that space-time
is curved in the vicinity of matter or energy.
The mathematics of curved spaces of arbitrary dimension had been
introduced by Riemann and is a generalization of Gauss's study of the
intrinsic curvature of (2 dimensional) surfaces. Einstein applied this
mathematics and, like Newton, made a fairly arbitrary dynamical
assumption, which would either be confirmed or contradicted by
observation. Einstein's ad hoc assumption is expressed by the field
equation, which relates the curvature of space-time to the energy-momentum
tensor. So far, all relevant observations support GR.
Ken Moore
andysch <and...@my-deja.com> writes
>observations is science at its best. The only objection to it seems to be
>that it disturbs mathematical purity. I don't see anything scientific about
>that.
1) What does it do to the orbits of other planets in the solar system?
2) Do its implications for the geometry of space near a massive body
differ from those of GR?
--
Ken Moore
k...@hpsl.demon.co.uk
Web site: http://www.hpsl.demon.co.uk/
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
Yep. I would just add that of the two issues above the second one,
i.e. the proportionality of inertial and gravitational mass, wasn't a
"must". Physics already lived with the puzzling fact that the two are
proportional for upwards of 200 years (at that time) and, if needed,
it could just keep accepting this as a postulate and keep going.
While puzzling, it didn't hurt the consistency of physical theory.
The first issue, on the other hand, the one of instantaneous action at
a distance and Galilean invariance, was crucial, as in this form
gravity was inherently inconsistant with the rest of physics (which
was already "relativized"). So this absolutely had to be resolved.
Of course, the fact that both got resolved simultaneously made
everybody just so much happier. When a single assumption results in
resolving more than one major issue, that's a very powerful hint that
you're on the right track.
Gregory L. Hansen
andysch <and...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>GR explains a handful of oddities, some known before GR was developed. But
>at bottom GR is a field theory, dependent on the existence of gravity waves.
>80 years later, still no real detection of the waves. Should we wait
>another 80 years?
It doesn't depend on gravity waves, it predicts them. Detecting gravity
waves, aside from inferring them by astronomical observations, depends on
having a sensitive enough detector and then having the universe throw out
a sufficiently violent disturbance to be detected.
>
>> When the only way to "fix" a theory is diddling with constants
>> and constantly fiddling it to match new observations it is
>> time for a new theory. This was the problem with the Ptolemaic
>> geo-centric theory. Whenever a discrepancy occurred add another
>> epicycle. Highly unsatisfactory.
>
>Improving the accuracy of n from 2 to 2.00000016 based on more careful
>observations is science at its best. The only objection to it seems to be
>that it disturbs mathematical purity. I don't see anything scientific about
>that.
Chris Hillman posted an excellent review of myths and facts about general
relativity a few days ago. You should look for it. In particular,
changing the constant in Newton's gravitational force law does not "fix"
solar system physics.
>
>BTW, I'm not opposed to GR. But it is worth scrutinizing in an objective
>manner.
Lots of people have proposed lots of perfectly reasonable alternatives to
general relativity. Some have since been discarded due to better
measurements, others are still in the running. GR *is* being scrutinized
in an objective manner. It's just that it's well known that Newton with a
slightly different exponent is not in the running.
--
"'No user-serviceable parts inside.' I'll be the judge of that!"
Ken Cox
> Ken Cox wrote:
> > andysch wrote:
> > > Then modify my sentence above to read "GR has been the dogma for explaining
> > > gravity for 80 years, based on gravity waves that have never been inferred
> > > directly from effects in this solar system."
> >
> > This will come as something of a shock to Taylor and Hulse,
> > I'm pretty sure that Taylor and Hulse were working in this
> > solar system, and so were observing effects in this solar
> > system.
> What effects would those be? You've made a provocative
> statement, but you have presented no hypothesis to support
> the statement.
I think you mean "evidence", not "hypothesis". The evidence
itself -- the observations, and the calculations that show they
are in agreement with GR's prediction of gravity waves -- are
available in their papers.
However, my point was that Taylor and Hulse made their Nobel-prize
winning [*] observations from this solar system. So, unless Andy
wants to claim that their observations were completely made up, and
none of the journal editors or Nobel committee members noticed, the
effects of gravitational waves are observable in this solar system.
I freely admit that what Taylor and Hulse observed was not the
gravitational wave itself (what would an intense gravity wave feel
like, I wonder?). Nonetheless, the only explanation for their
observations is that gravity waves were removing energy from the
neutron star pair.
[*] Sorry if I seem to be harping on the Nobel, but Andy has in
the past indicated that he considers this a mark -- perhaps the
only mark -- of excellent science.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Ken Cox
> It doesn't depend on gravity waves, it predicts them. Detecting gravity
> waves, aside from inferring them by astronomical observations, depends on
> having a sensitive enough detector and then having the universe throw out
> a sufficiently violent disturbance to be detected.
<tongue-in-cheek>
With any luck, after the detectors go on line in the next
couple of years, a pair of neutron stars will collide
within a few parsecs of the Earth. That will definitely
end the debate over relativity.
</tongue-in-cheek>
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Paul Lutus
news:aWIe4HAq...@hpsl.demon.co.uk...
> In article <PLgr6.6796$fw6.5...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> andysch <and...@my-deja.com> writes
> >Improving the accuracy of n from 2 to 2.00000016 based on more careful
> >observations is science at its best. The only objection to it seems to
be
> >that it disturbs mathematical purity. I don't see anything scientific
about
> >that.
>
> 1) What does it do to the orbits of other planets in the solar system?
>
> 2) Do its implications for the geometry of space near a massive body
> differ from those of GR?
Such a change (from 2 to 2.00000016) would be immediately detectable using
current technologies. It is not there. It is not about mathematical purity.
Anyone able to show this discrepancy would instantly become rich and famous.
No one has because it isn't true.
--
Paul Lutus
www.arachnoid.com
Ken Muldrew
He's a scientist to the core but a book for a general audience is
still a book for a general audience (e.g. you can use equations but 5
pages of integrals are going to put even the most dedicated layman
into a coma). My favorite book by Lovelock is "The Ages of Gaia" (I've
also heard very good reviews of his recent autobiography but I haven't
read it yet). My favorite paper is " The Haemolysis of Human Red Blood
Cells by Freezing and Thawing". Biochim Biophys Acta 10: 414-426.
1953. The thing that makes Lovelock stand alone is his position as an
"independent" scientist. He spends part of the year inventing things
(instead of writing grant applications) and funds his research with
the profits from his inventions.
Ken Muldrew
kmul...@acs.ucalgary.ca
Jonathan Silverlight
<kmul...@acs.ucalgary.ca> writes
>jmfb...@aol.com wrote:
>
>>In article <3aad2fb3....@news.ucalgary.ca>,
>> kmul...@acs.ucalgary.ca (Ken Muldrew) wrote:
>>>Katherine Tredwell <ktre...@ou.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>>While perhaps not common, it is not unique either. The last major
>>>>figure I know to have advanced a new theory in a work intended to
>>>>be read by a general audience was Darwin. I would be interested
>>>>to know of more recent scientists attempting to do the same.
>>>>Von Daniken does not count.
>>>
>>>Jim Lovelock.
>>
>>I seem to remember reading something by him but I don't remember
>>what I read. I don't recall much science. Do you have a
>>favorite?
>
>He's a scientist to the core but a book for a general audience is
>still a book for a general audience (e.g. you can use equations but 5
>pages of integrals are going to put even the most dedicated layman
>into a coma)
Didn't Stephen Hawking say that his publisher told him that _one_
equation would halve his audience?
Ken Muldrew
>Didn't Stephen Hawking say that his publisher told him that _one_
>equation would halve his audience?
Yes, but right now we're discussing books in which new science is
presented but the book is aimed at a general audience (e.g. Darwin's
Origin of Species). Hawking was trying to write a popularization of
cosmology with that book.
Ken Muldrew
kmul...@acs.ucalgary.ca
and...@attglobal.net
>
> and...@attglobal.net wrote:
> > Ken Cox wrote:
> > > andysch wrote:
> > > > Then modify my sentence above to read "GR has been the dogma for explaining
> > > > gravity for 80 years, based on gravity waves that have never been inferred
> > > > directly from effects in this solar system."
> > >
> > > This will come as something of a shock to Taylor and Hulse,
> > > [snip]
> > > I'm pretty sure that Taylor and Hulse were working in this
> > > solar system, and so were observing effects in this solar
> > > system.
>
> > What effects would those be? You've made a provocative
> > statement, but you have presented no hypothesis to support
> > the statement.
>
> I think you mean "evidence", not "hypothesis". The evidence
> itself -- the observations, and the calculations that show they
> are in agreement with GR's prediction of gravity waves -- are
> available in their papers.
>
I'm not disagreeing with that. I'm talking about what YOU posted.
You said that you're "pretty sure" about them observing effects
in this solar system. That is your hypothesis and it isn't
evidence since you didn't even point out what effects you're
talking about.
> However, my point was that Taylor and Hulse made their Nobel-prize
> winning [*] observations from this solar system. So, unless Andy
> wants to claim that their observations were completely made up, and
> none of the journal editors or Nobel committee members noticed, the
> effects of gravitational waves are observable in this solar system.
>
That doesn't sound like what you were saying in the posting
that I originally responded to.
> I freely admit that what Taylor and Hulse observed was not the
> gravitational wave itself (what would an intense gravity wave feel
> like, I wonder?). Nonetheless, the only explanation for their
> observations is that gravity waves were removing energy from the
> neutron star pair.
>
Okay, I guess I got into this thread after it had been going
awhile and didn't understand the context of your remarks.
John Anderson
and...@attglobal.net
>
> In sci.astro and...@attglobal.net allegedly wrote:
> > Ken Cox wrote:
> >>
> >> andysch wrote:
> >> > Then modify my sentence above to read "GR has been the dogma for explaining
> >> > gravity for 80 years, based on gravity waves that have never been inferred
> >> > directly from effects in this solar system."
> >>
> >> This will come as something of a shock to Taylor and Hulse,
> >> who received the 1993 Nobel Prize in Physics for their
> >> observations of orbiting pairs of neutron stars and their
> >> demonstration that the orbital changes are exactly in accord
> >> with the loss of energy due to gravitational waves.
> >>
> >> I'm pretty sure that Taylor and Hulse were working in this
> >> solar system, and so were observing effects in this solar
> >> system.
> >>
>
> > What effects would those be? You've made a provocative
> > statement, but you have presented no hypothesis to support
> > the statement.
>
> What are you saying? That Taylor and Hulse were outside our
> solar system when they did their measurements?
>
No, I didn't understand the context of the discussion
in this thread and Mr. Cox's posting seemed very strange
to me. He explained it to me and I understand it,
but I think that what he wrote is an odd way to say
what he was trying to say.
John Anderson
rich hammett
It was sarcasm. Dealing with andy, repeating the same clear
evidences ad nauseum, only to have andy ignore your post or
conveniently forget it when constructing his next strawman,
can drive even level-headed Ken to such lengths.
Phrasing things obliquely also gets around andy's habit of
latching on to superficial phrases in the field of discussion,
and reveals that he has no understanding at all of the subject.
Bill Hobba
It was not an assertion merely a comment so requires no 'backing up'.
Bill
"rich hammett" <hnoa...@eng.spamauburn.edu> wrote in message
news:tal1r9c...@corp.supernews.com...
> In sci.astro andysch <and...@my-deja.com> allegedly wrote:
> > "Bill Hobba" <bho...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
> > news:IKrq6.8810$0N3....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> >> Interesting.
> >>
> >> My favorite popualiser is Feynman. To my way of thinking he was a lot
> >> closer to Einstein as a great scientist than Hawking is.
> >>
> >> I believe the publics perception of Hawking overestimates his actual
> >> scientific worth. He is a good scientist but not a great one; Feynman
was
> >> great.
>
> > Popularizing science is very different from advancing science. The same
> > person really can't do both.
>
> Interesting. Do you have anything other than anecdotes to back this
> assertion up?
>
> rich
>
> > Trouble is, most people don't distinguish between the two. When we see
a
> > scientist in the paper a lot, we assume he must be a great scientist.
He
> > probably isn't.
>
> > One problem is that some people inherently trust the media, and just
assume
> > that the media takes the trouble to find the great scientists for us and
> > only then print what they say. It doesn't work that way. Instead, the
> > media prefer those who are easy to access and deal with, can talk in
> > soundbites, don't mind having their work editted and revised, and who
> > actively spend time developing personal relationships with individuals
in
> > the media.
>
> > That's quite far from the personality traits and interests of great
> > scientists.
>
> > Andy
Bill Hobba
I was thinking of QED the Strange Theory of Light and Matter, The Character
of Physical Law, The meaning of It All, a number of collections that
appeared after his death (taken mostly form the Lectures) and some
television shows he did for the BBC.
He did not write a lot for the public true, however he did write some. The
entire intent of my comments was the view of the public about scientists.
In their eyes Hawking is considered the greatest scientist alive (I know
this from discussing science with people at work - and they are well
educated, all have degrees).
I was merely countering with the example I know best - Feynman. He did
write books for the public, appear on television and, in my humble opinion,
was a greater scientist. He was even alive when Hawking was.
Bill
<and...@attglobal.net> wrote in message news:3AAB27...@attglobal.net...
> Bill Hobba wrote:
> >
> > Interesting.
> >
> > My favorite popualiser is Feynman. To my way of thinking he was a lot
> > closer to Einstein as a great scientist than Hawking is.
> >
> > I believe the publics perception of Hawking overestimates his actual
> > scientific worth. He is a good scientist but not a great one; Feynman
was
> > great.
> >
>
> Feynman a popularizer? A lot of writers have chosen Feynman
> as a subject, but the man himself produced very little material
> directed at the public.
>
> What are you thinking of? Not the Feynman lectures, I hope.
> They were for physics freshmen at Caltech, so that's a pretty
> select audience. And even they didn't find them very easy.
>
> John Anderson