WingNews logo WingNews
top | item 33168019

(no title)

zethus | 3 years ago

Ah I understand your argument now and can agree we are on the same page. Can't say I know of any empirical/observed evidence either. I don't believe AdS/CFT can be used to make predictions of precise accuracy beyond serving as a toy model to reshape other physical observation.

To get off the tangent, I've backed up the comment chain and am thinking about your original comments on the harmfulness of articles like this. At first I shared OP's sentiment that it is generally harmless, but the more I think about it, the more I take your stance. Curious what your thoughts are on exposing more people to theoretical physics sans popsci buzzword articles?

For anyone else who's following this thread, I would recommend checking out "The Trouble with Physics" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/108939.The_Trouble_with_...

discuss

order

pdonis|3 years ago

> Curious what your thoughts are on exposing more people to theoretical physics sans popsci buzzword articles?

It's a great thing to try to do; I try to do it myself as a contributor to Physics Forums [1], for example.

I'm not sure how much good books like The Trouble With Physics actually do as far as exposing more people to physics sans popsci, because, while they might point out issues with how speculative research in physics is done, they don't actually teach any physics.

I personally would recommend Feynman's books for the layman, such as QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter or The Character of Physical Law, or Six Easy Pieces (followed by Six Not So Easy Pieces), as ways for people to get at least some exposure to physics without popsci buzzwords. IMO even those books are limited, because you can't really understand physics without actually doing the math and solving some actual problems. But they're still way better than popsci articles (or, for that matter, popsci books like those of Brian Greene or Michio Kaku).

[1] https://www.physicsforums.com