'could also be that particule astrophysics promise big stuff. Whether the origin of the universe and explaining God or 'just' Conjoiners Drive that would allow to match C.
An iPhone was wondrous the first time it got unveiled. You know the saying about seeing a camel for the third time?
I think Nigel Goldenfeld is trying to write a pop-sci CMP book, and I'm looking forward to it.
I think, and this is complete speculation with no empirics whatsoever, that comparing condensed matter systems to a new universe with different particles that do different stuff might be more engaging for the popular audience. I know if I were introduced to CMP that way, I'd be interested.
Having thought about Natelson's post a bit, I'm wondering: perhaps this all began with Cosmos? I do think that we need to look beyond just the books but consider science communications more broadly, most importantly, film and video. Throughout the 1980s I remember also a focus on particle/ astrophysics in e.g. Nova and other PBS series. The dramatic, reductionist language that particle/ astrophysics uses is really effective in the video format. So perhaps the videos drive the interest and inspire the book purchases?
I do think that "chaos" had a moment in the late '80s and early '90s, it'd be interesting to figure out why that didn't persist in popular physics.
“ Low-energy experimentalists, on the other hand, are often doing their work in an entirely different place than the office where their computer is located, making it harder to dash off a quick tweet.”
…you know there is a phone app for Twitter, right?
'could also be that particule astrophysics promise big stuff. Whether the origin of the universe and explaining God or 'just' Conjoiners Drive that would allow to match C.
An iPhone was wondrous the first time it got unveiled. You know the saying about seeing a camel for the third time?
I think Nigel Goldenfeld is trying to write a pop-sci CMP book, and I'm looking forward to it.
I think, and this is complete speculation with no empirics whatsoever, that comparing condensed matter systems to a new universe with different particles that do different stuff might be more engaging for the popular audience. I know if I were introduced to CMP that way, I'd be interested.
Having thought about Natelson's post a bit, I'm wondering: perhaps this all began with Cosmos? I do think that we need to look beyond just the books but consider science communications more broadly, most importantly, film and video. Throughout the 1980s I remember also a focus on particle/ astrophysics in e.g. Nova and other PBS series. The dramatic, reductionist language that particle/ astrophysics uses is really effective in the video format. So perhaps the videos drive the interest and inspire the book purchases?
I do think that "chaos" had a moment in the late '80s and early '90s, it'd be interesting to figure out why that didn't persist in popular physics.
“ Low-energy experimentalists, on the other hand, are often doing their work in an entirely different place than the office where their computer is located, making it harder to dash off a quick tweet.”
…you know there is a phone app for Twitter, right?