Talk:Physics of the Impossible

Type 0 ??
It occurs to me that there is a lesser type of impossibility. Technologies whose realization are limited only by a lack of resources, energy or labor. Suppose you have a technology that does not violate the known laws of physics (type 1), but in fact can be designed in full compliance with the known laws. Schematics and blue prints drawn and construction could be under at any time. We simply lack the resources on Earth, but not necessarily in the solar system. Is this still a type 1? Or is it a lesser type of impossibility? 50.34.41.50 (talk) 14:58, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Precognition
Kaku may have written about precognition being a type 3, but I think its a baseless thing to so. Firstly, precognition if a psychic phenomenon, not a technology to be developed. Since its not a technology it really doesnt have a classification type in this scheme. Secondly, kaku is a known bigot of any and all spiritual matters. Even without scientific disproof, he has to insert an unsolicited jab at it. Im just not sure of the appropriateness of including precognition as a talking point. 50.34.41.50 (talk) 14:53, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

WTF?
Class III impossibilities break current laws of physics and would require our society to redefine its beliefs about physics.

I didn't realize that redefining beliefs about physics has the power to reconfigure the operating principles of the universe. We've been doing it backwards this whole time. Let's all have a big postmodern group hug. --75.5.74.46 (talk) 05:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * An example of one that Kaku thought was Class III was invisibility. It was thought to be against some law or other, but apparently in recent years he's had to change the way he teaches his optics class due to new discoveries which modified the rules about the way light can be bent. Heavystones (talk) 01:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I would take it to mean that if a Class III impossibility were to happen, thus being shown to be possible, then we would have to emend our beliefs about physics. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Hahaha I like you 75.5 :) But our knowledge of laws of physics are not concrete 71.222.216.244 (talk) 07:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I think 75.5's comment above is a typical cheap shot at caricatured postmodernism, which has nothing to do with what is being said here. It is obvious that what is meant is that if something we now consider impossible due to the laws of physics turned out to be possible, we would have to revise our understanding of those laws. This is just straightforward scientific method rather than anything to do with postmodernism. Beorhtwulf (talk) 16:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Tardis
Are the two blue tall boxes/booths on the cover supposed to be based on the Doctor Who Tardis or is this a coincidence? They definitely look quite similar to the Tardis from the TV series Doctor Who. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.115.144 (talk) 13:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I have the book now. They definitely are based on the Tardis.

Notability
Is there really a need for the notability box? Kaku is always mentioning his position on the New York Times book list, he seems to have been on there for months, and it's the best selling science book. Heavystones (talk) 01:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Background
The background section should be moved to the article about the author, Michio Kaku. I am moving the background information in the article to this talk page (this section) so anyone can move it to that article. Ti-30X (talk) 00:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

As a child, Dr. Kaku was immersed early on in the world of science fiction from its omnipresence in much popular culture. Inspired by shows like Flash Gordon, he soon realized that although the protagonist was always triumphant over whatever new evil emerged, the series had no premise without the scientist. Science always underlined and strengthened the plot; in his words, "without science, there is no science fiction." But reality insisted that science fiction was just that- fiction, nothing more than quips at the impossible. In order to further his fascination with the impossible, he decided that physics and mathematics were the best choices for study. With a background in physics, he might end up knowing if the seemingly impossible was or could be remotely real. Through hard work and dedication, his dream was realized, as he earned a scholarship to Harvard and pursued the study which he loved. He further notes that the impossible is often relative, as what was impossible a hundred or thousand years ago may be commonplace today. The supposed impossible has been proven true several times within Dr. Kaku's own lifetime, with plate tectonics and the KT extinction as examples. Thus, this led him to try to explain how today's "impossible" may eventually become the future's "everyday."

Redirect
I did the redirect because the title of the article did not match the title of the book, now it does. In addition, there were no citations or references anyplace in the article, and therefore did not meet the notability requirements. So, I re-wrote the intro - with references. One more thing, the reference section for this article had been removed and I restored it. Ti-30X (talk) 01:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I constest the speedy deletion
I redirected Physics of the Impossible to Physics of the Impossible: A Scientific Exploration Into the World of Phasers, Force Fields, Teleportation, and Time Travel. Hopefully this is acceptable. Have you seen the new article yet? I did the redirect because the title of the article did not match the title of the book, now it does. In addition, there were no citations or references anyplace in the article, and therefore did not meet the notability requirements. So, I re-wrote the intro - with references. One more thing, the reference section for this article had been removed and I restored it. Feel free to contact me at my talk page if necessary Ti-30X (talk) 01:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC) By the way if you have any suggestions about the article please feel free to suggest. Hopefully now it meets notability requirements. There is one more problem, and maybe it's not. When doing a google search "Physics of the Impossible wiki" it says recommended for speedy deletion. I am not sure what this means? Ti-30X (talk) 01:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Naming conventions for Wikipedia articles come down heavily on the side of the short title, so I've moved it back, while leaving the long title as a redirect. The article has no references to reliable sources (a book is not a source for itself), nor any evidence of notability. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  12:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I am temporarily placing the "info box" in this section.Ti-30X (talk) 05:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Invisiblility
I constructed the whole section on Inivisibility from reliable sources other than book, and they are referenced with in line citations. Invisibility is the title and topic of Chapter 2 in "Physics of the impossible". I have paralleled this section with the discussion in the book, but I have used other sources. Ti-30X (talk) 14:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm reverting it; if it's not from the book, it's not about the book. This is an article about a book, not about information and claims referenced by the book. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  14:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, I just wanted to agree with Orangemike here - this is an article on one specific book, not an article on every concept discussed in the book. I've removed the invisibility material again. You might see if it's wanted in Metamaterials or Invisibility, but be aware that it might be regarded as off-topic there as well. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Gavia immer I am thinking that you make a good point at this moment.
 * Gavia Immer and Orange Mike any thing I have to say related to the article will be written here.Ti-30X (talk)04:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

More on Notability
Could anyone please indicate which notability criteria does this book meet ? Thank you.Materialscientist (talk) 03:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself" Just because the article does not currently include links to such works does not mean that the subject fails the notability standard. The existence of such sources is sufficient.  Gigs (talk) 14:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Physics of the Impossible
Hi there Ti-30X. I'm responding to the message you left on my talk page, since you asked me to follow up here. Just to be clear, the page I nominated for deletion is %27%27Physics_of_the_Impossible:_A_Scientific_Exploration_Into_the_World_of_Phasers,_Force_Fields,_Teleportation,_and_Time_Travel, which has an obvious typo in it (the leading single quotes, which are not correct in an article title). I moved the article to Physics_of_the_Impossible:_A_Scientific_Exploration_Into_the_World_of_Phasers,_Force_Fields,_Teleportation,_and_Time_Travel, without the quotes, and then nominated the leftover redirect for deletion. I didn't move the redirect Physics of the Impossible, but I'll do so now.

In the meantime, I'd like to point out that I regard Physics of the Impossible as a much better title for the article. We generally don't include lengthy book subtitles in the titles of our own articles on books, although they are useful as redirects. I moved the page as I did because I was more concerned about fixing the typo in the title than about fixing the other problem. However, I'd prefer to see it moved back to the original title. For the moment, though, I'll leave it. Thanks for contacting me, and feel free to respond here (I'll see it) if you have any further issues you want to bring up. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The short title is almost always the better title for the article, according to Wikipedia naming conventions; I've moved this article back to the short title, while leaving a redirect. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  12:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Orange Mike. I was going to confer with you admin types, sometime later, about changing it back to its short title - after Gavia Immer pointed out that the short title is better than the long title and that it is perferred. I also read some of the Wikipedia naming conventions, and really wasn't sure if my previous redirect was needed Ti-30X (talk) 12:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Sources to be included
Gigs (talk) 14:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Good Job
Someone did some good work on this article. I know I appreciate it. Ti-30X (talk) 22:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Problem with the citations
I just finished adding more to the article. However, I have cited two or three different sources in the New York times and I can't make the references reflect the different sources. Can someone take a look at that.Ti-30X (talk) 16:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I moved some of the material around so that the article is better organized. To get references to pick up, make sure they have different nicknames. Gigs (talk) 17:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Gigs - it looks good! Ti-30X (talk) 17:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * OK got it! I changed the nicknames on the three different NYT sources. (I differentaited citations - these are also consistent in that the same source now has the same citation number.) Ti-30X (talk) 17:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I really liked that article in The Independent. I found that it is a useful citation for the introduction. And I kept it as a citation at the end of this article, where it was originally. Ti-30X (talk) 18:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

TOC box
I just added a TOC box. Is there a way to fix the TOC box? The first three entries don't appear to do anything. The rest of the stuff reflects the Level 2 headlines of this talk page. Of course maybe there is no need for concern. Ti-30X (talk) 17:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The Physics of the Impossible
Well, so far this book has been noted in 5 other "main stream" non fiction works:

by Richard Watson - Social Science - 2008 - 306 pages by William Irwin, Richard Brown, Kevin S. Decker - Philosophy - 2009 - 304 pages
 * The Pluto Files: The Rise and Fall of America's Favorite Planet‎ by by Neil deGrasse Tyson - he is well known btw.
 * 100 Most Popular Nonfiction Authors: Biographical Sketches and Bibliographies‎ apparently mentioned on page 191. The author is Bernard A. Drew - (Reference book)  - pub. in 2007 - 438 pages.
 * Anticipate the School You Want: Futurizing K-12 Education‎ - Page 144 -by Arthur B. Shostak - Education - 2008 - 157 pages
 * Future files: 5 trends that will shape the next 50 years‎ - Page 291
 * Terminator and Philosophy: I'll Be Back, Therefore I Am‎ - Page 120

And another one below - I am not sure if it is main stream or not


 * Instruments of Karma‎ - Page 337 by Erik Daniel stoops, Martin Reker, Created by Erik D Stoops - - 2008 - 220 pages (even though it is listed here as fiction, this book appears to be nonfiction). Ti-30X (talk) 04:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a total of six books altogether. Ti-30X (talk) 04:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Graphics
I added some graphics and I added more content. Ti-30X (talk) 04:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Special Thanks to: Benjiboi, Andy Dingley, Theaura, SmackBot, Richard Arthur Norton, Vejvančický   and Gigs for your work on this article when it needed resuscitation. Ti-30X (talk) 04:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Consensus Please
In the article Physics of the Impossible a single editor removed material that I believe, very much enhanced this article. The other editor’s view is that the removed material was off topic. My view is that it is very much on topic.

The current article is here: (current)

The version which I restored is at my sub page here: (restored)

Everything that was removed is related to the book. This is because, as the author writes: “The material in this book ranges over many fields and disciplines, as well as the work of many outstanding scientists.” There is a two and one half page list of the individuals, “who have graciously given their time for lengthy interviews, consultations, and interesting, stimulating conversations.” Most on this list happen to be scientists. I listed only the first 22 individuals and these are scientists. In addition, I linked their names to their biography on Wikipedia. I also listed each scientist’s fields of specialties. Many on the list in the article have more than one field of specialty (view here), and hence this reflects the breadth of knowledge contained in this book. If you look at this section in the restored article you will see what I mean.

In addition, before this material was removed by the one editor, the article was much more interactive. It was also more in line with the intent of Wikipedia that that the readers (as well as the editors) have a satisfying experience with Wikipedia. One aspect of this more satisfying experience is being able to access the knowledge that is available at Wikipedia on the sciences, and, perhaps, the mathematics. So, I linked not only the names on the list, but also many of their scientific disciplines to the respective Wikipedia article. Accessing this knowledge supports the following WikiProjects and their respective portals: (there are more I am sure)
 * WikiProject Astronomy
 * WikiProject Books
 * WikiProject Physics
 * WikiProject Space
 * WikiProject History of Science
 * WikiProject Science
 * WikiProject Mathematics
 * WikiProject Technology
 * WikiProject Computing
 * WikiProject Computer Science
 * WikiProject Engineering

Also, there were graphics that were removed which support the article and the concepts in the book. I believe these should be restored as well. These are on the restored at my sub page. The captions of the graphics show that the book is grounded in real science. If you scroll through the restored article you will see the variety of graphics. I believe these enhance the article aesthetically, as well as help to give a clearer picture of the concepts contained in the book and the article.

Lastly, there were external links that were removed which reflect the concepts in the book. These external links were removed as though they were not relevant. For example, I will list some of the external links, and then the page number in the book, to which each link is related:
 * Solar sails: pp. 152, 158 - 159, 166, 172…
 * Space elevators: pp. 165 – 169
 * Black holes: 156, 232, 235 – 236…
 * Travel at the speed of light: 159 – 161, 163 – 165, 169 – 170…

Unfortunately the external links that were removed are going to have to be restored one at a time, because they cannot be cut and pasted back from the revision history without some distortion. I think these external links should also, be restored to the article.

I think the bottom line is, let common sense decide. Even Wikipedia guidelines say that they are just guidelines, not letter of the law.

I would appreciate a consensus on whether or not to keep the removed material. Please place your comments here: (below the line)Ti-30X (talk) 13:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC) ---


 * You need to remember that this is an article is about the book: Physics of the Impossible, not an article about the subject of the book. As such external links about how black holes work are wildly offtopic since they have nothing to do with the book itself. the same goes to links to various wiki portals, off-topic. This problem actually also occurs in much of the prose which seems very engrossed with the subject matter. The article should objectively report what the book is about, not explain the concepts in the book. As it stands the article makes some very hard controversial claims about physics without clearly stating that it is reporting content from the book. For example, the article flat out claims that "Einstein's equations show that time travel is possible." That is a very controversial claim that would need to back-up a very solid reference. On the other hand, of it was made clear that this example was taken from the book and that it was Kaku making this controversial claim, then no such reference would be needed. The paragraph about many notable scientists contributing to the book to some extend, should probably return. You should be careful and keep WP:N in mind. As it was, it read very much like an advertisement for the book. Please remember to be critical. I would also leave out the actual list of people as it is somewhat irrelevant. As for the pictures, it needs to be clear how the pictures relate to the book. Again a picture that is just there to illustrate a concept from the book is off-topic. Also, captions do not need bolding. (TimothyRias (talk) 14:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC))


 * I'm finding it difficult to discern on what you'd like consensus? While you're obviously passionate about this, you might consider stepping back and looking at this from a different perspective: it doesn't matter who's right. Realize that this is a book article and not a concept description. Consider starting some (or finding some) articles that cover a specific topic. Lexlex (talk) 14:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree pretty much with TimRias' assessement of the situation and I would like to add that if the book indeed is a book of many topics, that should be obvious from the article. If there is no way of concisely summarize the book that makes it look like a "book of many fields", then it's no, no matter how bad Kaku wants it to be. This is an article about the book, not an article about the topics covered in the book (which are often wrong anyway). Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 16:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe SOME of the content can return, but only a small fraction. As is stated above, you're running into issues of advertisement - the whole section reads vaguely like a sales pitch - and some POV issues as well. There are two other, more glaring issues, however. You've clearly got a strong interest in these topics, so why not also edit those pages, where you can do so more freely? ~ Amory  (user • talk • contribs) 18:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The images should be removed because they're largely pointless to the article at hand. They are artist renditions of the concepts discussed in the book, and could therefore be placed on articles discussing those topics (such as Warp speed and Time travel), but have no relation to the book itself.  A picture of the cover or images used by Kaku within the book would potentially be relevant, but as they stand the pictures on the previous edition of the page are oversized and unrelated, and overpopulate the page.
 * The overwhelming majority of the text removed is unencyclopedic. The article is supposed to serve as a resource for people wanting to know about the book, not the topics.  Links to the topics are provided so they have the ability, but each article should deal with its own subject, not another's.  Moreover, referring to "his or her Wikipedia biography article" and linking to Portal:Contents/Overviews is inappropriate.
 * Ti, I know you mean well, but be sure to read what people are saying here. Not everything about the subjects talked about in the book is appropriate in the article about the book.  I do think that people should try a little harder to incorporate the good bits of what you are adding, instead of doing bulk deletions, but you must be careful to follow the policies that people outlined above, as well as remembering that the scope of this article should be limited to the book, and should emphasize the author's perspective on the subjects, and the critical/outside reception of that perspective, rather than giving an in depth coverage of the subjects themselves. Gigs (talk) 01:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the feedback so far. I appreciate the objective views, and the constructive critisms. If there are more comments please feel free to continue this discussion. Also, I had no idea that the statement "Einstein's equations show that time travel is possible," is controversial. This was from the book and, therefore from Kaku. So, I will go through the article again, and make sure that it is clear that Michio Kaku is making these claims and not me. (Really, I could never make such claim on my own. I could never solve one of Einstein's equations). Ti-30X (talk) 03:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Template
Because no discussion has taken place in response to this matter, I have removed the template which says: An editor has expressed a concern that this article lends undue weight to certain ideas relative to the article as a whole. Ti-30X (talk) 02:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

FTL
In which class of impossibility does Kaku put faster-than-light travel? Beorhtwulf (talk) 16:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

New era of breakthroughs
I've removed the following sentences:
 * Brian Appleyard writes that according to the laws of physics, almost all of the Science Fiction technologies discussed in Physics of the Impossible can be achieved.[ref to Times review] This is because physicists are full of a new confidence about being on the verge of a new era of breakthroughs.

It first caught my eye because the link at the end to something about the purpose of the LHC is a kind of mystery meat navigation in which the target is not really what a reader would expect (it ought to be something actually about this "new era of breakthroughs"!). There is no particular reason to believe that the LHC is going to open the floodgates of cloaking devices and wormhole technology. It was also not clear if this second sentence (after the footnote) was supported by the source, and indeed it appears not to be. But in investigating that, I found no grounds for including the first sentence either. Since the book distinguishes between things that are theoretically possible (but for which the required technology is not yet available or cannot even be conceptualised), and things which seem like they really would be impossible, it is really only restating the position of the book to say that most of the speculative technologies don't necessarily break the laws of physics. Appleyard doesn't make this claim off his own bat, unless I've missed something in the article. Furthermore, I think the whole reception bit is very biased, having looked at Appleyard's review. His praise is included, but there is no mention of his criticism: "laboured and slightly perverse", "gee-whizz Boy's Own fantasy", the whole paragraph about "fetishisation of the future". It is poor practice to base a whole 'reception' section based on a single review, and frankly dishonest for whoever wrote this section to have cherry-picked favourable quotes from it and ignored the criticism. As such, I've placed an NPOV tag on the section until it is rebalanced. By the way, the book looks like it would be a good read to me, but Wikipedia is supposed to summarise reviews in reliable sources rather than be written from the perspective of sympathetic fans of authors' work. Beorhtwulf (talk) 16:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 02:55, 30 April 2016 (UTC)