He since has written an in-depth three-volume book series on these topics: https://preposterousuniverse.com/biggestideas/. (He recently also completed the third volume, Complexity and Emergence, but it will only be published next year.)
He's a very underrated science communicator. We need more people like him pulling physics into the cultural zeitgeist through a positive lens.
Too much of the science that breaks into the mainstream (AI being the obvious example) is framed primarily from a negative viewpoint (or, remember the "LHC will spawn a blackhole that engulfs the earth" talk, instead of a focus on the incredible science behind it)
Mindscape is roughly in the top 20 science podcasts (also #3 in physics) and his books regularly make the NYT bestseller list. So he's definitely popular, but perhaps still underrated relative to the quality of his content. His approach is more idiosyncratic than the most popular science communicators. He focuses mostly on the topics that interest him and isn't averse to getting technical in certain discussions. I think that naturally limits his audience, for better or for worse.
I can wholeheartedly recommend Sean Carroll's Mindscape podcast if you want to listen to interesting topics related to Physics, Philosophy, Quantum Mechanics and Science in general: https://www.youtube.com/@seancarroll/videos
He has a talent for explaining complex topics in easy to understand terms and avoids the trap of outrage and controversy driven social media tricks like some others in the field.
I'll add that it's my favorite podcast to listen to while falling asleep - if you do that with podcasts. Sean uses high quality audio gear (and he ships/loans similar to his guests), so the audio is almost always top notch. He also must do what I would consider to be the bare minimum of editing to normalize volumes.
So many podcasts are unlistenable to me for bedtime, because of mismatched volume levels of host/guest or poor quality audio for the guest (through zoom or whatever). He also tends to speak in a smooth tone, with obvious inflection for emphasis (i.e. not monotone), but not irritatingly chipper or fake sounding like some other physics podcasters.
one of my biggest pet peeves is podcasts/youtube videos that would be perfect to listen to while resting, if not for some loud and obnoxious intro/outro music. Or a too-loud background muzak track. If I want muzak I'll go to the supermarket or stand in an elevator.
That's simply not true. I've spent hundreds of hours listening to his AMAs and he's remarkably good at taking questions that might be confused or poorly worded and respectfully answering the best interpretation of what the person asked.
He does have an approach to certain questions to say that it's the wrong question to ask. For example, to "why does the universe exist?" he would say that the question presupposes that everything needs an explanation for why it exists, and the universe is not that kind of thing. This is actually super common in philosophy, but I could see it coming across as pompous to someone who had never heard an answer like that before. He's not saying that the question is stupid, he's saying that it literally doesn't have an answer.
It was really good through the pandemic and then he got a bit caught up in discussing politics, when I was just there for the quantum physics. (Was around the time after he picked up his new physics/philosophy position and moved towns)
He was very influential in pushing me to favour Many Worlds over Copenhagen, and his interviews with people like David Deutsch were gold. Might have to check out what he's doing these days.
That is really interesting. To me he does sound very pompous. I still like him, but he treats most questions like the person should be ashamed of having asked something so foolish.
Different interpretations of the same personality I suppose.
I don't have a great sample size but I've never thought he was being dismissive or implying something was a stupid question or someone should be ashamed of asking. However I do still think he sounds pompous, purely as a matter of the way he speaks. It's the pace, the cadence, and how he hangs on or stresses certain syllables and words. It's a recognizable style, not unique to him. Leonard Susskind has a similar one, though I'd say not as extreme. You get a more extreme form listening to various philosophers. (An example as parody here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=leQ1bczMu7c) It usually doesn't bother me, as I can filter out the information from the presentation, but I still notice something. Reading is better than listening in part for not needing that layer of filtering.
Seconded. I truly consider that podcast a gem of our culture. I know of no comparable resource for generally curious people willing to try and think deeply about things.
In all honesty I think this is an unfair characterization. I've listened to his podcast for a fair number of years and I think you're exaggerating quite a bit.
Mostly the episodes are specific topics with a guest who's area of research/specialty is the topic and which stay pretty well on-topic.
Most of the AMA episodes are in the area's where Carroll specialize: physics and philosophy of science. It -occasionally- veers off into politics or basketball, but it's nowhere close to 51% politics and basketball. I think the most recent AMA did have more basketball than usual, and admittedly more than I like. And I am not a fan of his politics nor do I consider his political positions especially thoughtful or insightful. But those diversions are more occasional distractions than some majority of the AMA content. And in a 3+ hour Q&A format its not surprising that he's asked about those areas where his regular listeners know that he has a particular interest or position.
Came here to say exactly this. Mindscape is great, with lots of interesting guests and topics. And new episodes come fairly frequently, 1-2 a month i think
He actually publishes a new episode every Monday! Once a month he publishes a special AMA episode which covers a lot of listener (Patreon subscribers) questions and usually is 3-4 hours long! I'm always looking forward to these especially :)
Thank you! I will never click on a you tube link without a solid prior recommendation. I really appreciate "complex topics in easy to understand terms" and look forward to checking this out.
He since has written an in-depth three-volume book series on these topics: https://preposterousuniverse.com/biggestideas/. (He recently also completed the third volume, Complexity and Emergence, but it will only be published next year.)
Too much of the science that breaks into the mainstream (AI being the obvious example) is framed primarily from a negative viewpoint (or, remember the "LHC will spawn a blackhole that engulfs the earth" talk, instead of a focus on the incredible science behind it)
I mean, I otherwise agree with the sentiment of your post but I feel like most people are rating him pretty well.
As a science educator, I think the only true household name at present is probably Neil deGrasse Tyson
He has a talent for explaining complex topics in easy to understand terms and avoids the trap of outrage and controversy driven social media tricks like some others in the field.
The podcast covers a niche that is not common.
But all the episodes are not equally good, of course, and much depends on the guests.
I really liked the Carlo Rovelli episode (#2), the Tyler Cowen episode (#19), Kip Thorne (#24), Steven Strogatz (#41), etc.
So many podcasts are unlistenable to me for bedtime, because of mismatched volume levels of host/guest or poor quality audio for the guest (through zoom or whatever). He also tends to speak in a smooth tone, with obvious inflection for emphasis (i.e. not monotone), but not irritatingly chipper or fake sounding like some other physics podcasters.
He does have an approach to certain questions to say that it's the wrong question to ask. For example, to "why does the universe exist?" he would say that the question presupposes that everything needs an explanation for why it exists, and the universe is not that kind of thing. This is actually super common in philosophy, but I could see it coming across as pompous to someone who had never heard an answer like that before. He's not saying that the question is stupid, he's saying that it literally doesn't have an answer.
He was very influential in pushing me to favour Many Worlds over Copenhagen, and his interviews with people like David Deutsch were gold. Might have to check out what he's doing these days.
The of course anything is possible, we just don't know, but it's highly unlikely.
Different interpretations of the same personality I suppose.
Mostly the episodes are specific topics with a guest who's area of research/specialty is the topic and which stay pretty well on-topic.
Most of the AMA episodes are in the area's where Carroll specialize: physics and philosophy of science. It -occasionally- veers off into politics or basketball, but it's nowhere close to 51% politics and basketball. I think the most recent AMA did have more basketball than usual, and admittedly more than I like. And I am not a fan of his politics nor do I consider his political positions especially thoughtful or insightful. But those diversions are more occasional distractions than some majority of the AMA content. And in a 3+ hour Q&A format its not surprising that he's asked about those areas where his regular listeners know that he has a particular interest or position.