Slashdot Mirror
Ask David Saltzberg About Being The Big Bang Theory's Science Advisor
For seven seasons Dr. David Saltzberg has made sure the science on the CBS sitcom The Big Bang Theory is correct. As science consultant for the show he reviews scripts for technical errors, fixing any problems he finds. He also adds complex formulae to whiteboards on set. Before his life as a science advisor, Saltzberg received his Ph.D. in physics from the University of Chicago, performed post-graduate work at CERN, and currently is a Professor of Physics and Astronomy at UCLA. He writes The Big Blog Theory, where he explains the science behind each episode of the show. Dr. Saltzberg has agreed to answer any questions you have about the show or his previous scientific work. As usual, ask as many as you'd like, but please, one per post.
Were you ridiculed at all in your youth for being interested in science? Do you feel the show promotes acceptance towards those of us who enjoy the various sciences? Or does it perpetuate the stereotype that if someone is interested in science then they must be socially inept and interactively dysfunctional?
If your answer is the former option, I personally fail to see it in the show.
By exposing a mass audience to scientific principles and archetypes, do you think a show like Big Bang Theory somehow advances the cause of science, or is it basically irrelevant?
Why do you think a show like BBT has been such a huge hit with a wide audience given its geeky characters and plot devices?
... meaning, do you also provide input on some of the pop-culture in the show (e.g., Star Trek, Star Wars, comic books, Dr Who, etc.)?
Research shows that 67% of those who use the term "research shows", are just making shit up.
Let's be honest -- the Big Bang Theory isn't about laughing with nerds; it's about laughing at nerds.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Why are characters that are supposedly very intelligent so obsessed with fiction, specifically superheroes?
Why don't we see graduate students, classes, grading, theses and the trappings of an academic life? And, what's with the episode on tenure?
At the moment before the Big Bang, science doesn't claim to know what was happening. There was no observable universe, except possibly for a massive singularity, which gravity would lock together with unimaginable force. Do you feel the subsequent events were caused by something, or Someone? If so, what or who?
Was there anything that you tried to put in the show they they told you wouldn't be put in because it was to complex, or for some other reason. I know there is a lot of stuff that made it in, but what didn't get in there that you tried for?
They've hired a science advisor, but why haven't they hired a comedy advisor?
Does it make you happy you're so strange?
While it's nice to know that some look is going to many of principles they present in background and make not-so clever allusions to, BBT is just the standard sitcom formula with a different wrapping. Nothing really new or exciting.
Pop-culture humor is lazy writing. Why isn't there more science? The last blog date was November. The BBT is as much about science as the Simpsons.
Big Bang Theory is filmed in front of a live audience. You can get tickets here.
As far as my science takes me, no atomic structures or charges would survive being crushed in a singularity. How come our universe has so many neatly constructed atoms with positively charged protons and negatively charged electrons spinning around each other?
Do you have the influence enough to get the laugh track removed. It, among other things, makes the show unwatchable to me.
Uhm... you're trying to do The Slashdot Interview without mentioning that phrase in the story. Taco, please send a memo to the editors.
Channeling the character of Sheldon for a moment, how do you live with yourself when glaring mistakes slip through? For instance in the episode "The Pancake Batter Anomaly" the following dialogue is exchanged:
Leonard: Alright, well, get some rest and drink plenty of fluids!
Sheldon: What else would I drink? Gasses? Solids? Ionized plasma?
Doctor Sheldon Cooper would obviously know that both gasses and ionized plasmas are fluids and this exchange does nothing but casts doubt on the integrity of the entire episode.
Does it ever bother you that you're contributing to a show that derives most of its jokes from the stereotype of scientists (especially male scientists) as pathologically awkward, abrasive, and antisocial? Do you ever worry that this risks marginalizing the profession and perpetuating the already-poor representation of women in science? How do you think a teenage girl will react to a sitcom where the one "normal" woman is a waitress, and the female scientists are mousy, nerdy, nearsighted, almost as awkward as their male companions, and, worst of all, dating complete dorks?
(From the perspective of the nerdy teenage guy, of course, the message is "you can be an abrasive, antisocial geek and still score a relatively attractive nerdy girl, or if you're slightly less antisocial, a total babe." So at least it's not scaring away future male scientists.)
Even though the charcters are awkward, they seem to have much more lively social lives than when I was in grad school. The students were almost all male then.
I've seen the show in person. They have a mix of regular and professional audience members.
SJWs are the new boogeyman. -Me
A lot of the comments/questions I've read so far are from geeks who seem to feel that BBT perpetuates stereotypes about geeks and does more harm than good to the geek community. Outside of slashdot, do you typically get this kind of response (where non-geeks think it's funny and geeks think it's somehow offensive)? For the record, I consider myself to be a geek and I really enjoy BBT, though, as mentioned elsewhere, the humor is not nearly as intelligent as the show's characters are supposed to be. That's fine, though. Every once in a while it's fun to pick up a show where every average intelligence (and most sub-par intelligence) Americans will get every joke.
Pardon my grammer. I realize "every Americans" is incorrect and quite ironic in its placement in a sentence about the intelligence of average Americans.
Actually, she had them "augmented." She said it was the best thing she has ever done.
How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.
Speaking of which do the writers have any background in science, or do they just call in the science adviser every now and then to double check things?
A quick wikipedia search indicates that both the creators are TV people to the core, with no involvement in science. Chuck Lorre spent 2 years in college where he "majored in rock 'n' roll and pot and minored in LSD", but has no other academic credentials. Bill Prary's page does at least suggest he did some work on Star Trek: Voyager, but that's the only connection he has to the show's sci-fi loving characters.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...
rationalize a smoking hot chick hanging out with nerds?
Apparently, you've missed the running gags in which this is explained. To provide her with free wi-fi, and to set up her printer.
Like others, I had hopes that this show would break down some stereotypes, but it just reinforces them for big laughs.
They have never used laugh tracks. They use professional, paid, audience members to guide laughter.
SJWs are the new boogeyman. -Me
You're not a geek or a nerd. You're a perv.
I've seen the show in person. They have a mix of regular and professional audience members.
What the hell is a "professional audience member"??
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
How long does it take to travel 80 miles if you're going 80 mph? Surely someone with your math and science creds can finally give a definitive answer.
Here's a whole article about it:
http://www.cracked.com/article_21432_6-realities-secret-world-paid-tv-audience-members.html
This may be the only question that really needs to be answered. There's very strong feelings about "Big Bang Theory" -- some negative -- and for this to be a real conversation, it probably needs to be addressed in some way.
In fact, I'm curious what made Dr. Saltzberg come to Slashdot. Are the producers aware of a "geek backlash", and are they attempting to address it by sending their show's technical adviser to Slashdot? Are we secretly being monitored for a later article about how real geeks all love "Big Bang Theory" which will just cherry-pick anything vaguely positive that's said in this discussion? Maybe we need some more clarity about how this "Ask David Saltzberg" event come together...
Once we understand what's going on here, maybe then we can segue into examples of Dr. Saltzberg's input on the show -- and how its one true geek interacts with the rest of its production staff
There has been a very impressive list of tech or geek related guest star appearances on the show (Stan Lee, Stephen Hawking, Neil deGrasse Tyson, ...).
Do you have any control over who guest appearances are written for?
Are there any tech related people who you would like to have on the show as a guest star, but have been unable to get?
It used to be that most of the scientists from US universities I met at international physics conferences or summer schools were green card holders or recent immigrants. There were hardly any american born ones. Did that change in the last 20 years or does the show slightly misrepresent that ratio.
I am asking because in his way Sheldon reminds me of some Russian physicists I used to know.
***Quis custodiet ipsos custodes***
You're not a geek or a nerd. You're a perv.
Those don't have to be mutually exclusive.
The show touches on a somewhat wide range of technology and culture. There must be science related questions that are outside your area of expertise. Who do you contact for advice when you need it?
Although I realize you are a "physicist," not a "psychologist," it's still one of those "phy" type words. What do you think of Slashdot's (so far) overwhelmingly negative reaction to its editors asking for questions about the SCIENCE of the show for the show's SCIENCE ADVISOR and instead getting comments about the show's characterizations, humor, laugh track, and a fixation on the size of Kaley Cuoco's breasts? As the show's SCIENCE ADVISOR are you in a position to change or influence any of these "transgressions?"
Is this proof that the Geekdom of Slashdot is not capable of paying attention to the question at hand and has completely missed the point, were all forced to play the cello as kids, are letting their pent up emotions get in the way of asking an intelligent question and instead choose to lash out at a show they all watch, or still, after all these years, are incapable of getting laid? Or all of the above?
How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.
What's your favorite line? My favorite: Leanard kisses Penny and she says, "The cat's alive". Also, was that line meant to be a double-entendre or not?
There's an exchange Sheldon hems and haws about the RAM - PS4's 8 GB GDDR5 vs XBOX One's 8 GB DDR3 + 32 MB eSRAM.
Everyone knows the 32 MB of eSRAM doesn't mean shit compared to the raw bandwidth advantage the PS4 has. Why was the 32 MB eSRAM considered a point for XBOX One? It would be like comparing a 2-legged runner to a 1-legged runner and saying "But the one legged runner does have a detachable peg leg.".
Why are you posting an AMA on slashdot instead of reddit?
There is a partial list of books that are used as background props in Leonard's apartment (http://bigbangtheory.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_books_visible_on_shelves), but it is incomplete and only states what is available based on photographs that were pulled from the Internet from various site visits.
In the future, would you be willing to list all science-related books that have been used as background props throughout the various seasons including the various apartments and the offices at the university?
Thank you.
He didn't giggle when he asked the question so I knew he wasn't a nerd.
Mr. Saltzberg, thanks for taking questions! It's much appreciated.
My question: Do the writers (or actors) ever ask you about your daily life or your experiences as a scientist? What non-scientific/factual input have they asked from you?
Thank you Dave Raggett
What was the hardest bit of scientific inaccuracy to fight, because the writers deemed it necessary to keep it "wrong"?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
It doesn't teach to laugh at geeks and nerds. It laughs at the stereotypes tied to geeks and nerds.
No, those are not stereotypes. They are characters probably based on real people. I watch the show and it completely reminds me of my college and grad school years and the people whom I knew then, including the Texan. It literally gives me flashbacks.
You might have noticed that there is an inkling of playing on stereotypes in the show, not just with the women. It may be too subtle to catch on for most... if they're like Sheldon, that is.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
because this is a better moderated forum with less noise from dumb/troll/flamebait commentors
reddit is great because of the breadth and diversity of comments...but it is still the 'open internet'...AMA's are anarchy
also /. just has better commenters for tech stuff
again, reddit has diversity which /. is sorely lacking, and valleywag.com is 'faster' on a few things...but /. still has the best comments
best to see it as *more* options not a competition...reddit, slashdot, and for me valleywag all have value added...for questions to some famous person i trust /. to get it right more than the others
Thank you Dave Raggett
exactly how is that question perverted?
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
1. It's a TV show. Not a documentary.
2. It's for fun. Not for education.
3. Get a life.
And trust me, intelligent people can consider it funny. Provided they can laugh about themselves. Try it once in a while.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Oh it's been cool for a while now. I guess at least as long as the geek was the dude to go to for the new games for your console.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I have watched the show off an on, I somehow missed the first three seasons entirely -- but as a rather "normal" geek (I have a social life beyond playing D&D and videogames, I even work on cars and ride a motorcycle) -- I have to ask if you can offer any advice about scoring a smoking hot chick on the level of Penny -- I fail to see what it is Leonard offers in the relationship that appeals to Penny, other than complete monogamy.
She is simply so out of his league in terms of looks that ironically, that's the portion of the show I find the most hilarious. The real world simply doesn't work that way and I challenge you to find an example to prove me wrong (excluding billionaires, of course, we all know a fat wallet makes you more attractive).
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
Have you ever given any shoutouts to people through complex mathmetical/chemical forumla on the whiteboards?
I've thought Kaley was a doll ever since I saw her on "8 Simple Rules", the old sitcom with John Ritter, that aired just before he died.. As for Bernadette, think about this... Wolowitz's never seen mother screams all the time, and what do you know? So does Bernadette, when she gets mad... Can you say "Mother-complex"?????
As for BBT, its one of the VERY few shows I actually watch on the toob....
THANK YOU, Edward Snowden!! Americans owe you a debt of gratitude (whether they know it or not..)
One of the things I find makes the show slightly less believable is that Sheldon seems to be completely asexual. In reality, as far as I can tell, most people as smart as Sheldon are obsessed with sex. (Feynman and Hawking, for example.)
Sit, Ubuntu, sit. Good dog.
In season 3 episode 1, where Sheldon was being mocked for saying he confirmed string theory, Sheldon gave a speech about Einstein and Einstein's greatest blunder, the cosmological constant. Barry Kripke responded that research into dark matter vindicated the cosmological constant and therefore it was not a blunder.
The problem - the assertion by Barry Kripke was wrong. Einstein's blunder was he invented the cosmological constant to show a static universe. At the time it was not known if the universe was moving or not. Einstein's early equations showed a moving universe. That bothered him, so he invented the cosmological constant to show a static universe. Later Einstein met astronomer Irwin Hubble who was able to show Einstein the universe was moving and not static. The cosmological constant was a blunder in that it was used to show a static universe. The fact that the cosmological constant was used elsewhere successfully is irrelevant; that did not change the mistake Einstein made.
Someone should have picked up in that.
Do any of the actors have an interest in learning about physics? Or do they just read their lines and that's it?
Do the writers "dumb down" your scientific advice in order to make the material more accessible to a general viewing audience?
For somebody who's noticed so many inconsistencies, why is it that the only one you bother to mention is one that has been reported on numerous times already? One would think, after all, that a show with no shortage of inaccuracies, would have plenty to choose from that haven't been mentioned by at least half a dozen other posters on Slashdot already. Yes, "liquids" would be the more correct term, except that the colloquial expression is to "drink plenty of fluids", and the writers wanted to tell a funny sounding joke. They compromised on the accuracy for the sake of the humor value that it adds for the average viewer. But certainly, again, for a show with an abundance of errors, you should be certain to find errors which could not possibly have been caused by any such compromise, right?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
So because you lack any anecdotal experience in observing people who are both asexual and intelligent, you therefore find the concept to be so ridiculous as to be outside the realm of plausibility as depicted in a fictional television show? Do I have that right? It's a good thing you're discounting both Isaac Newton and Nikola Tesla. Those guys were completely ridiculous.
Have you had many of your own jokes / comic ideas worked into the dialogue, too? (Another way to ask this: is it too late by the time you're asked to give some credence to the writers' portrayal of science to re-write some of it more thoroughly?)
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
One of the things I find makes the show slightly less believable is that Sheldon seems to be completely asexual. In reality, as far as I can tell, most people as smart as Sheldon are obsessed with sex. (Feynman and Hawking, for example.)
Most people are obsessed with sex whether they are as smart as Sheldon or not. However, Sheldon is represented on the show as an outlier in many respects, so what is the difficulty in believing that he would be different in this respect too?
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
You need to learn how to read - specifically where I used the phrases "slightly less believable" and "most people". There are definitely exceptions to that rule.
Sit, Ubuntu, sit. Good dog.
As for Bernadette, think about this... Wolowitz's never seen mother screams all the time, and what do you know? So does Bernadette, when she gets mad... Can you say "Mother-complex"?????
<McBain>That's the joke.</McBain>
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
since actual smart people / nerds don't like it or watch it?
Don't they? Did you ask all of them?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Why this would be marked a Troll is puzzling in that it is an absolute fact.
How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.
One of the many definitions of perverted.
perverted - having an intended meaning altered or misrepresented; "many of the facts seemed twisted out of any semblance to reality"
What was it like working with occasional guest star Stephen Hawking?
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
Who was responsible for accuracy in other areas? The part where they're in a string quartet is one of the poster children for Bad in the classical community.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
He has autistic tendencies, sex is simply not part of his routine because he's too busy with his other obsessions.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Can't play video games because they stereotypes women, can't listen to taylor swift because she stereotypes blacks, can't watch BBT because it stereotypes geeks....WTF is wrong with you people?
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
As a black "nerd", I'm only offended that you were marked as a troll - as I share your opinion of the show.
Why can't all fpga/microcontroller manufacturers just release free optimizing compilers???
In addition to being a science consultant, do the writers ask you to be a stand-in Caltech (culture) consultant?
If so, do you actually have an sub-consultant for that, or do you just base it on generic post-doc culture? (seems to be the latter, but I'm curious)
In the last 3+ seasons of Big Bang, we've seen a gradual switch from a Science based show that we loved, to a generic "just your average TV show" with stories that can appeal to more viewers.
With less of the "science and informative" show we originally fell in love. And the fact it appealed to those who had an IQ above 100. Do you have more time on your hands now the show is mainly filled with "day to day" storylines to increase viewers below that IQ range?
Is doing the science for BBT fun or frustrating? How much do you personally enjoy it?
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Maybe the best part of the show is how it treats the behaviour of scientists in public conferences, with both absurdity and keen observation of actual behavior, however ludicrous be this behaviour.
Are you responsible for this part of the show?
By the way, is there a way to watch the show without the awful canned laughter which ruins the subtlest jokes?
That's because Troll is taken to mean "I really disagree."
IMHO the show "Big Bang Theory" is not a quality TV show...at best it's C+ material.
Now, scientific accuracy and a "quality TV show" are in no way related...but there is a way to understand the difference.
Breaking Bad...praised for its realism by virtually everyone who has watched it, has certain key chemistry facts which are purposefully incorrect...so it's not ****technically**** scientifically accurate...
Big Bang Theory...you could argue it is more scientifically accurate than Breaking Bad...but in all other depictions ***less realistic***
humor is of course subjective, and if you find Big Bang Theory funny I am happy for you...but we're comparing and ranking here...
the list of gripes about Big Bang Theory is long...you can see the actor's skill peek through the layers of bad writing sometimes...but some of the actors are just bad...the laugh track...the archetypes behind the humor...the misrepresentation of mental illness...it's just not funny...etc...
Big Bang Theory advances science...barely...only in comparison to having a non-science show in the timeslot...litterally the only reason the show advances science is because it's part of the theme and featured in the show's graphics and dialogue...it doesn't help the viewer understand how academia works or explain theory...it doesn't depict science work
My favorite is when the main character is arguing with his girlfriend over which is more fundamental, neuroscience or physics...
She says that physics is higher in the "ordo scientificum" or some Latin sillyness and the main character just accepts it...it's a depiction of the **worst** tendencies of learned people...and not depicted in a funny way...
Thank you Dave Raggett
so the whole "nerd" culture thing...wow...it's easy for these discussion to go off the rails but you guys are making sense at least...
let's start with the words: nerd, dork, geek - these words mean *the same thing* to some people, and others they are idenfiably different...but there is absolutely *no agreed definition*...and the definition of these words determines ***everything*** in this discussion
depending on context, nerd, dork, & geek could be an insult, a compliment, or a neutral descriptor
BBT to some people is a "good show" because it "makes nerds look cool"
so much linguistic complexity to unpack!
1. "good show" for some people means a show they identify with...no baseline comparison...no attempt at consistentcy...just "i like it, therefore it is a good TV show"
2. depiction as approval - some people feel like virtually **any** mainstream attention to their cause/behavior is akin to **approval**...it's a corrolary to the "any press is good press" maxim...I'm not saying it's true, just that people do it!
3. multiple creative origins...who makes BBT? who is responsible for the choices? many, many people...the actors are all on their own planet...the writers of the show come and go by episode and year...depending on the "showrunner" the plots of the stories it could be all directed from the producers and the writers just insert dialogue *or* the writers may get more freedom...these are factors that only people who've worked in TV (i did briefly!) would really see...
this is relevant because any *one* thing depicted on BBT may be attributable to the actions of **several** people...writers, producers, actors, set designers...it could be any or all of them, all with different interpretations and goals...so we're never going to *really* know were any one BBT depiction comes from...though we can narrow it down
so...does BBT make "nerds look cool"???
no
it depicts the show's "nerds" as so much smarter than average people that their behavior is simply unfathomable and it depicts them as successful and competent at their specialty (if incompetent socially)
to **you** that is "cool"....to others, having a certain haircut will *always* look "uncool"
that's the problem...when you start talking about "cool" you are talking about the opposite of quantitative...it's the most subjective thing we could talk about practically
so I think alot of BBT's popularity is not that it is a "good" show...it's popular because it depicts things that make "nerds" feel good about themselves in some way...whether accidental or not...it's just analysis
to me, knowing how to do things that people need done is a sure way to being considered valuable...which brings to mind an old saying that i don't agree with but I think is relevant...
"geeks get things done"
Thank you Dave Raggett
They're the ones who you can hear laughing over everyone else - first to start, last to finish.
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
Do you, or are you aware of any writers who, take any plot, line or "science" ideas from Slashdot for TBBT?
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
because Fox are making a fucking fortune in syndication?
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
uh... begpardon?
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel