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.
... 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.
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?
As long as we're being honest: my friends and I think it's hilarious. We've all been Leonard, probably too often for comfort, and we all have at least one friend from the rest of the gang. They talk about stuff we enjoy and do things (we would hate to admit that) we do. It's not Fine Art, sure, but it's fun.
Even though the show is basically about me and my friends (and apparently you and your friends, too), I never felt like it was making fun of me.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
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.
They have never used laugh tracks. They use professional, paid, audience members to guide laughter.
SJWs are the new boogeyman. -Me
It doesn't teach to laugh at geeks and nerds. It laughs at the stereotypes tied to geeks and nerds. When we make fudge packing references do we laugh at homosexuals? The answer is no.
I was a geek/nerd in high school and although I relate to many of the stereotypes they are mostly exaggerated and intended for comedy. I find this show helps makes geeks and nerds look cool.
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?
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.
And this is different from the shows that teach you to laugh at the dumb jocks, the shows that teach you to laugh at dumb guys, the shows that teach you to laugh at dumb women, the shows that teach you to laugh at plumbers, doctors, fathers, mothers, politicians, laywers, etc. What group exists that is not laughed at?
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 the writers "dumb down" your scientific advice in order to make the material more accessible to a general viewing audience?