Six physicists walk into a room

[Martin]

http://nymag.com/guides/fallpreview/2007/television/36554/

 

New York Magazine got six young (late twenties) physicists together to discuss and comment on a new CBS show called The Big Bang Theory

 

The snapshots of them are colorcoded so you can tell which head is talking.

they have some frank insider viewpoints on life in today's physics departments

 

Here is the cast of characters---name, age, physics specialty

Azfar Adil (age 27, high-energy particle physics)

David Kagan (27, theoretical physics)

Becky Grossman (26, black-hole binary dynamics)

Gabe Perez-Giz (32, gravitational wave physics)

Laura Newburgh (26, cosmology)

Simon Judes (27, string theory)

 

 

 

Was the physics on the show accurate?

 

Azfar Adil (age 27, high-energy particle physics): Not at all.

 

David Kagan (27, theoretical physics): Some of it was loosely accurate.

 

AA: What really bothers me is that it’s somehow okay to not know science in this country. Nobody would have, like, a piano prodigy on a show and have him talk about Mozart while Beethoven was playing.

 

Becky Grossman (26, black-hole binary dynamics): And I was a little confused as to why just because they’re physicists they’re really good at finishing crossword puzzles. I mean, I’m not saying just because you’re a physicist you can’t do that. But it doesn’t go hand in hand that because you’re a physicist, you can do crossword puzzles.

 

You guys did laugh at several points…

 

BG: Never at the science!

 

AA: There were a couple of funny one-liners.

 

DK: I think the chemistry between the two guys [Johnny Galecki and Jim Parsons] is a classic comic relationship, the Abbott-and-Costello thing. It’s the writing that’s the big issue. I think we weren’t convinced by the writing. By contrast, on a show like Seinfeld, the characters are still believable even though they’re outrageous.

 

AA: Even if I didn’t see myself in one of those characters on Seinfeld, I still wanted to be one of those characters on Seinfeld.

 

Gabe Perez-Giz (32, gravitational wave physics): Well, I wanted to be Raj [the Indian character on The Big Bang Theory].

 

AA: I am him!

 

Laura Newburgh (26, cosmology): Parts of the stereotypes are true; I mean, there are certainly people here who play video games and like Battlestar Galactica.

 

AA: It’s an awesome show.

 

DK: We’re mostly normal…well, mostly.

 

LN: I’ve heard Caltech students are not that normal.

What would you guys draw on if you were writing this show?

 

AA: Sitcoms do well when there’s a consistent rhythm to them. The hook I’d use would be, “How did you feel about your research today?” Because either nothing’s working, or everything’s over the moon.

 

Simon Judes (27, string theory): Like Gob on Arrested Development! We’re basically always whining about nothing important. And then we’re absurdly happy about tiny achievements.

 

DK: And in every department I’ve ever been in, you have the one guy who’s essentially lost his mind. Those guys are very weird and would be great comic fodder.

 

AA: No other field, I think, collects as many crazies. And not just physics crazies—all kinds of crazies.

 

SJ: Oh, and another thing, the whole Stephen Hawking bit. Stephen Hawking is actually a rather peripheral figure in physics research.

So you think physics could be funny?

 

DK: I don’t know about you guys, but my friends and I make lots of physics-laden jokes. And we laugh at them even though they’re terrible. But I don’t know how you convey that in a show. This show was making all these mathy, jargony jokes that were supposed to be funny, but the point of these jokes is they’re horrible. You don’t build a show around them!

 

BG: I have to say, it really bothers me that there’s only one woman on the show, and she’s the dumb blonde. They could have had one nerdy girl in there.

 

AA: But really, the show has nothing to do with physics. It’s more like Beauty and the Geek in sitcom form.

[Scientia]

That's something that I just don't understand. For shows that focus on the medical field such as House, they don't think twice about using real medical jargon in the right context. It seems that whenever anybody gets near a computer on a television show, they quickly execute some unrealistic task with a few keystrokes, barely ever do they use a mouse, and everything is animated with annoying sound effects. More shows need to embrace science and technology and have experts in the fields working with the writers to respectfully include the material into the script.

[Bignose]

I've seen the show a few times now (I like to have the TV or radio on while I work, so I see/hear more of these things than I probably should). I guess my reaction was mostly "meh." It's ok, but it is nothing I am going to feel bad about missing if I forget about it next week. That's pretty much how I feel about all TV today, though, so I guess take that at face value.

 

The level of accurate physics in the show is similar to the level in Numb3rs, though just a small step down. Being a half-hour sitcom, the character interaction is definitely more of a focus, while in Numb3rs the way Charlie uses math to help solve the crime is more central to the story line. I also haven't heard any really good science-y jokes out of the show, Futurama had a few really good ones sprinkled in it.

 

The best science-y joke out of Futurama? The episode they were at the horse track, and two horses crossed the line "in a quantum finish" as the announcer says (really, really close to the same time.) So, a white lab coated man looks through a really big microscope (which is funny in itself), and then the other guy working holds up a card that says horse #3 won. The professor, apparently holding a ticket for the other horse, stands up and yells "No fair! You changed the outcome by measuring it! " That's just the best science-y joke I've ever seen on TV. You have to know at least a little about the nature of quantum mechanics, not too much -- one of the many popularizations of QM is probably enough -- Schroedinger's cat and all. But, the scene also doesn't hand-hold and is fast. You have to have that pop-knowledge about QM to get the joke. Admittedly, I haven't been paying close attention the "The Big Bang Theory," but I haven't noticed any really good punchy science jokes to date.

 

EDIT: in quick response to Scientia, Numb3rs is actually pretty well done. Their math is usually pretty spot on. Sometimes the amount of time they use to compute things is unrealistic, and no human being can be an expert in as many fields as Charlie is -- the guy has intimate knowledge of cutting edge research in a different field every show it seems and has brought in colleagues only a few times -- but the math they are doing and applying is pretty realistic.

 

I think that TV is getting better about it, but, they are not at the level of good yet. Shows like CSI are mostly good. But, the funny thing about CSI, is that they are almost too good. Prosecuting attorneys are finding it harder to prosecute people these days, since juries are expecting science and forensics to connect every dot like they see on TV. Most evidence collected is relatively circumstantial and a "preponderance of evidence" presentation is not uncommon. That is, yes, each individual piece of evidence is circumstantial, but taken all together it paints a likely picture. There are the oft-pointed out many flaws in CSI, though, too. The magic cameras that can zoom and then sharpen in a fuzzy picture. But, there are good parts, too. Acquiring DNA from a wide variety of sources. Many different methods of checking for fingerprints. Etc.

 

The biggest thing these shows have done is raise an awareness of science to the public. This is the main reason I say Hollywood has gotten better, but isn't "good" yet. At least there are some shows where science is highlighted -- it could be worse, it could be zero.

[uncool]

I would say that Numb3rs isn't that good because it tries to overcomplicate the math. An example - the episode in which the person is attacking the electrical stations - the guy keeps on talking about the intersection of each of the sets, where all he really needs to say is whatever each of the stations covers. It keeps on doing stuff like that which is really annoying to me...as a math person.

=Uncool-

[Scientia]

@bignose: I really enjoy Numb3rs, i've got every episode to date on an external hard drive. I've also just watched the first 4 episodes of Big Bang Theory. I agree with your statement, it's simply okay. Strange thing, in the first episode, the first bit of dialogue between the two main characters is a discussion about the double slit experiment. The tall one (names escape me) is explaining the main result to the shorter one as though he has never heard about it. I do find it hard to believe that one can achieve a doctorate in physics without knowing of the experiment.

 

@uncool: Part of the show's appeal to the general public is the over use of such jargon by complicating the scenario. It makes the mathematics seem more abstruse thereby inducing awe towards Charlie's intelligence. This is seen in many shows.

 

A good example of total negligence towards realism is Live free or Die Hard. The computer 'hacking' was absolutely ridiculous and even a bit insulting towards the lack of knowledge on the subject of computers held by most.

 

Did anybody notice that they used three of the actors from the show Rosanne? Strange to see them working together again.

 

Edit: Futurama is a fantastic show, the quantum finish was quite funny. Here is a link to some interesting mathematical and scientific occurrences from the show's series so far. Number 15 is the quantum finish...

 

http://usuarios.lycos.es/bbrp/mathematics.html

[Bignose]

@uncool: Part of the show's appeal to the general public is the over use of such jargon by complicating the scenario. It makes the mathematics seem more abstruse thereby inducing awe towards Charlie's intelligence. This is seen in many shows.

 

I think that this is most of it -- to introduce a "wow" factor into the show. But, it doesn't bother me a whole lot, since I've known one person who thought like that, or at least would talk like that. Whereas you or I would say "I want to go to a bar that has Guinness on tap and isn't too smoky" he would say something like "I prefer the intersection of the set of bars that have Guinness on tap and the set of bars that don't have many cigarette smokers" He did that for as long as I knew him, so, if it was just an act, he kept it up for quite a long time. So, I don't find it unbelievable that someone like Charlie might just think like that, or it might just be the easiest way for Charlie to think about the problem.

 

The biggest thing, to me anyway, isn't so much that the math in Numb3rs is spot on. You can pick nits in almost every single episode, if you know the material, and if you wanted to. One that stands out to me was an episode where a young man was pushed off of a bridge. And Charlie announced that the young man had to have been pushed, because if he had jumped he would have landed 10 or 12 feet in different direction. Any good mathematician knows that you can only talk in probabilities there. A correct statement would have been "it is most likely that he was pushed," because a lot of things could have happened. A large gust of wind could have kicked up right when the jumper jumped. Maybe he wanted to "go out with a bang" and leaped far off the bridge instead of just falling off. Etc. A good mathematician knows, especially when talking about one jumper (i.e. the experiment wasn't repeated numerous times) you can only talk about probabilities of what happened, and can't say anything definitively without more evidence.

 

There are more. There was an episode near the beginning of the series where they were tracking someone or something down (I don't recall). But, Charlie comes in with a map colored different colors, roughly shaped like a bullseye with a small region in the middle, and larger regions around the middle ones and he announces, in the middle region it is 95% likely to find what the FBI as looking for is in that inner circle. But the next ring, was only 85% likely, the next one 75% likely, etc. Ummm, no, to increase the confidence that an object is in a certain region, you have to increase the size of the region. The 95% likely region would be the largest one, not the smallest one.

 

But, I understand why they did it that way. Time was running out, and the FBI had to only a short amount of time to find what they were looking for, and if they tried to explain to the audience why 95% would have to involve searching half of L.A.'s suburbs, it wouldn't have been very interesting TV.

 

Overall, however, I think that the show isn't too bad. Like I said, you can find errors in every episode if you look hard enough. But, it is exposing people to what math can really do. I haven't seen them ever really exaggerate beyond belief what math can do. Unlike CSI with its zoomed in and sharpened low-grade video cameras. That is an impossibility. Numb3rs stays pretty close to realism, and that's a significant improvement over what most show do. So, it's a step in the right direction.

[ecoli]

btw... you can watch all the episodes of "Big band theory" on cbs.com through their "innertube"

[Scientia]

eztvefnet.org has full episode great quality downloads. It's great for shows.