Recent years have seen a notable increase in the number of successful TV shows with some sort of scientific component — Numbers, CSI, House, Bones, Lie to Me, Fringe, and so on. But there’s no doubt which network show has the most accurate science on TV; that would be the CBS comedy The Big Bang Theory.
And it’s not because the writers are all physics Ph.D.’s who have traded in equations and laboratories for a glamorous life in Hollywood. It’s because the Big Bang Theory is one of the very few shows to have a full-time science advisor: David Saltzberg, a particle physicist at UCLA. David confers with the writers, reads every script, provides complicated-looking equations for the white boards in Sheldon and Leonard’s apartment, and suggests the occasional physics joke.
And now David, encouraged by some of his well-meaning friends, is going to be explaining the science behind the show in his new blog:
The show is a comedy, but the science here is completely serious — read about dark matter, quantum mechanics, monopoles, and all sorts of good stuff. I’m sure much of this was explained carefully in the original scripts, but landed on the cutting-room floor in interests of time.
The Big Bang Theory, of course, raises strong feelings among scientists. Right here at Discover, you can read both pro and anti feelings about the show. The complaints are mostly about the cheerful reliance on various stereotypes that we would just as soon see stamped out. All four of the main scientist characters are socially maladjusted guys; the one main non-scientist is a blonde woman with severe science-phobia.
I think the critique of sexism is mostly fair. In the real world, plenty of brilliant socially-maladjusted scientists are female! (To be fair, Penny represents the everyperson character to which the audience is supposed to relate; in almost every activity not related to science or technology, she is much more competent than the boys.) The critique that all these nerdy scientist characters somehow damage the image of science I find much less compelling — even though, in the real world, plenty of brilliant scientists aren’t socially maladjusted at all. It is, after all, a sitcom, not a public-service announcement; sitcoms get a lot of their mileage out of stereotypes. And as socially awkward as the scientist characters are, they are also portrayed as lovable and warm people at heart. Shows like this humanize science, and who knows what ten-year-old kid will see an episode and start thinking that physics is a career to which real people can actually aspire.
Now if we could just get across the idea that even young girls can aspire to these careers, we’d be getting someplace.
Comments
36 responses to “The Big Blog Theory”
[…] 越来越多的美剧都包裹上一层科学背景，如《Numbers》、《CSI》、《House》、《Lie to Me》等，但其中展示科学最精确的当属CBS的情景喜剧《生活大爆炸（The Big Bang Theory）》。 这不是因为编剧都有物理学博士学位，而是因为该剧的全职科学顾问：加州洛杉矶分校的粒子物理学家David Saltzberg。David Saltzberg与剧作家商讨剧情，阅读剧本，为Sheldon和 Leonard公寓内的白板提供看上去很复杂的方程式。现在David在朋友的鼓励下，开始在博客上讲述《The Big Bang Theory》背后的科学(wordpress.com)。《生活大爆炸》是情景喜剧，但这里的科学是绝对严肃的：暗物质、量子力学、磁单级子等等。和所有的男性占主导地位的事务一样，这部情景喜剧也被指责为“男性至上”。 […]
I love this show. Some episodes are funnier to me than others but I think the best ones strike a personal chord. I can’t understand anyone hating this show unless it’s so close to their own life it that it becomes painful.
I love the Big Bang Theory, and I AM a socially maladjusted scientist guy. Like in most comedies, it is their social dysfunction that makes the characters funny.
I think the show is brilliant. And yes it does have a female scientist but really that isn’t the point of the show. What amazes me is that it has such a big following because it feels like the humour is aimed at a tiny portion of the population. In fact it feels aimed at me :). I am married to some blend of Sheldon and the rest in smaller portions and the physics humour for me is awesome. Yet I am constantly amazed that there are enough other non physicists watching the show to sustain it.
Oh – and – I spent the first few years of grad school ranting with my friends how there really needs to be a sitcom about life as a physics grad student. It is just surreal in so many ways. Life as a postdoc is not quite the same but they capture a lot of the bizarre physics career ethos. The eye of the tiger scene is just something every working scientist has experienced. Usually daily. It is a great show and I will be very sad the day I no longer get to see Sheldon on tv as well as at home !
Oh and yes kids may watch it and realise science is a viable career – hey girls may watch it and not only want to be scientists too but maybe want to marry scientists! As maladjusted as they are they are all very endearing and loyal!
I know you watched this episode and I know you listened to the song…
Our whole universe was in a hot dense state,
Then nearly fourteen billion years ago expansion started. Wait…
The Earth began to cool,
The autotrophs began to drool,
Neanderthals developed tools,
We built a wall (we built the pyramids),
Math, science, history, unraveling the mysteries,
That all started with the big bang!
Still the best TV theme song in TV history and way cool to boot
BANG!
[…] a Ecos del futuro (vía discover magazine), me entero de que la serie The Big Bang Theory es la única que tiene a David Saltzberg, un asesor […]
The Big Bang Theory is the only thing I watch on TV. It’s the only time my TV is switched on.
Well, BBT has grown on me, possibly bc the show has itself grown. While occasional scenes are unwatchable for me, they are more than made up for by the ones that are just laugh out loud funny. Having Summer Glau and Wil Wheaton play themselves on episodes was a stroke of genius.
“Shows like this humanize science, and who knows what ten-year-old kid will see an episode and start thinking that physics is a career to which real people can actually aspire.”
I am so sorry but I feel this is a silly opinion. Big Bang Theory has resulted in making normal people stop talking science without being labelled as boring. I mean, we friends used to visit pubs, and make grand discussions, etc, not in the boring way BBT makes it out to be, but in a really cool way. But it aint cool any more. The way Sheldon rolls out “boring” facts has made making a casual, yet an interesting observation about something scientific (simple things like why we have seasons), “uncool”. Only Penny is cool; others are so boring. Yes, I agree that the characters in BBT are boring, but Science is not! But BBT has resulted in making people feel that Science is boring, only talks of “sexiest man alive” and discussions about characters in sitcoms are cool and fit for “conversation”. But in fact everything is cool, and its all up to different people decide what is cool for them. “People love these characters” – oh yea, somebody love science and yearns to be a Raj or Sheldon after watching BBT? And Sheldon, he is an aspy, its not his fault, but the show makes out as though its his character fault, he is selfish, impolite etc. Laughing at him is actually impolite. And there are so many brilliant scientists and engineers in India who dont do frequent dates (thanks to the culture), yet is cool in their own way. There is not a single cool scientist in BBT. In my opinion BBT gives a view that – ok you can do science in the labs, but the moment you come out of it, talk like Penny and be cool.
To paraphrase Feynman’s response to a lady who thought that he’s a cool physicist due to his “extra curricular” activities (like Samba, or drumming, or so many other things), unlike the usual, boring scientists – “I take offence at his complement of yours. I consider scientific pursuit as the highest form of human intelligence, and is not boring by any means”.
I love BBT, but I differ on the impact it causes to Science. I also feel bad that people like Sean, who are at the top of research hierarchy, being at Caltech and working in theoretical physics, can make such silly observations.
Sorry about the harsh opinion.
Arun
[…] ein Blog gestartet, in dem er sehr detailliert und Episode für Episode die Theorie dazu liefert. (Cosmic Variance […]
If the author had done more research on the show he would have realized that the four male scientists work alongside female scientists as well. The fact that the female scientists are not shown on the show often does not mean that they are less important to the research facility; they are simply on different teams than the main characters. The one female main character is not on the show to undermine female scientists because she herself on the show isn’t a scientist she is just a friend of the male scientists. The author was jumping to conclusions when stating that the show is sexist towards women’s intelligence.