Jump to content
The Big Bang Theory Forums
Tensor

[Spoilers] Season 12 Discussion Thread

Recommended Posts

At least Denise is available for this one.

Why is super asymmetry suddenly cast aside? That takes away from the s11 finale unless they have a good rationale.

This will be the November 15th episode, and the last episode to air until December 6th.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you so much @Kev0821!  Hope you had a great time!

1 hour ago, bfm said:

 

And man, it seems like they need to work more on the credibility of their academic plots. Why would Leonard do the literature search for a paper that's not his? Unless they have officially accepted him to their team...? 

The paper plot reminds me of Sheldon's false discovery of a new element and the confirmation that it was false.

I agree, especially because those in the episode are not even supposed to be called "citations", which are basically articles mentioning your own work, but "references", which are mentions you make in your own article to previous literature regarding the topic you study.  You don't collect citations at the end of a paper (it would even be possible to have citations to an unpublished work), but references.

Edited by mirs1
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks so much for the taping report @Kev0821, it sounds like you had a fantastic time.¬†ūüėä

Disappointed would be a huge understatement if the Shamy project is more or less dead after this one.

I had some fears it might happen as their previous project didn't seem to go anywhere and became a plot device for other stories. This sounds like this project is done as well.

I'm hoping they keep working on it and maybe make a discovery that disproves the Russian paper.

Edited by Jonny
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, mirs1 said:

Thank you so much @Kev0821!  Hope you had a great time!

I agree, especially because those¬†in the episode are¬†not even supposed to be called¬†"citationsÔĽŅ",¬†which are basically articles mentioning your own work,¬†but "referencesÔĽŅ",¬†which are mentions you make¬†in your own article¬†to previous literature regarding the topic you study. ¬†You don't collect citations at the end of a paper (it would even be possible to have citations to an unpublished work), but references.

This might be a bit of a language issue but "citation" refers to what you describe as "references":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citation

ETA: Though with regards to the episode I'm still a bit baffled why you'd search for citations after you wrote your paper. I would think that is part of the research process at the beginning???

Edited by April
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, April said:

This might be a bit of a language issue but "citation" refers to what you describe as "references":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citation

ETA: Though with regards to the episode I'm still a bit baffled why you'd search for citations after you wrote your paper. I would think that is part of the research process at the beginning???

Yes it is, no scientist would start a project without looking into the pre-existing literature. Usually this pre-existing literature  is collected in a paper in a section called "References" or "Bibliography", that is why I call it "references".

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mirs1 said:

Yes it is, no scientist would start a project without looking into the pre-existing literature. Usually this pre-existing literature  is collected in a paper in a section called "References" or "Bibliography", that is why I call it "references".

While I was in academia "citations" and "references" have been used to refer to the same thing - maybe the terms are used more specific in Italy??

But anyway, yes, this is so weird in terms of how you'd write a paper. I mean, I could probably accept that Sheldon rushed into this without doing the legwork first cause we've seen him do that before. But Amy??? I wouldn't think she'd be that sloppy.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, April said:

While I was in academia "citations" and "references" have been used to refer to the same thing - maybe the terms are used more specific in Italy??

But anyway, yes, this is so weird in terms of how you'd write a paper. I mean, I could probably accept that Sheldon rushed into this without doing the legwork first cause we've seen him do that before. But Amy??? I wouldn't think she'd be that sloppy.

 

Agreed, I would have expected Amy to research it as well.

Overall they would have done more than just a google search, you would fully research the stuff out there to see if its worth investing your time on this research and before committing.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s a comedy. Best to not treat it as face value. It’s deliberately Over Exagerrated. It’s like questioning how two physicists can afford such a nice apartment.

Edited by 3ku11
F
  • Make a lot more sense than that 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Kev0821 said:

The episode is called "The Citation Negation." Leonard researches citations for Sheldon and Amy's paper. He finds a Russian paper that basically discredits super-asymmetry. Bernadette tries to beat Howard and Raj at Fortnite, and recruits help from Denise. I'll work on a longer report. Johnny iced his hand all night, and his face showed he was in pain. The injury wasn't written in.

Thank you @Kev0821 !!!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, chucky said:

Cinnamon is Raj's longest running relationship. You don't remember Howard's game of Emily or Cinnamon? 

That's one ep out of how many? Nine times out of ten the dog isn't seen or mentioned.

 

5 hours ago, bfm said:

I'm surprised tough that Bernadette calls Denise instead of Anu or Penny, unless Stuart is somehow involved...

I would have expected Denise to know how to play better than the others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if this helps or not, but Shamy needed the citations for the appendices. There were about 100 or so. I think it was just Leonard's job to make sure they were written correctly. He then stumbled upon the Russian paper that they didn't know existed.

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Kev0821 said:

I don't know if this helps or not, but Shamy needed the citations for the appendices. There were about 100 or so. I think it was just Leonard's job to make sure they were written correctly. He then stumbled upon the Russian paper that they didn't know existed.

Thanks for the clarification! The point is the pre-existing literature about a subject usually isn't collected in the appendices, this was weird too.  The writers got the science  all wrong in this episode! I know for many it doesn't make much of a difference, but to me it's pretty upsetting, it's simply not how the process of writing a paper should work. Not that this is the first time that happens...

Edited by mirs1
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However they wind up killing the paper, (as far as we know) Super-Asymmetry isn't proved IRL so it can't be found as proved in the show.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/7/2018 at 6:04 AM, Die Zimtzicke said:

That's one ep out of how many? Nine times out of ten the dog isn't seen or mentioned.

Cinnamon has been seen and is mentioned on numerous times and episodes. Too many to count or remember. Maybe not as much as before, but still mentioned to this day.

Edited by chucky
are to is
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

21 minutes ago, Kev0821 said:

I don't know if this helps or not, but Shamy needed the citations for the appendices. There were about 100 or so. I think it was just Leonard's job to make sure they were written correctly. He then stumbled upon the Russian paper that they didn't know existed.

This makes much more sense, they just wanted to style it appropriately. Google Scholar and many softwares would do that for them and they should definitely know it, it's 2018 people... But that's the sort of credibility problem that is much more forgivable. I'm very surprised Leonard agreed to basically do the menial work for them. That's just weird. What is even less credible is that he would go to the library to do so, unless there was some paper that was only available in hard copy and Shamy just returned it without writing the required detailed (very unlike them). And also, if Leonard stumbled upon the paper when looking for papers Shamy used, how come they didn't see it?

Also, references go under "References", always. No question there. It's a part of the paper.

So it's not as ridiculous as Leonard doing the literature search they should have done and without even being part of the team (that would be like Sheldon running experiments for Leonard just to "help a friend", this is not how it works), but still lacking credibility. The writers should learn more about how these things work.

 

Anyway, Kev thank you so so much you're awesome! I hope you had a wonderful time!

Edited by bfm
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, mirs1 said:

Thanks for the clarification! The point is the pre-existing literature about a subject usually isn't collected in the appendices, this was weird too.  The writers got the science  all wrong in this episode! I know for many it doesn't make much of a difference, but to me it's pretty upsetting, it's simply not how the process of writing a paper should work. Not that this is the first time that happens...

You'd think they (writers) would get it right. They are suppose to have a science adviser to help with those issues!

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, BigBang15 said:

However they wind up killing the paper, (as far as we know) Super-Asymmetry isn't proved IRL so it can't be found as proved in the show.

It wasn't found to be proved (you don't "prove" a theory anyway but that's another discussion), the writer just said the idea had no merit. I'm not 100% sure this means the project is all done, we'll see.

12 minutes ago, mirs1 said:

Thanks for the clarification! The point is the pre-existing literature about a subject usually isn't collected in the appendices, this was weird too.  The writers got the science  all wrong in this episode! I know for many it doesn't make much of a difference, but to me it's pretty upsetting, it's simply not how the process of writing a paper should work. Not that this is the first time that happens...

I'm with you!

 

BTW, as for "citation", here people may say this once in a while when speaking casually but the formal word is "references" and that's what I believe Shamy and Leonard would use.

3 hours ago, 3ku11 said:

It’s a comedy. Best to not treat it as face value. It’s deliberately Over Exagerrated. It’s like questioning how two physicists can afford such a nice apartment.

It's not an issue of exaggeration for comedy's sake, it's just not how these things work. You'd expect the writers to make a bit of effort to get it right.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, bfm said:

It wasn't found to be proved (you don't "prove" a theory anyway but that's another discussion), the writer just said the idea had no merit. I'm not 100% sure this means the project is all done, we'll see.

It sounds pretty final, but we shall see. Next week they could decide to keep working on it or it deviates to something else entirely.

Amy could of course focus on her own work, oh wait...

(I know she likely has more than one iron in the fire so to speak, but she just lost what sounds like a major project).

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, bfm said:

You'd expect the writers to make a bit of effort to get it right.

Maybe the writers are half stepping since the show is coming to an end. I sincerely hope that's not the case!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jonny said:

It sounds pretty final, but we shall see. Next week they could decide to keep working on it or it deviates to something else entirely.

Amy could of course focus on her own work, oh wait...

(I know she likely has more than one iron in the fire so to speak, but she just lost what sounds like a major project).

I don't think Amy lost her own project. It seemed just difficult to reinstall her in a right time and "kept the spark of bureaucracy alive" - so to say.

A: So I can have my project back?
PS: I’m afraid it's not that simple.
A: Why not?
PS: Well, in order to free up personnel…
  /cut

ūüėČ

Edited by veejay
  • Like 1
  • Penny Thumbs Up 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The show has always taken a lot of leeway on academic processes - as  just last week with the awarding of funds by Leonard to himself.  And do none of these guys have tenure yet?  The biggest issue here is Leonard doing the research, but without that there would be very little comedy in it.  What I want to know is if super asymmetry was just made up stuff by the writers - or was it a real theory debunked by a Russian in the 70s.  If that is true, it probably stays debunked.  They do try to be accurate in the science .

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, MsGreentea said:

The show has always taken a lot of leeway on academic processes - as  just last week with the awarding of funds by Leonard to himself.  And do none of these guys have tenure yet?  The biggest issue here is Leonard doing the research, but without that there would be very little comedy in it.  What I want to know is if super asymmetry was just made up stuff by the writers - or was it a real theory debunked by a Russian in the 70s.  If that is true, it probably stays debunked.  They do try to be accurate in the science .

I believe they have a science adviser to ensure the science us accurate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, MsGreentea said:

What I want to know is if super asymmetry was just made up stuff by the writers - or was it a real theory debunked by a Russian in the 70s.  If that is true, it probably stays debunked.  They do try to be accurate in the science .

It is a theoretical idea that according to their advisor can be brought up. As far as I know in theoretical physics there is a lot of raising ideas and showing how they could work/have logic to them. But I'm certainly not a physicist, my field is very different to theoretical physics, I'm just relying on things I've heard from a theoretical physics MA and a Phd student doing other kind of theoretical work.

I don't know if someone IRL had said that the idea of super assymetry had no merit, I think the reasons they give (if they do give any) may helo us guess if that's real.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.