[Spoilers] Season 12 Discussion Thread

[vonmar]

7 minutes ago, Swedish Chef said:

I think you could be right, but Shamy getting a Nobel Prize so soon after the discovery would be really ridiculous. IRL it takes more than 20 years from the discovery to be nominated for the prize, but I guess TPTB and the writers doesn't care to much about these things.

Unless there is a time jump at the end of the finale.

[chucky]

11 hours ago, Die Zimtzicke said:

I can't believe I found someone who hasn't seen Lord of the Rings.

I, myself, am not a fan of "Lord of the Rings" as I may have watched maybe 5 minutes of the entire series. I recognize Sean Astin from the movie "Rudy".

Edited January 6, 2019 by chucky

[bfm]

 

2 hours ago, legacy99 said:

I haven't either or any Harry Potter

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
 

Me neither. I remember one free period or somethimg a teacher put it on but I was bored. I read about a page of Harry Potter when I was about 10, I think, and was bored.

[chucky]

22 minutes ago, bfm said:

 

Me neither. I remember one free period or somethimg a teacher put it on but I was bored. I read about a page of Harry Potter when I was about 10, I think, and was bored.

Haven't read the books, but have seen the movies! Two of my daughters have read the books, though.

[vonmar]

 

[djsurrey]

6 hours ago, joyceraye said:

I tend not to watch films of books. Moreover, when I heard the family were divided over going against Tolkein's wishes not to have his writings made into films, I avoided LOTR. I read the books one at a time in my teens and liked the first half or so, then was disappointed by the change of atmosphere.

I think you mean films based on books.

I agree that it is virtually impossible to do a good book justice in a film. From my perspective it would be near impossible to miss the chance to see a beloved story interpreted in film because it typically brings the story (or an interpretation of the story) to a wider audience and missing the film would be too much of a missed opportunity. With the film there is generally more people to talk to about the experience.

Before Peter Jackson's movies came along previous attempts to bring LOTRs to film were horrible.

3 hours ago, bfm said:

 

Me neither. I remember one free period or somethimg a teacher put it on but I was bored. I read about a page of Harry Potter when I was about 10, I think, and was bored.

I read Harry Potter because I heard it was popular and I was looking for things to read to my kids. There was some controversy so I decided to read it for myself first before reading them. I found it a page turner. Much more so than the Hobbit or LOTRs which I could not get my kids interested in. I had read those books as a young teen attempting to find out what my cousins and sister were raving about.

Edited January 5, 2019 by djsurrey

[Kev0821]

 

[chucky]

3 hours ago, Kev0821 said:

 

NICE

[Tensor]

14 hours ago, Swedish Chef said:

I think you could be right, but Shamy getting a Nobel Prize so soon after the discovery would be really ridiculous. IRL it takes more than 20 years from the discovery to be nominated for the prize, but I guess TPTB and the writers doesn't care to much about these things.

14 September, 2015: Detection of Gravitational waves.  

03 October, 2017: Announcement of Noble prize for detection.  

Of course the work that went into the detections spans 40 years.   Or if you want, the 1998 discovery by the High-Z type 1 supernovae search team, and the Nobel for it 13 years later.

 My objection for presenting the Nobel prize would be it is never presented for theoretical work, unless there is supporting experimental evidence.   And, it would run into the same problem that supersymmetry has, there have been no extraneous particles found, after the Higgs.   If there is some sort of asymmetry, there would have to be an extra particle, to provide that asymmetry.  

 I'd also be interested in what exactly they are claiming is asymmetric.  Charges?  Color?  Gauge?  What?  It would be much easier if they would give us the Lie Groups that are supposedly asymmetric, or failing that, exactly what they would be using in place of Noether's Theorem.  Of course, if it's Lorentz invariance symmetry that is broken to become asymmetric , and it can be proved, I would expect  a rather quick Nobel, simply because it would overthrow Relativity.  

Of course, it's a sitcom, and they writers can do whatever they please.  Not to mention such a discovery would be extremely unlikely.   Although it would be a disappointment for them to ignore the science after being so proud of keeping it accurate for the run.  

[bfm]

4 minutes ago, Tensor said:

14 September, 2015: Detection of Gravitational waves.  

03 October, 2017: Announcement of Noble prize for detection.  

Of course the work that went into the detections spans 40 years.   Or if you want, the 1998 discovery by the High-Z type 1 supernovae search team, and the Nobel for it 13 years later.

 My objection for presenting the Nobel prize would be it is never presented for theoretical work, unless there is supporting experimental evidence.   And, it would run into the same problem that supersymmetry has, there have been no extraneous particles found, after the Higgs.   If there is some sort of asymmetry, there would have to be an extra particle, to provide that asymmetry.  

 I'd also be interested in what exactly they are claiming is asymmetric.  Charges?  Color?  Gauge?  What?  It would be much easier if they would give us the Lie Groups that are supposedly asymmetric, or failing that, exactly what they would be using in place of Noether's Theorem.  Of course, if it's Lorentz invariance symmetry that is broken to become asymmetric , and it can be proved, I would expect  a rather quick Nobel, simply because it would overthrow Relativity.  

Of course, it's a sitcom, and they writers can do whatever they please.  Not to mention such a discovery would be extremely unlikely.   Although it would be a disappointment for them to ignore the science after being so proud of keeping it accurate for the run.  

As for supporting experimental evidence, that may be what they're going for with the next episode.

[Zephon75]

14 hours ago, Swedish Chef said:

I think you could be right, but Shamy getting a Nobel Prize so soon after the discovery would be really ridiculous. IRL it takes more than 20 years from the discovery to be nominated for the prize, but I guess TPTB and the writers doesn't care to much about these things.

Actually IRL  it's only the Nobel Peace Prize that takes more than 20 years, the other Nobel prizes can be won much sooner if I remember correctly Kip Thorne won his along with his colleagues in 2017 only about a year after discovering gravity waves.  There is an interesting fact about Nobel prize winners though and that is they are never young, I think the youngest to receive one is 58. So if they go down the route of having Sheldon and Amy win a Nobel try will the youngest recipients ever. Of course unless there papers theory can be proven they can't win a Nobel for so unless the show has them prove their theory they won't win a Nobel. Of course, given how much attention this plot is getting I mean it's been covered in the last three episodes, then we get an episode break from it then it's back. So that's 4 out of 5 episodes that have had a plot about their paper in( nothing has had that much attention before). Anyway, in my opinion, Sheldon shouldn't get a Nobel prize, because it's unfair for him to get what he always wanted in the show but Leonard won't, I know people will disagree but this is just my opinion. 

[April]

9 minutes ago, Zephon75 said:

Actually IRL  it's only the Nobel Peace Prize that takes more than 20 years, the other Nobel prizes can be won much sooner if I remember correctly Kip Thorne won his along with his colleagues in 2017 only about a year after discovering gravity waves.  There is an interesting fact about Nobel prize winners though and that is they are never young, I think the youngest to receive one is 58. So if they go down the route of having Sheldon and Amy win a Nobel try will the youngest recipients ever. Of course unless there papers theory can be proven they can't win a Nobel for so unless the show has them prove their theory they won't win a Nobel. Of course, given how much attention this plot is getting I mean it's been covered in the last three episodes, then we get an episode break from it then it's back. So that's 4 out of 5 episodes that have had a plot about their paper in( nothing has had that much attention before). Anyway, in my opinion, Sheldon shouldn't get a Nobel prize, because it's unfair for him to get what he always wanted in the show but Leonard won't, I know people will disagree but this is just my opinion. 

What? They hand the Nobel Peace Prize out like candy. Obama essentially got his for his election campaign. Jeez.

(I mean, not saying that there were never any worthy recipients but the Peace Prize doesn't require "more than 20 years".)

[chucky]

1 hour ago, Zephon75 said:

Actually IRL  it's only the Nobel Peace Prize that takes more than 20 years, the other Nobel prizes can be won much sooner if I remember correctly Kip Thorne won his along with his colleagues in 2017 only about a year after discovering gravity waves.  There is an interesting fact about Nobel prize winners though and that is they are never young, I think the youngest to receive one is 58. So if they go down the route of having Sheldon and Amy win a Nobel try will the youngest recipients ever. Of course unless there papers theory can be proven they can't win a Nobel for so unless the show has them prove their theory they won't win a Nobel. Of course, given how much attention this plot is getting I mean it's been covered in the last three episodes, then we get an episode break from it then it's back. So that's 4 out of 5 episodes that have had a plot about their paper in( nothing has had that much attention before). Anyway, in my opinion, Sheldon shouldn't get a Nobel prize, because it's unfair for him to get what he always wanted in the show but Leonard won't, I know people will disagree but this is just my opinion. 

Totally agree. I couldn't say it better myself!

[mirs1]

3 hours ago, Tensor said:

14 September, 2015: Detection of Gravitational waves.  

03 October, 2017: Announcement of Noble prize for detection.  

Of course the work that went into the detections spans 40 years.   Or if you want, the 1998 discovery by the High-Z type 1 supernovae search team, and the Nobel for it 13 years later.

 My objection for presenting the Nobel prize would be it is never presented for theoretical work, unless there is supporting experimental evidence.   And, it would run into the same problem that supersymmetry has, there have been no extraneous particles found, after the Higgs.   If there is some sort of asymmetry, there would have to be an extra particle, to provide that asymmetry.  

 I'd also be interested in what exactly they are claiming is asymmetric.  Charges?  Color?  Gauge?  What?  It would be much easier if they would give us the Lie Groups that are supposedly asymmetric, or failing that, exactly what they would be using in place of Noether's Theorem.  Of course, if it's Lorentz invariance symmetry that is broken to become asymmetric , and it can be proved, I would expect  a rather quick Nobel, simply because it would overthrow Relativity.  

Of course, it's a sitcom, and they writers can do whatever they please.  Not to mention such a discovery would be extremely unlikely.   Although it would be a disappointment for them to ignore the science after being so proud of keeping it accurate for the run.  

To be honest, the writers have never handled the writing and publishing  process of a paper very realistically. The whole super-heavy element subject in S. 7 (if I remember correctly) was a hot mess, as well as Sheldon writing in only one night the paper on Leonard's idea in S. 8. They have done their worst from this PoV with the super-asymmetry project (which is exactly the reason why I'm not fond of this plot)  so I wouldn't be surprised if the guest stars in the following episode play experimental physicist who, just a short time after the publication of the paper, find experimental evidence of this theory, whatever it entails. 

[chucky]

21 minutes ago, mirs1 said:

To be honest, the writers have never handled the writing and publishing  process of a paper very realistically. The whole super-heavy element subject in S. 7 (if I remember correctly) was a hot mess, as well as Sheldon writing in only one night the paper on Leonard's idea in S. 8. They have done their worst from this PoV with the super-asymmetry project (which is exactly the reason why I'm not fond of this plot)  so I wouldn't be surprised if the guest stars in the following episode play experimental physicist who, just a short time after the publication of the paper, find experimental evidence of this theory, whatever it entails. 

Totally agree!

[bfm]

15 hours ago, vonmar said:

 

https://ew.com/tv/2019/01/03/the-big-bang-theory-jim-parsons-series-finale/

[BigBang15]

8 hours ago, Tensor said:

 I'd also be interested in what exactly they are claiming is asymmetric.  Charges?  Color?  Gauge?  What?  It would be much easier if they would give us the Lie Groups that are supposedly asymmetric, or failing that, exactly what they would be using in place of Noether's Theorem.  Of course, if it's Lorentz invariance symmetry that is broken to become asymmetric , and it can be proved, I would expect  a rather quick Nobel, simply because it would overthrow Relativity.  

 

That's easy. Matter is asymmetric. All matter we know today.

 

Actually what I mean is all matter we know today is a result of asymmetry.

Edited January 6, 2019 by BigBang15

[Swedish Chef]

7 hours ago, Zephon75 said:

Actually IRL  it's only the Nobel Peace Prize that takes more than 20 years, the other Nobel prizes can be won much sooner if I remember correctly Kip Thorne won his along with his colleagues in 2017 only about a year after discovering gravity waves.  There is an interesting fact about Nobel prize winners though and that is they are never young, I think the youngest to receive one is 58. So if they go down the route of having Sheldon and Amy win a Nobel try will the youngest recipients ever. Of course unless there papers theory can be proven they can't win a Nobel for so unless the show has them prove their theory they won't win a Nobel. Of course, given how much attention this plot is getting I mean it's been covered in the last three episodes, then we get an episode break from it then it's back. So that's 4 out of 5 episodes that have had a plot about their paper in( nothing has had that much attention before). Anyway, in my opinion, Sheldon shouldn't get a Nobel prize, because it's unfair for him to get what he always wanted in the show but Leonard won't, I know people will disagree but this is just my opinion. 

You don't have to wait 20 years to get a Nobel Peace Prize, just do some amazing humanitarian work or something for world peace and perhaps you'll be nominated next year for the Peace Prize.

[chucky]

2 hours ago, Swedish Chef said:

You don't have to wait 20 years to get a Nobel Peace Prize, just do some amazing humanitarian work or something for world peace and perhaps you'll be nominated next year for the Peace Prize.

I guess a Nobel is a NOBEL! Please don't tell Sheldon I said that!  

[Tensor]

3 hours ago, BigBang15 said:

That's easy. Matter is asymmetric. All matter we know today.

 

Actually what I mean is all matter we know today is a result of asymmetry.

Why is there an asymmetry in matter?  You do realize that that paticular asymmetry is the result of  ( or subsets of) CPT gauge symmetries?  Since were dealing with fundamental theories, we are talking about individual particle pairs breaking gauge symmetries.  Note I mentioned gauge symmetries in my original post. 

[hokie3457]

4 hours ago, bfm said:

https://ew.com/tv/2019/01/03/the-big-bang-theory-jim-parsons-series-finale/

So in other words: “I’m getting too old for this crud!”

[chucky]

47 minutes ago, hokie3457 said:

So in other words: “I’m getting too old for this crud!”

Wayyyy too old!

[Die Zimtzicke]

1 hour ago, hokie3457 said:

So in other words: “I’m getting too old for this crud!”

He thinks it was time. And I agree with him. I will go on until the end thinking he did the right thing.

[Burberry]

12 minutes ago, Die Zimtzicke said:

He thinks it was time. And I agree with him. I will go on until the end thinking he did the right thing.

Good for you, 

i disagree with his choice 

[chucky]

2 minutes ago, Burberry said:

Good for you, 

i disagree with his choice 

That's your opinion! It is time for the show to end. Do you hear that sound? That's the band warming up on the tune "Turn out the lights, the party's over"!