In what ways are real scientists different from those on the Big Bang Theory show?
Real Scientists are very clever people On the Big Bang Show they are AcTORS
Much like the difference between real shipwrecked castaways and the characters on Gilligan's Island.
Actors on a TV show get paid more.
Brilliant theoretical physicists need not be "on the Asberger's spectrum", have weird phobias, peculiar sexuality, personality issues, Peter Pan syndrome, and be bad at sports. Some are, but many are average or better than average at just about everything, and perfectly normal in their interpersonal relationships and outside interests.
Most of them have friends outside their immediate working situation and few that I know have any interest in comics and fantasy games. They are now t any more geeky than the rest of us, other than about science.
Same as all the previous times you asked. I'm not repeating myself.
Is that show any good , ive never seen it? I heard sheldon is funny
I worked at Caltech for about 14 years. Only a tiny number of persons were socially inept. About the same as you'd find in any other workplace. People do talk about their work. There again, that would be the same in any other workplace.
Most of us are not being considered for a Nobel prize.
We're a lot funnier.
Real scientist are just regular folks and some are a bit strange like the characters on BIG BANG. The astronaut is total nonsense though his research could be real, but the others could be found in many institutions. I worked with many for 40 years.
In every way.
Raj, Leonard and Sheldon, all with PhDs, are theoretical scientists. Nothing they do has any immediate practical application. Howard, with "only" a Masters Degree, deals with applied science and is the only one who has actually built things, all in current use by NASA. No one ever points that out on the show.