Skip to main content

Why science on TV is like magic on Britain's Got Talent

I know it looks like F, but it's an E, okay?
Blame the 3D shading.
Recently I was watching an old QI on Dave, the way you do. (For non-UK readers, QI is a humorous general knowledge quiz, and Dave is a TV channel. No, really.) One of the contestants was a comedian with a background in physics. At one point he tried to explain some sciencey thing, I can't remember what. Within seconds, the other comedians on the panel were miming going to sleep and generally acting like bored kids at the back of a class.

Now admittedly this wasn't a great exposition of science, as he was thinking on his feet, but it really didn't need this response. Suddenly I made the connection with magic on Britain's Got Talent. This TV talent show that is manipulative within an inch of the viewers' lives has a reputation for chewing up magic acts and spitting them out. The trouble is simple. The judges have the attention span of gnats. This is communicated to the audience, who similarly start to get restless if something dramatic hasn't happened within 10 seconds of the act beginning.

This presents magicians with a real challenge, because the actual magic illusion is usually very quick and in some ways quite trivial. What makes great magic is the gradual build, often injecting some tension and danger, before the sudden amazing event occurs. Stripped of the build there isn't really an act. But the Britain's Got Talent mob don't have the patience to sit through a build.

And here, I believe, is the problem with people explaining science on TV (or the radio). It's often the case that to get to the amazing bit, you need quite a long build. Our local radio presenter and I have discussed doing a piece on quantum theory for my next appearance on BBC Wiltshire. I was thinking about how to do this, and there is exactly the same problem those magicians have. To get to the amazing bits I have to do quite a lot of building. So, for instance, to talk about a photon going through both of Young's slits and intefering with itself (that should get the attention from the back of the class) I have to woffle on about how the slits were used to 'prove' light is a wave and so on and so forth.

The only answer I can see (and I guess this is a hint for how to succeed with magic on Britain's Got Talent too) is not to let the build get boring - which can only mean injecting a lot of interest along the way. It's not enough to know that in 2 minutes time you will get to a really interesting bit, by then you will have lost them. You can still have the amazing peaks, but get the interest factor in early and keep it going through the build.


Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope