Trek XI Set for Xmas 2008 release

[hypatia]

Yes, and it's a good thing for us, too. I never said we should discount the possibility.

I just said that I can't see how it could ever be tested. That's I, I guess I should have stressed it.

But even distortion of time could be tested, and has been. Even from the initial suggestion of the theory, it was obvious how it could be tested, at least. Even if, at the time, it seemed we'd never have the technology to do it, it was obvious how it could be tested. Same with the speed of sound and the earth going around the sun, and life on mars, and life in outer space.

Personlly, considering how much a huge mistake in such time travel would be inevitable, I admit I hope we never achieve it.

Again.

;-)

 

[Galahad]

In the 12 monkeys type scenario you wouldn't be able to observe changes to the timeline... but you might notice odd things. For example the traveller may have used equipment/clothing etc during their visit which would be out of place in their destination. Whilst it's presence would not have changed your timeline your archaelogical discovery of it's existence in the wrong timeframe, would be evidence enough to imply someone had been in a point in time that they did not naturally occur (I won't say that they were in a place that they weren't meant to be, because clearly according to this theory... they WERE meant to be there).

 

[hypatia]

If that happened, you'd have a true paradox, and that's what everyone is trying to avoid here. How can you have time travel and guarantee that a paradox wouldn't occur? I don't think the universe would just "ho, hum, just ignore that little detail" at it.

If you allow the "odd archeological evidence" to be noticed, then what's NOT going to be "noticed"? How could some "memories" be altered to fit the new timeline, but others not altered?

It seems to me this is an all-or-nothing argument, or it just doesn't make sense.

 

[Galahad]

But the point is that there would be no alteration. It hinges on the idea that time is circular and that implies everything is destined. Admittedly that is something that a large proportion of humans would find uncomfortable.

If you remove the dramatic flash forwards in WWE part 2 and just take what Sinclair said, it would be a good example... you know, where he says of B4 "I'll take it back into the past because it was always me who took it back."

Maybe we should move this part of the discussion to another thread because people are going to wander in here and go "what the...?"

 

[Jade Jaguar]

But the point is that there would be no alteration. It hinges on the idea that time is circular and that implies everything is destined. Admittedly that is something that a large proportion of humans would find uncomfortable.

What the?

Not that time is circular, and that everything is destined, but that time exists 'all at once,' just like all the other dimensions do, and I do what I will, but I always will it.

I look at it like this,
If I get on a train going from NYC to LA, when I leave NYC, it still exists, and LA exists, even though I am not there yet. Humans are set moving forward in time at a constant velocity, so that is the way we experience it. But, just like all the physical points I pass on my train ride, all points in time always exist. They are immutable, but not predestined. I do as I will, but I will always will the same. BTW, I am a big fan of 12 Monkeys too.

 

[hypatia]

12 Monkeys is an excellent film. I know it got mixed reviews, as much of Gilliam's stuff does, but yes, that was a fantastic movie.

So, now we'll see if the writing for Trek XI is any good. From what I gather, the "talent" they have is pretty good in the acting department. And despite the fact that I think there are a lot of bad "hang-on-to-the-nostalgia-of-Kirk-and-gang" signs in the news we've heard, I do hope the movie can "breathe new life" into Trek.

But here's a question: if it does manage that, will the future of Trek be doomed to be younger-Kirk based stories? I hope the movie is good, but how can it possibly breed new life into a movie series of a television series?

 

[Capt. Neville]

In the 12 monkeys type scenario you wouldn't be able to observe changes to the timeline... but you might notice odd things. For example the traveller may have used equipment/clothing etc during their visit which would be out of place in their destination. Whilst it's presence would not have changed your timeline your archaelogical discovery of it's existence in the wrong timeframe, would be evidence enough to imply someone had been in a point in time that they did not naturally occur (I won't say that they were in a place that they weren't meant to be, because clearly according to this theory... they WERE meant to be there).

Just as a correction: that isn't a paradox, that would just be evidence of time traveling. A paradox would be if the existence of that equipment somehow prevented the original time traveling, and thus the existence of the equipment, from occurring.

Or, as Douglas Adams put it:

One of the major problems encountered in time travel is not that of becoming your own father or mother. There is no problem in becoming your own father or mother that a broad-minded and well-adjusted family can't cope with. There is no problem with changing the course of history—the course of history does not change because it all fits together like a jigsaw. All the important changes have happened before the things they were supposed to change and it all sorts itself out in the end.

The major problem is simply one of grammar...

(I seriously think few people appreciated how Adams wasn't just hilarious, but a genius as well...

--mcn

 

[Galahad]

I wasn't saying it was a paradox... that was my point.

Um... now I realyreckon someone should talk about star Trek ;-)

 

[Recoil]

Wow. The geek speak is getting pretty thick in here. Even for a Trek thread.

 

[GKarsEye]

Wow. The geek speak is getting pretty thick in here. Even for a Trek thread.

Eh, that's part of why I love Trek.

You start a thread about Heroes or Firefly and people argue silly plot points and how beautiful everyone is. You start a thread about Lost and you debate crazy theories about numbers and flashbacks. Nothing wrong with that, but I love that Trek can just as often lead to geeky diatribes about theoretical physics. Likewise, B5 can lead to political debate and the Wire gets people into discussions about urban decay.

Maybe I just feel less guilty about entertainment if I feel I'm learning or thinking about something more important.

 

[hypatia]

It's virtually inevitable.

Alright, I guess my problem is with this: the idea that paradoxes are self-editing (as in if you did go back in the past and killed your grandpa, then you never existed to do it and you're just a thing that didn't happen), then:

a) how did it happen in the "first place", "before" it "didn't happen"?

Hmmm.

b) assuming poor old Fry gets edited out of history, for example, but some artifact that no one notices survives because it didn't end up effecting history, then isn't there an implication that this time travel "event" is somehow subjective to someone noticing?

So you're saying, basically, that the physical rules of the universe changes, according to whether or not something intelligent notices it.

I have two thoughts on that:

One - that's weird, and that doesn't sound like solid physics to me.

Two - uh, isn't there an actual experiment in physics (with light, was it?) where that is what actually happened? One result occured when "no one paid attention" and another result occured when observers "paid attention" to the experiment. The "lesson" I believe was that we do change an event by observing it, or something or other. Or maybe the lesson was that light waves are weird.

Have I mentioned lately that I switched from physics to math?



And there are even weirder things in math, but it doesn't feel as weird, since it's just logic and axiomatic structures you're playing around with.

Who was it (on a famous sci-fi show) who mentioned that temporal physics always gave him a headache? I'll buy him a "non-offensive" drink.

<massive google eyes before hyp passes out from overexposure to weird physics>

 

[Capt. Neville]

a) how did it happen in the "first place", "before" it "didn't happen"?

That's why it's a paradox. Of course, the true answer is that there was originally a different set of events before time traveling altered them and created the paradox.

The logical conclusion is that, since the paradox negates itself, there isn't a single set of events that make sense, and thus essentially the entire timeline goes foop. That's an existential paradox, mind you. A causal paradox, or causal loop, by contrast, has a single set of events that make perfect sense, you just can't figure out the starting point (because it's been "written over", so to speak, with new events of the loop).

One - that's weird, and that doesn't sound like solid physics to me.

I agree, and I've never heard it put that way either. However,

Two - uh, isn't there an actual experiment in physics (with light, was it?) where that is what actually happened? One result occured when "no one paid attention" and another result occured when observers "paid attention" to the experiment. The "lesson" I believe was that we do change an event by observing it, or something or other. Or maybe the lesson was that light waves are weird.

What you might actually be referring to is Schrodinger's Cat. The general gist in quantum physics is that the actual state of an object is indeterminate until it is observed.

Who was it (on a famous sci-fi show) who mentioned that temporal physics always gave him a headache? I'll buy him a "non-offensive" drink.

For SHAME.

"Time travel. From my first day on the job as captain I promised myself I'd never let myself get caught up in one of these God-forsaken paradoxes. The future's the past, the past is the future. It all gives me a headache."
--Janeway, "Future's End", ST:V



(And thus, we're magically back on topic!)

--mcn

 

[GaribaldisHair]

We were in danger of veering into "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it ... does it make a sound?" territory there.

 

[hypatia]

For SHAME.

"Time travel. From my first day on the job as captain I promised myself I'd never let myself get caught up in one of these God-forsaken paradoxes. The future's the past, the past is the future. It all gives me a headache."
--Janeway, "Future's End", ST:V



(And thus, we're magically back on topic!)

--mcn

It was absolutely, positively NOT Janeway I'm talking about. I thought it was either B5, one of the Treks before the only Trek I ever stopped watching (Voyager), but possibly it was in a science fiction book.

But let me assure you, the speaker was a male, and it was most definitely NOT from Voyager. Wasn't it O'Brien in Deep Space Nine, actually?

But no, unfortunately, after the premise, Voyager and Enterprise both convinced me to just pretend there was no Star Trek being produced in prime time television before.

 

[Capt. Neville]

It was absolutely, positively NOT Janeway I'm talking about.

Well, if it was DS9, it's kinda sad that they copied their own line so closely in Voy. But then, it wouldn't surprise me too terribly much.

(I was just pokin fun anyway, hence the smilies, hopefully no true offense was taken, 'cause none was meant).

--mcn

 

[hypatia]

Offense? Heavens, no. This is one of the more fun threads I've participated in lately.

I think O'Brien had his own future-double, in fact I'm certain that was it. And he was talkinng to "himself", trying to save his life, when they both said simultaneously the same line. Is it goo much of a spoiler to DS9 to mention part of the ending?

If so, spoilers from DS9, O'Brien and his future-double episode:


SPOILERS, I GUESS....
















O'Brien became ill from something, and the past O'Brien and the future O'Brien traded places. Figure that one out.

 

[Capt. Neville]

So, it's still shame on you then, since it's a Trek thread and you mentioned a quote from someone on a "famous sci-fi show" that you didn't know where it was from, though, and it was from a Trek episode.

...or does nobody else see the irony in this?

Oh, and:

We were in danger of veering into "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it ... does it make a sound?" territory there.

No, the question is, if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to see it fall on Schrodinger's cat, did the cat survive?

(yes, I'm evil)

EDIT: Gratuitous funny cat link

Sample:

Take one ordinary cat, one large box, a particle detector, a radiation source, a bottle of cyanide gas. Hook up the detector so that if it detects a particle from the radiation source, it will open the cyanide gas. Set it up inside the box in such a way that there will be a 50% probability of a particle being detected from the radiation source within a five minute period. Add the cat to the box.

Theory says that the cat will enter a quantum state where it is 50% alive and 50% dead until the experimenter looks inside the box. However, reality teaches us that the severely pissed off cat WILL escape the box well before the 5 minutes are up, attack the experimenter and depart just in time for the severely lacerated experimenter to watch the hammer descend on the cyanide bottle one inch from his nose.

--mcn

 

[hypatia]

Yea, I thought it was Trek, but wasn't sure so I didn't say. It's been a rather super-shitty few days for me, unfortunately.

About old Schrodinger:
The rules of the cat are far beyond the comprehension of mere human, though.
I wonder if it'd work on Schrodinger's lizard?

Oops, the lizard is inside the cat, now. Moot point.

No, the question is, if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to see it fall on Schrodinger's cat, did the cat survive?

Ooo, I've got to remember that one! Very good.

What I was remember wasn't Schrodinger, unfortunately. I wonder if I'm simply misremembering after 25 years or so, or if the experiment was flawed (or the instructor )

It was more to do with measuring wheather light was a particle or a wave. Some kind of something was set up that should have determined it, but they found they got consistent, but different, results depending on whether or not someone was in the room, or observing it, or something. I do recall the professor saying "and so light is both a particle and a wave" which sounds kind of Schrodinger-ish.



But the cat-in-the-box thing came up in the next year of physics, first semester sophomore, not the freshman year.

And to quote my quote down there, "the conundrum continues that don't have a fucking clue..."

 

[LondosHair]

So, has anybody else heard about this new Star Trek movie that's coming out?

 

[hypatia]

Why yes, I hear it's about time travel....

(and the circle is complete).