posted
Well that sounds simple enough! Why don't we just tell people that instead of nonsense about dead cats?
Seriously, I think if you're trying to explain quantum mechanics to someone who wouldn't understand the above explanation, you're better off just saying "trust me, the world is just freakishly weird" than giving them the cat example. Their understanding of reality is probably gonna be about the same, and they won't have misconceptions about actually seeing things.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
"The thread then mutated into Rabbit trying to explain string theory to Ron Lambert, who was suggesting that parallel universes destroy good and evil, and Raymond Arnold kept asking 'and what about the talking dog?'"
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
wait... now I'm confused. Is there actually a talking dog somewhere or was that just Samprimary being silly? (Presumably Samprimary is being silly either way, except there might actually be a talking dog reference I'm missing)
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: But here is the rub, it isn't just electrons that have wave particle duality. All matter is both particle and wave. The uncertainty associated with the wave part of that is negligible for nearly all macroscopic events. So we can usually ignore it, but its still there. The implications of quantum mechanics apply to everything. I don't have an exact location, I have only a probability density function, until there is some event in the universe that depends on my location and then I instantly have a location. Its true for everything. The metaphysical implications are enormous and really mind boggling, most notably quantum mechanics eliminates the possibility of deterministic behavior which kind of screws up all sorts of things in physics. The parallel universe theory is one of the most common ways of trying to conceptualize the metaphysical implication of quantum mechanics. The idea is that when there is a quantum mechanical event with more than one possible outcome, all the outcomes occur but in parallel universes. So if you flip a coin and there is a 50/50 probability that it will come up heads and a 50/50 probability that it will come up tales, flipping the coin essentially generates two different universes a heads universe and a tails universe.
Excellent explanation. I recommend the book Quarantine, by Greg Egan. It's on topic.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why don't we just tell people that instead of nonsense about dead cats?
As I indicated before, Schrödingers Cat was never intended as an explanation of quantum mechanics. Anyone who is using it to explain quantum mechanics very likely either doesn't understand quantum mechanics themselves or presumes that you already understand the principle at least on a microscopic scale. The point of that thought experiment is to illustrate some of the absurdities of the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Thinking that an infinite number of parallel universes were created by the big bang is a simple way to think about it but it isn't quite accurate (at least as I understand it). Just as the electron in the experiment I described above doesn't have a position until it strikes the screen, the other universes don't exist until some event occurs that causes them to be distinctly different from some other Universe.
Wouldn't that have happened instantly? And then, wouldn't there be some sort of "feedback" loop? I mean, there would be an infinite number of infinite events at any given moment to spin off other universes, no?
For example, flipping a coin isn't really an event that would spin off only 2 universes. An infinite amount of universes could spring from that moment, right? It could be heads, it could be tails, it could drop to the floor, I could drop dead the moment it hits my arm, etc.
But once you account for an infinite amount of variances in that example... At the exact same moment, a fly on the wall lifts off to fly across the room.
Now, there are an infinite number of variances to that moment: the fly stays on the wall, the fly heads up toward the ceiling, the fly heads down toward the floor, etc.
So you wind up with an infinite number of parallel universes diverging from an infinite number of possibilities x an infinite number of possibilities from just 2 simultaneous events. Multiply that again by every simultaneous event in the universe (is this infinite too?).
It seems to me the framework of existence ought to implode or something if that were the case.
Posts: 382 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Discussing quantum mechanics theory and the possible explanation of multiverses is a real lark. Fun, to be sure; but no certainty. We are up against the boundaries of mathematics and imagination, where we all seem to have entered Alice's Wonderland.
As for collapsing the wave function, the following consideration arises: If God as the Intelligent Designer exists (which seems to be the most reasonable explanation for the existence of an ordered universe), and if God is omniscient, then God must necessarily be the one who first collapses the probability wave for the whole universe and everything in it.
If the coin flip analogy is used, is it really our own observation of the coin that collapses the probability wave? God already knows what it is before we uncover the coin with our hand and see which side is facing up. Perhaps any contribution we might make to the collapsing of any probability waves is just an illusion.
I have to agree with Samprimary though that this discussion arising as critique of the new Star Trek movie, is just a tad ridiculous.
I hope that in a future movie they will find some way to undo the destruction of Vulcan.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:As for collapsing the wave function, the following consideration arises: If God as the Intelligent Designer exists (which seems to be the most reasonable explanation for the existence of an ordered universe), and if God is omniscient, then God must necessarily be the one who first collapses the probability wave for the whole universe and everything in it.
If the coin flip analogy is used, is it really our own observation of the coin that collapses the probability wave? God already knows what it is before we uncover the coin with our hand and see which side is facing up. Perhaps any contribution we might make to the collapsing of any probability waves is just an illusion.
Ron Lambert on Theological Implications of Star Trek Paradoxical Time-Chain Metaphysic: A Study of Post as Abstract Art
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I hope that in a future movie they will find some way to undo the destruction of Vulcan.
No. No reset buttons. If you're going to portray a planetary cataclysm for shock effect, you better have the balls to deal with (and show) the consequences afterward.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I hope that in a future movie they will find some way to undo the destruction of Vulcan.
No. No reset buttons. If you're going to portray a planetary cataclysm for shock effect, you better have the balls to deal with (and show) the consequences afterward.
I agree. I think wiping out Vulcan was a real gutsy move, and has the potential for some really interesting story lines in the future, and will be one of the events that creates major alterations in "history"
Posts: 324 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Ron Lambert on Theological Implications of Star Trek Paradoxical Time-Chain Metaphysic: A Study of Post as Abstract Art
I'm eagerly awaiting his "just published book." People as far away as Kansas City, and Connecticut are raving about it*.
*It was later discovered that these people were in fact simply raving.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Thinking that an infinite number of parallel universes were created by the big bang is a simple way to think about it but it isn't quite accurate (at least as I understand it). Just as the electron in the experiment I described above doesn't have a position until it strikes the screen, the other universes don't exist until some event occurs that causes them to be distinctly different from some other Universe.
Wouldn't that have happened instantly? And then, wouldn't there be some sort of "feedback" loop? I mean, there would be an infinite number of infinite events at any given moment to spin off other universes, no?
For example, flipping a coin isn't really an event that would spin off only 2 universes. An infinite amount of universes could spring from that moment, right? It could be heads, it could be tails, it could drop to the floor, I could drop dead the moment it hits my arm, etc.
But once you account for an infinite amount of variances in that example... At the exact same moment, a fly on the wall lifts off to fly across the room.
Now, there are an infinite number of variances to that moment: the fly stays on the wall, the fly heads up toward the ceiling, the fly heads down toward the floor, etc.
So you wind up with an infinite number of parallel universes diverging from an infinite number of possibilities x an infinite number of possibilities from just 2 simultaneous events. Multiply that again by every simultaneous event in the universe (is this infinite too?).
It seems to me the framework of existence ought to implode or something if that were the case.
Now you are getting into some of the non-intuitive aspects of infinite sets. Its hard to fathom, but there are the same number of even integers as there are integer, and the some number of integers as their are rational numbers.
Yes, according to the Multiple Universe hypothesis everytime an event happens that has an infinite number of possible outcomes those outcome all occur in one of the infinite number of parallel universes. But the number of parallel universes isn't expanding. Its still the same size infinite set.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with the last post by Godric 2.0, which has as its conclusion: "It seems to me the framework of existence ought to implode or something if that were the case." That is essentially the point I was trying to make.
We are probably being misled by our mathematical assumptions. For example, according to our mathematics, the square root of a minus one (or any negative number) cannot exist, because a minus times a minus is a plus. But since these values can be charted on a graph, it is evident that the problem is really an artifact of our numbering system. We pat ourselves (OK, we congratulate the early Arabs) for inventing the zero, and we pat ourselves on the back for inventing negative numbers. But we still have a ways to go.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I haven't read this thread, just had to jump in and say that I just saw it and loved it. Great fun!
Posts: 3149 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The date is right, actually; Tuvok was born in the middle of the 23rd century. But he's supposed to be a full Vulcan, and is married to another black Vulcan (suggesting that Vulcans have a wider range of ethnicities than we've generally seen.)
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Spock and Uhura's kid would be 3/4 human - they'd be lucky if he even inherited his dad's ears. Besides, Tuvok existed in the timeline before it changed, and we never saw Spock and Uhura get together. Tuvok even worked with Sulu - I think he would have mentioned something.
Although actually, the more I think about it, the more I like the idea of Spock and Uhura's relationship. I've never been much for the concept of soulmates, but I do love the idea that in one reality you could know someone all your life and just be friends - but if you had met them at a different age, in a different place, your relationship might have been completely different. It's all about timing.
Posts: 1528 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't remember seeing this posted yet, but if it has been you can just ignore me. Here's The Onion report on the fan's opinion of the new movie.
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
This was said to be "the biggest Trek opening yet, soaring past the previous high of Star Trek: First Contact, which started at $30.7 million or the equivalent of over $50 million adjusted for ticket price inflation." It was also noted that the total "was the biggest-grossing weekend ever in IMAX history" Link: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=2585&p=.htmPosts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've already seen it more than once. I think it is a really good movie, and it reset the series in a way that is consistent with time travel and alternate universes (at least within the Star Trek universe). The actors did a good job of portraying the characters without mocking the originals. I was particularly impressed with Chris Pine's portrayal of Kirk, he managed to capture some of Shatner's mannerisms without mocking the often stiff acting that accompanied Shatner's performances (particularly in later movies). Certain of his gestures were almost identical, and the way he sits in the chair at the end is exactly the way Shatner used to sit on the original series.
I found it refreshing, and fear it may draw me back into the world of Star Trek fandom in a way I hadn't participated since high school. It was surprising, since I didn't expect to like the reboot when I first heard of it.
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
andi330, I agree with what you said there, except about the time travel. But despite the many logical flaws in the use made of time travel in the story line, the movie still is really superior within the Star Trek franchise. Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto were great.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
My husband and son are camping with their Cub Scout troop so I'm taking my three girls today. So I'll get to see it again with a 16, 11, and almost-9 year old.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Belle, I have to go see it again myself now. I missed Kirk's meeting w/ Spock Prime due to ill-timed consumption of beverages -- I thought maybe he'd be fighting that ice monster for longer! Anyway, I got tears in my eyes when I read what you wrote back on the first page, I think! I will take my mom to see it one of these days.
I thought the swollen hand thing was seriously stupid. Other than that, I enjoyed it immensely.
Posts: 3149 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hate it when I have to duck out in the middle of the movie because of ill-timed beverage consumption. I actually thought that swollen hand thing was really funny. It was something they never would have done with the original cast.
I love that review buy the Onion that I posted too. Particularly the fan who asks, "Where was the heavy handed message of tolerance, where was the stilted acting? It just didn't seem like Star Trek to me."
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just saw it tonight. I LOVED it. My first impression is Star Trek + Serenity. Which equals win of course. Posts: 349 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I enjoyed it the second time through...but the lens flare was much more obnoxious this time.
My girls thought the opening section with Kirk's dad was really sweet and touching, once again I was underwhelmed. Quinto impressed me more the second time through. He really did do an excellent job.
I still say we needed more Scotty!
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
I love that review buy the Onion that I posted too.
Yes, it was great. Thanks for the link.
Posts: 3149 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: andi330, I agree with what you said there, except about the time travel. But despite the many logical flaws in the use made of time travel in the story line, the movie still is really superior within the Star Trek franchise. Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto were great.
THERE ARE NO LOGICAL FLAWS! Because by default we cannot currently imagine how we WOULD travel through time and everything we have on paper is ON PAPER and is theory, time travel currently doesn't ecist and as long as ON SCREEN it is CONSISTENT WHO THE CRAP CARES!?
posted
My take is that this set up the premise pretty well, and it'll be nice to see the actual movie someday.
My single biggest criticism is that Spock Prime has but one motivation: forcing the characters and plot onto the track J.J. Abrams wants. He's not really a character, but a plot device. A Vulcan ex machina, if you will. (And one who ignores the Temporal Prime Directive entirely, I might have added, if he were a character and not a plot device.) Otherwise, nobody in the movie really gets to make any decisions; the ride is locked onto the rails conveying them to the outcome of the reboot. I would have preferred it if Kirk and Spock had come to an understanding all on their own, rather than being railroaded into it via the ambulatory force of predestination.
With that said, if this is a one-time thing, a convenient evil to get the ball rolling down a new track, I'm okay with it. The casting was perfect across the boards. I kept marking off things that rung true on my internal checklist, and that was satisfying.
...I might note that one of those things was Sulu's sword. Dude. He's a member of the military, selected for a mission specifically to engage in hand-to-hand combat, and he's a trained fencer. How could he not have a sword on him? And given wind resistance, how could it not be a fancy collapsible 23rd-Century one? To me, it would have seemed ridiculous if he'd gone down without one.
My concern is that future films will continue to deal with both the original Trek universe and the new alternate one, muddying both timelines and pretty much destroying the benefits of starting from scratch. I would be happiest if Spock Prime disappeared or died immediately after this film, removing him from play, and if there were no further contact with his universe. I'd rather see the alternate version of the crew go on their own voyages, seeking out strange new worlds and civilizations, boldly going where no one in their universe has gone before.
Whether that'll happen remains to be seen.
Posts: 884 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Shmuel: I would be happiest if Spock Prime disappeared or died immediately after this film, removing him from play, and if there were no further contact with his universe.
I would be quite happy to see Spock Prime again. They've already established a role for him; he's going to serve as a sort of guardian of the remaining Vulcans - help them establish new colonies, etc.
And since they've destroyed an entire planet, I won't be surprised if at some point they do a movie which deals with the remaining Vulcans...in which case it will be quite natural for Spock to appear.
Edit: But if they have Spock reappearing outside the context of the remaining Vulcans, that would probably feel quite contrived, and I wouldn't like it as much.
Posts: 324 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
It was a bit of a hagiography of Kirk. In the penultimate scene, when Kirk is being cheered by a room full of cadets, I kept thinking, is there really no one in that room brighter, more capable than this brash kid.
Also, I still think it's awful that the Kirk and Spock didn't beam the Romulans on board as prisoners.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Shmuel: My single biggest criticism is that Spock Prime has but one motivation: forcing the characters and plot onto the track J.J. Abrams wants. He's not really a character, but a plot device. A Vulcan ex machina, if you will. (And one who ignores the Temporal Prime Directive entirely, I might have added, if he were a character and not a plot device.)
The temporal prime directive was not created until the 29th century. Several hundred years after Spock would have travelled back in time as he was from the late 24th century (or possibly early 25th, we don't know the actual date he left from). We may know that the temporal prime directive exists because of Enterprise, but it was not a law in the time Spock Prime was leaving.
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Also, I still think it's awful that the Kirk and Spock didn't beam the Romulans on board as prisoners.
Well they did *ask*... I'm actually surprised Kirk did.
"Sulu, do they have any women on board?" "No sir." "Fine then. Fire at will."
Posts: 3486 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: It was a bit of a hagiography of Kirk. In the penultimate scene, when Kirk is being cheered by a room full of cadets, I kept thinking, is there really no one in that room brighter, more capable than this brash kid.
Also, I still think it's awful that the Kirk and Spock didn't beam the Romulans on board as prisoners.
Interference. Transporter technology is generally inoperable when theres even ambient radiation of some form.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by andi330: The temporal prime directive was not created until the 29th century.
Not true. In fact, not having seen more than a few early episodes of Enterprise, I have no idea what happened in the 29th century. The Temporal Prime Directive was explictly in effect under that name by the time Voyager rolled around. (And splitting hairs aside, the concept goes all the way back to the original series.)
Posts: 884 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Uprooted: I missed Kirk's meeting w/ Spock Prime due to ill-timed consumption of beverages -- I thought maybe he'd be fighting that ice monster for longer!
Yes, I'm quoting myself. I just had to laugh when I heard an NPR (I think that's what I was listening to) spot about a guy who runs a website called runpee.com. It tells you the safe scenes in movies where you won't miss too much if you have to, well, run and pee.
And wouldn't you know, he said that the site has gotten a lot of comments saying "don't go during the Ice Planet scene in Star Trek!"
Posts: 3149 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Uprooted, it appears that the ultimate solution to the problem you decry is to buy the DVD when it comes out. Then you can hit the "pause" button whenever you need to.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If it weren't for the fact that my friend and I walked out of the theatre with the same complaint, this thread would have convinced me I was the only person alive who didn't like Karl Urban's McCoy. I thought his performance was forced and all of his fanservice lines fell flat for me (except the "green-blooded hobgoblin" one). I couldn't figure out why he was bothering me until the credits rolled and I realised it was Karl Urban playing him - I have never been able to tolerate him on screen.
My other complaint was Uhura. She needed a bigger role. I really, really hope they do more with her in future films when they don't have to spend so much time establishing context and relationships. Nichelle Nichols was such a landmark for being a black woman in an important role, and for the first interracial kiss on tv. So why can't we keep that pioneering tradition alive and let Uhura be shocking and new for our own generation. (This was actually my friend's complaint, but I think I agree with it, so there you are.)
Aside from that, I loved it. I got the same thrill I did when I saw Serenity for the first time. I think it is the cleverest re-imagining they could possibly have done. I loved the nods to TOS. I laughed when the red-suited guy appeared (and then died). I was appalled when Vulcan was destroyed. I could have done with a bit more exposition on Spock Prime, but I understood what was happening. Loved Sulu's sword (though I miss George Takei's voice). I liked that they gave Chekov an identity, since his Cold War era relevance is lost today. Simon Pegg was genius, and Zachary Quinto was just about as good. I didn't mind Pine.
I'd go see it again. I'm well pleased indeed.
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, in keeping with the tradition of shocking people with a kiss, they did show Uhura kissing a half-alien!Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
E.L., you're not the only one. I don't have any problem with Karl Urban as a rule, but I didn't love him as McCoy as much as so many others did. I sort of wondered what everyone was talking about, actually, so I'm glad you said something.
That said, I went again today and took my mom and still loved it. This time I got to hear the "I have been, and will always be, your friend" line. It was great.
Posts: 3149 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
