Through the Wormhole

Let me get this out of the way . You will not get any answers .

What you will gain by this glimpse into modern science is a measure of awe , at the endless possibilities that our mind can produce , given enough time and motive .

You will gain an infinite number of new questions. How can we ever be sure of what is real and what is in our mind ? How far will the mind go into producing a delusion to satisfy our most fundamental needs ?

This is a great journey into a subject that will never end , research through science and belief to find ourselves , our place in this universe or multiverse .

Highly recommended for many reasons , but most importantly because this journey takes no side , claims no higher truth but one : The search is endless but worth it .

What a brilliant mix, Morgan with his magic voice taking us on brilliant adventures in thought with science, history, art and philosophy.

Well done to the whole Through the Wormhole team on a fantastic series.

All ages need to watch this.

All series on the topic of astronomy and cosmology must and will be measured to that watershed event of the early eighties, "Cosmos" by Carl Sagan, which left me with clarity of what we knew, and the relevant questions yet to be answered at the time.

A magisterial Morgan Freeman guides each episode by asking fascinating and timely questions, then allowing experts to answer them.

The result feels too all-over-the-map, sometimes patronizingly simple, then suddenly, as if taken for granted, skipping over crucial logical stepping stones in the explanation process. "Through The Wormhole" suffers from too many people with different verbal styles (and varying verbal skills) to follow a coherent thread of an idea from beginning to end, the way Mr Sagan did so masterfully back in the day.

Then there's a certain something Discovery Channel Influence, with episodes titled along the lines of "Is There A God?", which Mr Sagan would have found sensationalistic. And I agree with Mr Sagan.

Bottom line: As a passionate follower of astronomy since the early eighties, I watch "Through The Wormhole", but in 2012 I prefer my astrophysics/cosmology shows hosted by Neil DeGrasse Tyson, or Brian Cox.

This series is the best that television has ever offered. I watch each part many times to glean as much as I can from it. It is a wonder that a production caters to intellect rather than pandering to the moronic that much television orients its programming at. Morgan Freeman I note is the producer and if that is so, Thank you Mr. Freeman! You are not only a great artist but also a man who takes his responsibility wisely and tries to educate his audience. For those that have missed the Parallels Universe special chapter of this second year, it will make you rethink your entire existence. The approach of this series is to actually interview and then allow the scientists who are top of their field to discuss their research and some of it is boggling in its elegance and mind opening explorations of physics and other scientific implications that are sometimes belied by the chapter titles. There are disagreements between one school of science and scientists and others as after all science is evolving and new evidence changes the implications. Some of the experiments are amazingly simple in principle though surely not easy to actually make them work at the high degree of accuracy required but I would say that a person with a modicum of intellect can understand what is studied and can see why the study or conceptions are so significant. It is a groundbreaking series and anyone with an open mind will be changed forever from the seeing of it as the world is not the way we have imagined it after all..It is even more interesting and thus, so are we.

I used to love this show. It revealed fascinating developments at the forefront of neuroscience, genetics, exobiology, and so forth.

It has degenerated to nearly useless. I shall provide an example drawn from this evening's new episode, "Do We Live in the Matrix?" whereby it is opined--and, ostensibly, justified--that we could very well be living in a computer simulation.

We meet a renowned Swiss AI expert. He tells us there's no need to express pi in so many zillions of digits that wrap around the globe ad infinitum: we can just put "C/d"--where, of course, C is circumference and d is diameter.

Uh . . . the difference is that the first one is practical (I can measure off 3.14159... inches.) The other is purely notational (I cannot measure off C/d inches.)

The same expert tells us that, "I can express the entire universe in ten lines of code," and beams with pride as he presents an extremely vague and general algorithm in an ALGOL-like PDL.

Uh . . . in a suitably high-level language, I can express the entire universe in ONE SYMBOL of code. SO WHAT: what PRACTICAL, IMPLEMENTABLE purpose is accomplished?

Another scientist shows some symmetric matrices to mathematicians without any commentary and is disappointed that they don't get excited. When he builds corresponding models of atomic structures, then everyone's excited.

Perhaps if he had TOLD them they were looking at symmetric spin tensors within a Lie algebra, they would have achieved a meaningful apotheosis. Instead, we hear snippets of some meaningless argument about bits and bytes and shmits.

(I recall from a previous episode--although it's in the same vein--that some physicist claimed that, if he builds such and such a fiber optic circuit, he can go backwards in time by 10 to the -18 seconds. I presume that even a physicist realizes that this is completely unmeasurable and thus unverifiable: sending the data from the measuring device to the managing computer takes literally billions of times longer than the 10 to the -18 seconds putatively recovered. I know, I know, physicists pooh-pooh anything that isn't physics as beneath them, but I don't think that's the issue here.)

I SEE WHAT THE PROBLEM IS HERE: the producers of the show have ZERO understanding of the concepts being discussed, Morgan Freeman's golden throat notwithstanding. This, combined with the PERPETUAL problem that participating experts in TV shows experience, viz., that pieces and snippets of their cogent essays are quoted out of context, results in a stream of meaningless dribble that endeavors to sound technical in its misapplied terminological splendor but ends up delivering just so much imbecility in sheep's clothing, albeit dressy and richly ornamented.

What a PROFOUND disappointment!

(FYI, the popular go-back-in-time theme is utterly impossible. This is trivially easy to demonstrate. Suppose I set a box on my kitchen table and send it into the past. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN THERE YESTERDAY! Case closed.)