Star Trek : Discovery

You're right that time is not this simplified linear stream that we all travel down and can take a measurement to see what the time is, but it does indeed exist and has a direction. It's part of the arrow of time, and shown with nucleonic decay and entropy which are at the heart of thermodynamics. Look at the half life of Uranium 232 for example, it has a half life that always decreases in one direction.. ie forward in time, not backwards and at a uniformly calculable rate. So essentially, time is a measure of entropy.

Here's some good video about Entropy form PBS Space Time :

As far as time travel (back) is concerned, QM says there's no reason at all why reverse time travel is not possible and QM likes to pat itself on the back by saying that it's observations are some of the most accurate in all of science.
In fact this duality is at the very core of modern science and are part of Feynman diagrams which are paths through time, both forward and back.

Again, the practicalities of doing with with a human who has mass makes things a lot, lot harder. But if you remember the red angel suit was covered in a quantum field.. which is a pseudoscience get-out-of-jail-card to fudge that it might means the suit is massless.. At that point it's all possible.

Putting all of this aside for one second, time travel into the past has already happened, many times.
If you take into account the observer effect and special relativity and that fast moving object have a different frame of reference and you'll know that things like ISS are actually receding in time compared to us in a very real way.
This is why GPS satellites have to have their internal clocks adjusted. Not because they are wrong, but because time flows at a different rate for them.
I know it sounds bonkers, but that is time travel into the past. However, it doesn't mean to say we can go back to 1900. It just means that future events can be ahead of other future events and due to relativity, one will see the other as moving into the past. Still travelling back in time, but in a different way. I think this is related to when it's said that you can't travel back in time before the time machine was invented.

I was brought up with classic science telling us time travel was not possible, ever, at all.. nada. but I've seen that argument being born from quite naive assumptions, like for example assuming your trying to shove a spaceship through a wormhole with a lot of mass or something or from outdated physics before quantum entanglement was known (and demonstrated) like it is today, or the holographic principle, or virtual particles, or hawkin radiation etc.

From what I've seen from modern physics and leading physicists there's no fundamental reason why going back in time is not possible, we just don't know how to do it practically yet with something with mass. Hawkin himself has changed his mind on this at least once, with the most recent opinion that it might be. It's a technical problem to potentially be overcome, not a fundamental fact or law of the universe (potentially!)

Stephen Hawking says time travel could be possible one day. Here's how l Opinion
(The article itself is shit, it's just his opinion it's here for)

Bloody hell how long did it take you to type all that!?!

Time travel theory/causality gives me major headaches.... you are giving me a friggin migraine!

I read (or maybe watched) something that described time as being fluid. So if you are involved in an event, something that could have repercussions in the future, and if you travelled back to that incident, you will only remember that incident as it happens.

So, let’s say that if it was future Burnham that travelled back to when the trap had been laid. Then she will only remember the events as they unfold, because she is part of the moment. She maybe aware of the trap, but because time is fluid the changes will not impact upon her until they reach her point in the future.
 


Also, they've spent the entire series telling us time can be rewritten, but Pike can't avoid his fate having seen it? He could quit tomorrow, or refuse to go on training cruises. Time isn't an entity to make a bargain with.
 

>Don't confuse our models of reality with actual reality. They're not the same thing.

It depends on the model. That's the whole scientific process that is used to see if a purely theoretical model is reality or not, either by direct observational evidence or by some factor of certainty threshold deemed appropriate and then repeating it with independent sources.
What I was referring to is direct observational evidence and proven science with some elements of speculative theory.
You're not going to argue against Thermodynamics and its relationship entropy are you?

>We know that QM is wrong

Oh this is so incorrect. You'd be disagreeing with just about every leading physicist out there by saying that.
Don't confuse incompleteness with wrong. QM is used on a daily basis inside of many scientific and engineering industries in a very concrete way. Just because we've not completed the grand unification theory with does not make it wrong either. Any more than me incorrectly predicting tonights result makes Football wrong.
QFT is a little more out there for me, but I've not mentioned that or it's relationship with QM or classical physics.

>So which is correct? Neither.

Incompleteness != Incorrectness

>At the end of the day time-travel backwards is just a fun thought experiment. Nowt more.

Like I've said, there are no physical laws that block the ability to travel back in time.

>Talk of wormholes and shite is just sci-fi. Time doesn't exist. It's a mathematical concept we use to put things in order. Things change, we measure the change and attach a label to it.

Wormholes are almost certainly not shite and just sci-fi. That article even mentions it. Please, look at any modern physicist and they will tell you they think wormholes are likely possible. In fact there's fairly solid science on how you can construct one, including details of how the experiments that can be constructed. There's one unproven theory that quantum entanglement is achieved by subatomic sized wormholes connecting the particles together. I'm personally guessing we'll be able to make a wormhole at that size in the next 20 years.

>Re: The Hawking article you posted. 1, he's talking about FTL travel, aka, time dilation, which in theory would allow us to travel "forward" in time relative to somebody else. We can do this now albeit on tiny scales.

Remember there's an observer and and the observed in this scenario. So for the party travelling forwards in time, the other party will be travelling back in time in a relative fashion. Remember in relativity, there is no absolute frame of reference either in space or time. Therefore this is s situation where time travel into the past relative to the other person has occurred. As I mentioned before however, neither party can travel to 1900. So it's a specific form of travelling back and forwards in time.

However his use of FTL is not *just* what you've mentioned. He's specifically saying your frame of reference would run backwards compared to the frame of reference of say, the majority of Earth.

"Unfortunately, it takes infinite energy to accelerate a human being to the speed of light, let alone beyond it. But even if we could, time wouldn’t simply run backwards. "

This is what I mentioned earlier, a body with mass has further challenges, but hawkins here is directly saying he thinks it might be possible.. for sure he's not saying it's impossible.

(As you've mentioned, please don't get hung up by one article, by one source, it was not my intention to use that article as some form of evidence or accurate description of the scenario at hand, merely to show Hawkins himself changed his mind to consider time travel into the past might be possible. If you want I could dig up a large number of credible references to modern papers and articles from accredited physicists that also concede that time travel is possible or at least has not been ruled out completely. But that would be a pain in the arse.)

For a massless object, it becomes infinitely easier and does not need infinite energy for something like a photon. Or for say something wrapped up in a pseudo science quantum field suit.

Remember from a photon frame of reference it's actually travelling at infinite velocities and time has stopped or is just one "thing". It's only us as observers in another frame of reference that observes it travelling.

[We should take this discussion offline so we don't spoil the Star Trek thread and also avoid the usual suspects that try to turn it into a personal argument]

Bloody hell how long did it take you to type all that!?!

Time travel theory/causality gives me major headaches.... you are giving me a friggin migraine!

I read (or maybe watched) something that described time as being fluid. So if you are involved in an event, something that could have repercussions in the future, and if you travelled back to that incident, you will only remember that incident as it happens.

So, let’s say that if it was future Burnham that travelled back to when the trap had been laid. Then she will only remember the events as they unfold, because she is part of the moment. She maybe aware of the trap, but because time is fluid the changes will not impact upon her until they reach her point in the future.

I'm betting the tether has something significant to do with this. Just like a warp bubble excludes ships from the effects of spacetime to stop FTL, I think this tether is some sort of temporal link that exempts the wearer from localised time "rules".
How that exemption plays out in this story I need to give it more thought...

But as I said earlier, it was never B who came back anyway.
 
Last edited:
>Don't confuse our models of reality with actual reality. They're not the same thing.

It depends on the model. That's the whole scientific process that is used to see if a purely theoretical model is reality or not, either by direct observational evidence or by some factor of certainty threshold deemed appropriate and then repeating it with independent sources.
What I was referring to is direct observational evidence and proven science with some elements of speculative theory.
You're not going to argue against Thermodynamics and its relationship entropy are you?

>We know that QM is wrong

Oh this is so incorrect. You'd be disagreeing with just about every leading physicist out there by saying that.
Don't confuse incompleteness with wrong. QM is used on a daily basis inside of many scientific and engineering industries in a very concrete way. Just because we've not completed the grand unification theory with does not make it wrong either. Any more than me incorrectly predicting tonights result makes Football wrong.
QFT is a little more out there for me, but I've not mentioned that or it's relationship with QM or classical physics.

>So which is correct? Neither.

Incompleteness != Incorrectness

>At the end of the day time-travel backwards is just a fun thought experiment. Nowt more.

Like I've said, there are no physical laws that block the ability to travel back in time.

>Talk of wormholes and shite is just sci-fi. Time doesn't exist. It's a mathematical concept we use to put things in order. Things change, we measure the change and attach a label to it.

Wormholes are almost certainly not shite and just sci-fi. That article even mentions it. Please, look at any modern physicist and they will tell you they think wormholes are likely possible. In fact there's fairly solid science on how you can construct one, including details of how the experiments that can be constructed. There's one unproven theory that quantum entanglement is achieved by subatomic sized wormholes connecting the particles together. I'm personally guessing we'll be able to make a wormhole at that size in the next 20 years.

>Re: The Hawking article you posted. 1, he's talking about FTL travel, aka, time dilation, which in theory would allow us to travel "forward" in time relative to somebody else. We can do this now albeit on tiny scales.

Remember there's an observer and and the observed in this scenario. So for the party travelling forwards in time, the other party will be travelling back in time in a relative fashion. Remember in relativity, there is no absolute frame of reference either in space or time. Therefore this is s situation where time travel into the past relative to the other person has occurred. As I mentioned before however, neither party can travel to 1900. So it's a specific form of travelling back and forwards in time.

However his use of FTL is not *just* what you've mentioned. He's specifically saying your frame of reference would run backwards compared to the frame of reference of say, the majority of Earth.

"Unfortunately, it takes infinite energy to accelerate a human being to the speed of light, let alone beyond it. But even if we could, time wouldn’t simply run backwards. "

This is what I mentioned earlier, a body with mass has further challenges, but hawkins here is directly saying he thinks it might be possible.. for sure he's not saying it's impossible.

(As you've mentioned, please don't get hung up by one article, by one source, it was not my intention to use that article as some form of evidence or accurate description of the scenario at hand, merely to show Hawkins himself changed his mind to consider time travel into the past might be possible. If you want I could dig up a large number of credible references to modern papers and articles from accredited physicists that also concede that time travel is possible or at least has not been ruled out completely. But that would be a pain in the arse.)

For a massless object, it becomes infinitely easier and does not need infinite energy for something like a photon. Or for say something wrapped up in a pseudo science quantum field suit.

Remember from a photon frame of reference it's actually travelling at infinite velocities and time has stopped or is just one "thing". It's only us as observers in another frame of reference that observes it travelling.

[We should take this discussion offline so we don't spoil the Star Trek thread and also avoid the usual suspects that try to turn it into a personal argument]



I'm betting the tether has something significant to do with this. Just like a warp bubble excludes ships from the effects of spacetime to stop FTL, I think this tether is some sort of temporal link that exempts the wearer from localised time "rules".
How that exemption plays out in this story I need to give it more thought...

But as I said earlier, it was never B who came back anyway.
Sometime when I think I've reached peak geek, its good to come along and read one of your posts and realise I've a long way to go!! ;)
 
>Don't confuse our models of reality with actual reality. They're not the same thing.

It depends on the model. That's the whole scientific process that is used to see if a purely theoretical model is reality or not, either by direct observational evidence or by some factor of certainty threshold deemed appropriate and then repeating it with independent sources.
What I was referring to is direct observational evidence and proven science with some elements of speculative theory.
You're not going to argue against Thermodynamics and its relationship entropy are you?

>We know that QM is wrong

Oh this is so incorrect. You'd be disagreeing with just about every leading physicist out there by saying that.
Don't confuse incompleteness with wrong. QM is used on a daily basis inside of many scientific and engineering industries in a very concrete way. Just because we've not completed the grand unification theory with does not make it wrong either. Any more than me incorrectly predicting tonights result makes Football wrong.
QFT is a little more out there for me, but I've not mentioned that or it's relationship with QM or classical physics.

>So which is correct? Neither.

Incompleteness != Incorrectness

>At the end of the day time-travel backwards is just a fun thought experiment. Nowt more.

Like I've said, there are no physical laws that block the ability to travel back in time.

>Talk of wormholes and shite is just sci-fi. Time doesn't exist. It's a mathematical concept we use to put things in order. Things change, we measure the change and attach a label to it.

Wormholes are almost certainly not shite and just sci-fi. That article even mentions it. Please, look at any modern physicist and they will tell you they think wormholes are likely possible. In fact there's fairly solid science on how you can construct one, including details of how the experiments that can be constructed. There's one unproven theory that quantum entanglement is achieved by subatomic sized wormholes connecting the particles together. I'm personally guessing we'll be able to make a wormhole at that size in the next 20 years.

>Re: The Hawking article you posted. 1, he's talking about FTL travel, aka, time dilation, which in theory would allow us to travel "forward" in time relative to somebody else. We can do this now albeit on tiny scales.

Remember there's an observer and and the observed in this scenario. So for the party travelling forwards in time, the other party will be travelling back in time in a relative fashion. Remember in relativity, there is no absolute frame of reference either in space or time. Therefore this is s situation where time travel into the past relative to the other person has occurred. As I mentioned before however, neither party can travel to 1900. So it's a specific form of travelling back and forwards in time.

However his use of FTL is not *just* what you've mentioned. He's specifically saying your frame of reference would run backwards compared to the frame of reference of say, the majority of Earth.

"Unfortunately, it takes infinite energy to accelerate a human being to the speed of light, let alone beyond it. But even if we could, time wouldn’t simply run backwards. "

This is what I mentioned earlier, a body with mass has further challenges, but hawkins here is directly saying he thinks it might be possible.. for sure he's not saying it's impossible.

(As you've mentioned, please don't get hung up by one article, by one source, it was not my intention to use that article as some form of evidence or accurate description of the scenario at hand, merely to show Hawkins himself changed his mind to consider time travel into the past might be possible. If you want I could dig up a large number of credible references to modern papers and articles from accredited physicists that also concede that time travel is possible or at least has not been ruled out completely. But that would be a pain in the arse.)

For a massless object, it becomes infinitely easier and does not need infinite energy for something like a photon. Or for say something wrapped up in a pseudo science quantum field suit.

Remember from a photon frame of reference it's actually travelling at infinite velocities and time has stopped or is just one "thing". It's only us as observers in another frame of reference that observes it travelling.

[We should take this discussion offline so we don't spoil the Star Trek thread and also avoid the usual suspects that try to turn it into a personal argument]



I'm betting the tether has something significant to do with this. Just like a warp bubble excludes ships from the effects of spacetime to stop FTL, I think this tether is some sort of temporal link that exempts the wearer from localised time "rules".
How that exemption plays out in this story I need to give it more thought...

But as I said earlier, it was never B who came back anyway.

SEB
 
@HebburnMackem I consider myself fairly intelligent with a degree and masters to my name but I must have understood about 3 words of the discussion you were having. Where do I start with a layman intro to what you are talking about?

Bringing it back to the subject of the thread...today's episode?
Utter rubbish for me.
Clearly something of a filler episode before next week's finale.
 
Oh this is so incorrect. You'd be disagreeing with just about every leading physicist out there by saying that.
Don't confuse incompleteness with wrong. QM is used on a daily basis inside of many scientific and engineering industries in a very concrete way. Just because we've not completed the grand unification theory with does not make it wrong either. Any more than me incorrectly predicting tonights result makes Football wrong.
QFT is a little more out there for me, but I've not mentioned that or it's relationship with QM or classical physics.

>So which is correct? Neither.

Incompleteness != Incorrectness
Actually every physicist on the planet knows that QM and Relativity are wrong at a fundamental level. They're not just "incomplete". QM will never be able to include gravity, relativity will never be able to describe things at a quantum level. Both models, whilst highly accurate and a huge accomplishment, are wrong. Problem is... we don't even know where to start in creating a new model.

Like I've said, there are no physical laws that block the ability to travel back in time.
Conservation of energy?

Wormholes are almost certainly not shite and just sci-fi. That article even mentions it. Please, look at any modern physicist and they will tell you they think wormholes are likely possible. In fact there's fairly solid science on how you can construct one, including details of how the experiments that can be constructed. There's one unproven theory that quantum entanglement is achieved by subatomic sized wormholes connecting the particles together. I'm personally guessing we'll be able to make a wormhole at that size in the next 20 years.
Fuck sake man marra.

Einstein-Rosen bridges are a theoretical consequence of the abstract maths in relativity. To create one would take a particle accelerator the size of the f***ing solar system. :lol:

Upon reading the rest of your post I've realised that you have no formal education in physics and are just writing nonsense, no offence intended. I'm guessing you've read wiki pages on physics and watched Michio Kaku documentaries on the scyfy channel but have never actually picked up a maths book and learned the basics. You need to forget everything you've learned and go back to the beginning marra. It's literally impossible to get a grasp of physics without learning how to use abstract maths.
 
Odd episode today, clearly a two hour finale cut in half.

I get the feeling the show is writing itself into a corner on time travel.

Why is Georgiou there at all? Why would she say what she said to Pike? Why are all these top secret organisations so well known about?

It's been a very good season overall, but let down by some inconsistent logic and a central character whose performance simply doesn't justify her billing while those around her excel nearly every week.

If it was a choice between Disco and a Pike led Enterprise show, there's no choice to be made.
 
Odd episode today, clearly a two hour finale cut in half.

I get the feeling the show is writing itself into a corner on time travel.

Why is Georgiou there at all? Why would she say what she said to Pike? Why are all these top secret organisations so well known about?

It's been a very good season overall, but let down by some inconsistent logic and a central character whose performance simply doesn't justify her billing while those around her excel nearly every week.

If it was a choice between Disco and a Pike led Enterprise show, there's no choice to be made.
I’d like to know where Spock thinks he’s going.

I spend every episode hoping Burnham dies in a freak accident involving a bulk head falling on her. I’d love a Pike Enterprise show. Anything without Burnham.
 
I’d like to know where Spock thinks he’s going.

I spend every episode hoping Burnham dies in a freak accident involving a bulk head falling on her. I’d love a Pike Enterprise show. Anything without Burnham.
The show spends so much time on her that it neglects the other characters.

The other week that robot lass died and they had a funeral, I couldn't even tell you her name let alone give any fucks about the character. I couldn't name 1 bridge character apart from Tilly.

It's the Michael Burnham show.
 
Last edited:
That’s been the main problem with the ‘guest’ captains over the 2 seasons. They have been the secondary character to Burnham and really interesting but they are only there for a season and gone. That hasn’t really left any time to develop any of the other crew, with a couple of exceptions, so you don’t really care that much about them.

It will be interesting to see who survives next weeks episode.
 
Long since stopped watching this tripe. It’s an insult to the original series. After about 4 episodes of series 1 it just got boring. Star Trek for millennials.
 
What an utterly shit episode. There was only 10 minutes of story there, the rest is meaningless "goodbye" dialog over and over again. With the same repeat scene with Burnham and Tyler we get every f***ing episode.
It was so bad I was shouting at the telly and almost skipped past parts of it.
4/10
A nothing episode. The writers should be sacked.
 
What an utterly shit episode. There was only 10 minutes of story there, the rest is meaningless "goodbye" dialog over and over again. With the same repeat scene with Burnham and Tyler we get every f***ing episode.
It was so bad I was shouting at the telly and almost skipped past parts of it.
4/10
A nothing episode. The writers should be sacked.
The highlight for me was the reimagined Enterprise. I think they did a really good job of updating it but keeping an original feel to it.
 
The gay black fella is getting on my tits going on about his "feelings" all the f***ing time. Half the episodes are him sitting around moping feeling sorry for himself.

WHAT THE FUCK HAS THAT GOT TO DO WITH STARS OR TREKS!!

I wish they'd load him into a torpedo bay and fire the twat into the nearest star like.
 
The gay black fella is getting on my tits going on about his "feelings" all the f***ing time. Half the episodes are him sitting around moping feeling sorry for himself.

WHAT THE FUCK HAS THAT GOT TO DO WITH STARS OR TREKS!!

Tbf to the lad, he was dead for quite a while. I suspect we'd all want to work that through at some point.
 

Back
Top