Secretos del universo

Through the Wormhole is an entertaining show about science. As host, Morgan Freeman asks questions and guides us through the possible answers. Topics can range from time travel, to (gasp!) theology and everything in between. There are times when the show can be a bit too speculative or pedantic, but overall it's a fun way to learn about what was, what is, or what might be. I especially enjoyed the shows explaining particle physics and Higgs-Boson in particular. The show does a great job making complex theories and concepts understandable. I applaud Mr. Freeman's efforts at making television a smarter place, and hope to enjoy more in the future.

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.

The fact should be mentioned that other reviews have rated this show less than satisfactory due to highly abstract ideas and very inductive thought processes. While this may be a negativity for other science-based shows, it certainly isn't for 'Through the Wormhole'. As the title suggests, the viewer is traveling through a wormhole - which humankind knows little to nothing of. The producers and scientists behind this don't pretend to know everything. While you don't learn many facts with this show, you do learn theories, laws of physics, and how to expand your thinking. Humans as a species tend to be quite narrow minded, and this can be proved through ongoing problems such as segregation, homophobia and radicalism in religion. While this show doesn't touch much on any of these issues, minds are being re-molded to solve problems nonetheless. There's something about learning of things greater than human lives that, if it can fill even one with a spark, will ignite the future generation of minds.

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.)

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.