A very interesting stuff came up while watching Hawking’s “Time Travel with Stephen Hawking” on Discovery today. It was about the wormhole paradox, wherein a scientist can prove it’s impossible to travel through time using the much glorified time-machines/wormhole by going back a minute in time and shooting himself dead — thus questioning the existence of himself (in the present,) if one side is takes effect, the other can’t hold and vice versa. Godel would’ve loved it.
Hawking says that this proves that time travel via this particular medium isn’t possible and thus historians of the world can breathe a sigh of relief.
I was thinking, if such a wormhole is actualized somehow even in the distant future, will it be free for all? Or will it be some privilege bestowed on a select few?
In the first case, let’s revisit our paradox; if it’s free for all, then the paradox itself is baseless as the history (if considered as a complex mathematical formula with zillion unbounded variables) will be changed by the extent the resultant nett efforts the participating parties put in to change the ones that are in their control. The same thing happens to alter the present, isn’t it?
In the latter case however, if only the privileged few are supposed to travel through, where’s the paradox then? Isn’t the present being dictated by the chosen ones anyway? If time is a dimension as it is perceived today (and someday it’s proven true by any chance i.e.) every micro-second is being altered by them and thus the history is taking the course as ‘designed’ and not as ‘destined’ (whatever is the difference between these two terms.)
That does in fact bring us to the gibberish of “The wormhole’s existence proves that it can’t exist.” And another one, Time, as the fourth dimension as perceived by humans, exists only in the meta plain.
Channel 9 vs. the Others
I have been watching cricket telecasts for a long time now and have always been fascinated by the way Channel 9 of Australia covers sports as opposed to what the other channels of the world do.
For me, just like the Australian cricket team, 9 has been at the forefront of their field and the others just follow. I remember they started the experiments with speed guns, picture-in-picture, stump camera, ultra motion, and recently the player’s run-time vitals etc. But here what I am talking about is the info bars and the graphics part. The way 9 represents the player profiles and match stats is just out of this world, plain, tasteful, simple and very effective. No gaudy colours, no bold faced crap, just plain & simple information that can be consumed without any fuss.
They use the screen real-estate like no one does, if you want to see what I’m talking about here, have a re-look at the graphics shown during Ashes coverage and the recently concluded test series between SA and India, or travel (if you may :-)) slightly backwards in time to compare the above with the Ind-NZ series telecast and you’ll see where I’m coming from.
In the latter’s case, the screen looks as if some gaming-geek has had a shot at painting an over-sized mural, thereby utilizing just about 40% of the screen to show what actually matters to a viewer. Right now I’m trying to follow the NZ-Pak series and I wasn’t surprised to see a far better telecast of these matches too, may be that geographical area itself has this gift of effective creativity and it seems Sky (ANZ) is a distant second and at least making an effort towards catching up — that’s refreshing.
Regarding the standards of commentary on the other side of the fence (read non-Aus/Eng), well, lesser said the better.