Black Whole Query (Time Travel)
- Thread starter DangerMouse
- Start date
Well, my cacluations show the timing's about right, if you allow the time it takes light to get to Earth .... give or take a donkey or two ...
No, no ... you had me going there, but we both know that's from a different franchise!
The "wormhole" certainly should have sent them both to the same reality (the past of the prime universe), but as we saw in the movie, it didn't. Nero was sent there, but Spock wasn't. Spock was sent to Nero's new reality!? Hope that helps.
They were both sent to the same reality: the Abramsverse. It is already a reality distinct from the "past of the Prime universe" after Nero's arrival. The time travel in the film does not operate according to single-timeline theory; thus what you're suggesting would have actually placed them in different realities.
As you seem to agree above, the wormhole (black hole) could not have sent Nero to the Abramsverse because the Abramsverse wasn't created yet. Only after his arrival in the past of the prime universe, did the branching effect cause the Abramsverse (with Nero in it) to be split off. Since you agree Spock should have been sent to the same universe Nero was, he must have arrived in the past of the prime universe too, where again, branching would occur.
See my first diagram here.
Remember, the wormhole did not create the Abramsverse, although it wouldn't change anything if it did. The exit point of the wormhole would still be the prime universe for both Nero and Spock, either way.
What I'm saying is: They should end up in different realities (after their respective branches) according to the branching theory the movie is apparently using. But they should both arrive in the same (Prime) reality initially.
As far as time travel goes, it should operate (as far as we know) exactly the same way it always has in ST and elsewhere (i.e. things/people go to another time period in the same universe). It's only when they get there that branching comes in to play and causes a new universe (the Abramsverse in this case) to be created, as I understand it.
How does your view differ from that?
Except according to the writers it isn't constrained to work "exactly the same way it always has in ST", and there's no reason at all for non-ST products to be considered as evidence here. Assuming at the outset that the time travel must be inherently paradoxical is just adherence to the fallacious model of the past.
UFO said:
Then why is that to be considered a significant point?
UFO said:
I never said "should have been". I was merely stating that, as the film depicts, they ended up in the same reality.
UFO said:
It appears to be the intent of the film that "branching theory" in conjunction with the properties of red matter black holes produces the observed result.
Last edited:
I did not assume that. I explained what I meant by "time travel" above and it involves no paradoxes. Paradoxes only occur once the actual time travel is finished (i.e. the travellers arrive). So obviously "normal" time travel followed by universe branching would prevent such problems.
I hoped it would make my point clear. Worth a try.
No, you said "They were both sent to the same reality". And of course they weren't, as we saw on screen.
Agreed, but what was "intended" can't reasonably be derived from the method employed. You accepted one reasonable argument (against traditional time travel), but not this one. It seems to be, if I do say so myself, at least as valid. A bit more so perhaps, since there isn't even a half way decent work around.
Last edited:
Yeah, the number of Red Matter Black Hole Experts around here is astonishing!
Ablative_Oberth
Lieutenant Commander
[grammar meltdown rant]
BLACK HOLE! HOLE DAMN IT! NOT WHOLE! ARRRRRGH!!!!!!!
[/grammar meltdown rant]
BLACK HOLE! HOLE DAMN IT! NOT WHOLE! ARRRRRGH!!!!!!!
[/grammar meltdown rant]
Since Mousie used the term "black hole" (spelled correctly) three times in her opening post,
So I was watching Star Trek for the zillionth time and got to thinking about the fact that when Spock and Nero get pulled into the spatial anomaly - a black hole - they time travel???
Now I'm not really up on my astro physics but black holes don't bring about time line phenomenas... do they?
I thought black holes simply pulled you apart into a vortex of nothingness.
Anyone have any answers
I figured that the title could be the sort of wordplay someone who writes for a living might employ. If, on the other hand, it turns out to have been a typo, well, then - those happen, too, but it still amuses me to think of it as a pun of some sort.
That's unfortunate because the distinction is critical to my position.
Shape-Shifter said:
Perhaps so, but it's the actions of the branching universe that is causing the problems, not whatever capabilities Red Matter might afford black holes. I can't see a way RM blackholes could overcome those problems even if someone specifically tried to design them to do so, which of course would be unlikely. After all, no one anticipated people falling into them.
Given the branching nature of the universe they operate in (yeah, ironic), about the only way RM black holes could achieve what we saw on screen is if they were both sentient and magical! But don't take my word for it. Think it through for yourselves.
captrek is, I think, getting at something which also occurred to me.
What if, rather than considering Nero's arrival from the wormhole and Spock's arrival from the wormhole as separate events, each creating their own branch points, what if you consider the red matter-induced creation of the black hole and attendant wormhole(s), the entry of first Narada and then the Jellyfish, and the respective exits of both ships as all being part of a single, prolonged event, one which transpires over a period of ~25 years? The conduit through which both Nero and Spock travel is established at the start, and doesn't collapse until Spock has arrived at the other end, 25 alt-universe years after Nero's arrival (if, indeed, it collapses then - we don't know because the story, having no further use for the wormhole, simply tells us no more about it.)
Looking at it another way, but again employing the premise of a fixed (but in no way sentient or magical) conduit, established at the moment of the Hobus star superdupernova's collapse into a black hole: what if, by intercepting Spock almost immediately upon his exit from the wormhole, Nero renders Spock's arrival a non-event - one which produces no branching point because Spock is given no chance to interact with anything, and thus no chance to alter the flow of the timeline. (He gets his opportunity later when the transwarp beaming formula he brings from the "future" is used to transport Kirk and Scotty aboard Enterprise, more than 129 years before such tech is supposed to be even a theoretical possibility; their arrival in the turbine room is Spock's branching point.)
Last edited:
The so-called "problems" are only an assumption - predicated on the assumption that red matter black holes cannot operate as depicted in the film. This begins to seem like circular reasoning. Furthermore, there's nothing especially "magical" about it; as has always been the case with science fiction, red matter black holes operate in this fashion because they were invented to serve the plot and the plot says that they do. It's no more "magical" than such things as transporters, real-time communication at interstellar distances, et cetera.
Yes exactly. Nero arrived in the past of the prime universe and logically so should Spock. Both creating their own branch universes in the process.
The short answer is: Possibly!
David Wallace writes:
This is a difficulty I have with the whole notion of branching universes. If branching occurs at the quantum level on a very regular basis (many times a split second), how is that reflected in the behaviour of the macro (our perceivable) universe? Should everything degenerate in to chaos as cars do or don't start, with a new universe being created to reflect the other option? Or does there have to be some minimum chance involved to prevent universe splitting in most quantum situations? Does, there as apparently implied above, have to be an experimenter (decision maker) involved? That hardly seems right. It doesn't help that I don't "entirely" understand what I'm talking about!
Anyway, you make a very good point and it certainly raises questions I haven’t been able to find adequate answers to: What actually causes branching, and how often does branching "normally" occur (irrespective of monstrous starships from the future)? I guess we can add to that: How long can a branch inducing event be?
It seems most likely to me that if branching was occurring fairly regularly, the arrivals of two starships would be enough to do the job and I saw no reason to suppose the black hole's behaviour should either retard or advance the normal branching processes. Whatever they may be. Surely red matter has enough on its plate. But see below.
That’s inventive. So what you are saying is: for the purpose of creating a branch in the Prime Universe's timeline, the black hole and everything that has, or will ever go through it, is just one long event? [Edit: Correction, you mentioned 25 years] What about the matter from the Supernova that presumably came through earlier? One suggestion by KingDaniel based on the time differentials between Nero's and Spock's entries was hundreds of years earlier!
If that is when the Abramsverse branched off … . Never the less, you might be right. I can't rule it out based on my current knowledge, but I feel it's a bit of a "stretch".
Of course the "duration of events" problem doesn't just effect RM black holes. The same issue would apply to a sea going vessel entering a port for example.
This speculation doesn't seem to address my point (perhaps it wasn't intended to) because I am suggesting Spock should never have arrived in the Abramsverse in the first place (except perhaps with the assistance of your "long event theory"). But in general terms I believe the normal SF interpretation is that branching only happens at distinct macro events (often people’s decision points. Should I brush my teeth or not? Etc.), but I can’t see why the universe would time such operations to fit in with things we consider "important" or even our decisions. I could be wrong.
There are certain "givens" in most franchises which the plots work within, and most of them have some link to real science, however tenuous. Red Matter is more like an all purpose ring-in, or "rabbit out of the hat" by contrast. I can't see there is anything wrong with trying to discern if the basic logic works.
I didn't assume RMBHs couldn't work. They did not appear to be able to. M'Sharak has suggested a method that at least makes what we saw on screen a question more of plausibility rather than impossibility.
You mentioned something about seeming like circular reasoning?
Last edited:
I did, but you're right - it could go on for much longer than that, and I allowed for this by saying "(if, indeed, it collapses then - we don't know because the story, having no further use for the wormhole, simply tells us no more about it.)"
I remember that, and I think someone came up with a date of 34 BCE (or thereabouts) which allowed that the arrival of the Hobus star superdupernova material from the future could well have been perceived as the Biblical Star of Bethlehem, if the interstellar distance worked out just right. Of course, it's equally reasonable to assume that the superdupernova ejecta was schlurped right back into the red matter-induced black hole (which spawned wormholes) and never, in fact, passed through the wormholes into the past, instead dissipating gradually over time, from the late 24th century forward, in a regular cycle of X-ray emissions and gamma-ray bursts.What about the matter from the Supernova that presumably came through earlier? One suggestion by KingDaniel based on the time differentials between Nero's and Spock's entries was hundreds of years earlier!
And that's the fun of this, isn't it?
I suppose it both does and doesn't directly address your point, but I did preface it with this: "Looking at it another way, but again employing the premise of a fixed (but in no way sentient or magical) conduit, established at the moment of the Hobus star superdupernova's collapse into a black hole" identifying it as another idea I had, inclining toward a Way of Making It All Fit. It may work for you, it may not, and as late as it's getting here, I'm not completely sure I'm even making sense, at this point.
Since Mousie used the term "black hole" (spelled correctly) three times in her opening post,
(emphasis mine)So I was watching Star Trek for the zillionth time and got to thinking about the fact that when Spock and Nero get pulled into the spatial anomaly - a black hole - they time travel???
Now I'm not really up on my astro physics but black holes don't bring about time line phenomenas... do they?
I thought black holes simply pulled you apart into a vortex of nothingness.
Anyone have any answers
I figured that the title could be the sort of wordplay someone who writes for a living might employ. If, on the other hand, it turns out to have been a typo, well, then - those happen, too, but it still amuses me to think of it as a pun of some sort.
Ha... IF ONLY it was a pun
The second I hit 'submit' I noticed the error as it vanished into permanency
On subject... there are some very clever people answering in this thread - to which I'm grateful - but rather lost in a black HOLE of my own confusion
Those are the same thing. They appeared to work just fine.Embodied here in the form of an assumption that red matter black holes, phenomena which have never been referenced in canon before, cannot work in the way depicted by the only source in which they appear. That, rather than the alternative, is the fallacy here. It is not circular reasoning to assume that the One Ring operates in the way Tolkien says it does.
Last edited:
Similar threads
