^Sorry, but I'm just not so sure. Memory Alpha defines alternate universes and alternate timelines as two separate things. Alternate timelines are created via time travel within a single universe; things like, say, the mirror universe and the various universes encountered by Worf in "Parallels" exist independantly of the "primary" universe.
Q & A Query (SPOILERS)
- Thread starter EJA
- Start date
In Planet X, Q briefly travels into what I like to think of as a subsection of the Marvel Comics Multiverse in order to confer with Uatu, the Watcher. So if They destroy their home multiverse, what do the Q have to be so worried for if they have the ability to jump into other multiverses? Are they connected to the Q Continuum in some way so that if the Continuum is destroyed, they all die too, even if they're in another multiverse?
Given the above discussion, couldn't anyone from any of the quantum-states-that-collectively-though-inaccurately-are-called-the-multiverse have potentially averted the destruction? While "our" Picard was the right man for the job this time, who's to say that one of the similar Picards or someone else might not have succeeded? (Or won't in the future--does the success of Picard this time preclude Them from getting bored again?) {ProfJonathan}
No, that's vernacular again. I'm speaking in terms of real physics. The whole idea of alternate realities in science fiction is pretty much based on the "Many Worlds" model of quantum mechanics. What fiction refers to interchangeably as "alternate universes" or "alternate timelines" are based on the actual physical concept of multiple quantum histories for the universe. Regardless of whether science fiction portrays them as arising spontaneously or being created by time travel, they're both derived from this same principle.
And if Memory Alpha claims the sort of distinction you describe, that's purely the invention of whatever anonymous person wrote that paragraph in that article on Memory Alpha. I've never heard that distinction drawn anywhere else. In fact, I would call it emphatically wrong. "Parallels" was based directly on the Many-Worlds model, on the idea that the universe is routinely, spontaneously splitting into divergent quantum histories. In Data's own words: "For any event, there is an infinite number of possible outcomes. Our choices determine which outcome will follow. But there is a theory in quantum physics that all possibilities that could happen do happen in alternate quantum realities." (Which is actually a common misinterpretation of the Everett-Wheeler Many-Worlds model; just because multiple realities may exist, that doesn't require every possible one to occur.)
Unfortunately, the script follows vernacular by using "universe" interchangeably with "quantum reality," which just creates the kind of confusion that you and that Memory Alpha contributor are subject to. In the actual, real-world quantum theory that Data is referring to, what's happening is that our universe is branching into multiple quantum histories which do not interact with one another and can thus be treated, for practical purposes, as separate "realities." Whatever jargon may be used in a work of fiction or a Wiki based on a work of fiction, that's the actual underlying science from which the fiction is derived.
Memory Alpha entries are written - and rewritten - by fans. If you disgree with what's there, you can register with the wiki and go in tweaking all over the place!
Does Q&A reference (directly or not) other Q appearences? Like in "Q-Squared", for example.
Also, KRAD, whats your opinion on the Q novels? Particularly the ones by Peter David?
Also, what do you make of of the "Spock vs. Q" series?
Also, KRAD, whats your opinion on the Q novels? Particularly the ones by Peter David?
Also, what do you make of of the "Spock vs. Q" series?
All of them, in fact.
I don't think there's a Q story out there I don't like, because even the worst Q story has Q in it, and is therefore tons o' fun. Having said that, I'm particularly fond of Q-in-Law, and I think Peter's take on the character is excellent.
I actually had the privilege of seeing Nimoy and deLancie perform this live at a Slanted Fedora convention in 2001, and it was fantastic. The audios don't do it justice really. It works a thousand times better live....
Q&A references all book appearances (novels, short stories, etc.) up to this point. No references to Spock vs. Q or any of his comic book appearances.
I would say they are. Sadly, I never got the chance to see them perform, but I love the recordings.
On the other hand, my wife Laura and I listened to them (she's a Trek fan too) and we didn't care for them much at all. We were left with a "guess you had to be there" reaction.
Thats great!KRAD said:
All of them, in fact.
Not having read the book, but intending of buying it very soon, can you say, as spoiler-free as you can, if you, somewhat, explained the Trelane-q issue? Q-Squared is considered impossible to have happened for the Trelane issue and all...
Thats cool! My favorite Q novel so far, has been Q-Squared. And I have read several others and all. Whats your opinion on Q-Squared, btw?
Also, I haven't checked the VOY-Kirk story, but I am sure you did. Is it worth tracking down? I'm a Kirk fan, and would like to see if there's any chance for a Kirk-Q interaction.
I was considering purchasing them - I have seen some of the live recordings they did in youtube, back in the day.
I am concerned, though, if it'd temper with continuity... Is it, you know, impropable to have happened, as a tale?
PS: I envy you.
There are no Trelane references in Q&A, unless it's something implied that I overlooked.
Why does continuity matter? None of these stories "actually" happened. They're all made up. What does it matter if they fit together with each other, as long as they're entertaining? Continuity is nice to have, but I'll never for the life of me understand the attitude that a work of fiction is somehow not worth reading (or listening to, in this case) if it isn't consistent with another totally made-up thing that never happened.
From what I've read about it, I'd say Spock vs. Q isn't really meant to be a serious attempt at contributing to the Trek canon so much as using the conceit of a meeting between Spock and Q as an excuse for letting Nimoy and DeLancie strut their stuff before an audience. Trying to define its "canon value" seems like missing the point.
While many things were explained in this novel, that was not one of them. Basically I wanted to make sure to make at least a passing reference to all the Q stories on television and in prose, but some of the references were very passing indeed, including the one to Trelane. (Christopher, you did, in fact, miss it -- it's on page 122 in the fifth interlude.)
Enjoyed the heck out of it. Good romp.
I have no idea what you're talking about....
Pretty improbable, yeah, but it's not meant to be taken in the least bit seriously.
The End of Night by Paul J. Kaplan in SNW VI has Q and Kirk meeting on Voyager. It's a pretty fun story.
Ah, Gotcha!!!!!!!
Caught you out oh great and knowledgeable one!!!
Caught you out oh great and knowledgeable one!!!
Thats great to hear!
Glad you did too - its my favorite Q novel. I can only hope your novel is even better!
What is your personal favorite Star Trek novel? Both from those you've written and from everybody else's work?
I'll inform you when I have read the novel.
Just as fine - I'll get it anyway.KRAD said:
Pretty improbable, yeah, but it's not meant to be taken in the least bit seriously.
Similar threads
