The Guardian of Forever - a question

[Christopher]

^Good point. Ellison's work is more literary SF than hard SF.

 

[RPJOB]

I'd say that he's more interested in the people rather than the things. SF/Fantasy/Whatever works.

It reminds me of quotes I read just after Ray Bradbury passed away:

“I’m not a science fiction writer,” Bradbury was frequently quoted as
saying. “I’ve written only one book of science fiction. All the others
are fantasy.”

“Fantasies are things that can’t happen,” Bradbury said, “and science
fiction is about things that can happen.”

In some ways Bradbury and Ellison are similar. They're do what they have to to tell the story they want and not worry about how somebody feels that they have to classify it.

 

[Plaristes]

And of course Einstein's General Relativity, published in 1916, incorporated the idea of a 4-dimensional spacetime.

Before that, Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity, published in 1905 in "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies", incorporated the idea of a 4-dimensional spacetime.

I'm pretty sure that's false. Einstein's 1905 paper works with a traditional three dimensions of space and does not treat time as a fourth dimension. It was Minkowski in 1907 who proposed reinterpreting special relativity within a four dimensional metaphysic, according to which what we think of as three-dimensional objects are just instantaneous slices of four-dimensional objects. Einstein thereafter adopted Minkowski's 4D approach.

 

[Sci]

I think the simplest way of interpreting the Guardian's line about accessing other dimensions is to take it as a reference to new timelines that branch off independently from old timelines and then never merge back into the "original" timeline, a la ST09.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

And of course Einstein's General Relativity, published in 1916, incorporated the idea of a 4-dimensional spacetime.

Before that, Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity, published in 1905 in "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies", incorporated the idea of a 4-dimensional spacetime.

I'm pretty sure that's false. Einstein's 1905 paper works with a traditional three dimensions of space and does not treat time as a fourth dimension. It was Minkowski in 1907 who proposed reinterpreting special relativity within a four dimensional metaphysic, according to which what we think of as three-dimensional objects are just instantaneous slices of four-dimensional objects. Einstein thereafter adopted Minkowski's 4D approach.

You are right, I stand corrected. The formulation in the 1905 paper (translated here at http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf) is mathematically equivalent to the revised version of special relativity Einstein later presented using Minkowski spacetime.

 

[Plaristes]

Before that, Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity, published in 1905 in "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies", incorporated the idea of a 4-dimensional spacetime.

I'm pretty sure that's false. Einstein's 1905 paper works with a traditional three dimensions of space and does not treat time as a fourth dimension. It was Minkowski in 1907 who proposed reinterpreting special relativity within a four dimensional metaphysic, according to which what we think of as three-dimensional objects are just instantaneous slices of four-dimensional objects. Einstein thereafter adopted Minkowski's 4D approach.

You are right, I stand corrected. The formulation in the 1905 paper (translated here at http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf) is mathematically equivalent to the revised version of special relativity Einstein later presented using Minkowski spacetime.

Right, Einstein's original 3D view, Minkowski's 4D view, and those views that are often lumped together as "Neo-Lorentzian" are all mathematically and empirically equivalent.

 

[Ben]

But surely the concept of other dimensions would't be beyond Spock's capability to understand, so unless the guardian underestimated him or enjoyed snark, it doesn't explain the comment.

I think it's just meant to create the feeling of mystery and there being phenomenon that we are unable to understand. I mean, if people on an internet message board could explain to you how and why Spock was wrong (or not totally accurate) in his statement, then it should've been understandable enough for SPOCK to figure out in the first place!

Just treat this like you'd treat some crazy thing the Doctor might say. He knows more than you'll ever know, and that makes it fun!