Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Film source code total rubbish?

  1. Jul 28, 2011 #1
    having watched the film source code where they try and persuade that quantum physics allows for the brain to contain infinite parallel worlds i wondered if anyone made sense of it. As far as i could tell it was total rubbish from start to Finnish. Even down to the guy managing to send a text before the experiment even started.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 28, 2011 #2

    xts

    User Avatar

    I haven't seen the film, so I can't comment on the rubbish (?) presented there, but superposition of large (finite, but arbitrarily large) number of parallel representations of information (e.g. words), and parallel processing on all those representation is a basis of Quantum Computing aka Quantum Information Processing.
    So it is not quite rubbish - it theoretically works, but despite of large enthusiasm towards it 20 years ago, the progress in real implementation is rather snaily.
    If you are interested - google on Quantum Computing, you'll find some explanations (from popular to formal) how it works.
     
  4. Jul 28, 2011 #3
    yes i understand that. But you are talking about infinite/large number of states. What this film suggested was quantum physics allowed for a persons memory to be stored as source code, binary data i assume though they werent specific, then run that memory again and that timeline it contained to be a source for relieving parallel universes by changing that experience in someone who was reliving that memory. What part of quantum physics allows for this? This could leave a lot of people with the wrong understanding surely.
     
  5. Jul 28, 2011 #4

    xts

    User Avatar

    Oh, come on! You either should not watch Hollywood films or not take their "physics" seriously, even if they use the words and concepts having some meaning in physics. It shouldn't be more misleading than watching Startrek, or cartoons with their very special "physics"...
     
  6. Jul 28, 2011 #5
    startreck took a liberal approach to some solid concepts. It brought physics to a whole gneration.
     
  7. Jul 30, 2011 #6
    All rubbish physics aside, the bit i didnt understand was when d female commander pressed the red button and then jake died but yet he was walking wit d girl daying it was a beautiful day etc. I thought by pressing d button...that jake was completely dead ie brain dead hence no memories.....?
     
  8. Jul 30, 2011 #7
    yes because according to the film he was now living a parralel world, a different timeline. Yet for the whole of the film till that point he couldn't live past 8 minutes in the parralel world because his brain didnt hold any more memory of the events thus as you say, till that point the parralel world required his brain to be working.
     
  9. Jul 31, 2011 #8
    Sorry, i struggle 2 understand your reply. Are you saying that at any 1 time he could only live for 8mins in his parallel world? But yet he was still alive in this parallel world when the button was pressed.
     
  10. Jul 31, 2011 #9

    Fredrik

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Each time he was sent back to the train, his consciousness was effectively taking over a person in an alternative reality, and he would experience 8 minutes on the train, as if his entire brain had been placed inside the other guy's body. The experience was different every time, because of the different things he chose to do on the train. Then (spoiler for the end of the movie)
    at the end of his last trip, his own body was pulled off life support and died. He then continued to live on in the body of the guy he had taken over, who was still alive, since this time he had successfully prevented the bombs from going off.
     
  11. Jul 31, 2011 #10

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    It has helped to highlight science and physics concepts for four decades!

    There are many examples of "sci-fi" in TOS, that are real technologies today. This is easy to miss unless one can remember or consider what it was like back when these episodes first aired. When Spock walks in with a small cartridge [now called a thumb drive] that contains gigabits of information, and we see photos of people and histories of subjects magically displayed on the monitor, it isn't obvoius now that this was wild thinking back then.
     
    Last edited: Jul 31, 2011
  12. Jul 31, 2011 #11
    I never thought anyone considered it "wild thinking back then." What is wild about it is how quickly some of that technology has happened and even surpassed predictions. But it was still a job for them more than any real attempt to bring science into the home. Otherwise the execs would've respected Roddenberry's plea to not put sound in space.
     
  13. Jul 31, 2011 #12
    Ok, thats based on whether u believe consciousness survives beyond death. Depends whether ur atheist or otherwise...
     
  14. Jul 31, 2011 #13

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    It was literally science fiction. Your answer only suggests that my observation is correct - the context at the time is lost to today's audience.

    In fact, a lot of the stuff in Star Trek was just wild guessing by TV writers. Some devices, like the transporters, were just plot devices needed to reduce the cost of production.

    A lot of good sci-fi is driven by a knowledge of technology trends, but much iof science fiction just refuses to recognize limits. It isn't a calculation, it is imagination.
     
  15. Jul 31, 2011 #14
    I was in the original audience, grew up on it. I don't understand why you want to say "has helped to highlight science and physics concepts for four decades" when there were many things that were just wrong, and of which they were aware when they broadcasted it. And they're still doing it. This only means that they take license to give us bad science to accommodate the popular image of sci-fi and tell their stories. I don't fault them for that; I do it all the time in my own writing. But I would never want anyone to take my writing and dissect it with highlights in physics. Why should we do the same for Star Trek?
     
  16. Jul 31, 2011 #15
    Star trek and similar are one of the many catalysts that fueled my desire to study physics. I know that sounds insane, and I fully understand it is a work of fiction.
     
    Last edited: Jul 31, 2011
  17. Jul 31, 2011 #16
    I don't think that sounds insane. That's what I would hope from any inspiration source. I grew up on ToS and it inspired a lot of my interest in writing sci-fi.
     
  18. Jul 31, 2011 #17
    I agree. A lot of kids today might visit a hospital, see the wall mounted patient monitors above the beds, and never guess they were directly inspired by the original star trek series instead of vice versa. The show got a lot of things wrong as you'd expect, but the amazing part is the sheer number of things they made reasonable speculations about and the number of people they inspired they do more then just dream about such things.
     
  19. Jul 31, 2011 #18

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    A bit off topic, but it is interesting to watch an old episode of Emergency. I remember at the time the equipment and hospital seemed so advanced and wonderous. Now it looks like something out of the wild west. The hospital rooms look barren compared to a real room today.
     
  20. Jul 31, 2011 #19

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I think a check of the history of Moore's Law shows that Star Trek was complete fiction at the time. Perhaps you didn't realize how far beyond the edge it went, which wouldn't be surprising for a kid. No doubt I thought of it the same way back then.

    -wiki-

    Ten years from 1965 would put it at about the TRS 80 or the first Apple; hardly a computer capable of commanding a star ship and replacing Captain Kirk! [but you could play Asteroids!]

    This all reminds me a bit of a young man who once swore that you could buy a real hoverboard, like in Back to the Future, at Walmart.
     
    Last edited: Aug 1, 2011
  21. Jul 31, 2011 #20

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Stop with the text speak and use proper English here please.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Film source code total rubbish?
  1. The Da Vinci Code Film (Replies: 43)

  2. Rubbish and the mob (Replies: 8)

Loading...