Platicsco Good story, Not enough for a whole film

Portia Hilton Blistering performances.

Anoushka Slater While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

Curt Watching it is like watching the spectacle of a class clown at their best: you laugh at their jokes, instigate their defiance, and "ooooh" when they get in trouble.

Bruce Wilner I used to love this show. It revealed fascinating developments at the forefront of neuroscience, genetics, exobiology, and so forth.It has degenerated to nearly useless. I shall provide an example drawn from this evening's new episode, "Do We Live in the Matrix?" whereby it is opined--and, ostensibly, justified--that we could very well be living in a computer simulation.We meet a renowned Swiss AI expert. He tells us there's no need to express pi in so many zillions of digits that wrap around the globe ad infinitum: we can just put "C/d"--where, of course, C is circumference and d is diameter.Uh . . . the difference is that the first one is practical (I can measure off 3.14159... inches.) The other is purely notational (I cannot measure off C/d inches.)The same expert tells us that, "I can express the entire universe in ten lines of code," and beams with pride as he presents an extremely vague and general algorithm in an ALGOL-like PDL.Uh . . . in a suitably high-level language, I can express the entire universe in ONE SYMBOL of code. SO WHAT: what PRACTICAL, IMPLEMENTABLE purpose is accomplished?Another scientist shows some symmetric matrices to mathematicians without any commentary and is disappointed that they don't get excited. When he builds corresponding models of atomic structures, then everyone's excited.Perhaps if he had TOLD them they were looking at symmetric spin tensors within a Lie algebra, they would have achieved a meaningful apotheosis. Instead, we hear snippets of some meaningless argument about bits and bytes and shmits.(I recall from a previous episode--although it's in the same vein--that some physicist claimed that, if he builds such and such a fiber optic circuit, he can go backwards in time by 10 to the -18 seconds. I presume that even a physicist realizes that this is completely unmeasurable and thus unverifiable: sending the data from the measuring device to the managing computer takes literally billions of times longer than the 10 to the -18 seconds putatively recovered. I know, I know, physicists pooh-pooh anything that isn't physics as beneath them, but I don't think that's the issue here.)I SEE WHAT THE PROBLEM IS HERE: the producers of the show have ZERO understanding of the concepts being discussed, Morgan Freeman's golden throat notwithstanding. This, combined with the PERPETUAL problem that participating experts in TV shows experience, viz., that pieces and snippets of their cogent essays are quoted out of context, results in a stream of meaningless dribble that endeavors to sound technical in its misapplied terminological splendor but ends up delivering just so much imbecility in sheep's clothing, albeit dressy and richly ornamented.What a PROFOUND disappointment!(FYI, the popular go-back-in-time theme is utterly impossible. This is trivially easy to demonstrate. Suppose I set a box on my kitchen table and send it into the past. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN THERE YESTERDAY! Case closed.)

gregtead-iphone Through the Wormhole is an entertaining show about science. As host, Morgan Freeman asks questions and guides us through the possible answers. Topics can range from time travel, to (gasp!) theology and everything in between. There are times when the show can be a bit too speculative or pedantic, but overall it's a fun way to learn about what was, what is, or what might be. I especially enjoyed the shows explaining particle physics and Higgs-Boson in particular. The show does a great job making complex theories and concepts understandable. I applaud Mr. Freeman's efforts at making television a smarter place, and hope to enjoy more in the future.

CriticCritique I wanted to give this a 10 before I watched it. I've still got to give it a 6, because it has some good info and cg. Otherwise, please keep "the controversy" out of a science documentary show. The only speculation, or alternative paradigm I am interested in hearing about should come from someone who is considered an expert in the field by their peers. It comes across to me a bit like there is some agenda to keep 'spirituality' relevant by always making it seem like what the scientists are really out there doing is trying to prove or disprove what some religion says. Certainly less than 1 in a thousand has that on their mind. And yet this doc seems to often throw religious belief as an alternate point of view when science doesn't have a solid answer.Morgan Freeman's campy little stories and weak analogies gets trying, although I do love his voice.Will eventually watch them all, but very disappointed.

MrPeach666 I love science shows and watch them whenever my wife isn't around (she'll allow me Mythbusters, so I'm good). I also love Morgan Freeman, and wanted to love this show, but no dice.I found myself yelling back at the TV during the episode I watched and when this happens with a science show there's got to be something wrong.What I saw was an uncritical eye allowing often questionable cutting edge hypotheses to pass without applying appropriate skepticism. I had to change the channel as I was getting so annoyed, the first time this has ever happened to me with a science show.I'd go into detail, but I've apparently scrubbed my mind of the all too painful memory.I'll stick with Neil deGrasse Tyson, thanks. I just want to give that guy a hug every time he's on TV.