Through the Wormhole (2010–2017) User Reviews

An intelligent and neutral look into modern science

[stefgrig · 10/10 · 18 August 2010]

Let me get this out of the way . You will not get any answers .

What you will gain by this glimpse into modern science is a measure of awe , at the endless possibilities that our mind can produce , given enough time and motive .

You will gain an infinite number of new questions. How can we ever be sure of what is real and what is in our mind ? How far will the mind go into producing a delusion to satisfy our most fundamental needs ?

This is a great journey into a subject that will never end , research through science and belief to find ourselves , our place in this universe or multiverse .

Highly recommended for many reasons , but most importantly because this journey takes no side , claims no higher truth but one : The search is endless but worth it .

Quantum Mechanics like you've never seen it

[verticalgain1 · 10/10 · 2 November 2011]

I have seen both the first and second seasons of this excellent series. It explores topics ranging from eternal life to multiple dimensions, with host Morgan Freeman clearly both interested and knowledgeable in the topic he is discussing. The scientists who appear throughout the show are a mix of the current leaders and some of the up-and-comers in quantum theory and astrophysics.

The common thread running through virtually every episode is the Theory of Quantum Mechanics, and this series will be all the more interesting to you if you have some idea of how modern science works. A Scientific Theory is not a "guess," an "assumption," or a "belief." Theories are based on hard evidence, and are put to the test every day by a world full of scientists who would love to prove one of the big ones wrong. Keep in mind that Gravity is still only a Theory because we can only observe its effects on other things; you still can't see it or directly measure it, even with our high technology.

Quantum mechanics is the dominant theory in modern science because it has been validated by every test thrown at it so far. What this series covers are those many tests and trials, as well as the ideas on the horizon, with each hour long episode dedicated to a particular deep philosophical question. Scientists with competing ideas are allowed to explain their work, and cover many of the new frontiers such as String Theory, Nanotechnology, Multidimensionality, the Multiverse, and even what Consciousness truly is.

Typically science documentaries made in America are not as good as those from the BBC, Europe, or Japan because American shows have to cater to a majority that sadly still fails to accept even evolution. Despite my reservations, Through The Wormhole is bar none the best science documentary series I have seen, as well as the most current in terms of the cutting-edge scientific community.

The production value is very high, with many stunning visual representations of the concepts being discussed. The video is HD and scenes are framed and shot more like a film than a standard television documentary. It even has its own original music rather than stock. They clearly went all out in making this the best it could be.

If you have an open and curious mind I can't think of a better series to recommend. This is a show for people who aren't afraid to ask the big questions, and who are willing to be left with even bigger ones after watching the series. Through the Wormhole will certainly broaden your horizons.

Through the Wormhole

[nfiertel-137-596216 · 10/10 · 26 November 2011]

This series is the best that television has ever offered. I watch each part many times to glean as much as I can from it. It is a wonder that a production caters to intellect rather than pandering to the moronic that much television orients its programming at. Morgan Freeman I note is the producer and if that is so, Thank you Mr. Freeman! You are not only a great artist but also a man who takes his responsibility wisely and tries to educate his audience. For those that have missed the Parallels Universe special chapter of this second year, it will make you rethink your entire existence. The approach of this series is to actually interview and then allow the scientists who are top of their field to discuss their research and some of it is boggling in its elegance and mind opening explorations of physics and other scientific implications that are sometimes belied by the chapter titles. There are disagreements between one school of science and scientists and others as after all science is evolving and new evidence changes the implications. Some of the experiments are amazingly simple in principle though surely not easy to actually make them work at the high degree of accuracy required but I would say that a person with a modicum of intellect can understand what is studied and can see why the study or conceptions are so significant. It is a groundbreaking series and anyone with an open mind will be changed forever from the seeing of it as the world is not the way we have imagined it after all..It is even more interesting and thus, so are we.

"...best ideas from the very edges of science"

[JustSue · 10/10 · 31 May 2013]

I love this series. I love Morgan Freeman - he is one of the best narrators in the business. The series has something for everyone. It is provocative,informative, and mesmerizing.

It includes new scientific information, some hard facts, some budding theories, and ideas from a variety of perspectives about every subject it approaches. I know there are some very valid criticisms from subscribers who would like to see only strict proved scientific content, but I find the format intriguing. I especially like that it recognizes that there are other perspectives - from spiritual to science fiction - without assigning any degree of validation, asking "what if?"

I leave each episode with things to ponder about "the deepest mysteries of existence" as the series promises.

Brilliant.

[rachel_chizzlepuff · 10/10 · 9 November 2013]

The fact should be mentioned that other reviews have rated this show less than satisfactory due to highly abstract ideas and very inductive thought processes. While this may be a negativity for other science-based shows, it certainly isn't for 'Through the Wormhole'. As the title suggests, the viewer is traveling through a wormhole - which humankind knows little to nothing of. The producers and scientists behind this don't pretend to know everything. While you don't learn many facts with this show, you do learn theories, laws of physics, and how to expand your thinking. Humans as a species tend to be quite narrow minded, and this can be proved through ongoing problems such as segregation, homophobia and radicalism in religion. While this show doesn't touch much on any of these issues, minds are being re-molded to solve problems nonetheless. There's something about learning of things greater than human lives that, if it can fill even one with a spark, will ignite the future generation of minds.

Best show in a LONGGG TIME!!

[ali-882-775115 · 10/10 · 28 December 2013]

WOW! I have watched every single episode. FINALLY a high quality scientific show that actually asks high quality questions and goes onto answer them! AMAZING! It has high quality footage, music, and they bring the top experts in whatever field they are discussing. They are not shy to discuss concepts that go beyond the norm and always push the envelope.

Highly recommended if you are bored with the current JUNK that is available. It will broaden your thinking and deepen your perspective on our everyday reality.

Some areas where they can improve is perhaps try not to be TOO neutral! A lot of times they briefly discuss a fantastic idea and not give it enough time to explain further. Thus leaving us with a sense of wanting more information, which i guess is a good thing because then we can go and find out more information on it.

Thought provoking.

[davidsaunders-35219 · 10/10 · 15 March 2021]

What a brilliant mix, Morgan with his magic voice taking us on brilliant adventures in thought with science, history, art and philosophy.

Well done to the whole Through the Wormhole team on a fantastic series.

All ages need to watch this.

Brilliant !

[martijn-56 · 10/10 · 20 January 2014]

This wonderful show is on a par with, or better than Carl Sagan's Cosmos and I never thought that could happen. I love Through The Wormhole for both the wonderful scope, the neutral way the information and theories etc are given from all kinds of angles and perspectives, and of course for the authoritative and best storytelling voice of our time: Morgan Freeman's. So it is a pleasure to look at, to learn from and to listen to. All possible subjects you might think of in this kind of documentaries are dealt with; God, the beginning of the universe, life, consciousness, Black Holes, String Theory, time, space, And of course extraterrestrial life and wormholes! I highly recommend this series for it is so educational and highly entertaining! Super quality TV, thank you especially Morgan Freeman!

Where Practical and Theoretical Science Meet

[gregtead-iphone · 8/10 · 4 September 2013]

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.

Morgan frees your imagination.

[sakram · 10/10 · 19 October 2017]

Can documentary films be presented any more beautiful than this ? With Morgan as the narrator, and with the most astonishing facts, the greatest pacing and also philosophy, it's like everything was represented on a silver platter. There is no way you won't like this. It is when science becomes fun, I loved it, and I bought it, and I finished it, and I will definitely recommend it to my friends, despite being 7 years late.

10/10

Mysteries of the Subconscious episode is awesome

[amy-januskis · 10/10 · 4 May 2019]

This episode is eye-opening, and is my favorite! I saw is ages ago, but still think of often.

Noble attempt, but hit-and-miss. Too many voices.

[niktemadur · 7/10 · 28 January 2012]

All series on the topic of astronomy and cosmology must and will be measured to that watershed event of the early eighties, "Cosmos" by Carl Sagan, which left me with clarity of what we knew, and the relevant questions yet to be answered at the time.

A magisterial Morgan Freeman guides each episode by asking fascinating and timely questions, then allowing experts to answer them.

The result feels too all-over-the-map, sometimes patronizingly simple, then suddenly, as if taken for granted, skipping over crucial logical stepping stones in the explanation process. "Through The Wormhole" suffers from too many people with different verbal styles (and varying verbal skills) to follow a coherent thread of an idea from beginning to end, the way Mr Sagan did so masterfully back in the day.

Then there's a certain something Discovery Channel Influence, with episodes titled along the lines of "Is There A God?", which Mr Sagan would have found sensationalistic. And I agree with Mr Sagan.

Bottom line: As a passionate follower of astronomy since the early eighties, I watch "Through The Wormhole", but in 2012 I prefer my astrophysics/cosmology shows hosted by Neil DeGrasse Tyson, or Brian Cox.

used to be a ten, quickly degenerated to zero: result is FIVE

[bdwilneralex · 5/10 · 20 May 2015]

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.)

Don't stretch (into seasons) & compromise on quality.

[MuviFan73 · 8/10 · 25 February 2019]

I don't know if I have watched beyond first two seasons, but after reading some reviews and staying into my comfort zone I guess I won't be watching it any further. By comfort zone I mean I would try to find my answers in some other basket which does not feel so stretched.

Now the positives from what I have watched.

The questions that are asked you don't get a concrete answer but you get to admire across theories. For example if you ask 'Is there a creator', you can look at the entity 'Robotics and AI'.

To add further, host Morgan Freeman makes this series an even better treat to treat to watch with his voice.

Is there Morgan Freeman

[qaudius · 8/10 · 1 July 2021]

I dont know i only see few episodes but its documentary serial so i cant probably review this but still i like more documents where is one person what coment whole episode whitchout anybody else i want space document like intro from star trek but he talking about i dont know time travel 40m but still its good documentary.

Why bring religion into a science show?

[CriticCritique · 6/10 · 3 July 2013]

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.

Brilliantly Constructed Malicious Disinformation

[roedyg · 1/10 · 9 December 2014]

Morgan Freeman's Through the Wormhole is an insidiously dishonest video that purports to dispassionately discuss the fascinating question "Is there a creator".

It LOOKS like a typical professionally made science video for the general public. It avoids the usual creationist wackiness and biblical quotations in turgid tones and heavenly choirs.

But instead, it lies subtly. In its opening lines it gives the impression that science is evenly divided on the question of a creator god.

Then they credit a surfer with inventing String theory single-handedly, and that his speculative math is tantamount to proving the existence of God and revealing the mathematics God used in his creation. This is blithering nonsense if you check any other source.

The video explains the fine-tuning argument for intelligent design, in quite a bit of detail. This is by far the best creationist argument. However, though they don't even mention Stephen Hawking's opposing interpretations of it. Fair and balanced? Only in the FOX News sense.

The video pulls the usual creationist stunt of claiming that adaptation necessarily implies intelligent design with planning and forethought, completely forgetting to mention evolutionary theory's explanation.

It fails to point out that adaptation never shows any sign of planning or forethought. The video never talks about the ineptitude of adaptation. These are both key arguments against intelligent design.

The video talks about the "God Spot" -- a spot in the brain, that when stimulated generates a "sense presence" a strange experience of being in the presence of something you cannot see that Christians typically interpret as being in the presence of Jehovah (the first thing that comes to their minds when you say "invisible presence"). The inventor of the device to stimulate these experiences calls his yellow helmet the "God Helmet" which likely helps trigger this delusion of grandeur by suggestion. Freeman lies outrageously that the inventor of this helmet believes his device shows that god lives in the brain. I read more scholarly accounts of his work elsewhere.

The video never shows you the spelling of any of the experts' names. It thus makes it harder to Google them to find out what they really had to say. That is a very odd thing to do in a science video.

Most of the "experts" were unknown to me. I suspect the director scoured the world for cranks and people desperate for attention willing to let Freeman put words in their mouth that they would never dream of saying themselves.

Freeman has such a pleasant hypnotic voice, if you don't stay alert to the inconsistencies, you naturally trust his summary assertions of what the various "eminent scientists" told him off camera.

Some big money was behind this carefully-crafted set of subtle lies. You cannot ascribe this to simple error or naivety. This is cunning malice.

Pseudoscience mixed with religious nonsense

[tutike2000-342-20683 · 5/10 · 15 January 2013]

I started watching this show expecting to find something along the lines of Sagan's Cosmos, or other documentaries by Brian Cox, Neil Tyson.

Instead, I was treated to wildly hyperbolic interpretations of scientific theories, constant religious references, and a general mind- so-open-your-brain-falls-out mentality.

For instance, the show seems to imply that the LHC was built in order to find God, and that all scientists are motivated by religious reasons.

It also presents hypothesis after hypothesis, without questioning any of the claims being made. It is the least skeptical 'science' documentary I've ever seen.

The visuals are good, but excessively cheesy. I feel like this show is all flash but no substance.

Used to be a good science show. Now i don't know what it is.

[arshad115 · 3/10 · 1 November 2016]

This show used to be really good but now it's un-watchable. Especially after season 7.

The shows tag line is space, time, life itself. But now explores titles like 'what makes a terrorist', 'is privacy dead'.

I mean, for real? What is this show about in the first place.

I was expecting a show with new breakthroughs in science and technology, like the previous season's episodes, but now I'm going to search for another science show.

I think the producers have lost their minds and just want in on the news.

Don't watch it if you are expecting anything related to science.

Very poor - visually OK but intellectually dishonest and weak

[fitzgibbonmd · 1/10 · 27 November 2014]

Circular reasoning, tautologies, you name it - all in the name of walking 'a line between' science and religion.

The claims, suppositions and assumptions of the scriptwriters are puerile to say the least.

The entire series pushes people towards the possibility of the 'intelligent design' theory of creationism rather than expressing the wonder of the universe through truth - scientific progress and knowledge from the ancient Greks and Egyptians, through Copernicus and Newton to Einstein and Hawking.

It was definitely scared of offending those whose minds are hobbled by religion - so much so that it makes no mention of the fact that basic evolutionary theory and proof (e.g. the evolution of the eye) destroys the creation and the intelligent design fallacies.

Also it avoids the destruction of creationism (a universe <7000 years old) through basic astronomy, the visible universe and the nature of light and its speed.

All of these are irrefutable but the entire series avoids anything like this in favor of puerile Disneyland New Age mysticism, intellectual cowardice and pseudoscience.

The graphics were nice and that is the only thing that got it 1 mark out of 10 - otherwise it would be a zero.

With TV science programs like this I can now understand why evolution is not taught in American schools - pathetic.

Absolutely inane

[RNMorton · 1/10 · 15 May 2015]

So I sort of checked in once in awhile, it seemed like a lot of it was speculation passed off as hard-science possibility (a general trait of the Discovery cable group). Then I watched the episode on the extinction of religion. The theory was that when something reaches a percentage "tipping point" it is headed for extinction. To prove that religion might be headed for extinction the "mathematician" went into a store and ordered something in a no longer used Incan dialect. No one understood him (he wouldn't have been understood using many existing languages, but whatever). Looking at a decrease in religious affiliation, he hypothesized that at some point religion will also hit a "tipping point" like the Incan language, where it heads towards extinction. Now this all assumes that religious affiliation will continue to decline (who knows?) and also ignores that the Jewish religion - a distinct minority since its inception 4,000 years ago - is still going strong. Figuratively I sat with my mouth agape. As the teacher said to Adam Sandler in Billy Madison, we are all dumber for having listened to you. Pass 'em by.

Utterly disappointed!

[hassantanvir · 3/10 · 30 April 2013]

A huge disappointment for people who're looking for actual latest information & knowledge about Stars, Galaxies, Planets & Universe. I was hoping this would be more about Space & time, NASA's new missions & mysteries of the Cosmos but its all about newbie scientists sharing their weird ideas which they can't even prove. This season has totally drifted away from the word "WORMHOLE" & into information overload which basically causes a loss of interest since as viewer i'm not interested in what Mr. XYZ believes about reality, rather i'm interested in what's going on the far reaches of space & time & whats the latest on Wormholes, Darkmatter, Darkenergy, Blackholes, Supernovae etc. If it wasn't for Mr. Freeman I don't think this show would have gathered any significant audience at all. My review, a confused show.

Good attempt at discussing science, but badly flawed

[MrPeach666 · 2/10 · 24 June 2012]

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.

Insulting to my intelligence

[whitney4397 · 1/10 · 26 September 2019]

How do you create a "dark matter detector" if you have never had any dark matter to test what its made out of? Just what exactly is the machine detecting? Why aren't we given any answers to simple obvious questions like that? Are we supposed to just blindly accept that they built a dark matter detector based on nothing?

Warning: there are almost zero explanations for anything during this entire series

Tip: If you are the type of person who likes one-sided information and scientists who are completely dismissive and disrespectful to other scientists who study opposing theories, then this show is for you

Painful to watch

[scottj-29632 · 2/10 · 31 March 2020]

I tried watching this with my kids. It was boring but we persisted. It was really dumb. They hated it. I hated it. We couldn't make it through a single episode. It's all fluff cinematography and semi-slick one-liners that twist the science into something that kinda sounds cool and no scientific panel would ever get behind.