Getting beyond time and space | Carlo Rovelli, Julian Barbour, Frank Wilczek, Lee Smolin and more
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 3 ก.ค. 2024
- Leading physicists explore our understanding of spacetime and challenge our definitions of time and space.
Featuring: Carlo Rovelli, Julian Barbour, Frank Wilczek, Lee Smolin, Jim Al-Khalili, Eleanor Knox and Tim Maudlin
00:00 Introduction
00:42 Carlo Rovelli
05:02 Jim Al-Khalili
09:45 Julian Barbour
12:47 Lee Smolin
18:52 Eleanor Knox
23:33 Frank Wilczek
28:02 Tim Maudlin
#SpacetimePhysics #SpaceTimeTheUniverse #SpacetimeReality
Links to the talks in order of appearance:
Carlo Rovelli - "Spacetime and the Structure of Reality"
iai.tv/video/spacetime-and-th...
Jim Al-Khalili - "Time's Arrow"
iai.tv/video/time-s-arrow?utm...
Julian Barbour - "Time, Space and Being"
iai.tv/video/time-space-and-b...
Lee Smolin - "Time and a new story of the universe"
iai.tv/video/the-last-mystery...
Eleanor Knox - "New Adventures in Spacetime"
iai.tv/iai-academy/courses/in...
Frank Wilczek - "Harmony and Balance"
iai.tv/iai-academy/courses/in...
Tim Maudlin - "Untangling space and time"
iai.tv/video/untangling-space...
To discover more talks, debates, interviews and academies with the world's leading speakers visit iai.tv/subscribe?Y...
The Institute of Art and Ideas features videos and articles from cutting edge thinkers discussing the ideas that are shaping the world, from metaphysics to string theory, technology to democracy, aesthetics to genetics. Subscribe today!
For debates and talks: iai.tv
For articles: iai.tv/articles
For courses: iai.tv/iai-academy/courses
![[UNCUT] “เชื่อมจิต” ใกล้จนมุม อนันต์ชัยเปิดตัวละครลับ เตรียมล้างบาง I คนดังนั่งเคลียร์ l 2 ก.ค.67](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/jeOwG0vt114/mqdefault.jpg)
Do you think we are getting closer to understanding spacetime? Let us know in the comments below!
To watch these talks in full, head over to our main channel iai.tv/player?TH-cam&
In truth, time should be classified as the first dimension because without at least an instant of duration, nothing exists.
Ether and the Theory of Relativity - by Albert Einstein - Methuen & Co. Ltd, London, in 1922:
"Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it"
"The idea of the sidereal space was resumed some years later in Boscovich’s supplements to Benedict Stay’s Newtonian poem. He used a similar line of thinking in arguing against Newton’s Gedanken experiment of the rotating bucket, where he concluded with a significant statement:“Therefore, it seems to me as evident as possible that we cannot distinguish for any reason whatsoever between absolute and relative motion”(Boscovich 1755b, Suppl. VIII, 68-70, 295); for a comment, see D’Agostino (1989). In the supplement“De vi inertiae”,the dissertation Demaris aestu(Boscovich 1747) is explicitly mentioned and Boscovich repeats his argument about the relativity of inertia to a space moving in equal and contrary motions to those of the earth (see Boscovich 1755b, Suppl. XIII, esp. 129-132, 312-314). Finally, in Theoria philosophiae naturalis, Boscovich (1763,§8, footnotea) reprised his vision once again: “If this space is at rest, I do not differ from other philosophers with regard to the matter in question; but if per chance space itself moves in some way or other, what motion ought these points of matter to comply with owing to this kind of propensity? In that case, this force of inertia that I postulate is not absolute, but relative; as indeed I explained both in the dissertation De maris aestu and also in the Supplements to Stay,Book I, section 13 [see the reference given above]. Here will also be found the conclusions at which I arrived with regard to relative inertia of this sort, and the arguments by which I think it is proved that it is impossible to show that it is generally absolute.”In light of this, the theory of sidereal space expressed in Boscovich (1747) and its epistemological implications should be viewed as his mature position"
@@Burevestnik9M730 thank you. Space is physical. A photon is an implosion ripple in space caused by the collapse of electron orbital. Electron orbital shrinks, space rushes in to fill void creating a spherical ripple which propagates outward at c. The thickness of this ripple in space is what we call wavelength. When it encounters an atom which has appropriate sized cavity for that wavelength it becomes incorporated into the electron cloud of that atom. Collapse of wave function.
Space is a superfluid. And the only thing which Maxwell didn't understand is that space/ether , as they are in fact the same, can very in density. That density is measured by local energy density.
m=E/c^2. Mass is energy in orbit at c over a Planck which using classical mechanics gives an angular momentum of c^2. Since a sphere with angular momentum in all directions, inertias.
Interestingly, the energy of a photon wavelength 2π Planck length has an energy which has a mass which has a Schwartzchild radius of....2π Planck length.
Mass units are photons trapped over their own gravity.
You will only make progress if we acknowledge that space is a superfluid and it's density is it's event density.
Mass is a photon of wavelength 2π Planck length trapped in orbit over it's own gravity.
The math is plain to see.
Smolin forever!
Tim Maudlin.
So the parametric solution for an implicit equation for a circle is 1.
The prime number theorem n to infinity = 1.
Basically it's concentric circles like raindrops on a puddle all the way around.
'Time is water'
- Touareg saying.
Does anyone have references for Tim Maudlin's part at the end? Curious to see how far he's taken that idea.
The view of an event: is Lee Smolin talking about time-sliced monads from Leibniz monadology?
"There is nothing under our feet; the past is gone" I definitely agree with Lee here, and I feel Lee Smolin and Julian Barbour kind of agree in an Aristotelean view of change of a material world, which is a substance which we call the Now. There is only one thing, the Now, and the past does not exist. This is Aristotle's view of (material) change! However Julian Barbour tries to make absolute simultaneity a thing by denying lengths in a conformal way I guess, while I wonder how Lee Smolin sees this, or whether he thinks with 'the view' that every now is defined by the light cone of the view or something (as it would be from the view of a monad), so he preserves the pure relativity.
If only I were a professional philosopher, I could talk to these people.
Professional philosophers can't handle the field.
Khalil, "spacetime" oxymoron is not an invention of Einstein, but rather Minkowski.
Just a little tiny nudge started time and it has been going ever since ~ ~ It only takes a tiny little nudge to get things ( and time ) going.
We just go along with the flow of time because we are unable to go against the flow of time.
As the past moves into the future, maybe when gravity of space time measures quantum field probabilities; the objectivity of past space moves into the present, then the future while the subjectivity of future time moves into the present, then the past?
when did they give these talks?
Halfway in already a great video
Time is just the order of operations.
Might time in quantum field future bring subjectivity into objective past space? Quantum field probabilities from the future, classic measured mathematics into the past?
Field theoies are a statistical graph of the upper limit of uncertainty, in a mind, Not knowledge of external reality. As a measure of predictive certainty, they aim at the future. They are derived from past measurements.
This video seems to attract comments from cluster a types
3:28-3:38 Is this why my feet look younger than my face ?
You won't get 'beyond' Time and Space until you recognise that the words Time and Space have multiple meanings...choose your meaning. And you wont get 'beyond' time until you recognise the simple, profound observation that the only evidence of time passing is quantum change. Change is refernce-frame (eg quantum) specific. So there isn't a single universal Arrow of Time, there are quintillions of quantum specific Arrows of Change. I hope that helps.
And if (in the context of dimensions) Space is the dimension of spatial position (hence xyz-axis) and Time is the dimension of change (hence 'per second', 'per hour' etc), then Spacetime is the dimension of Changing Position i.e. (constant) Motion. [constant because dimensions are refernce frame specific, so Spacetime-time is the dimension changing motion i.e. acceleration, spacetime-time-time is the dimension of changing acceleration etc)]. Honestly, it is so simple.
3 sets of 3 dimensions.
We're 4D, not 3D.
1D, 2D, 3D are spatial
4D, 5D, 6D are temporal
7D, 8D, 9D are spectral
1D, 4D, 7D line/length/continuous
2D, 5D, 8D width/breadth/emission
3D, 6D, 9D height/depth/absorption
I agree that it's quite simple.
@@ready1fire1aim1 lol you guys can’t be serious. Wow. This is like thinking you’re the guy in the beer commercial with the hot girls. That stage is for the guys in the video and the hot girl is understanding physics. We’re the potbellied slobs picking our nose and watching.
Time is a compact dimension one single Planck second in size.
Via Kuramoto synchrony all points in space share this same present.
This evolves a hyperplane of the present, a membrane one Planck second thick.
Matter is one side of temporal membrane and antimatter the other. An inflow here is outflow from there.
This is why electron half spin. One expressed orbit as electron and one internalized orbit on other side as positron.
Also why photons are their own anti particle. They exist on both sides of membrane simultaneously.
Surface(cos(u/2)cos(v/2), cos(u/2) sin(v/2), sin(u)/2) 0>u>4π 0>v>2π.
Notice that 4π, 2 full rotations are needed to complete this surface. Electron half spin.
This is the topology of energy surface of universe. Top half is gravity well leading to catastrophic node point. Neutron. Event horizon.
The bottom half is neutron decay. The expansion from point particle (functionally) to one cubic meter. Expansion. Dark energy. Lambda.
Neutron decay cosmology is inevitable.
It is the physical process solution to black hole information paradox, cosmic fine tuning, dark energy, dark matter and the universal timeline.
Neutrons which contact event horizons (or invert at collapse of neutron star into black hole) BECOME the vacuum flux for a single Planck second then reemerge in lowest energy density points of space where they decay into amorphous atomic hydrogen. As neutrons do.
This decay process includes a volume increase, remedy density decrease, of 10^54 times. Lambda.
The decay product, amorphous atomic hydrogen, doesn't have stable orbital electron so can't emit or absorb photons. Dark matter.
In time the amorphous atomic hydrogen stabilizes and follows usual evolution pathway from gas to nebula to proto star to star to neutron star until in the distant future it is again at edge of event horizon.
The universe is steady state evolving locally. A continuous flow down the gravity curve until catastrophic inversion at event horizon.
Event horizons act as energy pressure release valves venting from highest energy density conditions to lowest energy density points of space. From aggregate singularity to diffuse/dispersed.
There's no such thing as a singularity, but i think you're right that in a black hole, for instance, that energy is redistributed back down to lower layers of reality. I think it cancels out for the most part. What else can most of that stuff do when it can't escape?
@@havenbastion the singularity, which you rightly in a way say doesn't exist, I believe is really the inflection point where the energy density is so high that there is total internal reflection and so the mate becomes the vacuum energy for one Planck second and then since a neutron left "open" space a neutron must replace, emerging from lowest energy point of universe where quantum basement is easiest to penetrate. Deep void.
There the Neutrons decay as described
@@KaliFissure I can't say anything about the physics of your version but it seems apt.
Time 'is' as space 'is'.
There's no time without space and time does require energy to exist.
Of course time requires energy to exist. Energy transfer is what makes things change from one state to another. Without energy you have no motion and without motion no time.
Time in this sense can be defined as a thermodynamic process,
or entropic time.
Both are aspects of change itself. They are two of the three physical dimensions; time, space, and scale. The three spacial dimensions are merely a coordinate system.
@@havenbastion
The 3 spatial dimensions and 1 time dimension (Newton) wouldn't exist without 0D (Leibniz). Humanity chose the wrong person.
The origin of spacetime is one not wanting to be alone. - Wald Wassermann, Physicist and Molecular Biologist in Training
if there is no mass then there is no time because you cannot measure it without mass. therefore if the universe only contains photons, those photons have no frequency as notion of frequency requires time.
You're conflating mass and matter. Mass is a property of matter. Matter with velocity creates more mass than matter without velocity. In order for matter to exist, it needs a duration, which is colloquially known as time. Matter is simply a variation of space so, space and time are linked.
Above some energy, photons are able to interact, resulting in changing there direction (scattering). So, even in pure photonic universe, time is emerging.
Came here only for Julian Barbour. A non academic Physicist that is able to develop new and rational theories.
Great video! Thank you. It provokes my wild imagination. Is all of reality just fluctuating geometry? ... just fluctuating higher dimensional Calabi-Yau manifolds. Forces? ... just degrees of spacetime curvature caused by these tiny manifolds. Particles? ... just energy enveloped within these manifolds. Is that why QM is so strange? Is this the key to unifying QM and GR?
General relativity does work because it is a kind of wrapper not because it is 100% correct (they do not understand what is science !)
So Time is the question 🤔 so let's have a go. That phrse was then like this one is then it's never now. There is no NOW. Now is then time flows in one direction and it's not forward its then. So what I mean when our universe was born and the singularity was created the clock started counting down to the singularity? The singularity then was will be the singularity then. So then when is then it's tomorrow and it's a week ago time is like that never Now. They say all we have is now but Now is always then in both directions and the end will look just like the beginning then. Time only moves backwards from whenever it starts. We are born and our life clock starts and that's how time works. There is no time before it starts there is a reference point to reflect back to the start and it's backwards from that moment with a finite amout available. Even if it's forever it's finite and it's counting backwards.
Want to get beyond time and space??? Try magic mushrooms. 😂😂😁😁
I have written theory of everything can anyone help me in publishing it.
Please, may I read your theory of everything?
There are two ToEs, physical and metaphorical. Which is yours?
Time is timeless and space is spaceless but an illusion or hypothesis
So Then is how people like Einstein could do math and make theories and predict. So how do we predict something we'll where do you start? Ah Now your understanding so your prediction comes true but how well where did you start that's how you make predictions over time you have a start position and you predict where it goes over time. And space is kinda exactly that so from a reference start position you can predict how planets move around our star doesn't matter where you start but you have to have that position a reference point of time. Where was the planet then where will the planet be then that's a predict and in-between that prediction is time why did it do that then and if it does this it should be there then. Same as the start of our universe we're moving through time so when was the start it was then and we've moved continuously where will it end up and be over we'll as far as we can tell then. When is that exactly 💯 then.
Did Erin Burnett get her money back after she canceled her flights for her planned Russian vacation?
human thoughts does not come from nothing, that is why the thieves have no chance.
the thieves were in hurry, who steal then run away first, what now !
There are three physical dimensions; time, space, and scale. Physics is already going beyond time and space by focusing on scale.
the way they think is kids way of thinking, there is mistake in General relativity, I know what is time for sure, let the thieves figure it out (they have no chance)
I know what is time, and why it differs regarding the strength of gravity, but no more comments for the thieves.
I stopped watching halfway through, because I wasn't hearing anything new except some bs philosophy. Barbour's discussion of time as merely "a succession of facts" offers nothing and neglects the *rate* of succession. Smolin's "indefinite events" sounds like an unnecessary synonym for "the future" and offers nothing.
Unfortunately, it's difficult to learn much about the true nature of spacetime. One interesting fact, according to Special Relativity, is that everything travels through 4-dimensional Minkowski spacetime at speed c, which seems like it may be an important fundamental fact. It's an equation that has several well-known corollaries, such as (1) light doesn't age, and (2) nothing can travel through 3-dimensional space faster than c (unless it ages at an imaginary rate... "imaginary" in the sense of the square root of a negative number).
It is well known that not all light travels at light speed so, how is all light timeless if it isn't all always going at light speed?
Also, if I have a light clock, bouncing at light speed, and then I move it with a motion perpendicular to the motion of the bounce, is that not superluminal speed?
Consider, time doesn't actually stop when light speed is achieved, only observation from a subliminal perspective does.
what is going on with general relativity is similar to what happened with Newton's theory before, still does work but incomplete.
Einstein did a good work and got closer but has the same problem that Newton had.
the interpretations are wrong for instance Einstein's Equivalence Principle interpretation is wrong.
why is the equivalence principle wrong?
@@Robinson8491 their interpretations are wrong, general relativity does work because in general it is correct, but deeper not, that is why it is a kind of wrapper, similar to what happened with Newton, Einstein went deeper but still not enough.
equivalence principle is wrong not because the principle itself wrong but the interpretation, I know why, but the thieves are larking their.
@@Robinson8491 they wrote a books from stolen comments! that is not a joke.
they do not understand what wrapper means and how science does work!
Einstein made an important progress but incomplete, they do not understand how could physics theory does work but incomplete at the same time and why, because basically they do not understand what science is !
they are good at patching techniques but not good at deep understanding, that is why they have no chance.
In the last time, one of the things that fascinates me most is the fact that supposed intelligent people can actually publish good papers, while being really dumb about the subject they are supposed to understand.
Listening to this, except by some examples, is like losing the faith in humanity for me.
Lucky we have true intelligent people in science.
they are so funny (not a real scientists at all)
I wonder for how long science community will keep pedalling these absurd interpretations about Time. Time is a very simple concept and there is no Time Dilation whatsoever.
That's incorrect. Time dialation is the fact that low level change occurs at different speeds in different substrates, such as in a gravity field.
@@havenbastion
Tell me, how can you even talk about Time Dilation if you (science) keep also saying that you don't know what Time is? If you knew, maybe all observations would be explained in a different way???