This series has been my ‘go to’ place for all things metaphysical. The topics and discussion points are fascinating and I do feel I’m a better person for having listened to these programmes. Thank you
Listening to this while taking a smoke break, it's a light rain occurring as he describes it, watching the drifting smoke being moved as the droplets pass thru unhindered,and splash points radiating outward..spiritually, this speaks to me as well..
Fundamentally, there are 2 types of time. All of humanity's problems in attempting to understand it is because their research, scientific views, imagination and philosophies are developed within the context of the 1st type of time
@Joanna d'Arc Fundamentally, there are 2 types of time. All of humanity's problems in attempting to understand it is because their research, scientific views, imagination and philosophies are developed within the context of the 1st type of time
I'd like to chime in on that, Linus! His interviews exceed mere gathering of perspectives and viewpoints and they have grown into something like an artform - to my eyes, ears and "gray matter" at least :-) ! Quality of content, production, post-pro, presentation of course - all top notch! I enjoy these episodes, both the longer more in-depth interviews with multiple speakers as well as the "one on one" or "heart to heart" kinda format like here as well as the briefer ones of less than 15 minutes. Always enlightening and engaging, wonderful food for thought for inquisitive minds and seekers! Keep them coming, Dr. Kuhn!
Very well articulated and a fitting description of Mr. Kuhn’s valuable contribution to greater understanding. Thanks to the many interviews he has conducted with leading physicists, our home library is dotted with the books authored by the scientists he has made us aware of. I am further enlightened and stand corrected....Closer To Truth it is indeed!
Back in the day, the days before the internet, all we had was old dusty books and more old dusty books in the library. A few years back I went to a library and saw many of the same old dusty books. Used correctly the Internet can open your mind
There are 2 types of time. All of humanity's problems in trying to understand it, time, is because their research, scientific views and philosophies are developed within the context of the 1st type of time
@@dennisgalvin2521 Thanks for responding The explanation is very quite lengthy and abstract at best so....I will try to present it in an abbreviated. heuristic fashion.....give me time. I won't rely on cogitation as much as a revelatory type of experience
When I was younger I pondered how it would be to try and develop and understanding of "the universe" from the perspective of being fish in a bowl looking out through the glass. "Looking" was the piece that struck me .. I felt as observers we are drawn to giving things dimensions and scales and quickly run out of descriptors after that.
I have to say that I better understand Julian's point about entropy than the traditional view. Indeed, I thought that I was stupid when I heard from physicists that the big bang was the point with less entropy and the disorder has been growing up since then and it will continue doing so forever. The big bang was indeed the most uniform state! Thank you Julian. Now I am not thinking that I am stupid. The point about the assumption of the experiment of the second law of thermodynamics is also very interesting. We are always talking about entropy within the universe, but the original experiment was done in a box! That's a clearly contradictory. Great point as well.
Robert Lawrence Kuhn is the perfect guy for finding truth. Superbly interviews the greatest thinkers of our time(which is no easy feat). Nobody is better at bringing self awareness/reflection to these sort of questions. Thanks for the great work!
I enjoyed the discussion very much. It helped me to better understand some of the points made in the book. Julian Barbour takes us to a new way of looking at TIME.
Et les travaux du scientifique Jean Pierre Petit, qui en parle depuis des années : on en parle ou pas ?!! And the work of scientist Jean Pierre Petit, who has been talking about it for years: are we talking about it or not? !! 🤔
As I understand, there were two universes created from the Janus point, the three-dimensional representation of these two universes looks like lotus flowers with petals beginning to fold back on themselves as the expansion becomes great. If this pattern is extended, I believe these shapes curve back and are drawn into the Janus point from each side, the two universes being opposite each other. The universe folds back through the fourth dimension so gets back to the center of the universe at the same time it began, it is a continuous flow so the universe is recreating itself just by existing.
Well he does impress me, but is that a criterium for judging someone’s work by “how much ‘the person’ impresses others?” The judgment should be as subjective as possible, IMHO.
@@clemsonalum98 Being friends with Feynman would probably obviously think you're smarter than most people, but that's because he really is. Although I do wish he coulda inherited the happy funny humor from his friend, Susskind has his own kind of appeal in my opinion
As it collapses it makes more structures counteracting or shaping the collapse so it is organised in a particular way. Showing the universe could get more intelligent or complicated each time. And explaining why animals seem to be more intelligent or complex than the ones they replaced.
Augustus de Morgan: “great fleas have little fleas upon their backs to bite ‘em, and little fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum” Size is relative, not absolute. Funny really how none of these ideas are new, merely not conventionally accepted. It takes someone to be brave enough to put them all together and shout about them. Well done.
Dr. Barbour is one of the most brilliant independent thinkers about time and cosmology. His book, The End of Time, should be read by everyone interested in the philosophy of time.
I find the declared intention of “Closer to Truth” in the video description interesting. It claims to be “exploring humanity’s deepest questions” and to “discover fundamental issues of existence”. It is perhaps in the nature of scientific enquiry always to be an estimate and always to be wrong. Being open to this concept is how we manage to learn. What is important is how the effect of our current notion of knowledge affects our attitudes and behaviour and the priority that is given, compared with other demands and interests. We need to get that sorted out, if we want to continue with learning in the long-term, rather than following a road to human-created destruction in the short-term. I wish you well.
I like that the more advanced the Physics, the more poetic reality becomes. Really good to see top notch physicists like Julian Barbour “thinking outside the box”! Strangely, Lee Smolin who also criticises reductive “Physics in a box” thinking, in “Time Reborn” comes to an opposite conclusion - that time is real and fundamental!
To be frank, I'm not really sure that Julian is a top notch physicist! Certainly his ideas don't seem to have gained any traction over the years, with people who do have some idea of what he is talking about.
@@MrDorbel Yes... I admire that he works outside of academia, yet still publishes on issues like the reality of time that attract comment from establishment physicists. However, being an outsider may mean his views gain less traction... and his views are undoubtedly unusual, and are either genius, or cranky.
People try to explain the expanding and collapsing universe as entropy. I think we were all entangled at one point in time so the farther away we get from our entangled particles the more force gets exerted slowing down the expansion of the universe which in and of itself will cause it to recollapse because everything happens in a cycle in the universe. The only way for infinity to be realized is for it to continuously happen over and over and over again forever. Taking into account that this is infinitively happening (including the one universe where it doesn't) then one can only extrapolate (before I figure out what calculations to observe to make it so) that we don't know what is going on other than the universe is big. Really big. And our observations are the only thing that cements reality. Until we observe what we are trying to know the answer is everything. Once we observe the our come is determined and entanglement's hidden force pulls time both ways. 12-19-2020
I would point to the Pauli Exclusion Principle to further argue his point. There will always be a difference in the energies of objects therefore there will always be change.
To a hammer everything looks like a nail... to a physicist the universe looks like numbers... the Vedas describe the Veda in terms of metaphor... combining the two is solving the puzzle
32:00 i think penrose doesn't say it finishes with everything collapsing into a black hole, his idea of "aeons" says the black holes evaporate and what you are left with is a universe populated by particles travelling at the speed of light, and therefore however "big" the universe has become size and time have no meaning, massless particles don't experience time and therefore distance has no meaning - it's a singularity but it can be any size.
Entropy resets in the Inertial plane of scalable Aether's hyperboloid. The Inertial plane expands and spikes across the entire Universe. The Inertial plane is "Condensate of Universe", from Counterspace. The Inertial plane doesn't have time, space, information, gravity, ... The Inertial plane connects to every hyperboloid, vortex and torus in the Universe. Electron Probability Patterns have hyperboloids, vortices and toruses. The shapes of Aether. Scalable Aether, Casimir Effect Universe!
Time may probably be stokastic ( noise) but the question is of what and how does it rattles the things. In general things will end up in a state that is common or lets say likely. A random process where we mostly end up in the most likely state, but we may actually in rare cases end up in an unlikely state. That is entropy, it has a random value. So when Einstain create a spacetime , we need to consider this and this has not been done. The fact that time is random and therefore vibrate means that time has an energy.
24:50, this particular form, according to the Vedas, is the Cosmic Egg. They describe the cosmic egg as the fundamental form of the creation of a universe. In each case of a universe of countless many.
The first person who proposed that there are regions of space were time goes in reverse and does not admit light was William James Sidis in 1925 in a book entitled "Animate and Inanimate" He was thought to have had an IQ of 260, and was admitted to Harvard at the age of 11 in 1909.
@@BritishBeachcomber Not correct Peter. First of all it all depends on which scale you are using, as there are a number of them. A psychologist once estimated Sidis's IQ at between 250 to 300. Academically, he was good enough to be accepted into Harvard at age 9, though not actually admitted until 11 years old. In addition he was fluent in dozens of languages at a young age.
Arthur M Young has been ahead of these astrophysicists all along, he proposed the Toroidal shape of the universe, and its eternal cycle in the 1980's, the growth of novelty and movement towards purpose.
Closer To Truth, prenez contact avec Jean Pierre Petit! Il parle l'Anglais, et serais certainement intéressé par un entretien sur le net au sujet de sa vision de Janus. Stéph. Closer To Truth, contact Jean Pierre Petit! He speaks English, and would certainly be interested in an interview on the net about his vision of Janus. Stéph.
I learned in my psychology courses, the engineer's way we accepted to view the laws of thermodynamics is called functional fixedness. I am gladdened to have my thinking plausibly put right. For quite a long while I have been trying to see the universe in a more protean way. Maybe I should call this the "Proteus Principal." The basis for this approach is to consider quantum effects as an expression of accommodation for a likely counterpart to the dimensioned reality we find ourselves a part of and try so hard to know and understand. The "Janus Principle" strikes me as a step in this direction, which may well be the right direction.
Robert should interview Rupert Sheldrake. I think he may find his ideas of morphic resonance interesting. Rupert is highly knowledgeable in science, religion and philosophy.
ive just bought the book on amazon... Fascinating, I've always wondered why i had to learn the Schrodinger equation using a particle in a box/constrained potential. 😀
Im not a scientist by any means. But when I read a book about fundamental particles, and that an antimatter atom of opposite spin and (is it chirality?) Traveling backwards in time would be identical to its normal matter counterpart, I started wondering if the big bang was a point and on either side the matter and antimatter separated, which explained where all the missing antimatter was. Maybe.makes less sense than I thought but over the years i keep seeing articles that jive with it.
Consider the metaphor that the universe is not expanding but the physical substrate - some lower layer than yet explored, is thickening. That would explain many problems of expansion.
Excellent idea of the Janus point with the arrow of time pointing in opposite directions ( I have an other problem with this as time is actually a scalar, however) as nature abhors asymmetry. So the question is, did all the antimatter flow along the opposite time flow to ours and why antimatter is rare in this universe?
There are two kinds of things, things and the relations between them. Those relationships can always be expressed geometrically because everything is expressible in relation to space and time. Ratios can be used to express a scale between those things in various relations.
I think that (what he is getting at is) our conventional understanding of time and its arrow is based on the idea that entropy always increases, that is, we measure time based on relative change in structures and its arrow is indicated by the movement from order to disorder. But to me this falls down (not his view, but the conventional one) when it fails to appropriately define maximal disorder. Take a rubik's cube, for example. It starts out completely ordered. Each time quanta it can move (twist) to a different level of order. However, there comes a point where the disorder is maximized (e.g. when no two similar colors are next to each other) and any further movement potentially increases order (making two colors meet). At this point our entropy has reversed, but time certainly hasn't. One can move back to a fully ordered state using a completely different path, i.e. with no measurement that even looks like a time reversal. So that link between time and entropy is therefore a correlation (typically dominating large systems) rather than a fundamental link. And (I think this was what he was saying) time is simply measured by change in structures.
@@brendanh8193 hmm 🤔 doesn’t click for me. Just because we notice time with change in structure it doesn’t make sense to me time that it is necessarily the result of such, or basically the other way round. If a structure is not changing we might say time is not changing as we can’t observe the change but is that even the case that time is not proceeding? How could we be certain ? Entropy as a description of a system state or even its correlation with temperature seems to be more obvious than this idea of time. It feels more like a relativ description of time.
@@worldpeace1822 I agree with much of what you're saying. Any measurement of time is only a proxy of time, not time itself. I think change in structure is therefore only, at best, correlated with time too. Bear in mind that entropy is only used to indicate the direction of the arrow of time, not time itself. This direction is necessary for special relativity and GR, but not quantum mechanics. What I was saying is that, at high entropy, this correlation becomes vague, and at times incorrect. However, the situation you described reminds me of an old skit about the universal time machine. The pranksters set up a large box on stage and announce to the audience that on entering the box, they will set the controls to send them 100 years into the future. They then enter the box, make a display of pressing a button, and immediately exit the box and claim success. When the audience starts to show skepticism, the pranksters duly announce "of course, with this time machine, it brings the whole of the universe with it." This prank has some profound points to make. Firstly, whilst we can conceive of time existing outside of the universe, there is no way to measure it if it were. Secondly, what you can measure may bear little relationship to the actual time outside the universe. Our universe (or simulation) may ultimately be controlled by time elements in the "real world", but we are restricted to measuring our universe's (or simulation's) time. This can start, stop, move at different rates, just like any simulation we make in computers can do in relation to our time.
@@brendanh8193 when you talk about the prankster I have to think about Einstein’s elevator. Let’s say we are indeed in a box and can’t see outside. But we have one or two metal balls inside and all kinds of equipment for measurement. With one ball we could measure it’s position relative to our space. With two their relative positions to one another. Would we be able to tell from this how time is flowing? Something outside might gravitational pull on the ball. Is that a sign for the time flow changing or the space-time? Similar aspect of the space expanding or changing non linear while we sit on our box. Of course if we have nothing moving at all one way to see if time still has a direction is to test if we are still alive or are we ... no one can look inside lol 😂 Anyway I probably have to read up on some stuff again...
I always said it wasn't expanding from one spot (big bang) - I always thought that there was just eddies and currents in an infinite eternal universe, like smoke swirling around in space. A universe that paradoxically has no beginning, and it has no end. We are already in "forever". In some regions of our infinite universe most of the stars and planets are moving away from each other, while in other parts of the infinite universe everything is all moving together. It's all just an illusion, and it simply depends on what part of the infinite universe that you're in, that will be your perspective.
Nice video. Philochrony is the theory that describes the nature of time and demonstrates its existence. Time is magnitive: objective, Imperceptible (intervals) and measurable (duration).
Δ (change over time) is the kernel of the ToE of physics as every material substance and process can be understood in relation to it. Change is the substrate of material reality.
I wonder after having watched this: Do growth of structure and emergence of variety equal increasing complexity? Or.ARE these two ideas indeed equivalent to each other? And : If there is supersymmetry wouldn't it account for all of the universe and all of what the cosmos is about like e.g. matter and antimatter? In other words: If there is supersymmetry and we see it occur, wouldn't it have to apply to "the box (encompassing the system) as well? Or was I not making sense at all with this?
I'm confused by one thing with respect to this Janus point. Why only two directions of time from this point? If time is "expanding" from a point, why wouldn't there be 360 degrees of time (from the perspective if a 2D plane) or (more likely) time arrows along every infinitesimal radian emanating from a sphere? Is his "two directions of time" merely a simplification?
No mention of Prigogine, who built his science around the system being not in a box?!! Non-equilibrium thermodynamics was well-developed by the 1970s by Ilya Prigogine. Research of others on evolutionary thermodynamics in the 1980s had firmly arrived at Barbour's conjecture that the direction of evolution is NOT toward greater entropy, but toward growing structure and order (See Theory of Radially Evolving Energy, 1989, Int'l Journal of Gen'l Systems, vol. 16). Barbour's assertion that nobody was thinking of this merely reflects his ignorance. And where is mention of any of the work or theories of David Bohm? Or Stephen Wolfram? My sense is that Dr. Barbour has not read widely enough outside his own historical research and analysis of Einstein's work to realize that he is not ahead, but rather a bit behind the cutting edge of evolutionary theory sub-Planck-scale in his 1999 publication. He has been working maybe in too private an academic bubble?
These are debates within the structure of Physics but zoom way out and imagine that these scientific gyrations are simply like games of chess on a giant board which is within and NOT outside of our human consciousness. Who knows what exists OUTSIDE the boxes of our limited consciousness. Within our consciousness we are trapped into creating these imaginary scenarios and in proving them as if they actually exist.😲
I never read about David Bohm too much until after your comment. Just learnt about his research on consciousness. Blew my mind. Thanks for the valuable information!
@@subhendukarmakar2767 I had to get myself at least a little bit up to speed regarding Bohm/Pribahn and their ideas of "hidden variables" or the "implicate order" of things. I found those ideas very exciting as well when preparing for an interview with Mr. Tom Campbell and his trilogy "My Big T.O.E." and subsequent work. Apparently, Mr. Campbell didn't quite share my enthusiasm regarding those ideas. But I leave it up to the (potential) visitor /viewer what to make of the latter. The video will appear at this playlist in a couple of days: th-cam.com/play/PLmieT_oAkXddLO1IgU1rD3NBJQ_p6LQ5e.html (it's the fourth one, currently set to "private" and going public this coming Friday if you were interested)
i need to talk with this man cause he said it seems like no one is talking about physics like this but i have come to an incredibly similar concept myself, just listening to ever physics video i can find
As the present moves into future, do quantum fields use energy to increase information and structure for the present; while classic information evenly distributes entropy and equilibrium in the past? Can quantum future take energy from classic past to increase information for structured present?
Smaller than planck length can be measured with time? Certainty of classic matter becomes probability of quantum energy that might be measured with time?
"Time taken in stocking energy to build an energy system, adding to it the time taken in building the system will always be longer than the entire useful lifetime of the system. No energy system can produce sum useful energy in excess of the total energy put into constructing it. This universal truth applies to all energy systems. Energy, like time, flows from past to future".
The arrow of time can be explained by the fact that a function can only have one output for each input. If the universe can be described by one single function, there has to be one and only one dimension in which it is irreversible. I’m not saying that dimension is time, our universe seems to have a lot of dimensions, but time is definitely more closely related to the irreversible dimension than space.
Julian is right ... that's all. there will be always a dynamical structure . density vallues do not change. the most part of 'antimatter' stays on the other side of the apparent singularity point, janus point. atomism is scale independet in its true simple logic: structure are independents from atoms relative distances. atoms obviously are non small or big in absolute sense. they are only force center in a structure. their size is fixed by the size of that structure, the structure of universe under observation.
Actuality is undifferentiated stuff, infinite in all directions, at all scales, forever. We are, and everything we know is, patterns differentiated from that stuff, by a mind, for a purpose - to change something.
i blindly followed the 2nd law till now ... how can anyone judge the universe on a studied steam engine back in the day ... perhaps scientists are like doctors ... just human. thanks julian & the man
I was wondering if you are aware that a French scientist called Jean-Pierre petit created quite some time ago The Janus Cosmological Model (JCM) describes the universe as a Riemannian manifold with two different metrics that handle positive and negative masses in general relativity with no paradox, in very good agreement with latest observational data.
Quantization of neuron signals into probability wave of energy information allows measurement by zero point dimension of time, with abstract mathematics, in the mind?
This series has been my ‘go to’ place for all things metaphysical. The topics and discussion points are fascinating and I do feel I’m a better person for having listened to these programmes. Thank you
In memory of my friend Ahmed and his music
th-cam.com/video/Ne3Geqq-i_Y/w-d-xo.html
👌🎶🎵⭐✨❤️🌍🙏
@@LivingNow678 thanks for sharing, that was a nice gift ;)
@@nilsacred8180 you are welcome 🙏
And how about all things sane and rational, with no histrionics attached.
Like a fine wine you improve with age. The interviews just keep getting better. Thank you.
Listening to this while taking a smoke break, it's a light rain occurring as he describes it, watching the drifting smoke being moved as the droplets pass thru unhindered,and splash points radiating outward..spiritually, this speaks to me as well..
That's what Mr Green said in 1977.
Fundamentally, there are 2 types of time. All of humanity's problems in attempting to understand it is because their research, scientific views, imagination and philosophies are developed within the context of the 1st type of time
@Joanna d'Arc Fundamentally, there are 2 types of time. All of humanity's problems in attempting to understand it is because their research, scientific views, imagination and philosophies are developed within the context of the 1st type of time
giving all of your conscience attention to nature for a little while always repays the effort
Robert Kuhn is superb and his work has enlightened so many of us. Thank you Sir for the marvellous “Closer To The Truth”!
I'd like to chime in on that, Linus! His interviews exceed mere gathering of perspectives and viewpoints and they have grown into something like an artform - to my eyes, ears and "gray matter" at least :-) ! Quality of content, production, post-pro, presentation of course - all top notch! I enjoy these episodes, both the longer more in-depth interviews with multiple speakers as well as the "one on one" or "heart to heart" kinda format like here as well as the briefer ones of less than 15 minutes. Always enlightening and engaging, wonderful food for thought for inquisitive minds and seekers! Keep them coming, Dr. Kuhn!
Thanks, appreciate - but no "the" ;-) Robert
Very well articulated and a fitting description of Mr. Kuhn’s valuable contribution to greater understanding. Thanks to the many interviews he has conducted with leading physicists, our home library is dotted with the books authored by the scientists he has made us aware of. I am further enlightened and stand corrected....Closer To Truth it is indeed!
inke said he had
I concur
This makes a lot of sense to me. It just 'feels' right. And somehow, I find it very uplifting.
Because Theories remain as theories for so long, many other theories are possible. As einstein said, Imagination encircles the world
Back in the day, the days before the internet, all we had was old dusty books and more old dusty books in the library. A few years back I went to a library and saw many of the same old dusty books. Used correctly the Internet can open your mind
Indeed r/neuronaut
@Pat Mahon join me in studying it (part time journaling)? r/neuronaut 😊
So true a great educational tool.
If used correctly for the elementary educations. Oh my
Every bit as good as the in-person interviews, excellent quality.
Yes, variety IS life. I've noticed that when there is parallel adaptation, one of them Will die off. Life doesn't stive on repetitive survival.
Barbour, to me, is one of the most “out of the box” (note the double entendre) thinkers of modern physics. I can marginally understand him.
There are 2 types of time. All of humanity's problems in trying to understand it, time, is because their research, scientific views and philosophies are developed within the context of the 1st type of time
Interesting, could you elaborate please ?
@@dennisgalvin2521 Thanks for responding
The explanation is very quite lengthy and abstract at best so....I will try to present it in an abbreviated. heuristic fashion.....give me time.
I won't rely on cogitation as much as a revelatory type of experience
@Neil 1st
When I was younger I pondered how it would be to try and develop and understanding of "the universe" from the perspective of being fish in a bowl looking out through the glass. "Looking" was the piece that struck me .. I felt as observers we are drawn to giving things dimensions and scales and quickly run out of descriptors after that.
I have to say that I better understand Julian's point about entropy than the traditional view. Indeed, I thought that I was stupid when I heard from physicists that the big bang was the point with less entropy and the disorder has been growing up since then and it will continue doing so forever. The big bang was indeed the most uniform state! Thank you Julian. Now I am not thinking that I am stupid. The point about the assumption of the experiment of the second law of thermodynamics is also very interesting. We are always talking about entropy within the universe, but the original experiment was done in a box! That's a clearly contradictory. Great point as well.
Robert Lawrence Kuhn is the perfect guy for finding truth. Superbly interviews the greatest thinkers of our time(which is no easy feat). Nobody is better at bringing self awareness/reflection to these sort of questions. Thanks for the great work!
I enjoyed the discussion very much. It helped me to better understand some of the points made in the book. Julian Barbour takes us to a new way of looking at TIME.
Repeat that please. Beautiful. I love it ! That makes a difference.
Et les travaux du scientifique Jean Pierre Petit, qui en parle depuis des années : on en parle ou pas ?!!
And the work of scientist Jean Pierre Petit, who has been talking about it for years: are we talking about it or not? !! 🤔
😘😉
As I understand, there were two universes created from the Janus point, the three-dimensional representation of these two universes looks like lotus flowers with petals beginning to fold back on themselves as the expansion becomes great. If this pattern is extended, I believe these shapes curve back and are drawn into the Janus point from each side, the two universes being opposite each other.
The universe folds back through the fourth dimension so gets back to the center of the universe at the same time it began, it is a continuous flow so the universe is recreating itself just by existing.
wow
Robert Kuhn and his interviews have taught me more about the world around me than any other person. What an incredible guy!
Time is. But your perspective ,at 1 that is 100pr at 10 it's 10pr .at 50 WTF
Really interesting discussion. Thanks so much for everything you do!
this is my favorite of your interviews
I would love to see a debate between Julian Barbour and Leonard Susskind on the topic of time!
Susskind would just get nasty, smart guy but doesn’t impress me at all.
Well he does impress me, but is that a criterium for judging someone’s work by “how much ‘the person’ impresses others?” The judgment should be as subjective as possible, IMHO.
@@shera4211 obviously, you want to see a debate between them.
@@clemsonalum98 Being friends with Feynman would probably obviously think you're smarter than most people, but that's because he really is. Although I do wish he coulda inherited the happy funny humor from his friend, Susskind has his own kind of appeal in my opinion
I would rather see it with Sean Carroll instead.
As it collapses it makes more structures counteracting or shaping the collapse so it is organised in a particular way. Showing the universe could get more intelligent or complicated each time. And explaining why animals seem to be more intelligent or complex than the ones they replaced.
5:00 very interesting idea. Like the ying and yang of the universe.
Augustus de Morgan: “great fleas have little fleas upon their backs to bite ‘em, and little fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum”
Size is relative, not absolute. Funny really how none of these ideas are new, merely not conventionally accepted. It takes someone to be brave enough to put them all together and shout about them. Well done.
This isn’t how reality works. Non-locality kicks in at some point. The universe is finite in both directions.
@@quantumbuddhist Of course
Dr. Barbour is one of the most brilliant independent thinkers about time and cosmology. His book, The End of Time, should be read by everyone interested in the philosophy of time.
it's hard to call any of these excellent when they're all excellent
this one is extra excellent
Barbour is a genius in my estimation. He is not afraid to challenge conventional wisdom.
How did electromagnetic wave(s) start? Do electromagnetic waves come from gravity?
I find the declared intention of “Closer to Truth” in the video description interesting. It claims to be “exploring humanity’s deepest questions” and to “discover fundamental issues of existence”. It is perhaps in the nature of scientific enquiry always to be an estimate and always to be wrong. Being open to this concept is how we manage to learn. What is important is how the effect of our current notion of knowledge affects our attitudes and behaviour and the priority that is given, compared with other demands and interests. We need to get that sorted out, if we want to continue with learning in the long-term, rather than following a road to human-created destruction in the short-term. I wish you well.
Definitely “closer to truth” with this dude. Bravo Zulu.
Wonderful interview!
I love this info. Thank you ❣
I like that the more advanced the Physics, the more poetic reality becomes. Really good to see top notch physicists like Julian Barbour “thinking outside the box”! Strangely, Lee Smolin who also criticises reductive “Physics in a box” thinking, in “Time Reborn” comes to an opposite conclusion - that time is real and fundamental!
To be frank, I'm not really sure that Julian is a top notch physicist! Certainly his ideas don't seem to have gained any traction over the years, with people who do have some idea of what he is talking about.
@@MrDorbel Yes... I admire that he works outside of academia, yet still publishes on issues like the reality of time that attract comment from establishment physicists. However, being an outsider may mean his views gain less traction... and his views are undoubtedly unusual, and are either genius, or cranky.
@@uremove Personally I am not qualified to say which!
@@MrDorbel No... me neither. Maybe we will only know in retrospect.
@@uremove I'm not sure that retrospect is something that exists in Julian's model!
Changing it shape it shape of the universe greatness
I was smitten with your angular positioning and question of time weeks ago...I feel excited to review it again.
People try to explain the expanding and collapsing universe as entropy.
I think we were all entangled at one point in time so the farther away we get from our entangled particles the more force gets exerted slowing down the expansion of the universe which in and of itself will cause it to recollapse because everything happens in a cycle in the universe.
The only way for infinity to be realized is for it to continuously happen over and over and over again forever.
Taking into account that this is infinitively happening (including the one universe where it doesn't) then one can only extrapolate (before I figure out what calculations to observe to make it so) that we don't know what is going on other than the universe is big. Really big. And our observations are the only thing that cements reality.
Until we observe what we are trying to know the answer is everything. Once we observe the our come is determined and entanglement's hidden force pulls time both ways.
12-19-2020
The universe is beyond of our mortal understanding, is foolish for us try even think it have a end, because it's not.
I would point to the Pauli Exclusion Principle to further argue his point. There will always be a difference in the energies of objects therefore there will always be change.
Thank You
We learn by contrast and detect variety. Decimal expansion is a subtle distinction
Similar path and thoughts as Howard Bloom. Especially in regards to entropy and the increase in structure.
Are we headed towards a kind of climax of structured shapes in our cosmos?
Thanks for a great discussion
I suggest looking into traditional Buddhist and Vedic cosmologies & notions of "time." Might find it amusing, at least.
To a hammer everything looks like a nail... to a physicist the universe looks like numbers... the Vedas describe the Veda in terms of metaphor... combining the two is solving the puzzle
@@Jonathan-si2nd Vedic & Tibetan Physics is nothing of the sort.
Thinking outside the box. The assumptions have been questioned by many, although not by any of those that you have encountered “ in the box”.
My mind is still reeling from conceptual overload. Food for thought upgraded to banquet. Thank you.
32:00 i think penrose doesn't say it finishes with everything collapsing into a black hole, his idea of "aeons" says the black holes evaporate and what you are left with is a universe populated by particles travelling at the speed of light, and therefore however "big" the universe has become size and time have no meaning, massless particles don't experience time and therefore distance has no meaning - it's a singularity but it can be any size.
Agree. That's my understanding also from watching Penrose videos.
Entropy resets in the Inertial plane of scalable Aether's hyperboloid. The Inertial plane expands and spikes across the entire Universe. The Inertial plane is "Condensate of Universe", from Counterspace. The Inertial plane doesn't have time, space, information, gravity, ... The Inertial plane connects to every hyperboloid, vortex and torus in the Universe. Electron Probability Patterns have hyperboloids, vortices and toruses. The shapes of Aether.
Scalable Aether, Casimir Effect Universe!
Time may probably be stokastic ( noise) but the question is of what and how does it rattles the things. In general things will end up in a state that is common or lets say likely. A random process where we mostly end up in the most likely state, but we may actually in rare cases end up in an unlikely state. That is entropy, it has a random value. So when Einstain create a spacetime , we need to consider this and this has not been done. The fact that time is random and therefore vibrate means that time has an energy.
Rubbish
24:50, this particular form, according to the Vedas,
is the Cosmic Egg.
They describe the cosmic egg as the fundamental
form of the creation of a universe. In each case
of a universe of countless many.
Dissipation carries information that is conserved. It can be seed for self organization and build structure
The metaphors that describe science are very important to review and rexamine.
The first person who proposed that there are regions of space were time goes in reverse and does not admit light was William James Sidis in 1925 in a book entitled "Animate and Inanimate" He was thought to have had an IQ of 260, and was admitted to Harvard at the age of 11 in 1909.
😘
An IQ of 260 does not exist because it cannot be measured.
@@BritishBeachcomber Not correct Peter. First of all it all depends on which scale you are using, as there are a number of them. A psychologist once estimated Sidis's IQ at between 250 to 300. Academically, he was good enough to be accepted into Harvard at age 9, though not actually admitted until 11 years old.
In addition he was fluent in dozens of languages at a young age.
Arthur M Young has been ahead of these astrophysicists all along, he proposed the Toroidal shape of the universe, and its eternal cycle in the 1980's, the growth of novelty and movement towards purpose.
Great video.
Anyone sense an overlap between Barbour and McKenna?
Closer To Truth, prenez contact avec Jean Pierre Petit! Il parle l'Anglais, et serais certainement intéressé par un entretien sur le net au sujet de sa vision de Janus. Stéph.
Closer To Truth, contact Jean Pierre Petit! He speaks English, and would certainly be interested in an interview on the net about his vision of Janus. Stéph.
th-cam.com/video/kYIurRmmnsU/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/MwKT9XqbCI8/w-d-xo.html
I learned in my psychology courses, the engineer's way we accepted to view the laws of thermodynamics is called functional fixedness. I am gladdened to have my thinking plausibly put right. For quite a long while I have been trying to see the universe in a more protean way. Maybe I should call this the "Proteus Principal." The basis for this approach is to consider quantum effects as an expression of accommodation for a likely counterpart to the dimensioned reality we find ourselves a part of and try so hard to know and understand. The "Janus Principle" strikes me as a step in this direction, which may well be the right direction.
Is janus point close to Bimetric gravity, a model called the "janus model" by Jean Pierre Petit?
😘
Robert should interview Rupert Sheldrake. I think he may find his ideas of morphic resonance interesting. Rupert is highly knowledgeable in science, religion and philosophy.
so what are the implimications of having an unbounded wave function of the universe?
ive just bought the book on amazon... Fascinating, I've always wondered why i had to learn the Schrodinger equation using a particle in a box/constrained potential. 😀
Im not a scientist by any means. But when I read a book about fundamental particles, and that an antimatter atom of opposite spin and (is it chirality?) Traveling backwards in time would be identical to its normal matter counterpart, I started wondering if the big bang was a point and on either side the matter and antimatter separated, which explained where all the missing antimatter was. Maybe.makes less sense than I thought but over the years i keep seeing articles that jive with it.
Consider the metaphor that the universe is not expanding but the physical substrate - some lower layer than yet explored, is thickening. That would explain many problems of expansion.
New content brings us closer to the truth.
In memory of my friend Ahmed and his music
th-cam.com/video/Ne3Geqq-i_Y/w-d-xo.html
👌🎶🎵⭐✨❤️🌍🙏
Thanks!
Excellent idea of the Janus point with the arrow of time pointing in opposite directions ( I have an other problem with this as time is actually a scalar, however) as nature abhors asymmetry. So the question is, did all the antimatter flow along the opposite time flow to ours and why antimatter is rare in this universe?
Thanks to take me back to the point -again- of “who is right”?
There are two kinds of things, things and the relations between them. Those relationships can always be expressed geometrically because everything is expressible in relation to space and time. Ratios can be used to express a scale between those things in various relations.
ON POINT!!!
Julian's new book has just arrived, interesting theory and looking forward to reading in more detail.
Life could go on forever.... with movement....!!!!!
Life is infinite has The universe itself, whit many changes in their cicles of life.
Fascinating stuff!!
Interesting idea but I still don’t understand the connection between structure and time ?
I think that (what he is getting at is) our conventional understanding of time and its arrow is based on the idea that entropy always increases, that is, we measure time based on relative change in structures and its arrow is indicated by the movement from order to disorder. But to me this falls down (not his view, but the conventional one) when it fails to appropriately define maximal disorder.
Take a rubik's cube, for example. It starts out completely ordered. Each time quanta it can move (twist) to a different level of order. However, there comes a point where the disorder is maximized (e.g. when no two similar colors are next to each other) and any further movement potentially increases order (making two colors meet). At this point our entropy has reversed, but time certainly hasn't. One can move back to a fully ordered state using a completely different path, i.e. with no measurement that even looks like a time reversal. So that link between time and entropy is therefore a correlation (typically dominating large systems) rather than a fundamental link. And (I think this was what he was saying) time is simply measured by change in structures.
@@brendanh8193 hmm 🤔 doesn’t click for me. Just because we notice time with change in structure it doesn’t make sense to me time that it is necessarily the result of such, or basically the other way round. If a structure is not changing we might say time is not changing as we can’t observe the change but is that even the case that time is not proceeding? How could we be certain ? Entropy as a description of a system state or even its correlation with temperature seems to be more obvious than this idea of time. It feels more like a relativ description of time.
@@worldpeace1822 I agree with much of what you're saying. Any measurement of time is only a proxy of time, not time itself. I think change in structure is therefore only, at best, correlated with time too. Bear in mind that entropy is only used to indicate the direction of the arrow of time, not time itself. This direction is necessary for special relativity and GR, but not quantum mechanics. What I was saying is that, at high entropy, this correlation becomes vague, and at times incorrect.
However, the situation you described reminds me of an old skit about the universal time machine. The pranksters set up a large box on stage and announce to the audience that on entering the box, they will set the controls to send them 100 years into the future. They then enter the box, make a display of pressing a button, and immediately exit the box and claim success. When the audience starts to show skepticism, the pranksters duly announce "of course, with this time machine, it brings the whole of the universe with it."
This prank has some profound points to make. Firstly, whilst we can conceive of time existing outside of the universe, there is no way to measure it if it were. Secondly, what you can measure may bear little relationship to the actual time outside the universe. Our universe (or simulation) may ultimately be controlled by time elements in the "real world", but we are restricted to measuring our universe's (or simulation's) time. This can start, stop, move at different rates, just like any simulation we make in computers can do in relation to our time.
@@brendanh8193 when you talk about the prankster I have to think about Einstein’s elevator. Let’s say we are indeed in a box and can’t see outside. But we have one or two metal balls inside and all kinds of equipment for measurement.
With one ball we could measure it’s position relative to our space. With two their relative positions to one another. Would we be able to tell from this how time is flowing? Something outside might gravitational pull on the ball. Is that a sign for the time flow changing or the space-time? Similar aspect of the space expanding or changing non linear while we sit on our box. Of course if we have nothing moving at all one way to see if time still has a direction is to test if we are still alive or are we ... no one can look inside lol 😂
Anyway I probably have to read up on some stuff again...
I always said it wasn't expanding from one spot (big bang) - I always thought that there was just eddies and currents in an infinite eternal universe, like smoke swirling around in space. A universe that paradoxically has no beginning, and it has no end. We are already in "forever". In some regions of our infinite universe most of the stars and planets are moving away from each other, while in other parts of the infinite universe everything is all moving together. It's all just an illusion, and it simply depends on what part of the infinite universe that you're in, that will be your perspective.
Or you’re completely wrong. I think you’re referring to Max Tegmark’s classification of a level 3 or 2 multiverse, I forget which
@@SirArthurTheGreat I'm not referring to anyone, it's just the way it obviously is
Nice video. Philochrony is the theory that describes the nature of time and demonstrates its existence. Time is magnitive: objective, Imperceptible (intervals) and measurable (duration).
Thanks
Δ (change over time) is the kernel of the ToE of physics as every material substance and process can be understood in relation to it. Change is the substrate of material reality.
I wonder after having watched this:
Do growth of structure and emergence of variety equal increasing complexity? Or.ARE these two ideas indeed equivalent to each other?
And : If there is supersymmetry wouldn't it account for all of the universe and all of what the cosmos is about like e.g. matter and antimatter? In other words: If there is supersymmetry and we see it occur, wouldn't it have to apply to "the box (encompassing the system) as well? Or was I not making sense at all with this?
does gravity inside black hole decrease entropy, increase entaxy (spelling?), as happens with clumping?
I'm confused by one thing with respect to this Janus point. Why only two directions of time from this point? If time is "expanding" from a point, why wouldn't there be 360 degrees of time (from the perspective if a 2D plane) or (more likely) time arrows along every infinitesimal radian emanating from a sphere? Is his "two directions of time" merely a simplification?
No mention of Prigogine, who built his science around the system being not in a box?!!
Non-equilibrium thermodynamics was well-developed by the 1970s by Ilya Prigogine. Research of others on evolutionary thermodynamics in the 1980s had firmly arrived at Barbour's conjecture that the direction of evolution is NOT toward greater entropy, but toward growing structure and order (See Theory of Radially Evolving Energy, 1989, Int'l Journal of Gen'l Systems, vol. 16). Barbour's assertion that nobody was thinking of this merely reflects his ignorance.
And where is mention of any of the work or theories of David Bohm? Or Stephen Wolfram?
My sense is that Dr. Barbour has not read widely enough outside his own historical research and analysis of Einstein's work to realize that he is not ahead, but rather a bit behind the cutting edge of evolutionary theory sub-Planck-scale in his 1999 publication. He has been working maybe in too private an academic bubble?
These are debates within the structure of Physics but zoom way out and imagine that these scientific gyrations are simply like games of chess on a giant board which is within and NOT outside of our human consciousness. Who knows what exists OUTSIDE the boxes of our limited consciousness. Within our consciousness we are trapped into creating these imaginary scenarios and in proving them as if they actually exist.😲
Does a mirror have awareness?
I never read about David Bohm too much until after your comment. Just learnt about his research on consciousness. Blew my mind. Thanks for the valuable information!
@@subhendukarmakar2767 I had to get myself at least a little bit up to speed regarding Bohm/Pribahn and their ideas of "hidden variables" or the "implicate order" of things. I found those ideas very exciting as well when preparing for an interview with Mr. Tom Campbell and his trilogy "My Big T.O.E." and subsequent work. Apparently, Mr. Campbell didn't quite share my enthusiasm regarding those ideas. But I leave it up to the (potential) visitor /viewer what to make of the latter. The video will appear at this playlist in a couple of days: th-cam.com/play/PLmieT_oAkXddLO1IgU1rD3NBJQ_p6LQ5e.html (it's the fourth one, currently set to "private" and going public this coming Friday if you were interested)
i need to talk with this man cause he said it seems like no one is talking about physics like this but i have come to an incredibly similar concept myself, just listening to ever physics video i can find
Time is the Eye of Love.
Looking at the Mars pictures on-line today I was made to think about why they were so excited to see variety in the geology....
Janus is the theory of jean pierre petit
😘
As the present moves into future, do quantum fields use energy to increase information and structure for the present; while classic information evenly distributes entropy and equilibrium in the past? Can quantum future take energy from classic past to increase information for structured present?
Wonderful ideas.. going to the brink of being fantastical.
In memory of my friend Ahmed and his music
th-cam.com/video/Ne3Geqq-i_Y/w-d-xo.html
👌🎶🎵⭐✨❤️🌍🙏
Smaller than planck length can be measured with time? Certainty of classic matter becomes probability of quantum energy that might be measured with time?
So my daughter's bedroom does not have increasing entropy, it's simply untidy!
When she leaves home in the future her room will resolve to the past order. In my humble opinion.
Uh, I’m thinking you are never late, just happening.
If there's nobody in the room to see the clutter...is the clutter really there?
Yet on the opposite side of the universe, it's completely clean
Does the growth of mould mean increased structure?
Keep up the great work.
"Time taken in stocking energy to build an energy system, adding to it the time taken in building the system will always be longer than the entire useful lifetime of the system.
No energy system can produce sum useful energy in excess of the total energy put into constructing it.
This universal truth applies to all energy systems.
Energy, like time, flows from past to future".
The arrow of time can be explained by the fact that a function can only have one output for each input. If the universe can be described by one single function, there has to be one and only one dimension in which it is irreversible. I’m not saying that dimension is time, our universe seems to have a lot of dimensions, but time is definitely more closely related to the irreversible dimension than space.
Do quantum fields use energy to increase information (particles) and build pockets of structure?
Superb
Julian is right ... that's all. there will be always a dynamical structure . density vallues do not change. the most part of 'antimatter' stays on the other side of the apparent singularity point, janus point. atomism is scale independet in its true simple logic: structure are independents from atoms relative distances. atoms obviously are non small or big in absolute sense. they are only force center in a structure. their size is fixed by the size of that structure, the structure of universe under observation.
I understood about 75-80% of that... That makes me feel good lol.
i understood about 10% of that, makes me feel very bad.
I just ordered this book on Amazon
Have you read it yet? What did you think?
Actuality is undifferentiated stuff, infinite in all directions, at all scales, forever. We are, and everything we know is, patterns differentiated from that stuff, by a mind, for a purpose - to change something.
i blindly followed the 2nd law till now ...
how can anyone judge the universe on a studied steam engine back in the day ...
perhaps scientists are like doctors ... just human.
thanks julian & the man
Thank to him, I free myself from a terrible existencial crisis, now I know that The universe have no aging and is eternal as infinite.
I was wondering if you are aware that a French scientist called Jean-Pierre petit created quite some time ago The Janus Cosmological Model (JCM) describes the universe as a Riemannian manifold with two different metrics that handle positive and negative masses in general relativity with no paradox, in very good agreement with latest observational data.
Brilliant
Quantization of neuron signals into probability wave of energy information allows measurement by zero point dimension of time, with abstract mathematics, in the mind?