There is an episode of Startalk with Neil Degrasse Tyson of which 4 times him and his host were joking about a certain topic and the poor professor who was being interviewed just stood there like a statue trying to avoid the “joke”. Lol!
Yesterday is but a dream; tomorrow is but a vision, But today, well lived, Makes every yesterday a dream of happiness, And every tomorrow a vision of hope.
After watching the lecture, I began to read comments and was so surprised that the large majority of commentators had a great understanding of the subject discussed and made more easy for me to get my concepts more clearer than ever.....keep on spreading the light of knowledge with a logical approach....my heartfelt thanks to the entire team who made this happened...
@@kn9ioutom i hold to Presentism. I do not believe in time existing as a separate thing from matter, and would say we base time on sequences of change or movements relative to change in another object. Like we base a day on the movement of the sun around the earth. Then we divide that up into 24 parts. Then divide that into smaller parts. Then we set hour glasses to measure it. Then watches that count in a similar manner. But what is that watch originally based on? The movement of the sun and we coordinate that to the movement of the hands or numbers on a watch. But what you do not see is people just setting the watch to a thing called time. Time is not some reference point in of itself. Just like if you asked how tall I am, and I said " 6". "6 what?" " Well I am 6 tall." Time is nothing that can be traveled. You cannot travel to the past. We live in the now. And basically there is matter and the movement and arrangement of it in its current state to the next. And we base time on that
String Theory is work in progress. Also, General Relativity it's NOT a complete theory, because it does not explain new factors no seem 100+ years ago.
Time travel isn't possible. Time is the rate of change in Energy. The sun is our energy, and "time" moves forward as the energy is released. :) Look at pictures of a Nuclear mushroom cloud... That's Time Travel! The Stem of the cloud is where time moved ahead rapidly......
@@tigerstudios not correct as you suggest the rate of change in energy is constant. and also suggest that every sun creates its own time because all suns release energy. Time slows when i move fast through space, or go further away from a gravitation pull of the planet. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ENERGY RELEASED from the sun - we already know time is related to SPACE
@@reddevilsunited7780 Time slows in an accelerated frame or gravitational field (equivalent). So you have it backward. But that doesn't challenge the point you were ultimately making.
I recall a childhood riddle: What's always approaching but never arrives? Tomorrow. At the beginning of the COVID pandemic I had this eerie feeling that time had slowed down, yet I felt like I was aging more rapidly. I'm not sure how to reconcile those perceived contradictions.
Gosh. Sean Carroll you are such a smart man. You say things in what seem like to be the best possible ways to explain them. Such a great communicator. Intelligence is less valuable without good communication. Good communication is less valuable without good intelligence. You sir are what happens what you have both. TY for your hard work.
Carroll is awesome. He is able to distill scientific concepts to a level understandable by a common person. I saw him on Joe Rogan. The way he was able to explain heavy concepts...unbelievable.
Absolutely, right from the beginning. The subject or body of knowledge is NOT absolute, the way we understand totally changes the knowledge. Is that another accepted subject of study in philosophy?
Except for that one time where he used the stupid term "proper time", and confused the kid in the video explaining relativity to a child, a teen, a student and a professor.
@@TheShootist Yes, Neil is cool, too. But he needs to be careful. The #metoo stuff is for real. Word on the street is that he's putting moves on women in his circle. Wrong. Don't try to get p***y from your employees. That's immoral and unethical.
this man knows nothing of time time was invented bye man to make sense of what we do and understand if u go to work at 6.am an finish at 3pm the is how long we are at work the sun rises in the east and sets in the west how long does it take to move from east to west we use a clock mostly are 24 hrs long befor we ad clock we started at sunrise and finished at say midday thats the sun move south at say 12 hrs no such thing as space and time dont exist in nature lol he gets payed for this rubbish
@@roybradshaw4252 time does exist everywhere tho lol. How are you going to say it doesn't exist naturally? Why do animals get older then? Why do things change? This is time in motion. The way we label time however is not natural and really only pertains to humans. We put this label on however so that we are able to better understand the process of time and what it is, so when people are explaining time they are talking about the mechanics of time not the way we describe it, but the way it describes itself.
@@TheForneveralone it is a process that all living things go through its not time its a process witch applies to all things according to how old they are and time was invented bye humans to understand of periods of movement of natural things in the universeif u over work u get tired and hill so you take periods of to rest
past as gone presant is right now and the future as yet to come so time as nothing to do with it u cant say it 7pm if its really 6pm a time that humans have agreed with not found in nature@@shangavik4128
There are 4 part series by Brian Greene - watch that first. Have to understand space first in order to understand time. th-cam.com/video/dEWupAFtXGU/w-d-xo.html
Very nice presentation about the philosophical aspects of time. I am currently reading Einstein's book: "Über die spezielle und allgemeine Relativitätstheorie" which is for me as a German a very precious book because Einstein's carefully chosen words about time and space are of course a German that does not exist anymore. It's unbelievable how precisely Einstein can describe his thought experiments only by words with very few sketches. This approach is totally different to the visual world of today. Professor Caroll has the same talent to illustrate very abstract but "real" aspects of life only by his very well chosen English words and statements that only a native speaker can achieve. But I am very grateful as after war generationperson who raised up in an English affine environment that listening to him is like as if he spoke in German to me. Danke!
@Matthew Philip he means everything that occupies space must travel through space time. If time didn’t exist nothing could move or decay, likewise time is a real construct that flows all particles through it
Time is like the measuring of changes between distance and events spawning from a sigularity; and consciousness is the recording of the disorder as it flows. Entropy must continue so the record is stored in created consciousness (example :a cell carrying out a function. The cell each time coded to make less mistakes than the last. Like learning to not destroy itself after continual repeated failures) by dark energy and the information is then evolved and replicated so that the samething does not infinity repeat. My perspective on the reality of the universe for everyone is different and subjective to that organism\being ,for an example. Scientist states that viruses, bacterias or cells are examples of living organisms that even live in our bodies and they carry out functions. Human beings also carry out functions; but we look at cells and viruses as a lesser life form of life. If there are advance or higher forms of life, they can also measure us human beings and state also that we are a lower form of life just as human beings may observe an ant as a lower form of life. However, because of this an ant may not be important to us, but if you try to squash an insect it will try to flee and preserve it's life thus means it's life must mean something to itself; but not to us. Even blood cells defend themselves when under a threat just as we do, but is the life of one blood cell important to us? Is the life of a human being urgent to a tree which is also a living organism. Human beings are the main cost for the destruction of trees whichin they've been here before we we're in existence. So are trees a higher life form than us? A more advance and higher life form may look at a tree and say this tree is much more important than a human being because it sustains life on this planet but human beings destroy the planet with human helping technology (depending on their perspective). All of this said humans may not be as prominent as we think If we remember the laws of physics breaks down on a quantum level. There are lengths like the plank length that are so small that it can be compared to the scale of the universe. So doesn't this mean that being that small you are in a universe of its own , within another observable universe but only observable by our knowledge by humans. If this is so then there must be other places the laws of physics break down also. If it does for the extremely small why not for the extremely big? Who is big and small anyways? We are small to our planet but our planet is small to our sun. This can go on and on. We are the size of a universe to an atom in our body ,thus means also we are big. However, this happens to everything everywhere. If there is space that has particles, those particles may be within an atom, trillions of atoms are in a cell (more than stars in our solar system) whichin cells are IN our blood ( 37 trillion cells). Our blood in our organs and muscles which is within our bodies. Our bodies may be within a house which is within a constituency, which is within a town, which is within a city/state/island which is within a country which is in a continent which is within a planet, which is within a solar system, within a galaxy, within A super cluster, which is within Galactic walls which is within the Cosmic web . "Everything is 'WITHIN' " which The Cosmic web itself is 'within' The Universe WHICH is 'within' a bubble or phenomenon that we cannot see. "Everything is within" something. Hold just a minute here though! We cannot see someone waving at us from an airplane. We only see the construct of the landscape, not the entities within them. Or an ant from the top of a sky scrapper, neither can we see blood cells attacking viruses n vice versa. Which is evidence just because we cannot see oxygen or detect an atom WITHIN does not mean its not there. The human eye cannot see U V rays or even oxygen and we are surrounded by it. So this means the Laws of physics as we KNOW it only applies to our subjective and objective reality. If u step back and look at the universe . We will only see the Cosmic Web of everything. Which seems to be all touching and connecting. Not until we zoom In does things seem to seperate. Just like a cell that make up our skin. Or a dog standing on an island. From far we only see the landscape , but as we zoom in other entities become observable. Inturn becoming a noticeable part of your reality. Things like Dark matter plays not with Morden physics and we cannot see it but it must exist because of the forces that pulls galaxies together and dark energy pushing entropy without the universe collapsing. However back to the Cosmic web. From a far everything is connected, but if u go close or zoom more is revealed within. The universe itself may be 'within' a muti-verse , another unverse, a blackhole, a quantum computer simulation or even apart of another living organism body that seems infinity large. But as we are universal size to an atom the universe can be a drop in the ocean or space to a greater being which most earthly beings cannot fathom or even believe because it is beyond preposterous. Even if your human eyes can go in front of it is to large or small to amke out. You cant see a mountain top from the exact bottom. It is to high in the clouds. Thus u cannot see the universe from one end to the other. The universe legs may be to long (just a joke ) .Somewhat though these are very much what it seems for the great reality. As laws of physics break down at quantum levels, entanglments, singularities and so on. There are dimensions that we cannot see and cannot detect things like :(earthly terms, but they seem to have more meanings) Super positions, past , future, the unconscious, concious thought, different colors of light , pure and dark energy etc. Please excuse my long reply , but this is just a brief explanation of not an objective or subjective reality. Which is infallible, but of the asubjective existence which seems verisimilitude.
You need a separate / different approach ~ metaphysics ... goes far outside the 5 senses, 3D "reality" & any rational kind of perspective ... possibly Heisenberg, Shrödinger & Pauli .. as broadminded physicists, could contribute. Refer to outlook of Dr Joe Dispenza, Neville Goddard, Dr Murphy, José Silva ... that address mind consciousness-- vast expansion of possible outcomes, leaning on just how energy operates ... wave or particle ? ... etc.
Dr. Carroll has that rare Professor Carl Sagan ability. The gift to know what he is talking about combined with the ability to dumb it down for the layman to understand. Many professors are genius academics inn their given field of expertise, but few possess the unique ability to share this knowledge with their audience without having a bunch of eyes glazing over.
Here is what puzzles me about present time and how Time “flows”. What is so special that I’m sensing present time right now? Is it like I’m alive and flowing on a Big Bang wave that is heading into the future with everybody else around me riding on it and experiencing? But what about before I was even born?; “present time” was still there and existed for everyone else prior. A person from the 1970s for example was in the “present time” the same way as I am now writing this. It makes me want to think that time does not “flow” but everything that will happen is already written and the people who are alive right now are just experiencing it which in turn is relative to each person. Are we riding in the Big Bang wave of time? I’m not sure about that since time is distorted with gravitational forces everywhere in the universe and where there’s a lot of gravitational force time can distort. What about planets or objects that are really close to a black hole of which distorts the fabric of spacetime? Probably for them, we are in the year 5061 while for us, we’re still in the year 2020. The notion of time as well as consciousness is very confusing and hard to grasp from many point of views.
We all are given a short time to find something or someone. Some find it right away while others never find that something or someone but we all have a chance.
One of the great things about most of The Great Courses (TGC) lectures that I have seen so far, like this one, is that professors, like Dr. Sean Caroll here, bind all the concepts involved together in great talks, you get to see the whole picture, the tree and the forest. When I was in college, we did the calculations, I took tests, exams, finals, but never really had the chance to see things like this, in a holistic way. And TGC do all this in all its courses consistently. I would say that all universities should have this for people to be able to follow up, and to be more connected! Not to mention that we can always revisit these lectures over and over again, for example in search of inspiration, to research any particular topic. They help us to go from the tree to the forest back and forth all the time consistently!
This makes me feel so uncomfy right now :I I already have a hard time dealing with all the embarassing moments through out my life XD and still I love the idea of Eternalism somehow...
And it’s enlightening to see how Sean has actually had a long time to develop, articulate, and get familiar with these ideas and his style of communicating. Interesting and maybe obvious to realize that ‘Biggest Ideas in the Universe’ didn’t completely fall out of thin air
Existence is nothing other than a flipbook. Already drawn from beginning to the end. It is very simple. Better than a flipbook, think of it as a sculpture, where events unravel from the bottom of the sculpture all the way to the top. Yet the sculpture is static. Our consciousness arises when particle X in our brain, at one slice of the sculpture, appear at point A, and in the next slice of sculpture, appears at point B. This gives rise to our consciousness and to the illusion that there is a past, present and a future unfolding.
Very interesting lecture. No doubt, professor Sean Carroll is not only very knowledgeable but also talented to explain complicated things to others in a very simple and understandable way. I am very pleased people can learn from such events and hope they (lectures) will grow over time.
Thank you Sean. Some people who think about such things go nuts like me. It's really nice to hear someone talk on these things who has an excellent mind and a noble character.
@ Ted Bates. Gee wiz Ted, you were practically shot without a trial for thanking someone and adding a personal compliment born out of gratitude and how YOU perceived the man's character based on his presentation! It's obvious you ought to be flogged immediately for LEAPING to such conclusions! 😶 I thought I'd chose the only emoji I've ever seen that portrays NO emotions. Hope I'm not flogged along side the likes of you Ted! 🤣🤣🤣 I hope that emoji was the appropriate one that expresses my view on the way you were fired upon. Good on you Ted for saying what you did and I say that because I appreciate your commending the presenter and for your humility in saying you can go nuts sometimes making sense of this sometimes very puzzling subject. That was a bit long toothed BUT there you have it. Over a year has gone by since your comment but if you look to your left and down at about a 30% angle you might be able to see me waving to you on that space/time graph 😁! Cya!
Salamat po sa napakagandang explaination kahit mayroon akong konting hindi naiintindihan ay pakiramdam ko ay nasusundan ko ang iyong paliwanag kasi nararamdaman ko na tama ang iniisip ko sa mga sinasabi mo, halimbawa: Kapag iniisip mo na hindi ka masasakop ng oras, ang oras ay lilipas. At ikaw ay iyon padin, hindi maapektuhan ang iyong imahinasyon. Ito pa ang isang halimbawang: Makakalula mo ng future pero hindi ang ngayon, makakalkula mo ang future sa pag kalkula sa nakaraan. Pero naka depende ang ibang sagot ibang pamamaraan ng pag kalkula
I've thought about some of the issues that Dr. Sean Carroll discusses in this video. I'm nearly 80 years of age, during which time I've thought a great deal about them. Dr. Carroll's assertion that we experience the present moment as "real" is not the way I experience the present time. I've come to believe that our experiences are conditioned by how we are constructed by reality; namely, the way our brains function to construct the present time. I agree with Kant and Schopenhauer et al., insofar as the world we experience is incontrovertibly due to our brains experiencing space, time, and causality a priori. That is, space, time and causality are a single structure upon which we drape our experiences, both "inner" and "outer" experiences. As a result of my own thinking about these matters for many decades, I experience the present as both a real and an imagined reality simultaneously. Thus, I don't experience the present as merely "real", but rather as miraculous. We can come to no definite conclusion about the constitution of the self, nor can we about the constitution of space-time, but we can experience the miraculous continuously, and that is not inconvenient for me.
Here's my take on it- We know that everything in the universe moves from low to high entropy(that's just how it works). Time is just the measure of the rate at which this happens and since we are all subject to it, we accept it as time. This predicts that time may have never existed before the bigbang because there probably was nothing to move from low to high entropy.
@andrew gallovich i think that's the entire debate, whether space/time is primal or not. I see both sides, they both make good points but theyre also both severely lacking in evidence. Its mostly just philosophy anyways
Fascinating. I always considered the question of what is time to be the greatest of all mysteries. On the one hand, time, in its most superficial sense, is nothing but the measure of change. The minute hand of a clock is at 12, then is at 3. A billiard ball that was a foot away from the left corner pocket is now in the pocket. I was young yesterday; I am old and gray today. On the other hand, there can be no change -- the clock hand cannot move, the billiard ball cannot roll and my appearance cannot alter, unless there is time. Nothing can "happen" outside of time. So then, is time emergent as the manifestation of relationship dynamics among things, or is it fundamental and a priori? I tend to think the latter. Therein lies the profundity of the mystery that present science cannot answer.
i don't think time is a priori . imagine a place where is no phenomenon, no movement , no chemical changes , no matter , just space and time . is there time in such situation ? there is no change to measure so there is no time. time is present because there is change and time is measure of that change ,
I like the thought you put into this. I read what you wrote and thought myself what if we were one dimensional creatures within the time field. Space has 3 dimensions that we can experience, why couldnt time also have 3 dimensions that arent apparent to us. A one space dimensional being would see items appear and disappear within their point of space and it would be normal, just like we see the future appear and the past disappear as normal. Just a thought I had when I read your comment.
@designsbyphilip510 🧐🧐🧐 What do you mean by see your future appear and see your past disappear? Unless you live in a different reality than me, I only ever see the current moment and "past" and "future" are just relational concepts to refer nonexistent moments
You cannot go back at same place since that place is not same as a moment ago. Time and space, mater change cont. but not at same speed. When we come back at "same" place since changes are small , we think that we are at same place.
Great quote about time. Still, time and dimensiions are physical allusions created by our brain. A more realistic model of the world is to consider it from the perspective of patterns of energy. The solar system, for example, is a stable space-time pattern of energy. Consider it, for example, as a single material object., like an atom or a clock. But time is not an independent entity, it does not exist without spatial movement (like Sean moving his hands). What we misinterpret as "real" time, e.g. the passage of time, depends on our memory - it is a psychological process. We compare our "present" with our memories automatically, and realize they are not the same. Our brain generates the concept of time to account for the psychological discrepancy - it is generated by our brain to explain why we are not now where were a few seconds ago.
I'm sure I read somewhere once that time is effectively another manifestation of the force of gravity. Moving forward in time is traveling along the curvature of space-time effectively propelled by that same force. The constant which governs the predictable speed at which we do that is the same constant which governs the speed of light - meaning if you were to simulate our universe and only change that one constant, you would also change the speed of time. Does that ring any bells for anyone else?
Think about what it would mean for "moving forward in time" to just be shorthand for "traveling along the gravitationally induced curvature of spacetime". That would insinuate that time, itself, is actually created in discreet quantities by gravitational fields, and the more gravity there is, the more time there is. I.E. you get close to a singularity, you have to literally travel through more time to get anywhere. While it makes sense and seems to track with (at least my own understanding of how GR works), I think there is something fundamentally broken about that causal relationship. IMO, gravity does not cause time or spacetime curvature, it's the other way around - Time causes the curvature of space, which we call "gravity". I know it sounds like the same thing, but I think the distinction is important. I personally think Time is literally the only fundamental force in the universe, and all others are emergent phenomena. Anybody else wanna throw in an opinion/argument here?
Light waves radiate out spherically forming a potential Arrow of time or time line in every direction. The wave front in the form of the spherical surface forms the uncertain of which potential time line will become part of reality. In this theory time is an emergent property arising out of an interaction between the light photons of the EM fields and the electron sphere that surrounds the atomic nucleus. The electrons of an atom are standing waves in time. When a light wave interacts with an electron, it forms particle characteristics in the form of a photon electron coupling or dipole moment. At that moment in time and space are three dimensional world changes slightly with photon potential energy transforms into the kinetic Eₖ=½mv² energy of matter, in the form of electrons. We experience this as an uncertainty probabilistic future continuously coming into existence moment by moment.
I believe that there is no now, only past and future. Time is always in flux, never stagnant. You lived in the past, yet every millisecond of time is always in the future. You can't exist in the present as that concept does not exist; only what transpired or is taking place now. Absolutely nothing stagnates because everything around it will not allow it to do so. In essence: To speak of a NOW is to accept that time can remain stagnant for any measures of time; this is not possible. Your Now is quite literally the FUTURE.
No there is only the now. You are appending your concept of past and future onto it. If there were a past then complete universes would have to flow from every atom out 'behind' us. Like squeezing toothpaste from a tube, imagine that the first cross section of the toothpaste is the now universe with all its mass and energy, now squeeze the tube and you have a continuum of every instant of our universe with the past following the now - but look how much mass and energy you need - the toothpaste is all stuck together but how could that happen in reality?
Sean Carroll is a freaking genius. He has a brilliant mind: the ability to COMMUNICATE this eloquently about a subject matter this complex is a sign of deep, deep intelligence. Verbal IQ is just as important as Mathematical IQ, alas without philosophy there is no physics. This is why, for centuries the field of physics was called "Natural Philosophy," and also why so many of histories most brilliant minds were philosophical inclined - Plato, Socrates, Aristole, Descartes, Leibniz, Newton, EINSTEIN, Goethe, Wittgenstein, Godel, Soyinka, Chomsky etc. Bravo Sean Carroll. I look forward to watching more of your lectures. Astounding video! I learned a lot.
question about "presentism": what is the duration of the "current moment" - does it have a finite duration, or is it a point source, so to speak? either view seems to lead to philosophical and physical contradictions and paradoxes.
I've been thinking a bit about this, and I think the answer, atleast how we experience it, is that it's floating. When you think about it, an absolute current moment is the same as the absolute middle point of a wheel. It exists, but it's not possible to get to it with anything other than math. A rotating wheel will have a point in the middle of it with 0 width, depth and height that everything else rotates around. As an example of the current moment, try putting on a song and try to distiguish certain points as moments. It won't work, the moment will be what you just heard over a very small timeframe that isn't 0.
@@pinesyeet Thank you for your reply. If I understand what you are expressing, we need to consider the interaction of two different things, namely what the physical reality of time is, AND how our brain perceives time. Presumably the underlying physical reality of time could theoretically be measured accurately with the proper instrumentation, but our brain may distort the perception of that reality to a lesser or greater degree. To see this more clearly, we can use the well-studied model of how the brain extensively processes a real image (and also the amount of time it takes the brain to do so, according to "The Human Brain Book, "it takes about half a second for us to see an object consciously").
@@barryzeeberg3672 Yes I think you're on the right track. Without saying for certain, I can imagine that if our brains suddenly worked twice as fast, time would seem to slow down around us while we felt normal (if that makes sense). In this case, a moment for this double speed person measured by a normal speed person would be half as long. This leads me to believe, again without certainty, that time and moments only has its size because of how we perceive it. If we went outside our universe and looked at it while we turned time faster and faster towards infinitely fast, it would seem like every moment that happens goes towards being 1. What we know from experience is that with the time constant, this isn't exactly true, as we have moments happening after each other. What you can say then by looking at our universe is "ok, then moments are just like a stack of paper on top of each other", but that isn't practically true either since we don't experience going from a still-frame to the next, but rather have fading back-end of the moment that becomes the past and gaining front-end of the moment that becomes the present. This leads me to believe that moments are a fluid thing, atleast for all intents and purposes how we perceive it.
Fantastic lecture. His explanations are especially effective for those of us without any visual component to our memories/thoughts, who sometimes struggle the moment someone says "just picture/imagine/visualize such and such" Don't even get me started on "picture X and then rotate it in y manner"
Brain never stops ... for everyone .. just consciousness-- for a short time daily. Frequencies of the mind waves changes accordingly... find a way of dropping yr frequency (on purpose) & gain direct access to the riches & potential of yr own genius.
I now know that as much as science interests and amazes me especially astrophysics...astronomy...I will never fully grasp it, if I still mostly struggle even listening to Sean...still enjoyable..thanks for trying Sean Carrol...does anyone know anything that someone, who struggles like myself, could watch and maybe find easier to understand.
He reminds me of an algebra instructor students lined up early to get for the semester. Even I got through the class with a good grade. However, I can't remember much, if any, of what I "learned".
If I did understand presentism right, then "now" is when you "freeze" all movement in the entire universe, and then you call this moment "now". When there is some change or in this exemplification, when you "unfreeze" the universe and "freeze" it again (after something has moved) you get the new "now" and the moment before is just a memory. Contrary to the theory of eternalism, in which the past and future exist simultaneously but at another place of time because you see time as a dimension. But in both cases, you will never experience the past or the future, because the future is just a prediction or in the case of eternalism, something that happens at another place in time and the past is either just a memory or sth that happens at another place in time as you are. Therefore, the past doesn't stop because the past always was or is at another place in time and the future will never begin because it will ever be the prediction or another place of time. We are at the same time neither in the future nor in the past. We are always in the now.
This was a truly great lecture, which certainly opened my eyes to a few aspects about time which I was wrong about. The only thing is that time is always described as something that passes us by at a particular rate which depends on where you are and how fast you are travelling. The reality is that time itself does not 'flow'. Moreover, it is like space in that we travel through it. The difference is that we can travel through space in any direction but we can only travel through time in one direction, albeit at different speeds. What the human mind finds hard to accept is that time is not a fundamental unit of the universe but speed is. We see speed as a construct of distance divided by time but the truth is that time is a construct of distance divided by speed, where distance and speed are the fundamental units, not time.
It is impossible to 'stand still' in this universe. You are always on the move relative to another observer, and that means on the move through time as well as space.
@@spyrosspyrou5809 Please help me understand if I got the point correctly. I am not a physicist nor very well educated on such issues. I am just trying to understand the basics... Time is not fundamental since it is created due to the expansion of the universe? Time was born with the big bang and for as long as the space created expands, we experience a linear progression of time towards a specific direction? So Is time a byproduct of space creation?
Things move in one direction only. In whatever direction a thing is moving, it is but one among an infinite number of possible directions. The direction in which a thing is moving can obviously change but whatever the new direction it is always one direction. For the universe to appear as though time were running backward everything in the universe would have to have its direction reversed exactly. That would take twice as much inertial energy as currently exists in the universe (to say nothing of the difficulties involved in arranging for it to happen). Time is the concept we use to simplify the vast complexities involved in thinking about the movements of all things relative to each other. Time is not a thing-in-itself (like most people imagine). Time is a concept only. The concept is so useful, convenient and so deeply embedded in human psychology that most people simply cannot overcome their culturally induced lifelong belief in its objectivity to see the truth of the reality: there are only things moving relatively.
I’ve been thinking, and I came to the conclusion that in fact the term “time” is confusing. We think about what “time” is, but in fact there is no time, only “time-flow”. Time is not a thing, but rather a process. I think helps understanding things by using this terminology, helps us asking the right questions. Space is the water, and time-flow is the flow of the water.
Mats Borgkvist says: It only applies to those who have such a notion of what time is. For my part, I mean that Professor Sean Carroll has confused the word time with the word duration and aging. Because I have no problem with time, as it is 'up to me' to choose which times I want to travel in, because it is I who chooses the time form I want to be in, which everyone can do and has done since time immemorial by choosing which verb form we should add our verb to the event in our languages that indicates in what time we want to be in. It is thus easier to determine the time to travel to than to get to places. I have a hard time keeping up with the professor because I can go as fast and far as I like without any problems. The problem is that knowledge as a sect has kidnapped the word time from our human languages and given the word a completely different meaning than the original, the one who does things and according to our intellectual property can not make clocks, namely measure time and own it with a stolen word that we humans exclusively already own by tradition but Galileo and Newton and Einstein have managed to push away with their original meaning when they together committed the copyright infringement in Pisa in 1610 and the rest of us let it be accepted by church opponents who should have known better than that be seduced by a Protestant mob. This in respond to the professor Sean Carroll's statement: ”We move through space as we like, we can choose to go to some other location in space, we can’t choose to go to some other location in time, we inevitably move through time at the rate of one second per second. Time is relentless whereas space is sort of ’up to us’ how to move in it. That gives us a certain perspective on what the world is.”
Good question👌 Bearing in mind I am not a educated person, I am simply stating my opinion to add to the debate 🙈 Mr Einstein, Niels Bore, Richard feynman and others accept the theory of general relativity as a good (ish) model of how things work. Please look to them for an educated answer. That said 😁 Imagine the pre-Big Bang cosmos is a 28 (arbitory number) dimensional construct, in which all points are the same point (therefore no size and infinite size). Something within the construct changed ( I have seen a suggestion the speed of light could have changed slightly), triggering entropic deconstruction, triggering the big bang and our universe came into existence. Puff and there was light as the gods might have said 😁 We now know that the universe after the Big Bang was not uniform, areas of more and less energy. Further, when we look at distant objects we can see there are variations in the speed of light that must be taken into account in our observations. This suggests (to me) that the fabric of our universe has ripples like water, but in energy density. A Galaxy, for example, has an effect (we call Gravity) that is Inversely proportional to its energy density (mass). To go back to your question: Say we had two spaceships parked next to each other and each of us had a super accurate clock (our way of defining the changing state of the universe at our location). Then you sped off at close to the speed of light and I stayed still for a period of one year relative to me. We know from experiment that our clocks would show a difference when you came back to my location and speed. The rate of change of the universe was slower for you at high speed. Inside your space ship everything would seem ‘normal’ but outside it the rate of change would be different relative to the local energy density. If it were possible for me to look through the window of your spaceship, while your are travelling at high speed, I would ‘observe’ the interior as being stationary. You would observe the universe changing at a dizzying rate.
I am wondering now what is even the (theoretical ) difference between moving through adjacent parallel universes ( like in the string multiverse) and moving through time. There is a clear direction but that could be the result of having always more worlds with more entropy to step into. A straight line is even not needed since the trajectory will always be logical. I admit that this idea is perhaps contradicted by the smooth, non discrete nature of time. And the question might come up if moving through space then, can also not be seen as a movement through adjacent parallel universes.
I took a picture of rain on a hand rail years ago. the Boka effect of soft focus in the close area, sharp focus in the fore ground and further forward it became more and more out of focus. I ultimately renamed the photo, "Time-line", because of how close to your past things are fading from your memories while in the present things are in sharp focus. The further forward you looked the more defocused and darker was the future.
very stimulating. It makes me think for a moment: we always consider time as a 3 way entity past present and future, what if it's not linear at all, and every little choice leads us in a different direction, like time is same as universe, continuosly expanding "sphere" and we're moving in the direction of the edge varying our path.
I often consider the movement of time is related to a “time field” which matters that have time sensitivity, such as consciousness, move through it according to the field guide direction. The speed the consciousness move through time depends on the contents of the matters. Similar to mass moving through space according to gravitational field. Of course this may only belong to science fiction. Even though we now consider space-time together, certain field could have effect only on part of the property of space-time.
What is time? Time is something that can be used to describe changes. If everything is static then there is no need of time. So time is a state variable. It is man-made, mathematical, non-physical variable, to describe the state changes of the universe. It is independent from space. The existence of universe doesn’t need time, it is our human being that needs time to describe the changes of our universe.
Only if TIME were man made, unless you're describing a concept of time that living beings have experienced and expressed over a period of Time 🕎🕛🤴🔱⚓🌊🐬🚀🌌
Tendered for your consideration, time and change are opposite sides of the same coin, i.e., without change there is no time and without time there's no change. Put another way, if the universe never changed, how would an observer perceive time? And if there were no time, how would the universe change?
@@blacjackdaniels200 Because SHE dumped YOU. If it had been the other way around, you wouldn't be pining for an, obviously, shitty relationship. IOW, it is the EGO that blinds.
@@Bartacolips I think there are only past and future and that present doesn't exists as the past is past, present is simultaneously becoming the past and (so present doesn't exists) and the coming future will become present at one or the other moment and simultaneously it will become the past as well(so future will become past when it becomes present) and for that moment the time that has not came yet is the future for you at that moment(so future exists) and the moments before that moment are your past.. (so past exists) ..I as well think that time is relative.
Jim Al-Khalili is my favourite. Some of his BBC documentaries are epic. th-cam.com/video/KFS4oiVDeBI/w-d-xo.html He's best on his own. In his element (pun intended) I skip the ones that incorporate 'the public'. Can imagine a BBC committee coming up with that idea.
@@alexisjanetcook1477 #metoo . Athough he was never accused of rape. Calling every unpolite touch "rape" is degrading the pain and misery real rape victims have to go through.
A great lecture and very interesting, by a great professor who, in this lecture, combines philosophy with physics and with the real world. Well done Professor Sean Carroll.
I can't follow the other physics or science channels but professor Carroll is able to put himself in the shoes of people with mathematical talent. It's possible certain topics are so much only math that you can't explain them any simpler without getting very vague.
@@knumbugs i know right, its so extraordinary and unbelievable to be real in the life routine you are having. Bible is the only book which speaks to our soul and gives marvelous light to all mankind.
@BlueBoy 1 Well, there are a thousand of great books that has been written, but also thousand of reasons that makes Bible the only book. If you have to read all the books in the world to be able to make that statement then try to read them all and find out.
Consider the possibility that both senses of time have physicality as *independent* though related phenomena! An eternal coordinate time (t), and a presentalist moving time (s). The former goes with General Relativity and the Heisenberg Picture of Quantum Theory, while the latter goes with the Schroedinger Picture of Quantum Theory, the "equivalence" of the two pictures being a mere appearance, not a fact on the ground - especially not for Quantum Field Theory (QFT)! (and especially not for QFT on curved space-times!! (and especially! not for QFT on globally non-hyperbolic space-times!!!)). In a special relativistic setting, s would be tied to proper time; and the Minkowski metric - rendered as ds² = dt² - (dx² + dy² + dz²)/c² - would be re-rendered as a constraint ds² - dt² + (dx² + dy² + dz²)/c² = 0 ... or defining the difference du ≡ c² (ds - dt) ... as a quadratic constraint dx² + dy² + dz² + 2dtdu + du²/c² = 0 and linear constraint ds = dt + du/c². Notably, this has a non-relativistic limit as the constraints: dx² + dy² + dz² + 2dtdu = 0 and ds = dt (the two senses of time, in non-relativistic theory, now merging as one). The bifurcation of the two senses of time may then be seen as a relativistic effect, even though a vestige of it lives on (as du) in the non-relativistic limit. The geometry (in both the relativistic or non-relativistic cases) has a 4+1 signature; except now that the (s) coordinate is treated as process time - the arena of presentalism - not as eternal time. In effect, it is a geometry in which the entire 4D space-time continuum, itself, flows in time!
First time seeing this video, and I got to say, I’m not very smart like college level or anything like that, but I always been a sucker for un-answered questioning and you just made my brain do BAM! This explains a lot
Ask yourself: "How do I experience time?" On any view time is a wholly subjective experience. What else could it be but a word that conveys one or another experience? Rather obviously " the universe" - like any other universal, is imaginary in that it cannot be directly immediately personally experienced *A* "the universe" which is a vague unfocused idea - and no more than an idea
Good attempt, but it didn't really throw any more light on what time actually is. At he very least, he should have explained time is inextricably linked to motion.
Or succinctly, time in its explicit form, is matter's placeholder. Matter is inherently in motion and time and matter co-exist. No matter, no time, no time, no matter.
why did they have to make the background so tasteless? just a white room or a green screen with post-production images (PBS Space time style) would have been much better than this outdated school director's office
"What is the meaning of Time?" Life is time and time is life. We need it more than food or water but waste it just as readily. We buy it from others to save our own through employment or servitude. Just now, You gave me some of your precious time to read this just as I used my time to write this.
Before Einstein worked out the equations General Relativity he thought about them....we don't place enough emphasis on sitting around and thinking about things.
I believe you can come to scientific discoveries simply by thinking. Using logic and reason will get you much more if used correctly than hundreds of thousands of experiments. This is the ways of the old. People don't discover things in this way anymore. Well not all people.
Thank you. Decent lecture. What was not addressed was the connection between time and consciousness. When can only perceive things within a stream. Your lecture for example. If we had a more expensive consciousness and a more efficient language we could perceive all of your lecture in a shorter time. So time and consciousness are directly connected. Eternalism is not feasible given our current state of consciousness.
That's like saying a spatial dimension is that which prevents everything occuring at the same point. That's not saying what it is, just noting a feature of it.
Its not. It doesn't prevent anything. To prevent, something has to exist. Time is not something that exists, but is rather a perception. Like you perceive a video, although only still images exist. Without something able to perceive, a video does not exist. Only still images do. Same with time, it is a perception you get from observing the rate of change in the universe. So I say again, time does not prevent anything.
To my understanding, "Time" is the change of energy that initiates from the smallest of all things like atom, qwark. There is no such thing as time separately. We use the term "Time" as our human language to understand energy and movement. To give one eg. You might have seen the tickling of your wall clock stops working when the battery is dead.
A great thought experiment might be, what we would understand about time, if the speed of light was closer to everyday speeds (say 200 mph). Would you be able to meet someone at a given time, if they drove faster than you? Would we think of time as constant and reliable? How would our intuitions work?
Nothing with mass can travel at the speed of light because it takes an Infinite amount of energy to do so, yet things without mass, like a photon must travel at the speed of light.
Imagine a mom of a 13 almost 14yr old coming home to her child watching this And the mom not understanding English. That's what will happen to me when she arrives
Time is something that cannot be regained by anyone whether he is rich or poor. But many of us don’t value it. At Least try to spend it worthfully going forward by knowing the meaning of it from this video.
I REMEMBER THE FIRST TIME I SAW HIM OUT JOE ROGAN I THOUGHT HE WAS A COMEDIAN AT FIRST THE GUYS JUST LOOKS LIKE HE HAS A GREAT SENSE OF HUMOR YOU KNOW A GUY WITH A FUNNY FACE
Late comment here, but I think what you observe here is that he is actually constantly thinking about what he's saying and he smiles about each and every little metaphor he's using. He could mindlessly recite off a teleprompter but he's really enthusiastic about the content. All in all I'm trying to say: this is a feature, not a bug. :-)
Built into the idea that a clock is something repeating and predictable that measures time, is the prior assumption that there is some substance or dimension there to be measured. But there is no evidence of that. There is no recognized quantum of time and we have no physical samples of time. And while we can all draw a line and label it with events, a drawn line does not a physical dimension measure, create or prove. With clocks, all that is there is a repeating, countable event that is then placed into ratio with some other event that may or may not also be repeating. That's it. That is all that can be said to exist based solely on the presence of a clock. The existence of something called time that is being measured is an over extension of a mathematical construct which is used to describe sequence and duration. Time is not a physical entity making possible or giving rise to sequence and duration. Rather, it is the reality of change itself, of events, interactions of matter, energy and consciousness that gives rise to the construct of time. There is no stuff or substance or location or wave or particle that a clock measures and of which we can obtain a physical specimen. There is not even the implication of existence through causal sequence. There exists only events being counted and compared. Again, there is no defined, testable quantum of time, no known sample of time and no demonstrable physical place or dimension, linear or non. This assumption that time has independent existence is what makes relativity seem so counter intuitive. We observe that otherwise identical clocks tick or oscillate at different rates under different conditions of velocity, and then draw an unnecessary conclusion that time itself has dilated - when there is no "time itself". There are just two physical processes, two clocks, behaving differently at different levels of energy. This applies, for instance, in the case of twins, one of whom lives accelerated in orbit for a significant number of orbits. Differences in elapsed metabolic changes neither establish nor require the existence of two different "rates of time". The assumption of time as a physical reality also gives rise to meaningless measurements, notably the age of the universe. Saying a big bang happened 13.6 billion years or so ago implies the existence not only of time outside of and containing the universe, but also of a "deus ex machina" clock that exists outside of the universe and can be counted and compared to what happens inside the universe. These thoughts derive from the task of teaching primary age children how to count time, which is different from teaching them how to tell time. Counting time is not the same as reading a clock and knowing to get ready for lunch. The crux of the problem when teaching a child to count time is that you literally cannot give a child a bit, a pinch or a spoonful of time. There just isn't any such thing and so there is no measurement being made. All you can do, all any one can do, is count and compare events and then, and this is key, look for patterns.
^^^^ This !!!! Thumbs up! But I can't help but wonder about rotating electrons and quarks that move faster than the speed of light. ...what is time to them?
You are right that there is no such thing as time. What you should say is that time is not empirical. If time were something that was "demonstrable" (able to be "measured") then what apparatus or "instrument" could detect it? Certainly not a clock. A clock does not measure time it imposes time. Therefore whatever experiments use clocks to draw conclusions about time are fundamentally flawed. They are delusions. Why? Because of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. Put simply, if we could observe or "demonstrate" or detect time then we could interfere with it. The experiment with the plane that purports to demonstrate Einstein's time dilation has nothing to do with time. Clocks can tell us nothing of time. But they tell us something about Simultaneity- the idea that two things occurring in different places occur at the same "moment". Obviously when it is morning in Japan it is dusk in California. What does it mean that they occur at the same "moment" in time?
Bro.... or sis... Let me help you. Time is simply perception. Its an observation of change, not a medium. a clock is only what you make it. Its simply a measuring tool. In a physical clock, all u are measuring is the amount of rotations gears make. Its not like it taps into some mystical medium to tell us where we are currently in the state of the universe.
Time is an abstract law called "indefinite procedure". It is consecutive with a law called "continuance". Continuance is like the flame that goes upward but goes nowhere. It is what we call the "present" in time. The future is like the light that stays ahead of the flame.
What I am deriving so far from this lecture - at a 16th-minute mark - are two observations: 1. My physical life is but a "movie" which I am forced to experience one frame at a time. 2. There is no present really. There are only the past and the future. The present does not last long enough to even consider seriously and yet that is when all reality takes place. 🤔
Hello Lorne. Thank you so much for your kind feedback! We pride ourselves on our professors and are very glad you´re enjoying our offerings. Thanks for being a fan!
Love this format. No audience. No overuse of special effects. No host trying to be overly entertaining and funny like some of today's documentaries.
total agreement here, no clowns, knowledge counts instead :)
There is an episode of Startalk with Neil Degrasse Tyson of which 4 times him and his host were joking about a certain topic and the poor professor who was being interviewed just stood there like a statue trying to avoid the “joke”. Lol!
Well said. It's like yo yo yo whattup science bitches? Lemme give a shout out to my physics posse.
@Science Revolution what the hell are you talking about?
Love this comment. Helpful. Constructive. Non-repetitive. Straight to the point, allows the creator to know we wanna see it
Prof. Carroll has a genius for clear teaching. I can’t think of anyone else who explains complexity so smoothly and effectively.
Yesterday is but a dream; tomorrow is but a vision,
But today, well lived,
Makes every yesterday a dream of happiness,
And every tomorrow a vision of hope.
That's the turtle from Kung Fu Panda right?
great thinking ....🙏🙏🙏
A dream!!😢
After watching the lecture, I began to read comments and was so surprised that the large majority of commentators had a great understanding of the subject discussed and made more easy for me to get my concepts more clearer than ever.....keep on spreading the light of knowledge with a logical approach....my heartfelt thanks to the entire team who made this happened...
Thanks, like a great song"lotsa info packed into brief time-space; me thinks you may be an acolyte of henry jacobowitz and john bonham😄
Verify every bit of information you conceive
TIME IS THE CAUSE OF GRAVITY ??
Jean Pier Garnier Malet joya 💎 found it! l am sure you enjoy it ! greetings from Santiago Chile 🇨🇱
@@kn9ioutom i hold to Presentism.
I do not believe in time existing as a separate thing from matter, and would say we base time on sequences of change or movements relative to change in another object.
Like we base a day on the movement of the sun around the earth. Then we divide that up into 24 parts. Then divide that into smaller parts. Then we set hour glasses to measure it. Then watches that count in a similar manner.
But what is that watch originally based on? The movement of the sun and we coordinate that to the movement of the hands or numbers on a watch.
But what you do not see is people just setting the watch to a thing called time. Time is not some reference point in of itself.
Just like if you asked how tall I am, and I said " 6". "6 what?" " Well I am 6 tall."
Time is nothing that can be traveled. You cannot travel to the past. We live in the now. And basically there is matter and the movement and arrangement of it in its current state to the next. And we base time on that
Truly one of the best science communicator out there.
Be Honest #Now !!!
@@aussieragdoll_tnls932 746 for me because of 17:11 error. And that's just one thing.
Communicators
@@ophiolatreia93 (^.^)
This guy went one place above Brian Cox in my top 5
String theory may be true, but maybe knot.
William Scott not*
String Theory is work in progress. Also, General Relativity it's NOT a complete theory, because it does not explain new factors no seem 100+ years ago.
do you have a particle collider the size of M31? No? No SUSY for you.
😂😂😂
William Scott funny
What do we want?
Time travel!
When do we want it?
Irrelevant!
Time travel isn't possible. Time is the rate of change in Energy. The sun is our energy, and "time" moves forward as the energy is released. :)
Look at pictures of a Nuclear mushroom cloud... That's Time Travel! The Stem of the cloud is where time moved ahead rapidly......
Amy, you made a few nerds smile, and some other nerds didn't get it.
@@tigerstudios not correct as you suggest the rate of change in energy is constant. and also suggest that every sun creates its own time because all suns release energy. Time slows when i move fast through space, or go further away from a gravitation pull of the planet. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ENERGY RELEASED from the sun - we already know time is related to SPACE
@@reddevilsunited7780 Time slows in an accelerated frame or gravitational field (equivalent). So you have it backward. But that doesn't challenge the point you were ultimately making.
Michael R
You are so wrong, where did you learn that?
I recall a childhood riddle: What's always approaching but never arrives? Tomorrow.
At the beginning of the COVID pandemic I had this eerie feeling that time had slowed down, yet I felt like I was aging more rapidly. I'm not sure how to reconcile those perceived contradictions.
There’s an old saying to describe this, and often passed on to new mothers.. “the days are long, but the years are short”
If your time were to slow down, such that you lived a year in every day, you would be an old person in a few months. No contradictions.
Prison time creates the same two perceptions.
Okay!!!😢😮😅😊😂❤🎉
Gosh. Sean Carroll you are such a smart man. You say things in what seem like to be the best possible ways to explain them. Such a great communicator. Intelligence is less valuable without good communication. Good communication is less valuable without good intelligence. You sir are what happens what you have both. TY for your hard work.
But sean must not stop growing in his philosophy because what one sees is what one sees.
Brian Freeman I don’t think u learned anything
Merd
Carroll is awesome. He is able to distill scientific concepts to a level understandable by a common person. I saw him on Joe Rogan. The way he was able to explain heavy concepts...unbelievable.
Absolutely, right from the beginning. The subject or body of knowledge is NOT absolute, the way we understand totally changes the knowledge. Is that another accepted subject of study in philosophy?
and Rogan says DeGrasse is a much better explainer
Except for that one time where he used the stupid term "proper time", and confused the kid in the video explaining relativity to a child, a teen, a student and a professor.
@@TheShootist Yes, Neil is cool, too. But he needs to be careful. The #metoo stuff is for real. Word on the street is that he's putting moves on women in his circle. Wrong. Don't try to get p***y from your employees. That's immoral and unethical.
@@room111photography5 better to act a man than a mouse.
“Time is the moving image of eternity.”
--Plato
this man knows nothing of time time was invented bye man to make sense of what we do and understand if u go to work at 6.am an finish at 3pm the is how long we are at work the sun rises in the east and sets in the west how long does it take to move from east to west we use a clock mostly are 24 hrs long befor we ad clock we started at sunrise and finished at say midday thats the sun move south at say 12 hrs no such thing as space and time dont exist in nature lol he gets payed for this rubbish
@@roybradshaw4252 time does exist everywhere tho lol. How are you going to say it doesn't exist naturally? Why do animals get older then? Why do things change? This is time in motion. The way we label time however is not natural and really only pertains to humans. We put this label on however so that we are able to better understand the process of time and what it is, so when people are explaining time they are talking about the mechanics of time not the way we describe it, but the way it describes itself.
@@TheForneveralone it is a process that all living things go through its not time its a process witch applies to all things according to how old they are and time was invented bye humans to understand of periods of movement of natural things in the universeif u over work u get tired and hill so you take periods of to rest
@@roybradshaw4252Then what about past present and future bro
past as gone presant is right now and the future as yet to come so time as nothing to do with it u cant say it 7pm if its really 6pm a time that humans have agreed with not found in nature@@shangavik4128
What an incredible documentary! I enjoyed it so much I’m going to watch it again yesterday.
What a great comment I will also read it again yesterday
I just read this comment tomorrow.
JR,,,,,,,,,,YOU DON'T HAVE A CLUE ABOUT WHAT YOU'VE SEEN HERE !
😭🤣😭🤣😭
There are 4 part series by Brian Greene - watch that first. Have to understand space first in order to understand time. th-cam.com/video/dEWupAFtXGU/w-d-xo.html
i admire Sean's ability to speak so simple and clear about most fundamental and complex things.
I admire your ability to decipher his ramblings.
No dream!!!
Very nice presentation about the philosophical aspects of time. I am currently reading Einstein's book: "Über die spezielle und allgemeine Relativitätstheorie" which is for me as a German a very precious book because Einstein's carefully chosen words about time and space are of course a German that does not exist anymore. It's unbelievable how precisely Einstein can describe his thought experiments only by words with very few sketches. This approach is totally different to the visual world of today. Professor Caroll has the same talent to illustrate very abstract but "real" aspects of life only by his very well chosen English words and statements that only a native speaker can achieve. But I am very grateful as after war generationperson who raised up in an English affine environment that listening to him is like as if he spoke in German to me. Danke!
@Matthew Philip he means everything that occupies space must travel through space time. If time didn’t exist nothing could move or decay, likewise time is a real construct that flows all particles through it
Time is like the measuring of changes between distance and events spawning from a sigularity; and consciousness is the recording of the disorder as it flows. Entropy must continue so the record is stored in created
consciousness (example :a cell carrying out a function. The cell each time coded to make less mistakes than the last. Like learning to not destroy itself after continual repeated failures) by dark energy and the information is then evolved and replicated
so that the samething does not infinity repeat. My perspective on the reality of the universe for everyone is different and subjective to that organism\being ,for an example. Scientist states that viruses, bacterias or cells are examples of living organisms that even live in our bodies and they carry out functions. Human beings also carry out functions; but we look at cells and viruses as a lesser life form of life. If there are advance
or higher forms of life, they can also measure us human beings and state also that we are a lower form of life just as human beings may observe an ant as a lower form of life. However, because of this an ant may not be important to us, but if you try to squash an insect it will try to flee and preserve it's life thus means it's life must mean something to itself; but not to us. Even blood cells defend themselves when under a threat just as we do, but is the life of one blood cell important to us? Is the life of a human being urgent to a tree which is also a living organism. Human beings are the main cost for the destruction of trees whichin they've been here before we we're in existence. So are trees a higher life form than us? A more advance and higher life form may look at a tree and say this tree is much more important than a human being because it sustains life on this planet but human beings destroy the planet with human helping technology (depending on their perspective). All of this said humans may not be as prominent as we think If we remember the laws of physics breaks down on a quantum level. There are lengths like the plank length that are so small that it can be compared to the scale of the universe. So doesn't this mean that being that small you are in a universe of its own , within another observable universe but only observable by our knowledge by humans. If this is so then there must be other places the laws of physics break down also. If it does for the extremely small why not for the extremely big? Who is big and small anyways? We are small to our planet but our planet is small to our sun. This can go on and on. We are the size of a universe to an atom in our body ,thus means also we are big. However, this happens to everything everywhere. If there is space that has particles, those particles may be within an atom, trillions of atoms are in a cell (more than stars in our solar system) whichin cells are IN our blood ( 37 trillion cells). Our blood in our organs and muscles which is within our bodies. Our bodies may be within a house which is within a constituency, which is within a town, which is within a city/state/island which is within a country which is in a continent which is within a planet, which is within a solar system, within a galaxy, within A super cluster, which is within Galactic walls which is within the Cosmic web . "Everything is 'WITHIN' " which The Cosmic web itself is 'within' The Universe WHICH is 'within' a bubble or phenomenon that we cannot see. "Everything is within" something. Hold just a minute here though! We cannot see someone waving at us from an airplane. We only see the construct of the landscape, not the entities within them. Or an ant from the top of a sky scrapper, neither can we see blood cells attacking viruses n vice versa. Which is evidence just because we cannot see oxygen or detect an atom WITHIN does not mean its not there. The human eye cannot see U V rays or even oxygen and we are surrounded by it. So this means the Laws of physics as we KNOW it only applies to our subjective and objective reality. If u step back and look at the universe . We will only see the Cosmic Web of everything. Which seems to be all touching and connecting. Not until we zoom In does things seem to seperate. Just like a cell that make up our skin. Or a dog standing on an island. From far we only see the landscape , but as we zoom in other entities become observable. Inturn becoming a noticeable part of your reality. Things like Dark matter plays not with Morden physics and we cannot see it but it must exist because of the forces that pulls galaxies together and dark energy pushing entropy without the universe collapsing. However back to the Cosmic web. From a far everything is connected, but if u go close or zoom more is revealed within. The universe itself may be 'within' a muti-verse , another unverse, a blackhole, a quantum computer simulation or even apart of another living organism body that seems infinity large. But as we are universal size to an atom the universe can be a drop in the ocean or space to a greater being which most earthly beings cannot fathom or even believe because it is beyond preposterous. Even if your human eyes can go in front of it is to large or small to amke out. You cant see a mountain top from the exact bottom. It is to high in the clouds. Thus u cannot see the universe from one end to the other. The universe legs may be to long (just a joke ) .Somewhat though these are very much what it seems for the great reality. As laws of physics break down at quantum levels, entanglments, singularities and so on. There are dimensions that we cannot see and cannot detect things like :(earthly terms, but they seem to have more meanings) Super positions, past , future, the unconscious, concious thought, different colors of light , pure and dark energy etc. Please excuse my long reply , but this is just a brief explanation of not an objective or subjective reality. Which is infallible, but of the asubjective existence which seems verisimilitude.
Okay!
Yeah I have to turn in a project in two hours; lets watch this video and hopefully gain some insight into my procrastination.
How'd you do bro? -truly interested😊
My motto is "procrastinate now",
Hope that project went well g 😂
You need a separate / different approach ~ metaphysics ... goes far outside the 5 senses, 3D "reality" & any rational kind of perspective ... possibly Heisenberg, Shrödinger & Pauli .. as broadminded physicists, could contribute. Refer to outlook of Dr Joe Dispenza, Neville Goddard, Dr Murphy, José Silva ... that address mind consciousness-- vast expansion of possible outcomes, leaning on just how energy operates ... wave or particle ? ... etc.
Woyy!!😢
Possibly the most convoluted explanatorn of any topic I have ever heard in my entire life.
I didn't have any problem understanding it. Check your IQ.
Dr. Carroll has that rare Professor Carl Sagan ability. The gift to know what he is talking about combined with the ability to dumb it down for the layman to understand. Many professors are genius academics inn their given field of expertise, but few possess the unique ability to share this knowledge with their audience without having a bunch of eyes glazing over.
Insidious Vidz That is true, but professors can learn. Oppenheimer was a lousy teacher at first, but ended up one of the best.
One!
Here is what puzzles me about present time and how Time “flows”.
What is so special that I’m sensing present time right now? Is it like I’m alive and flowing on a Big Bang wave that is heading into the future with everybody else around me riding on it and experiencing?
But what about before I was even born?; “present time” was still there and existed for everyone else prior. A person from the 1970s for example was in the “present time” the same way as I am now writing this. It makes me want to think that time does not “flow” but everything that will happen is already written and the people who are alive right now are just experiencing it which in turn is relative to each person.
Are we riding in the Big Bang wave of time? I’m not sure about that since time is distorted with gravitational forces everywhere in the universe and where there’s a lot of gravitational force time can distort. What about planets or objects that are really close to a black hole of which distorts the fabric of spacetime? Probably for them, we are in the year 5061 while for us, we’re still in the year 2020.
The notion of time as well as consciousness is very confusing and hard to grasp from many point of views.
We all are given a short time to find something or someone. Some find it right away while others never find that something or someone but we all have a chance.
@ *Ted Bates*
The chance being the quantum mechanical probability of the shrodinger’s cat.
My head hurts 🤕
Bow
One of the great things about most of The Great Courses (TGC) lectures that I have seen so far, like this one, is that professors, like Dr. Sean Caroll here, bind all the concepts involved together in great talks, you get to see the whole picture, the tree and the forest. When I was in college, we did the calculations, I took tests, exams, finals, but never really had the chance to see things like this, in a holistic way. And TGC do all this in all its courses consistently. I would say that all universities should have this for people to be able to follow up, and to be more connected! Not to mention that we can always revisit these lectures over and over again, for example in search of inspiration, to research any particular topic. They help us to go from the tree to the forest back and forth all the time consistently!
“The universe is both each frame of the movie and all the series of the frames together.”
When math becomes philosophy. Absolutely beautiful.
Eternalism - Where you know that all of your most embarrassing events in life are preserved forever.
This makes me feel so uncomfy right now :I I already have a hard time dealing with all the embarassing moments through out my life XD
and still I love the idea of Eternalism somehow...
Fml. 😂🤦♂️
Oh dear!
Well, in that case you were also always going to do those emparrassing things anyway, so nobody can actually blame you for it
@@pinesyeet Trrrrue.
Dr. Carroll very correctly and nicely explain the time. I am grateful of him for such a wonderful presentation
And it’s enlightening to see how Sean has actually had a long time to develop, articulate, and get familiar with these ideas and his style of communicating. Interesting and maybe obvious to realize that ‘Biggest Ideas in the Universe’ didn’t completely fall out of thin air
Existence is nothing other than a flipbook.
Already drawn from beginning to the end. It is very simple.
Better than a flipbook, think of it as a sculpture, where events unravel from the bottom of the sculpture all the way to the top. Yet the sculpture is static.
Our consciousness arises when particle X in our brain, at one slice of the sculpture, appear at point A, and in the next slice of sculpture, appears at point B.
This gives rise to our consciousness and to the illusion that there is a past, present and a future unfolding.
Very interesting lecture. No doubt, professor Sean Carroll is not only very knowledgeable but also talented to explain complicated things to others in a very simple and understandable way. I am very pleased people can learn from such events and hope they (lectures) will grow over time.
Too bad he promotes gay propaganda. Didn't do it in this vid though
@@Gian-niwhat
No
@@Gian-ni Do gays bother you? Too bad if you think you have a right to tell people how they should live.
Thank you Sean. Some people who think about such things go nuts like me. It's really nice to hear someone talk on these things who has an excellent mind and a noble character.
Hahaha
He's got a noble character?
Based on what? Your intuition? Your long friendship? What an odd damn thing to say.
How in the hell can you know anything about his character, is he yor friend?
must be the gold ring….
@ Ted Bates. Gee wiz Ted, you were practically shot without a trial for thanking someone and adding a personal compliment born out of gratitude and how YOU perceived the man's character based on his presentation! It's obvious you ought to be flogged immediately for LEAPING to such conclusions! 😶 I thought I'd chose the only emoji I've ever seen that portrays NO emotions. Hope I'm not flogged along side the likes of you Ted! 🤣🤣🤣 I hope that emoji was the appropriate one that expresses my view on the way you were fired upon. Good on you Ted for saying what you did and I say that because I appreciate your commending the presenter and for your humility in saying you can go nuts sometimes making sense of this sometimes very puzzling subject. That was a bit long toothed BUT there you have it. Over a year has gone by since your comment but if you look to your left and down at about a 30% angle you might be able to see me waving to you on that space/time graph 😁! Cya!
Saw genyen
Salamat po sa napakagandang explaination kahit mayroon akong konting hindi naiintindihan ay pakiramdam ko ay nasusundan ko ang iyong paliwanag kasi nararamdaman ko na tama ang iniisip ko sa mga sinasabi mo, halimbawa: Kapag iniisip mo na hindi ka masasakop ng oras, ang oras ay lilipas. At ikaw ay iyon padin, hindi maapektuhan ang iyong imahinasyon.
Ito pa ang isang halimbawang:
Makakalula mo ng future pero hindi ang ngayon, makakalkula mo ang future sa pag kalkula sa nakaraan.
Pero naka depende ang ibang sagot ibang pamamaraan ng pag kalkula
I've thought about some of the issues that Dr. Sean Carroll discusses in this video. I'm nearly 80 years of age, during which time I've thought a great deal about them. Dr. Carroll's assertion that we experience the present moment as "real" is not the way I experience the present time. I've come to believe that our experiences are conditioned by how we are constructed by reality; namely, the way our brains function to construct the present time. I agree with Kant and Schopenhauer et al., insofar as the world we experience is incontrovertibly due to our brains experiencing space, time, and causality a priori. That is, space, time and causality are a single structure upon which we drape our experiences, both "inner" and "outer" experiences. As a result of my own thinking about these matters for many decades, I experience the present as both a real and an imagined reality simultaneously. Thus, I don't experience the present as merely "real", but rather as miraculous. We can come to no definite conclusion about the constitution of the self, nor can we about the constitution of space-time, but we can experience the miraculous continuously, and that is not inconvenient for me.
I can prove the real present moment, how can you prove there's an imaginary moment?
Tandé
Here's my take on it-
We know that everything in the universe moves from low to high entropy(that's just how it works). Time is just the measure of the rate at which this happens and since we are all subject to it, we accept it as time. This predicts that time may have never existed before the bigbang because there probably was nothing to move from low to high entropy.
except that one infinitely dense speck, no?
@andrew gallovich i think that's the entire debate, whether space/time is primal or not. I see both sides, they both make good points but theyre also both severely lacking in evidence. Its mostly just philosophy anyways
Space matter and energy exist. Time does not. Time is only a perception. It is a measurement we take of the energy and matter in space. Very simple.
@@stevenash9282
Infinite Density = Absence of Matter
Si!!!
Fascinating. I always considered the question of what is time to be the greatest of all mysteries. On the one hand, time, in its most superficial sense, is nothing but the measure of change. The minute hand of a clock is at 12, then is at 3. A billiard ball that was a foot away from the left corner pocket is now in the pocket. I was young yesterday; I am old and gray today. On the other hand, there can be no change -- the clock hand cannot move, the billiard ball cannot roll and my appearance cannot alter, unless there is time. Nothing can "happen" outside of time. So then, is time emergent as the manifestation of relationship dynamics among things, or is it fundamental and a priori? I tend to think the latter. Therein lies the profundity of the mystery that present science cannot answer.
Fred Alan Wolf has an answer. See clip on TH-cam: "Is time travel possible?"
i don't think time is a priori . imagine a place where is no phenomenon, no movement , no chemical changes , no matter , just space and time . is there time in such situation ? there is no change to measure so there is no time. time is present because there is change and time is measure of that change ,
I like the thought you put into this. I read what you wrote and thought myself what if we were one dimensional creatures within the time field. Space has 3 dimensions that we can experience, why couldnt time also have 3 dimensions that arent apparent to us. A one space dimensional being would see items appear and disappear within their point of space and it would be normal, just like we see the future appear and the past disappear as normal. Just a thought I had when I read your comment.
@designsbyphilip510 🧐🧐🧐
What do you mean by see your future appear and see your past disappear?
Unless you live in a different reality than me, I only ever see the current moment and "past" and "future" are just relational concepts to refer nonexistent moments
Professor, you are a blessing to students like me, who are constantly learning!
You cannot go back at same place since that place is not same as a moment ago. Time and space, mater change cont. but not at same speed.
When we come back at "same" place since changes are small , we think that we are at same place.
0:15 me, age 10, about to tell my mom I threw up in the middle of the night
OML same 😂😂😂
🤣🤣🤣
M spesyal
*" 'Time', he said, 'is what keeps everything from happening at once' ."*
*Ray Cummings: The Girl in the Golden Atom, 1922*
golden86 “You cannot enter the same river twice, because it is not the same river or the man.” Heraclitus.
Great quote about time. Still, time and dimensiions are physical allusions created by our brain. A more realistic model of the world is to consider it from the perspective of patterns of energy. The solar system, for example, is a stable space-time pattern of energy. Consider it, for example, as a single material object., like an atom or a clock. But time is not an independent entity, it does not exist without spatial movement (like Sean moving his hands). What we misinterpret as "real" time, e.g. the passage of time, depends on our memory - it is a psychological process. We compare our "present" with our memories automatically, and realize they are not the same. Our brain generates the concept of time to account for the psychological discrepancy - it is generated by our brain to explain why we are not now where were a few seconds ago.
@@thomassoliton1482 the last bit of your comment is rather poignant.
Mindstorms44 Firesign Theater: "How can you be in two places at once, when you're not anywhere at all?"
golden86 the presupposes the natural phenomenology of time.
I'm sure I read somewhere once that time is effectively another manifestation of the force of gravity. Moving forward in time is traveling along the curvature of space-time effectively propelled by that same force. The constant which governs the predictable speed at which we do that is the same constant which governs the speed of light - meaning if you were to simulate our universe and only change that one constant, you would also change the speed of time. Does that ring any bells for anyone else?
Think about what it would mean for "moving forward in time" to just be shorthand for "traveling along the gravitationally induced curvature of spacetime". That would insinuate that time, itself, is actually created in discreet quantities by gravitational fields, and the more gravity there is, the more time there is. I.E. you get close to a singularity, you have to literally travel through more time to get anywhere. While it makes sense and seems to track with (at least my own understanding of how GR works), I think there is something fundamentally broken about that causal relationship. IMO, gravity does not cause time or spacetime curvature, it's the other way around - Time causes the curvature of space, which we call "gravity". I know it sounds like the same thing, but I think the distinction is important. I personally think Time is literally the only fundamental force in the universe, and all others are emergent phenomena. Anybody else wanna throw in an opinion/argument here?
Yes! Time is gravity made physical!
Light waves radiate out spherically forming a potential Arrow of time or time line in every direction. The wave front in the form of the spherical surface forms the uncertain of which potential time line will become part of reality.
In this theory time is an emergent property arising out of an interaction between the light photons of the EM fields and the electron sphere that surrounds the atomic nucleus.
The electrons of an atom are standing waves in time. When a light wave interacts with an electron, it forms particle characteristics in the form of a photon electron coupling or dipole moment. At that moment in time and space are three dimensional world changes slightly with photon potential energy transforms into the kinetic Eₖ=½mv² energy of matter, in the form of electrons. We experience this as an uncertainty probabilistic future continuously coming into existence moment by moment.
I believe that there is no now, only past and future. Time is always in flux, never stagnant. You lived in the past, yet every millisecond of time is always in the future. You can't exist in the present as that concept does not exist; only what transpired or is taking place now. Absolutely nothing stagnates because everything around it will not allow it to do so. In essence: To speak of a NOW is to accept that time can remain stagnant for any measures of time; this is not possible. Your Now is quite literally the FUTURE.
No there is only the now. You are appending your concept of past and future onto it. If there were a past then complete universes would have to flow from every atom out 'behind' us. Like squeezing toothpaste from a tube, imagine that the first cross section of the toothpaste is the now universe with all its mass and energy, now squeeze the tube and you have a continuum of every instant of our universe with the past following the now - but look how much mass and energy you need - the toothpaste is all stuck together but how could that happen in reality?
@@chickenduckquack i am not a fan of the toothpaste analogy
I believe the Exact opposite lol
Sean Carroll is a freaking genius. He has a brilliant mind: the ability to COMMUNICATE this eloquently about a subject matter this complex is a sign of deep, deep intelligence. Verbal IQ is just as important as Mathematical IQ, alas without philosophy there is no physics. This is why, for centuries the field of physics was called "Natural Philosophy," and also why so many of histories most brilliant minds were philosophical inclined - Plato, Socrates, Aristole, Descartes, Leibniz, Newton, EINSTEIN, Goethe, Wittgenstein, Godel, Soyinka, Chomsky etc.
Bravo Sean Carroll. I look forward to watching more of your lectures. Astounding video! I learned a lot.
question about "presentism": what is the duration of the "current moment" - does it have a finite duration, or is it a point source, so to speak? either view seems to lead to philosophical and physical contradictions and paradoxes.
I've been thinking a bit about this, and I think the answer, atleast how we experience it, is that it's floating. When you think about it, an absolute current moment is the same as the absolute middle point of a wheel. It exists, but it's not possible to get to it with anything other than math. A rotating wheel will have a point in the middle of it with 0 width, depth and height that everything else rotates around. As an example of the current moment, try putting on a song and try to distiguish certain points as moments. It won't work, the moment will be what you just heard over a very small timeframe that isn't 0.
@@pinesyeet Thank you for your reply. If I understand what you are expressing, we need to consider the interaction of two different things, namely what the physical reality of time is, AND how our brain perceives time. Presumably the underlying physical reality of time could theoretically be measured accurately with the proper instrumentation, but our brain may distort the perception of that reality to a lesser or greater degree. To see this more clearly, we can use the well-studied model of how the brain extensively processes a real image (and also the amount of time it takes the brain to do so, according to "The Human Brain Book, "it takes about half a second for us to see an object consciously").
@@barryzeeberg3672 Yes I think you're on the right track. Without saying for certain, I can imagine that if our brains suddenly worked twice as fast, time would seem to slow down around us while we felt normal (if that makes sense). In this case, a moment for this double speed person measured by a normal speed person would be half as long. This leads me to believe, again without certainty, that time and moments only has its size because of how we perceive it. If we went outside our universe and looked at it while we turned time faster and faster towards infinitely fast, it would seem like every moment that happens goes towards being 1. What we know from experience is that with the time constant, this isn't exactly true, as we have moments happening after each other. What you can say then by looking at our universe is "ok, then moments are just like a stack of paper on top of each other", but that isn't practically true either since we don't experience going from a still-frame to the next, but rather have fading back-end of the moment that becomes the past and gaining front-end of the moment that becomes the present. This leads me to believe that moments are a fluid thing, atleast for all intents and purposes how we perceive it.
Fantastic lecture. His explanations are especially effective for those of us without any visual component to our memories/thoughts, who sometimes struggle the moment someone says "just picture/imagine/visualize such and such"
Don't even get me started on "picture X and then rotate it in y manner"
I don't know how Sean even sleeps at night. His brain never stops
Brain never stops ... for everyone .. just consciousness-- for a short time daily. Frequencies of the mind waves changes accordingly... find a way of dropping yr frequency (on purpose) & gain direct access to the riches & potential of yr own genius.
I now know that as much as science interests and amazes me especially astrophysics...astronomy...I will never fully grasp it, if I still mostly struggle even listening to Sean...still enjoyable..thanks for trying Sean Carrol...does anyone know anything that someone, who struggles like myself, could watch and maybe find easier to understand.
The man is wonderful to listen to.
I'm glad I found the time to watch this.
Wow! This is the best illustration of space time that I've ever heard. Most importantly I can actually follow and understand what he said! 🤩❤
He reminds me of an algebra instructor students lined up early to get for the semester. Even I got through the class with a good grade. However, I can't remember much, if any, of what I "learned".
Si
When does the future begin? When does the past stop? We are always at the same time, in the past, in the now and in the future...
If I did understand presentism right, then "now" is when you "freeze" all movement in the entire universe, and then you call this moment "now". When there is some change or in this exemplification, when you "unfreeze" the universe and "freeze" it again (after something has moved) you get the new "now" and the moment before is just a memory.
Contrary to the theory of eternalism, in which the past and future exist simultaneously but at another place of time because you see time as a dimension.
But in both cases, you will never experience the past or the future, because the future is just a prediction or in the case of eternalism, something that happens at another place in time and the past is either just a memory or sth that happens at another place in time as you are.
Therefore, the past doesn't stop because the past always was or is at another place in time and the future will never begin because it will ever be the prediction or another place of time.
We are at the same time neither in the future nor in the past. We are always in the now.
I have a similar question about existence and non-existence.
This was a truly great lecture, which certainly opened my eyes to a few aspects about time which I was wrong about.
The only thing is that time is always described as something that passes us by at a particular rate which depends on where you are and how fast you are travelling. The reality is that time itself does not 'flow'. Moreover, it is like space in that we travel through it. The difference is that we can travel through space in any direction but we can only travel through time in one direction, albeit at different speeds. What the human mind finds hard to accept is that time is not a fundamental unit of the universe but speed is. We see speed as a construct of distance divided by time but the truth is that time is a construct of distance divided by speed, where distance and speed are the fundamental units, not time.
So if you stand still then time doesn't elapse?
It is impossible to 'stand still' in this universe. You are always on the move relative to another observer, and that means on the move through time as well as space.
@@spyrosspyrou5809 Please help me understand if I got the point correctly. I am not a physicist nor very well educated on such issues. I am just trying to understand the basics... Time is not fundamental since it is created due to the expansion of the universe? Time was born with the big bang and for as long as the space created expands, we experience a linear progression of time towards a specific direction? So Is time a byproduct of space creation?
@@kdawgg83 impossible to stand still. Where could you find a place where you are standing still?
@@spyrosspyrou5809 Also, the element of entropy
Things move in one direction only.
In whatever direction a thing is moving,
it is but one among an infinite number of possible directions.
The direction in which a thing is moving can obviously change but
whatever the new direction it is always one direction.
For the universe to appear as though time were running backward
everything in the universe would have to have its direction reversed exactly.
That would take twice as much inertial energy as currently exists in the universe
(to say nothing of the difficulties involved in arranging for it to happen).
Time is the concept we use to simplify the vast complexities involved
in thinking about the movements of all things relative to each other.
Time is not a thing-in-itself (like most people imagine).
Time is a concept only.
The concept is so useful, convenient and so deeply embedded in human psychology that
most people simply cannot overcome their
culturally induced lifelong belief in its objectivity
to see the truth of the reality:
there are only things moving relatively.
I’ve been thinking, and I came to the conclusion that in fact the term “time” is confusing. We think about what “time” is, but in fact there is no time, only “time-flow”. Time is not a thing, but rather a process. I think helps understanding things by using this terminology, helps us asking the right questions. Space is the water, and time-flow is the flow of the water.
I don’t know if “process” is the best word to use to describe time for this theory
Mats Borgkvist says:
It only applies to those who have such a notion of what time is. For my part, I mean that Professor Sean Carroll has confused the word time with the word duration and aging. Because I have no problem with time, as it is 'up to me' to choose which times I want to travel in, because it is I who chooses the time form I want to be in, which everyone can do and has done since time immemorial by choosing which verb form we should add our verb to the event in our languages that indicates in what time we want to be in. It is thus easier to determine the time to travel to than to get to places. I have a hard time keeping up with the professor because I can go as fast and far as I like without any problems. The problem is that knowledge as a sect has kidnapped the word time from our human languages and given the word a completely different meaning than the original, the one who does things and according to our intellectual property can not make clocks, namely measure time and own it with a stolen word that we humans exclusively already own by tradition but Galileo and Newton and Einstein have managed to push away with their original meaning when they together committed the copyright infringement in Pisa in 1610 and the rest of us let it be accepted by church opponents who should have known better than that be seduced by a Protestant mob. This in respond to the professor Sean Carroll's statement:
”We move through space as we like, we can choose to go to some other location in space, we can’t choose to go to some other location in time, we inevitably move through time at the rate of one second per second. Time is relentless whereas space is sort of ’up to us’ how to move in it. That gives us a certain perspective on what the world is.”
To me, time is simply the change in the state of the universe.
Good question👌
Bearing in mind I am not a educated person, I am simply stating my opinion to add to the debate 🙈
Mr Einstein, Niels Bore, Richard feynman and others accept the theory of general relativity as a good (ish) model of how things work. Please look to them for an educated answer.
That said 😁
Imagine the pre-Big Bang cosmos is a 28 (arbitory number) dimensional construct, in which all points are the same point (therefore no size and infinite size). Something within the construct changed ( I have seen a suggestion the speed of light could have changed slightly), triggering entropic deconstruction, triggering the big bang and our universe came into existence. Puff and there was light as the gods might have said 😁
We now know that the universe after the Big Bang was not uniform, areas of more and less energy. Further, when we look at distant objects we can see there are variations in the speed of light that must be taken into account in our observations. This suggests (to me) that the fabric of our universe has ripples like water, but in energy density. A Galaxy, for example, has an effect (we call Gravity) that is Inversely proportional to its energy density (mass).
To go back to your question:
Say we had two spaceships parked next to each other and each of us had a super accurate clock (our way of defining the changing state of the universe at our location). Then you sped off at close to the speed of light and I stayed still for a period of one year relative to me. We know from experiment that our clocks would show a difference when you came back to my location and speed. The rate of change of the universe was slower for you at high speed. Inside your space ship everything would seem ‘normal’ but outside it the rate of change would be different relative to the local energy density. If it were possible for me to look through the window of your spaceship, while your are travelling at high speed, I would ‘observe’ the interior as being stationary. You would observe the universe changing at a dizzying rate.
I would agree sir.
I am wondering now what is even the (theoretical ) difference between moving through adjacent parallel universes ( like in the string multiverse) and moving through time. There is a clear direction but that could be the result of having always more worlds with more entropy to step into. A straight line is even not needed since the trajectory will always be logical. I admit that this idea is perhaps contradicted by the smooth, non discrete nature of time. And the question might come up if moving through space then, can also not be seen as a movement through adjacent parallel universes.
What an amazing documentary! Thank you very much Prof Caroll!
Consciousness makes the flip book activate into motion. It’s just multiple moments like pictures being put into motion.
I love the 'subtle' theme of time being hinted at by the conservative use of clock props
I took a picture of rain on a hand rail years ago. the Boka effect of soft focus in the close area, sharp focus in the fore ground and further forward it became more and more out of focus. I ultimately renamed the photo, "Time-line", because of how close to your past things are fading from your memories while in the present things are in sharp focus. The further forward you looked the more defocused and darker was the future.
very stimulating. It makes me think for a moment: we always consider time as a 3 way entity past present and future, what if it's not linear at all, and every little choice leads us in a different direction, like time is same as universe, continuosly expanding "sphere" and we're moving in the direction of the edge varying our path.
I often consider the movement of time is related to a “time field” which matters that have time sensitivity, such as consciousness, move through it according to the field guide direction. The speed the consciousness move through time depends on the contents of the matters. Similar to mass moving through space according to gravitational field. Of course this may only belong to science fiction. Even though we now consider space-time together, certain field could have effect only on part of the property of space-time.
Say what?! 😂😂😂
Ever wonder why the smartest ppl in the world ponder the same thing as 7 yr old children?
Baf Lange I wonder why every time I hear one ask a question 😂
Like why does my snot taste good?
weshard1 no seven year old have asked me this.
Jordan dynamite drop in Monty, that school really paying off
phaz jordan Would you?!
What is time? Time is something that can be used to describe changes. If everything is static then there is no need of time. So time is a state variable. It is man-made, mathematical, non-physical variable, to describe the state changes of the universe. It is independent from space. The existence of universe doesn’t need time, it is our human being that needs time to describe the changes of our universe.
BINGO
Only if TIME were man made, unless you're describing a concept of time that living beings have experienced and expressed over a period of Time 🕎🕛🤴🔱⚓🌊🐬🚀🌌
I agree with you 💯 % Thank you.
definitely man made,👍
Tendered for your consideration, time and change are opposite sides of the same coin, i.e., without change there is no time and without time there's no change. Put another way, if the universe never changed, how would an observer perceive time? And if there were no time, how would the universe change?
Maybe no one gets it.
Frequencies? Time for pathbaptist9510 to see his shrink.
Nope.
Time is a concept only,
a concept derived from thoughts about the relative movements of objects.
If every moment in time becomes the past, is there really a present? Same with the future. The future and past and present happen at the same time.
Eternalism.
The past never happened and the future is never coming. All we ever have is the present
Barton Gannon if the past never happened why can’t I get over my ex
@@blacjackdaniels200 Because SHE dumped YOU. If it had been the other way around, you wouldn't be pining for an, obviously, shitty relationship. IOW, it is the EGO that blinds.
@@Bartacolips I think there are only past and future and that present doesn't exists as the past is past, present is simultaneously becoming the past and (so present doesn't exists) and the coming future will become present at one or the other moment and simultaneously it will become the past as well(so future will become past when it becomes present) and for that moment the time that has not came yet is the future for you at that moment(so future exists) and the moments before that moment are your past.. (so past exists) ..I as well think that time is relative.
"It always is good to go back to what clocks do."
-Professor Sean Carroll 2018
reikimonster - sure. But time still exists even if every clock stopped working.
@@dsbiddle oh...kay?
Sean is my fav nowadays.
Lawrence Krauss is also cool.
Too bad Richard Feynman is gone.
I also like them, but I like Michio kaku better. Even if he has flaws at politics, I agree with Kaku on science and philosophy.
Feynman was a different Time.
Leonard Susskind and Juan Maldacena are my favorite current physicists. Sean is pretty cool too though.
Jim Al-Khalili is my favourite.
Some of his BBC documentaries are epic.
th-cam.com/video/KFS4oiVDeBI/w-d-xo.html
He's best on his own.
In his element (pun intended)
I skip the ones that incorporate 'the public'.
Can imagine a BBC committee coming up with that idea.
@@alexisjanetcook1477 #metoo . Athough he was never accused of rape. Calling every unpolite touch "rape" is degrading the pain and misery real rape victims have to go through.
A great lecture and very interesting, by a great professor who, in this lecture, combines philosophy with physics and with the real world. Well done Professor Sean Carroll.
I arrived early for the past and late for the future so now I’m in limbo waiting for the present.
I can't follow the other physics or science channels but professor Carroll is able to put himself in the shoes of people with mathematical talent. It's possible certain topics are so much only math that you can't explain them any simpler without getting very vague.
"There are no history books written about the future"
Well according to the block universe theory, there are. Just not in the present
Ty Stromberg read your Bible mate.
@@nahs636 I don't think fiction counts.
But there are books in history-past that have written about future things and some have gotten many things right concerning the present day.
@@knumbugs i know right, its so extraordinary and unbelievable to be real in the life routine you are having. Bible is the only book which speaks to our soul and gives marvelous light to all mankind.
@BlueBoy 1 Well, there are a thousand of great books that has been written, but also thousand of reasons that makes Bible the only book. If you have to read all the books in the world to be able to make that statement then try to read them all and find out.
Time is simple understanding that is a basic physical quantity created from quantum spin
Consider the possibility that both senses of time have physicality as *independent* though related phenomena! An eternal coordinate time (t), and a presentalist moving time (s). The former goes with General Relativity and the Heisenberg Picture of Quantum Theory, while the latter goes with the Schroedinger Picture of Quantum Theory, the "equivalence" of the two pictures being a mere appearance, not a fact on the ground - especially not for Quantum Field Theory (QFT)! (and especially not for QFT on curved space-times!! (and especially! not for QFT on globally non-hyperbolic space-times!!!)).
In a special relativistic setting, s would be tied to proper time; and the Minkowski metric - rendered as ds² = dt² - (dx² + dy² + dz²)/c² - would be re-rendered as a constraint ds² - dt² + (dx² + dy² + dz²)/c² = 0 ... or defining the difference du ≡ c² (ds - dt) ... as a quadratic constraint dx² + dy² + dz² + 2dtdu + du²/c² = 0 and linear constraint ds = dt + du/c². Notably, this has a non-relativistic limit as the constraints: dx² + dy² + dz² + 2dtdu = 0 and ds = dt (the two senses of time, in non-relativistic theory, now merging as one). The bifurcation of the two senses of time may then be seen as a relativistic effect, even though a vestige of it lives on (as du) in the non-relativistic limit.
The geometry (in both the relativistic or non-relativistic cases) has a 4+1 signature; except now that the (s) coordinate is treated as process time - the arena of presentalism - not as eternal time. In effect, it is a geometry in which the entire 4D space-time continuum, itself, flows in time!
Wow
First time seeing this video, and I got to say, I’m not very smart like college level or anything like that, but I always been a sucker for un-answered questioning and you just made my brain do BAM! This explains a lot
Ask yourself: "How do I experience time?" On any view time is a wholly subjective experience. What else could it be but a word that conveys one or another experience?
Rather obviously " the universe" - like any other universal, is imaginary in that it cannot be directly immediately personally experienced *A* "the universe" which is a vague unfocused idea - and no more than an idea
Si!
Good attempt, but it didn't really throw any more light on what time actually is. At he very least, he should have explained time is inextricably linked to motion.
He was not trying to describe relativity. He wanted to give a primer on philosophy and its relation to physics.
@@ephy1973 Yep he said so at the start
Or succinctly, time in its explicit form, is matter's placeholder. Matter is inherently in motion and time and matter co-exist. No matter, no time, no time, no matter.
I can stop this video, go for a coffee, come back and Sean is right there, frozen in time. I have the secret technology to stop time! Amazing.
Hey Tenno
Hey kiddo
I think you overdid it a bit with all the clocks in the room! :) But great lecture
why did they have to make the background so tasteless?
just a white room or a green screen with post-production images (PBS Space time style) would have been much better than this outdated school director's office
The setting, the cameras, the feeling that his movement and gestures were choreographed totally distracted me from anything interesting he had to say.
good thing the other 75000 people that watched this dont care.
You guys seem to complain about the silliest things
"What is Time"?
Baby, don't hurt me.
I think no one else gets this... High five...
Excellent
What is love?
Time is love?
Don't hurt me... No more
"What is the meaning of Time?"
Life is time and time is life. We need it more than food or water but waste it just as readily. We buy it from others to save our own through employment or servitude. Just now, You gave me some of your precious time to read this just as I used my time to write this.
Before Einstein worked out the equations General Relativity he thought about them....we don't place enough emphasis on sitting around and thinking about things.
Very true, all they do is regurgitate what's already been said.
I believe you can come to scientific discoveries simply by thinking. Using logic and reason will get you much more if used correctly than hundreds of thousands of experiments. This is the ways of the old. People don't discover things in this way anymore.
Well not all people.
Thank you. Decent lecture. What was not addressed was the connection between time and consciousness. When can only perceive things within a stream. Your lecture for example. If we had a more expensive consciousness and a more efficient language we could perceive all of your lecture in a shorter time. So time and consciousness are directly connected. Eternalism is not feasible given our current state of consciousness.
Presentism, arguably, is a subjective understanding of time, while eternalism is an objective one.
@@aunri
Presentism is material. Eternalism is immaterial. A material reality is contingent upon an immaterial reality.
We don't know what time is, but we sure know what time it is.😅
This is the best video about time for what I have watched.
I agree with those commenters who say he communicates well. Easy to listen to.
Time is that which prevents everything occurring simultaneously in any given space.
That's like saying a spatial dimension is that which prevents everything occuring at the same point.
That's not saying what it is, just noting a feature of it.
Its not. It doesn't prevent anything. To prevent, something has to exist. Time is not something that exists, but is rather a perception. Like you perceive a video, although only still images exist. Without something able to perceive, a video does not exist. Only still images do. Same with time, it is a perception you get from observing the rate of change in the universe.
So I say again, time does not prevent anything.
"What is time ?" , only the second most important question ever asked by mankind.
Right after "What time is it ?"
To my understanding, "Time" is the change of energy that initiates from the smallest of all things like atom, qwark. There is no such thing as time separately. We use the term "Time" as our human language to understand energy and movement. To give one eg. You might have seen the tickling of your wall clock stops working when the battery is dead.
@@allaboutscienceeducationte1367 id say, watch again then.
(And stop tickling your clock)
Time is how we measure state. Thanks for coming to my TED Talk.
Mind bending concept explained so eloquently and made so easy for a little brain like me to completely get it. LOVE YOU Sean Carroll
Nothing small about your mind. You have everything you need in it.
Si!!!
A great thought experiment might be, what we would understand about time, if the speed of light was closer to everyday speeds (say 200 mph). Would you be able to meet someone at a given time, if they drove faster than you? Would we think of time as constant and reliable? How would our intuitions work?
Still can't get to the speed of light with mass.
Nothing with mass can travel at the speed of light because it takes an Infinite amount of energy to do so, yet things without mass, like a photon must travel at the speed of light.
Imagine a mom of a 13 almost 14yr old coming home to her child watching this
And the mom not understanding English.
That's what will happen to me when she arrives
Time is something that cannot be regained by anyone whether he is rich or poor.
But many of us don’t value it. At Least try to spend it worthfully going forward by knowing the meaning of it from this video.
Sean Carroll constantly looks like he's about to start laughing.
the camera person is making funny faces
It's because he's a card-carrying creationist at heart
@Enter the Braggn' Or he just really enjoys the topic he's discussing.
I REMEMBER THE FIRST TIME I SAW HIM OUT JOE ROGAN I THOUGHT HE WAS A COMEDIAN AT FIRST THE GUYS JUST LOOKS LIKE HE HAS A GREAT SENSE OF HUMOR YOU KNOW A GUY WITH A FUNNY FACE
Late comment here, but I think what you observe here is that he is actually constantly thinking about what he's saying and he smiles about each and every little metaphor he's using. He could mindlessly recite off a teleprompter but he's really enthusiastic about the content. All in all I'm trying to say: this is a feature, not a bug. :-)
Sean Carroll has an impeccable sense of TIME on those cameras
Built into the idea that a clock is something repeating and predictable that measures time, is the prior assumption that there is some substance or dimension there to be measured. But there is no evidence of that. There is no recognized quantum of time and we have no physical samples of time. And while we can all draw a line and label it with events, a drawn line does not a physical dimension measure, create or prove. With clocks, all that is there is a repeating, countable event that is then placed into ratio with some other event that may or may not also be repeating. That's it. That is all that can be said to exist based solely on the presence of a clock. The existence of something called time that is being measured is an over extension of a mathematical construct which is used to describe sequence and duration. Time is not a physical entity making possible or giving rise to sequence and duration. Rather, it is the reality of change itself, of events, interactions of matter, energy and consciousness that gives rise to the construct of time. There is no stuff or substance or location or wave or particle that a clock measures and of which we can obtain a physical specimen. There is not even the implication of existence through causal sequence. There exists only events being counted and compared. Again, there is no defined, testable quantum of time, no known sample of time and no demonstrable physical place or dimension, linear or non. This assumption that time has independent existence is what makes relativity seem so counter intuitive. We observe that otherwise identical clocks tick or oscillate at different rates under different conditions of velocity, and then draw an unnecessary conclusion that time itself has dilated - when there is no "time itself". There are just two physical processes, two clocks, behaving differently at different levels of energy. This applies, for instance, in the case of twins, one of whom lives accelerated in orbit for a significant number of orbits. Differences in elapsed metabolic changes neither establish nor require the existence of two different "rates of time". The assumption of time as a physical reality also gives rise to meaningless measurements, notably the age of the universe. Saying a big bang happened 13.6 billion years or so ago implies the existence not only of time outside of and containing the universe, but also of a "deus ex machina" clock that exists outside of the universe and can be counted and compared to what happens inside the universe. These thoughts derive from the task of teaching primary age children how to count time, which is different from teaching them how to tell time. Counting time is not the same as reading a clock and knowing to get ready for lunch. The crux of the problem when teaching a child to count time is that you literally cannot give a child a bit, a pinch or a spoonful of time. There just isn't any such thing and so there is no measurement being made. All you can do, all any one can do, is count and compare events and then, and this is key, look for patterns.
^^^^ This !!!! Thumbs up! But I can't help but wonder about rotating electrons and quarks that move faster than the speed of light. ...what is time to them?
You are right that there is no such thing as time. What you should say is that time is not empirical. If time were something that was "demonstrable" (able to be "measured") then what apparatus or "instrument" could detect it? Certainly not a clock. A clock does not measure time it imposes time. Therefore whatever experiments use clocks to draw conclusions about time are fundamentally flawed. They are delusions. Why? Because of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. Put simply, if we could observe or "demonstrate" or detect time then we could interfere with it. The experiment with the plane that purports to demonstrate Einstein's time dilation has nothing to do with time. Clocks can tell us nothing of time. But they tell us something about Simultaneity- the idea that two things occurring in different places occur at the same "moment". Obviously when it is morning in Japan it is dusk in California. What does it mean that they occur at the same "moment" in time?
Very well said. Exactly what I want to say but can never do so eloquently! Thank you!
Bro.... or sis... Let me help you. Time is simply perception. Its an observation of change, not a medium.
a clock is only what you make it. Its simply a measuring tool. In a physical clock, all u are measuring is the amount of rotations gears make. Its not like it taps into some mystical medium to tell us where we are currently in the state of the universe.
Time is an abstract law called "indefinite procedure". It is consecutive with a law called "continuance". Continuance is like the flame that goes upward but goes nowhere. It is what we call the "present" in time. The future is like the light that stays ahead of the flame.
I really think Steve Miller taught us all we need to know about time in 1976.
Not to mention the Chambers Brothers
Time keeps on slipping
As a non physicists(like myself), I really enjoyed this.
Great video nicely explained... I didn't get it but....it's good
The reason you don't get it is because it's a load of nonsense.
What I am deriving so far from this lecture - at a 16th-minute mark - are two observations:
1. My physical life is but a "movie" which I am forced to experience one frame at a time.
2. There is no present really. There are only the past and the future. The present does not last long enough to even consider seriously and yet that is when all reality takes place. 🤔
Thanks to prof Carroll for yet another very interesting lecture.
Hello Lorne. Thank you so much for your kind feedback! We pride ourselves on our professors and are very glad you´re enjoying our offerings. Thanks for being a fan!
Isn't time simply a measure of entropy?
It seems like it. I have never completely believed that time exists at all. It seems unnecessary to explain anything.
It seems like it. I have never completely believed that time exists at all. It seems unnecessary to explain anything.
Time has no reality. It’s a construct of the human mind made so that our lives and the universe can be described. It is always the present.
it takes time to think. It took time for you to type that sentence.
Sorry to say, time IS real., not a construct of our mind.
A model of clarity, without compromising on scientific accuracy