Dirk Evers - Is Time Real?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 8 ม.ค. 2024
- Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
What does it mean for time to be real? Is time the ultimate stage on which all events play? Some physicists and philosophers would say no, time is an illusion; time is not real. How can that be? Is our sense of time all wrong?
Shop Closer To Truth merchandise like mugs and hoodies: bit.ly/3P2ogje
Register today for free to get subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/3He94Ns
Dirk Evers is Professor for Systematic Theology and Philosophy of Religion at Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg, Germany. He is President of The European Society for the Study of Science and Theology. He is also an ordained minister of the German Lutheran Church.
Watch more videos on time and space time: bit.ly/3RMXddv
Closer To Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
![[TH] 2024 PMSL SEA W2D2 | Summer | โหดจัด ซัดไม่เลี้ยง](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/TJa9d7tpSP4/mqdefault.jpg)
When I turn up an hour late for work, my boss emphatically insists time is real.
Time as in measurement yes. Time in spatial, no
Tell your boss that you were at the right time, just not the correct space. Bosses love philosophical arguments.
You're both playing the game.
Bosses are dumb.
If your boss accepted that time isn’t real then he wouldn’t have to pay you for your time.
The main problem of the question “Is time real?” is that there is no clear definition of what is real and what is not real.
Jump out of a seven story window and you'll quickly find gravity is real.
Will this no longer work with a six-story building?@@rdpatterson2682
Time keeps everything from happening all at once. I love that statement.
I used to like it but then I realised how stupid it is because it explains nothing.
It's as dumb as saying it is what it is.
Buckaroo Banzai. For a photon everything does happen at once since it travels at the speed of light.
@@mikebirminghamnz nope. If there was no limitation like the light speed everything could happen at once, and then the concept of time would be rendered meaningless. So time is actually defined by the fact that not everything happens instantaneously at once!
Also it is not by John Wheeler from some American toilet as is rumoured, but can actually be found in Henri Bergson's creative evolution or his notes in the thirties, where he said it was just a common sense thought that occured to him. And he is backed up by relativity, so it isn't such a bad thought to have!
@@mikebirminghamnzit says more than we give it credit for saying! It sounds too obvious but there are things we overlook...
Time is related to things in movement - the spin of the earth, the orbit of the earth around the sun, atoms vibrating... it's also related to energy disorganisation
I like more time and moves are in sync. Unless it is chaos.
Measure of change , change is an intrinsic property of existence
Protect this man at all costs.
use your own words.
@@jedi4049you are a bum. You will be judged.
🖕
"Time is the change of things that are in space".
I usually think of time just like that. As far as I know "clocks" don't measure time but just movement and then we call that a certain time instead of "it's 5 cm beyond 12". Maybe it's like asking "does temperature exist?". Not really, it's just a name for particles moving and bouncing of each other at a certain momentum. You don't need the word temprature to describe that.
Isnt that just distance and speed. With the universe not only expanding and not only that but speeding up as well. The further you zoom out of our solar system the more time seems to break it's own rules and not really mean anything. Add to that other dimensions and the word makes no sense
Fantastic talk. Thanks Sir Evers...
In the English language, 'Time' is a synonym for 'Change'. It is a question of the perception of the human sensory apparatus, which in turn is evolved to estimate successful survival moves. Time has the same reality as a computer's UI screen, i.e., a convenience, nothing more.
Time isn't a synonym for change in the English language.
@@prettyawesomeperson2188 He's trying to parrot Donald Hoffman's schtick but doesn't understand it well enough to do it well.
time is the measure of change... time began when matter CAME into existence due to NECESSITY... what no one can explain is where the power for matter comes from and the measure of gravity
@@sevensieteS There is no beginning of time, even in a temporally finite universe, because that would require there to have been a time when there was no time, which is incoherent.
Debating such a fundamental question with a theologian adds another dimension to the cosmological space. Excellent conversation, thank you Dirk & Robert !
This wasn't a debate.
Saying at 6:30… “That is where religion comes into play…” is a blatant non sequitur fueled by the most specious and forced of religious thinking. Utter illogical nonsense.
So cool and powerful. Thanks!
G'day. The topic of time is one of my favorites. It's easy to think of time as the fourth dimension because you need to include (the time) after you specify where you want to meet someone --or you will miss your appointment. Interestingly, we can move ourselves forward and backward through the three spatial dimensions but we have no control within the time dimension, as it carries us only forward. I know this well because I have the white hair to prove it :-) And since we have an often illusive sense of time as it carries us forward, I wonder if time proceeds linearly? And since we are caught in its current, how could we even know? Near death experiencers sometimes remark that they stopped experiencing the passage of time in the afterlife. Upon returning to their bodies, they report being aware of everything all at once. This leads me to believe that time is not fundamental. Its true nature is a mystery that I hope will be revealed someday. Keep in mind that when you set your clock, you're not setting it to the time, but, rather to other clocks. Ok, well that's enough blathering from me.
I find your comment very interesting as the topic of time is fascinating. As mentioned, time is complex and only linear to those experiencing life moving in one direction yet we hear of so many NDE of people who relate time is not a factor. There are theories abound about time being relative and yet we continue to explore the nature of time.
Some things I've noticed that might go together in some way. Elements means minds of God. Mass is a dimensionless quantity of matter which determines gravitational centers. E equals MC2 equates to energy is everything that appears to be, energy determines what will appear to be. Consciousness is the force in the Universe today with the ability to change anything from it's otherwise inevitable position. Imagine what it looks and feels like to be at the beach and it is experienced in the same place as the apparent "real" world by way of the exact same electrical impulses by which we experience the entire "real" Universe.
Hi Kritiker, you have picked up on one salient point thatI also noticed, the difference between the nature of time and the nature of the other dimensions, this suggests that they are not all part of the same reality, this allows for the distinct possibility that the whole concept of time is just another figment of human imagination, an invention to compensate for our own temporal instability and the fact that consciousness disappears with death but while alive is all we have to explain 'reality' and our own experience.
One aspect of this idea is that it seems to me to be very difficult to come to terms with the obvious alternative which implies that the actual universe is a dynamic system with no fixed points of past present or future, just the constant inter-actions of all the components and forces, a concept so mind boggling and beyond human conception. A reflection of our own limited intellect, leaving us grasping at any straw that saves us from admitting to our own ignorance.
Cheers, Richard.
Based on reports from near death experiencers that while they spent time in the afterlife, they had no perception of time and that they were aware of all things at once, I am led to believe that the human brain is probably not capable of understanding the full, true nature of time and other aspects of the universe you mentioned. So our inquisitive nature keeps us grasping at those straws. I think the human brain is designed as a filter that limits our perception to only that which we need to survive. So our sight is limited to a small portion of the EM spectrum, and our hearing only to a small segment of the range of sound. Greater perception might overwhelm us or at the very least, it would amount to extraneous input that might interfere with our ability to cope.
@@richardharvey1732
Just after realizing that time is a concept only
a great calm came over me as I pondered the idea
that matter can be neither created nor destroyed.
Matter is to body as movement is to mind.
Watching this video was time well spent.
Entropy is real, time is how we measure it.
since our concept of time relates to the activity of change of a particular unit then time is as real as the change in the state of that particular unit... for as long as change occurs, space is created or enegy is involved, time will always exist and point toward a particular difference from one state of existence to the next...
Time is nothing but our observation of relative changes in the universe.
I think you have said all that can be said on the subject. The rest is metaphor and analogy.
Time is the limitation of our hardware/software. Everything is probably Now, simultaneously.
I completely agree with you. Near death experiencers sometimes claim that while in the afterlife, they were aware of their life's experiences all at once. This suggests to the possibility that the brain cannot perceive the full reality of what time is. What also gives weight to this argument is that we perceive the passage of time but we also lose track of time.
"Time is the only resource for which no creature may bargain..." --DD1
🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨
"The change of things that are in space" makes sense to me.
Some musings.
To my cat, time is the feelings that occur between meals and time is the movement of the sun throughout the day, and the moon throughout the night. Our internal perception of time is not much different to my cat.
When we allow ourselves the broader perspective, time is the manner and rate at which the impact of any celestial body on any other celestial body changes. A celestial body in this sense is any set of particles where an identifiable algorithm can explain changes to their relative impact on any other body. So any measure of time differs depending on what you are observing and where you are taking your observations from.
Distance in an illusion. It is our cognitive schema for our own observations of the observable relative impact of any celestial body on any other celestial body.
In this sense "distance" and "time" are intimately related and have almost infinite dimensions. Our observations of the world stem from those parts of the cosmos where "distance' and "time" coincide sufficiently to produce impacts that are perceivable to us.
Relativity is a perspective on this, in that the observation of time is relative to the "position" of the observer. Where "position" is defined by "distance" and "time" in relation to every other celestial body (call it object).
Further musings on "objects"
Particles can be components of more than one object, as "object" is defined by the algorithm, not by mutually exclusive "ownership" of an object's component particles or collections of particles. We generally observe objects as hierarchal but they are not necessarily hierarchal. Therefore a particle can belong to multiple, overlapping bodies or objects and also multiple overlapping measures of time are possible. Practically we measure time and distance in relation to what we perceive as the most obvious or impactful objects of interest.
Looking forward to the future before it becomes now or the past..working in 6 hours night night
Regarding the future and past, on eof my favorite things to do is take photos of what I see in a side-view mirror in my car. We tend to think of things only existing when they are important to us, or when they are perceptable to us. But why is it that nothing we ever see in front of us look as beautiful as something behind us?
Fascinating, with interesting comments below. If it isn't a wild goose chase, how long does "now" last? Can it be extended, even?
Time is a useful theoretical concept, but we never observe time, except through motion, without which no time can be measured.
I would say change. Not necessarily motion.
Not true, what about a watthour, it more, but only in time, with no motion
@@paulocacella Yes, events, which in essence is change. See my comment above.
Gravity depends on time in its metric tensor
As in all things, a description is not the thing itself.
Einstein famously said, “Put your hand on a hot stove for a minute, and it seems like an hour. Sit with a pretty girl for an hour, and it seems like a minute. That’s relativity.”
He also said it was illusion. A persistent illusion but illusion nonetheless.
He also said, Imagination is more important than knowledge. Possibly because he knew all knowledge is made entirely of imagination.
It's actually one of many quotes famous for being falsely attributed to Einstein.
@@b.g.5869 Really. Which one.? And how do prove or fact check that with 100% certainty?
@@glenndespres5317 Both are fake Einstein quotes
As far as the one talking about how time seems to go very fast when you're talking to a pretty girl and very slow when you hand is on a hot stove comes from a 1929 NY Times article about Einstein in which the author wrote this as a joke; it's been mistakenly quoted as somehow Einstein actually said ever since.
I'm surprised so many people think this is something Einstein actually said because that's just not his style of speech or humor.
As for the one about time being a persistent illusion, he never said this though he did say something similar which is probably the source of the false quote:
"For us believing physicists, the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion." -Einstein, The Expanded Quotable Einstein. Calaprice, Alice, ed. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000). p. 75.
You need to be very careful repeating quotes attributed to Einstein since there are lots of quotes attributed to him online that he never said.
@@imaginaryuniverse632 That's not at all what he meant by that. He meant that he thought imagination was more important than imagination because imagination is what allows you to acquire knowledge about the real world; he wasn't arguing that the real world is a product of our imagination.
This particular quote, which he first said during an interview with the Saturday Evening Post in 1929 and later elaborated on in a book he wrote on 1931 actually had primarily to do with his thoughts on the verification of one of the predictions of general relativity. The point he was trying to convey was that he wasn't surprised to hear his prediction was verified and in fact he'd be surprised if it wasn't.
He specifically said that prior to the experimental verification of the prediction, he didn't _know_ it was correct but would be astonished of it wasn't.
This promoted his interviewer to ask the leading question "So you trust more to your imagination than knowledge?", and in replying he made the famous remark about imagination being more important than knowledge.
This quote is often taken out of context by people that would like to think that Einstein was an advocate of something like idealism, where reality is created by the mind rather than observed by it; this is certainly not a position Einstein advocated. He definitely held that there is an objective reality that exists independent of human imagination.
Like the addressing of time as having a “theological interest.” At least it points to the blank in the explanation sentence of what it might be. Postulating, for instance, that the past is the death of the present, or the future is the potential birth of the present does not seem to cover the feeling that a light breeze of movement passes through us when time, the object, is observed; even imagining that “a time” is a book on a shelf where we are the readers starting at time zero and them moving forward leaves much unanswered. Although it makes me wonder if there are other books on the shelf and can the books be edited.
Note: Originally wrote “books on the self.” Interesting slip!
Wow, common sense and Logic on the time question.
Change exists. Time is our mind's measurement of change. The change is real, whereas the measurement is within our mind. By separating time into two concepts, (measurement and change) paradoxes relating to time before the big bang, time travel into the past, and others disappear. Obviously, there was change before the universe existed in its present form. Change is the big mystery, not its measurement. There's only now, yet we are fooled by memory and imagination into believing our own mental creations are an objective past and future existing 'out there'. All our memories are now. All our imaginings of the future are now.
Is change a mystery? What about thermodynamics?
So "our" now (expanding over a huge time window of milliseconds even seconds) is something to be trusted? Or what follows from the above chain of thoughts?
Most of that which we experience as now is already trillions of picoseconds in the past. If we consider that most of our perceptions are made up by the brain based on previous experiences (kind of memories) and not fresh sensations ( see studies done by Anil Seth group)!
The "now" of most people (not practicing mindfulness) is in most part a product of a prediction "mechanism", so it's also oriented into a possible future.
Ad temporality: Is the possibility of being a part of a block universe scientifically or philosophically ruled out?
Also how could we do any measurement without acting in time.
Only if we were a quantum system in superposition which gets entangled with the system it wants to measure: 🤔 just wildly speculating. However, AFAIK even the entanglement takes place in time. Feel free to correct me on anything
I think time is a temporary active (now) and ever changing thing, so we can grasp the concept of it we did put a limit to it but 3 today is different than 3 tomorrow although it is the same 3, but its energy is different, same time placement but different format so its kinda like an illusion, its the same past (now place) but different active (now) because of its new unknown energy format (now) so its an unknown infinite because of its new energy format but its placement we made it constant for reference.
👍👍Why does time seem to slow down at the dentist office and accelerate on vacations when there's no significant gravity or velocity involved with either activity? Great discussion-thanks!
There was a theory that posited that stress inducing situations cause the brain to "write" more to the brain, especially in the long term memory , which was linked to an adaptation that is useful for avoiding danger. It is also why painful or bad experiences linger in the subconscious.
Most pleasant experiences do not get such treatment, so they are not as taxing on the brain in the moment that they are occurring. This is why pleasant experiences are often remembered as sensorial experiences (smells, tastes, colors...) rather than vivid live images. One negative of too many pleasant experiences is that the brain gets used to it quickly, something called "hedonic adaptation."
Time is illusory and only an abstract measurement (for convenience) because of physicality/material/matter in the cosmos. For example, we call one full Earth orbit around the sun a year, one month is the cycle of the moon orbiting earth, etc. In effect, our measurement of what we call time is dependent on cycles and on matter. What if our solar system did not exist at all? What if we [humans] did not exist at all? What if our universe was nothing but empty space, at the end full inflation when all galaxies and matter cease to exist? Again, time is illusory and our own way of seeing it is an abstract paradox.
Time is a construct of ego. Some love to dominate others experience of time and space. The experience of NOW belongs to you, don't let anybody take that away without your permission.
If I wind my watch forward, how does time get into my watch?
His seems like a contrived argument, suggesting that "time" is an independent phenomenon which has some role in causal linkages between events.
Einstein in his book "Relativity" (his very readable explanation of his theories), early in his discussion about the "clock" he contrives for his subsequent thought experiments, he explains time and our tool to track it, a clock, as a result of our noticing a particular feature of our reality: certain events do not occur simultaneously.
In other words, time arises because, from our viewpoint, all events do not occur simultaneously.
And, the rest of it -- time, clocks, etc. -- is our creation to deal with this phenomenon.
This is seperate from the other apparent phenomenon we notice: some events cause subsequent events.
...answer)
✨
Only if you allow it to be.
Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so.
-- Douglas Adams
Right here, right now
Right here right now right here right now right here right now
I heard that time is a piece of wax falling on a termite that's choking on a splinter
When thinking starts, time starts and when thinking ends, time ends. Thought can create time and multidimensional illusions.
Nothing is the only constant in time so time is an interval.
At least I agree with two things. If there were no space, there wouldn't be time.
If there's no memory, there won't be time.
Assuming anything is possible; The 'Absolute Time' scale sits there, unaffected by the fields, its intervals are always x. Along side it, space-time would be like a rubber band, with weak and strong stretches of time intervals all along it.
Is time a measurement of space? Or time is the expansion of space?
I’m pretty much with Kant on this question: time and space are the a priori grid our brains provide upon which it translates reality into the apperceptions provided by our five sensory perceptual apparatuses.
Both the remembrance of earlier moments and the anticipation of later moments (along with the fact that the conceptual projection of temporal units like seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, years, etc, gives an impression of an increasing distance between the present and earlier moments, and a decreasing distance between the present and later moments) make the constant change of the present SEEM to be a movement "from" earlier moments "to" later moments.
In this way, remembrance and anticipation make the present SEEM to be a "movement through time".
However, as both earlier and later moments (and the steadily increasing/decreasing distance between them and the present) are not actually anywhere to be found beyond the mind, the present moment cannot actually be a movement from earlier moments to later moments through time. This apparent movement is nothing more than the illusion of time.
Change itself is logically beginningless and endless, and is therefore timelessly present.
Agreed. Your last sentence was simultaneously poignant and poetic.
So is time real? It's a yes or no question. I don't have _time_ for such a lengthy answer.
We mentally demarcate "time" into a "thing" because we have memories and abstract thinking. But it's not really a "thing" unto itself. It's just our way of interpreting a succession of events through space. "Time" is something we made up to make sense of what we experience. That's why the universe can be said to "always" have existed and not created "ex nihilo", because the universe is all that is or was or will be; there was no "time before" there was something (the universe) because the universe is the sum total of all events. That's not to say that the universe has existed for infinite amount of time; by all calculations it appears to have a finite past. The universe has existed eternally (for all "time"), just not infinitely ("time" with no boundary).
It’s man made for measure but in reality is one constant.
I like this guy
He's not your guy, buddy
@@IAn0nI You're not my buddy, friend
surely our star moving through space and us along with it is was cause's time! motion i believe to be fundamental to time.
Isn't time just a description of movement and entropy? And when is "now"? By the time you ponder it this "now" has passed and so on and on.
It’s REAL and NECESSARY enough to figure into all our calculations and daily events. From our biological clocks, to our appointments, to GPS to General Relativity to black holes to ……… - and that’s good enough for me.
Sounds like you are a real critical thinker
@@tomschneider7555 Alright, what's wrong with the statement? Where's the evidence of a lack of critical thinking?
And mainly, what critical thinking did you do before you spat out that (I'm guessing) thoughtless and (I'd say) tired insult?
👍🏻 right? We don’t always agree, but I agree with this.
Yes, whether 'real' or illusory, we as physical beings are most definitely subject to time.
I think time is a macroscopic perception of a distributed process of quantum scale state changes.
I remember a discussion among the brainy physicists that the concept of "NOW" is not possible for two beings separated in space. My "now" is not the same as your "now" even though we can both specify our individual nows with respect to a clock. And I think I understand the explanation. But if we cannot truly specify a "NOW" or if our "NOWs" are not truly the same how can we make we make a truth statement about time?
No, we can´t, all moments exist at the same time, if special relativity is right and that is so obiviously the case. Time passing is only possible in the same frame of reference. Here´s a well done vid by SH about it, and in her book "Existential Physics", she expains it very accurate.
th-cam.com/video/GwzN5YwMzv0/w-d-xo.htmlsi=25T66vpd5T477Aq6
Photons are timeless by virtue of its speed, 186,000 miles per second. Time stops at that speed.
We experience the combination of matter and forces in a configured state. Call that combination reality for the sake of argument. Regardless of how we got here, we live in a world where complex forms of reality take a form. Form is a perception that living beings experience. We describe a change in time as a way of undertanding that any difference between two realities is indexable through a unit of time. Whether we consider the reality as a model where for instance we consider just a tiny change of any kind or when we consider any change in the entirety of the Universe, the use of time is the only way we have of recognizing the process of change, which is a difference in a state of configuration. Living creatures are capable of detecting changes in state at that level of reality which we find ourselves in. If there were only one state, time would not make sense. It would have no place to exist. Time is inextricably attached to all forces and all matter, as is space.
Time is the process of memorising
...Only man tracks Time, no other life form. Time/Space moves in a Turbulent Flow which also includes Vortices & Eddie's, respectfully Chuck ...captivus brevis...Blessings...
How can you talk about time in eternal existence does it really exist?
No. It's just a relational observation of two independent phenomena. It measures change as it relates to independent phenomena.
Now is all that is.
Your recollection is only accessible now. The event you recall is gone to change...
Is it science or phylosophy or both?
We need to get Christian Philosopher Ryan Mullins to also talk about his Understanding of Time?
If humans (or something else) didn't have 'memory' (of the type of self awareness and continuity of self) then there would - either - be no time, or be nothing to notice time. In the absence of memory, or the capacity for memory, there is no time perceived. In that sense self consciousness either creates time, or is necessary to be able to observe it.
I wrote that before hearing the Augustin piece! Ha, we got to the same conclusion.
5:10. Introducing the concept of 4-space, a fundamental difference between time x^0 and spatial coordinates is allowed.
It supposedly consists of the fact that along the world lines corresponding to physical processes, x0 can only grow, whereas x1, x2, x3 can change as you please.
However, the unification of spatial coordinates and time into a single manifold is not formal but is a real reflection of the picture of the world, and self-closure does not take place for the 4-line.
Apparently the time coordinate pulls along with it the spatial coordinates, because if it is impossible to return to the past, then it is also impossible to return to where "there" is not with the spontaneous accumulation of space-time: history.
The time measured by the observer is shorter where the gravitational field is stronger. This is due to the asymmetry of time, which means the accumulation of time (history); therefore, on the horizon, there is simply a min "amount" of time (for a min of the entropy of the system, that is, in the general case, the measure of time is - diversity).
"Due to the dependence of the speed of light and the speed of the clock on the gravitational potential, after the introduction of the gravitational potential, the laws of nature must be understood as the relationship between the gravitational potential and other physical quantities." (Pauli, RT).
Thus, in general, no law of conservation of time is known - this circumstance is connected with the fact that space-time is a manifestation of the spontaneous evolution of the grav-inertial field.
P.S. In fact, the observer's self-esteem in QM is underestimated to the level of the infamous ostrich.
The observer is always involved in an unavoidable measurement process.
It seems that there have never been any problems with QM already within the framework of GR (for example, in the case of the Schrodinger/Carroll cat).
A live cat breathes and, accordingly, emits gravitational waves according to the formula GR with intensity: I(G)=(2G/45c^5)(M^2)(l^4)(w^6), where M is the mass of the cat, l is its characteristic size, w is its frequency breathing.The frequency of gravitational radiation should be on the order of w~ 2π/т where т is the characteristic time of accelerated mass movement (pulsation, rotation, collision, non-spherical explosion).It is clear that the dead cat is not breathing and I(G) =0*. In principle, all this lends itself to a certain (improbability) constant measurement without opening the "black box", since gravity is not shielded [w=w(m)]. Moreover, the behavior of the radiation source is also controlled, since it emits only in an excited state. **
Of course, Carroll's sleeping cat breathes, but differently (can be measured) than the waking one.***
Sweet dreams to you QM, on the interpretation of the Born wave function.
P.S. Why didn't Einstein use this argument? He wasn't sure about the reality of gravitational waves and assumed only the presence of hidden parameters…
---------------------
*) - By the way, a "smile" without a cat can be detected according to Einstein's equations. Raising one of the indices, substituting I=k and summing, we find: R=-(8πG/c^4)T, where T=T(n) is the trace of the energy-momentum tensor (~ "gravitational memory.").
**) - If the cat is replaced with a detector, then with each absorption its state will change (which makes measurement possible). It is clear that this will also cause additional radiation of gravitational waves, since the included detector is already a source.
***) - The formula can be given in the following form for a photon: I(G)={[w/w(pl)]^2}ħw^2.
Of course, this approach is also applicable to the case of entangled particles.
"When physicists offer metaphysical explanations for physical phenomena, I start swearing." (Raymond Tallis).
Frame of reference in GR: "In the general case of an arbitrary variable gravitational field, the metric of space is not only non-euclidean but also changed with time. This means that the relationships between different geometric distances change over time. As a result, the relative position of the "test particles" introduced into the field in any coordinate system can not remain unchanged." ( Landau-Lifshitz, II).
It turns out that since the Big Bang, all the particles in the universe speak, hear and listen to each other in the language of gravity (= irreducible spontaneous measurement).
Addition
The main misconception in the interpretations of quantum mechanics is that the equally probable nature of phenomena implies their equivalence.* Moreover, not only at 50/50, but also at 99/1. However, equality and equivalence are completely different things, even if they are causally related; for example, all inertial reference systems are equal in SR or QM, but far from equivalent. Obviously, if a dead or a living cat, the spin of entangled photons up or down, pairs of socks or letters marked + or - in different parts of the world are equal, then they are not physically equivalent; and also, branched universes. When an tails falls out after a coin toss, then they talk about the collapse of the wave function, when tails and heads are just equal, but not the same even not only for numismatists.That is, these are physical parameters of different physical phenomena, and their representation by a single wave function according to Born is ridiculous.
For example, when energy E=mc^2, then mass m=E/c^2, since they are parameters of the same physical entity, and therefore equivalent.
For comparison: in GR, in a gravitational field or in an equally accelerated frame of reference, all events are not only equal, but equivalent, so Einstein criticized QM for not being as radical as RT.**
Moreover, RT is even more radical: "Two world points located at zero distance from each other do not necessarily coincide." (Pauli, RT, paragraph 7, Four-dimensional world). That is, even with a repeated loss of heads (or tails), both of these phenomena are not equivalent. Moral: a particle cannot even be in one state at the same time. Finally, we can say that the concept of "frame of reference" was self-sufficient, and the introduction to physics of the concept of "state" was an unsuccessful attempt to describe reality. "A good joke should not be repeated twice."(Einstein).***
---------------------
*) - In logic, this is the basic law: the law of identity.
**) - For fans of the multiverse: the equivalent Universe can only be the accelerating Universe itself.
***) - It seems that the uncertainty principle is the result of a misunderstanding of probability/equivalence.
In the Heisenberg inequalities, the mathematical apparatus was formed before the interpretation of their physical essence. It is funny that these inequalities indicate that there are no exact values of coordinates and momentum vector in the states of microobjects at the same time; and thus exclude the equivalence of these parameters.
If in RT the choice of a reference frame is essentially an experiment (mental or real) that produces a certain splitting of space into spatial and temporal "projections", then in QM there are "two types" of observations: using measuring instruments to measure coordinates and to measure the momentum of microparticles. There is no such separation in the observation process in QG, because instead of "rulers and clocks" in RT or "multi-functional" devices in QM, only a quantum counter (detector) is required, which catches gravity quanta (if the self-action) of physical bodies; without affecting them ("touch" or "illumination"). That is, an observer with a conventional detector is a "quantum reference system".
Thus, in the general case, the observer is an evolving (- when measured, his state changes) researcher of the spontaneous evolution of the Universe and not measurement, but "Interaction is the ultimate cause of everything that exists, beyond which there are no other, more fundamental defining properties." (Engels). That is, the result of the measurement is a change in the state of the measuring device; a change in the physical state of the observer; and, finally, a change in the intellectual state of the observer.
Time does not exist. Time is nothing but our perception and labelling of displacement of material. That's it!
Time is the flow of entropy
It's about 'time' Robert Kuhn generated new material but I'm assuming only re-runs are possible to the fact time has run out.
He recently said they had filmed new interviews for 2024, so we shall see.
He has new interviews on this channel occasionally (the one on one Zoom style "CTT Chats") but virtually everything on the channel are old clips from the TV show.
Sometimes they announce upcoming "new episodes" for a "new season" of the television but when you see them they're clearly old interviews with new voiceover intros and outros and CGI graphics added between interviews etc.
Actual new material on the TV show seems very rare.
I don't really mind so much as long as it's interesting material but when the topic is something like physics or consciousness seeing a 13 year old interview is almost certainly going to contain a lot of information that is no longer accurate.
I think making the interview date clear would be helpful because even if the television broadcast date is relatively recent the interview is often much older.
Time is a measurement tool. It looks back, and projects a point in the future.
choose a room with more echo next TIME
Back again
Time isn't a dimension, or a particle, or a force.
It's a human notion about how physical systems evolve processually.
Time has a shape it relates to space and it relates to energy, it relates to probability, it has a size. It seems to be one dimensional, there is only before and after. What happened before seems to be the same for everyone in the local present.
As time slows in a high gravity, time at the Big Bang must have been very different than it is now. Also, we base time on the earth’s rotation (86,400 seconds/day) so maybe time is different in other galaxies.
Other solar systems. Other planets in our solar system.
Time is a tool we use to track change and a term we use to define eternity.
Time is a metric. No more, no less. We created it to measure the rate of events.
The "Time" that an observer exists in is a singularity (in measurement). The opposite becomes true as the observer approaches the center of a Black Hole. "Space" becomes more singular and "Time" expands. Space and Time can be viewed as the same thing with the correct perspective. The current (singular) moment is the only moment an observer can exist in, has existed in, and will exist in.
Time exists BETWEEN two points
It's always the Present, and everything that has taken place or will ever take place will happen in the Present. The Present isn't a moment. It is the endless duration of the Present. It is Entropy that makes it appear that time flows. If Entropy were zero, time would appear to stand still. To some degree, this can be seen by freezing something, like food. It stops getting older to a significant degree, and no longer decays. For that object, it's as if time has slowed down or stopped because Entropy is much closer to zero, even though it remains the Present.
There are people who have had very vivid, detailed memories of “future events”.
We are time machines
Alot of fumbling and confusion is what I hear,. Maybe have this convo again in 100 years.
Birth to dead is my time but not whole picture😂. I got it.
And time does not wear out it is me😢. Time is infinity.
You come from an Infinite CREATOR, run to the tree of life and accepts the gift of ETERNITY🕎🕎🕎🕎🕎🕎🕎🕎
Time is travel too. I like simplicity😎. I like Creator or no Creator thinking but still last question why all this!?
Who benefits😁. I feel like abandoned here in Earth...
Creator or not. I feel like abandoned here in Earth...😥.
Like something "throw" us here.
5-This argument of time started when I published my dispute with general relativity about 30 years ago. Now scientists in the west founded on my theory trying to figure it out. But they don't acknowledge mine. Because my not affiliation with academics. I am the only man who knows.
Live without mine or die without mine. ©
Metaphysician philosopher
🤔🤔
Time is unboundable. We intuitively accept the notion that time will march on into the future indefinitely for eternity. Our universe may yet suffer a big freeze or big crunch, but we're sure that time will march on in some other universes.
But less intuitive and yet equally valid notion is that time was also eternal in the past. For every beginning there would always be a before to that beginning, and other Big Bangs before our very own Big Bang, etc, and ad infinitum.
Time is variable as is distance which together combine to exaggerate the changes in the speed of light.💡 …depending on the amount of mass and gravity in the vicinity.
Remember Jungle, you have already been set straight on your lies about mass and gravity changing the speed of light.
@@tomjackson7755 Prove you understand what I am talking about. Address the content of the post.
@@JungleJargon Remember I already have proved that you do not understand what you are talking about. That is a fact for this and many other things that you lie about.
@@tomjackson7755 You didn't convince me that you understand what I am talking about.
@@JungleJargon LOL You have already proven that you have no idea what you are talking about many times. You make up what you are talking about because you read things that you don't understand.
Once again, the word dimension causes confusion. For a lay person, a dimension means a space dimension with units of length e.g. meters and in which one can freely go forward and backward. Lay people can think of 3 dimensions of space height, length and width of a cube. But when physicists say dimension, they mean independent parameter with its own units and meaning of positive and negative values. And thus even though physicists call time a dimension, they do not mean time dimension is a space like dimension. That is clear when one thinks of special geometry of spacetime called Minkowski spacetime which is different than Euclidean spacetime. The equivalent formula for distance between events in Minkowski spacetime has a negative sign in it, unlike the Pythagoras theorem for distance in Euclidean space has all positive signs. Thus Minkowski spacetime has hyperbolic geometry. And that negative sign tells us that time dimension is not like the other three space dimensions. So the correct way to think of spacetime is not 4D spacetime but 1 time dimension + 3 space dimensions. Thus time is not like space. And the answer to the video question is "not exactly".
In fact Tim Maudlin complains about this issue - that physicists make a mistake when they ignore the directionality of time dimension and try to treat it like a space dimension. In fact he is developing a new kind of geometry in which directionality of time dimension is not ignored but a key aspect of it. And this is why I say "not exactly" above. Time is a dimension in the sense physicists use the word dimension for it and so is space a dimension. But qualitatively they are different. The use of word dimension is more like a degree of freedom. And this is the reason why one cannot travel backward in time. Because if you look at the Minkowski spacetime geometry, if one wants to travel from future light cone to past light cone one will have to cross the chasm of what is called the space-like part of the geometry which is not possible because of the maximum speed limit of speed of light C.
In fact in physics, there is a field of dimensional analysis and in that dimensions of all kinds are analyzed. And those are not only space dimensions. So in some sense, depending on the context, even the temperature, pressure and volume are dimensions of a phase space. But we do not confuse temperature dimension with space dimension because temperature has unit of degree Kelvin and not meters. So does time, which has a unit of seconds and not meters. Having said that time is more closer to space because of the context of spacetime and SR and GR.
Based on this time and space are not and cannot be exactly same things.
The confusion is similar to confusion caused by the word "observer" in the context of quantum mechanics and wave function collapse. The modern meaning of the word "observer" in quantum physics is any system outside of the quantum system that interacts and destroys the quantum state. It is true that original Copenhagen gang may have used the word as a stand in for a conscious entity like a scientists in the lab doing a experiment. And that is how a lay person thinks when they hear the word "observer". But that is no longer true. Even a video camera or any measuring instrument recording/measuring a quantum state is considered an "observer" and thus "consciousness" is not a requirement for wave function collapse. But the woo woo (Deepak Chopra) crowd loves the confusion-laden word "observer" so that they can talk about how even physics is not complete without consciousness etc woo woo stuff.
The use of "god particle" for Higgs boson was similar, a confusion causing, but profit making intentional mistake by publishers. Same is true for "god gene".
i simply cant speak intelligently about "time" other than it certainly feels as though we experience time constantly and that time is always passing us by like a river ..... that we cannot actually see but we DO experience it.... certainly as "time" passes we get older..... but what WE have labeled as "time" may very well be some other phenomenon that weve yet to figure out.... just sayin
More intelligent than most. Honest observations are welcome and helpful. Thank you.
So when physicists say time isn't real, what they are really saying is that it doesn't fit into their metaphors.
👏👌
My aging body and mind with all it's aches and pains reminds me almost every moment of the day that Time is real. Life leads inevitably to Death and Entropy or disorder always increasing.
Bless your heart🕎🕎🕎🕎🕎🕎🕎🕎
Real or not, it would seem that we experience time's true nature only partially. Our tendency to "lose track" of time suggests to me that though we perceive time's passage, our brains filter out much of the full reality of its nature.
Lucky for us we aren't the body 🙂
Time is a subjective illusion
Good grief! Did he say anything at all?
Time its the necesity of matter
These are interesting topics, however, I believe that no one really knows for sure what’s “real”…
Time doesn't exist, only the measurement thereof. It's all now and not even that can be quantified. "...one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."
Time is the interval between existence and nothing so you have been born millions of times.
It is incorrect to treat time dimension like space dimension. Tim Maudlin says that all the time and people ignore it. I have been saying the same thing. The negative sign in Malinowski spacetime is a clear indication as to why Time dimension is not a qualitatively same as other three spatial dimensions. Sure time and space are dimensions in a general sense (as in dimensional analysis) but not in specific sens. Just like pressure and temperature and volume are dimensions of a PVT plot, does not make them similar kind of dimensions in strict sense. The fact of different units, seconds in case of time and meters in case of space are also strong indication of the same. That is why spacetime not a 4D object but 3D+1D object.
Because a lot of scientists treat time as space there is this silly statement that says all past, present and future events "exist". To me by definition "exist" implies at present (local present at each point in time following the world lines of each point and the latest moment in it's proper time - what ever that is). I am aware of relativity of simultaneity business...so no need to remind me of that.
But I disagree with the presenter that flow of time is result of entropy increase. The entropy increases in the direction of time flow, but the converse is not true. Time simply is "change". Even in eventual thermal equilibrium, where entropy is maximum and not changing, as long as there is change in configuration of particles, albeit random, then by definition there is time, because the configuration changes in time. Julian Barbour gets it right. Time = change. To that I add - it can be measured only if there is some cyclically changing sub part of the universe, then rate of flow of time can be "measured" in terms of those cycles.
there is no present, one cannot stop time to examine a present, our immediate present is the future of the immediate past.....no present exists.
Time is associated with consciousness only, yes?
Saint Augustini bond past and time Future show time is aberrational philosophy. For instance How predict past and future time not existence is uncertain. No sense and present time keep out time present when unpredictable conscieusness not keep random time present.
Sounds kinda like time is entropy