Note that I got the wrong number of '9's on the slide when I talk about how fast you need to travel to cover the entire galaxy in a day. I said 0.99999999c, whereas it should have been 0.9999999999999999c. I mean, do you really care? Well, we do need to get our sums right. So apologies for my mistake.
There is another mistake physics has made. Take a look: In order to have a complete description of the motion, we must specify how the body alters its position with time; i.e. for every point on the trajectory it must be stated at what time the body is situated there. These data must be supplemented by such a definition of time that, in virtue of this definition, these time-values can be regarded essentially as magnitudes (results of measurements) capable of observation. [Relativity The Special and the General Theory, Albert Einstein, Crown Publishers, Inc., 1961.] Tautology. Logical imperfection does not a valid principle theory make. Reliable, but what does physics measure when it gets magnitude for time-values? Distance. Tautology. Define time relativistically and you get the clock face, not the relative motion of the hands. Now ask yourself, what in human experience never changes, like the clock face never changes? You personal identity, ego, narrating self, etc. Makes perfect sense. Down to statements by Denis Nobel such that physiology is directed. Take Maxwell's demon and now you understand how life works and how flow for time is quale for motion. Think about this. In Self Comes to Mind, Damasio notes that the brain makes maps. Now ask yourself if there is anything in human experience which could act like a north pole, a fixed point of reference and only against which motion could be intelligible. Personal identity is a continuity. For collapse of the wave function in vision: Coppola and Purves 1996. Now read Purves et al 2015 Will understanding vision require an entirely empirical paradigm? Because INSTANT isn't CAUSAL.
What a brilliant man Jim is. Everyone should want to be a Physicist after listening to him. We could still draw, paint, write poetry, do art in our spare time.
Jim Al-Khalili is my favorite science docu star. It was "The Secret Life of Chaos" that sparked my doubts about reality and religion, and got me down the rabbit hole of science and philosophy.
Definitely one of my favourite popularisers of science and I agree that the interdependence of space and time is where the real interest in relativity lies. It's also interesting that he addresses the experience of the immediate moment and the 'flow of time', as this is rare for a physicist. All the same, a lot more can and has been said on the subject, and a good reading of Bergson, James and/or Husserl would help to articulate the issue better.
Correct. That is why dynamic and thermodynamic equations use real time, and the theory of relativity uses a clock that is always slow. That is why I consider the theory of relativity a myth. Physicists say look, time is dilaing, but in fact the clock is ticking slower.
Love the "Val" aside right at the start! The whole lecture was, of course, fascinating and thought provoking. Since big brained, cleverer people than me haven't come up with an all-inclusive time theory that combines dynamic equations, general relativity and thermodynamics, I thought I'd give it a whirl ... Nope, my little brain hurts. I'm inclined to suggest we ask 6 or 10 yr olds who haven't been indoctrinated by school physics and maths, and the idea of what is "right" - their imaginations can be startling and original. Then someone has to convert the idea in to equations ...
What they have verified many times and take for granted that it exists turns out to be nothing more than a hypothesis, but literally, without going on to deduce the validity of a final formula and they are 100% sure of something that they do not know.
Fundamentally there can be no movement without time... by definition... right? ✅️ Otherwise all matter would be in at least 2 places at once! But we know that things do move... therefore we know time exists...But time can still pass (at whatever rate) without any need for movement or measurement or even any need for photon involvement at all 🤔 Right? (My brain hurts😂) ⏳️
In GPS systems the satellites emit a time signal and your device, phone or whatever does the number crunching. The satellites clocks are already set to match the time on land despite them actually aging slower by about 7 nano seconds a day. This is how they address Special Relativity. However on the land the gravity is a bit stronger and so time passes slower than the satellites making gravity a factor, by about 45 nano seconds, addressed in General Relativity. By Subtracting the 7 from 45 as part of the location calculations from the satellites, your device can show you where you are. You have to be there, it's relative to you at that moment in SpaceTime. Nobody else will get the same result. If your device shares the result that's another story.
More difficult "We can travel back in time, relative to another person, but as we travel back we don't meet with the expected "past moment ", indeed for ourselves we have altered time, but for the other person, they remember you in their past "as though all is normal ",
I find it curious that according to Roger Penrose, the picture of the universe that we get from the Cosmic Microwave Background is of a universe at maximum entropy, when obviously it had to have started in a state of minimal entropy. Can’t get my head around that.
Was it at maximum entropy? I understand matter was evenly spaced out, but before the atoms were formed there was a lot of potential energy from the separated charges, no?
Thank you for the talk, it was most interesting. I have one question. You mentioned philosophy and physics but not biology. When defining time, a good starting point might be to ask "what is time used for". Humans use time to detect change, and synchronize activities. Other animals use time in the same way. At the simplest level single celled organisms use biological clocks in mitosis to ensure that the cell divides in the correct sequence with no overlap in the stages. Therefore a sense of time appears to be a fundamental requirement of life (not for life) and life cannot exist without this sense. No inanimate object uses time (except perhaps for a computer) therefore this suggests that time is a creation of life and it does not exist where there is no life. In Einstein's thought experiments, he required at least one observer. Time could simply be defined as the chemical delay between the stages of mitosis - a variable length gap between events. So my question is "Why did you consider biological time to be irrelevant?"
@@gxfprtorius4815 I wholeheartedly agree with you, time = time, delay = delay, duration = duration, delay = time, duration = time, day = time (and also distance), hour = time (and also distance) etc. I think this may be semantics and it doesn't get us very far. My contention is that time/delay/duration is a creation of biology, an essential of life but an inessential of anything else. If one defines time as the gap or delimiter between events, time disappears at the quantum level because there are either no events (only probabilities of events) or we don't have a clock fast enough to measure the quantum events.
@@gxfprtorius4815 For clarification, think of time as a wave or pulse. Draw a graph starting from 0 and going to 1 on the Y axis. Leave the X axis blank for now. Draw a vertical line from the X axis to the Y value of 1, then draw a diagonal line from the top of the vertical line down to the X axis. Where the line meets the X axis draw another vertical up to Y value of 1. The first vertical line is sunrise, the second vertical line is sunrise. The gap or wavelength between the points on the X axis is 40075 kilometres (the circumference of the earth). Draw another graph in the same way with 4 vertical lines. These now represent sunrise, sunset, sunrise and sunset. At the equator the wavelength is 20037.5 kilometres but at other latitudes the wavelength is uneven because night and day have different lengths. The Y axis is the true of false existence of an event, the X axis is the wavelength between events or what we call time. The wavelength is not necessarily regular and consistent. You could draw similar graphs for hours, minutes, seconds and fractions of seconds. The wavelength would decrease until you reached the quantum level. A graph of mitosis would look the same and have 5 vertical lines, one for each stage. The wavelength between each stage varies depending on the organism and whether the organisms is in a favourable or less favourable environment. The important thing is the event or stage not the gap/wavelength between the events. If you draw a graph for the quantum level it will either be a solid block of all possible unseparated events at all possible wavelengths or more likely a completely blank graph because there are no events until we observe them. Humans operate at a wavelength of about 116 metres, therefore any events which have a wavelength significantly less or more than this become increasingly more difficult to observe. We can only see grass grow by using a time-lapse camera to decrease the wavelength used by grass and we can see insect activity by using a slow-motion camera to increase the wavelength used by insects.
I move a magnet and pick up a paper clip at one location and continue the movement to a new location and pick up a second paperclip. If the laws of physics play equally backwards as forwards. I would expect that moving the magnet backwards from its end position, it would drop both paperclips at the same time. What am I missing
I believe that time is an important human sense and of course clocks are excellent for navigation and coordinating with others. Non-human animals do not use clocks, although they likely sense time in the same way humans do. Reversing time may be a possibility, but entropy is not humanly reversible, so we are stuck moving forward along our worldliness toward the future, with the past irretrievably left behind, except for memories.
Memories are not much different than perception or imagination, if at all. Time exists so long as the observer is unaware of its own reality. It’s all nothing more than human sense-which is nonsense 😂 but it’s beautiful. What fun!
I don't think of time in terms of relativity. I think of time as a measurement of change. As for NOW, now is thought of as a specific moment in time, but when is now? It is always now, and if it is always now, that is the whole of time and the whole of time is an eternity. I think of an eternal now.
They're is no such thing as now. The intuitive nature of it, is Paradoxal. It is always an estimation, but that's not what we mean when we say, or think of it. An unsolvable puzzle, with our thoughts being at odds with what we intend.
No, it isn't. Please take a look at what mathematicians are talking about, which are all abstracts. Physicists are talking about concretes. Energy is a concrete property. It costs money and it can kill you if you aren't careful with it. I have never seen anybody being slain by a monster group. I did almost electrocute myself once, though. Trust me, once was quite enough. It hurt like hell. ;-)
Funny claim universe is expanding based upon cosmological red shift in far away galaxies. Despite all this expansion, andromeda and milky way are getting closer to merge overcoming the overall expansion. What if our observational universe confined by particle horizon turns out to be a tiny fraction of overall universe? May be the overall universe is crumbling crunching back as we can't see beyond the particle horizon.
Here is a question that leads to a “rabbit hole” if there ever was one. Can Space exist without time? For if Spacetime is what Einstein theories says it is then what happens to it when time is removed?i.e with the “Time” component removed from the equation, what would Space alone look like and how would it behave or does it disappear along with the “Time component”. Perhaps the “Event Horizon” of a blackhole where Time seems to stop is also where Space ceases to exist. The acceptance of such a thing opens up a whole new playing field to think about. With the acceptance of the removal of Time "and" Space. So perhaps the immense Gravitational effect near a BH is actually more of a Vacuum pressure effect on Spacetime itself. So then within the Sphere surrounded by the EH of any BHSpace and Time would not exist. The EH would then be thought of as a boundary between the Existence of SpaceTime and the Non Existence of SpaceTime since when Time stops therefore Space disappears also. So then within the EH there would be truly “no thing” as we perceive it. This may help to explain the apparent proportionality of the violence at the EH where Matter is converted into Energy some of which leaks out as Hawking radiation and some which fuels the Potential-Tension contained within the expansion of the EH itself. This is a thought that just came to me so I am in the “infant stage” as to where to take it.
Just a thought... the first state of the sequence of causality is an "effect", which decays into many "causes", that fuse into an "effect", which decays into many "causes", etc. Causality may be described as a continuous process of decay and fusion. i.e. "Space and Time"
@@andrewdouglas1963 close...the first "effect" was causeless. A "cause" is a reason for a happening. The first "Effect" had no reason to exist. So it decayed. The initial process of decay created the first causes.
I like the way Jim mentioned God in a humanist convention. It is only a matter of time. It gets under the skin and ignites gashed senses and roughs up humanists with attitude.
Here's a suggestion on the nature of time, that I find most useful. Gravity and velocity don't affect time, but rather, they affect the rate at which things time. Time is something that things do. That includes us. Time isn't the dimension. It's a term we use to describe our motion through that dimension. Let's call it a temporal dimension. So, we are in temporal motion from the past to the future, but it's not the present that exists. The present is a term describing our current position. It isn't stationary. The present is constantly changing. Einstein got it wrong with his block theory of time. The entire universe exists in a singular present moment.
Hi, FLW I would basically agree ( as in that's a suggestion worth exploring ), but change it slightly. Consider two ideas, 1- Things are moving, changing and interacting. 2- Things are moving, changing and interacting., within a thing called Time. Most people might agree they observe statement 1 to be true, but that statement 2 is more complete. But statement 2 is perhaps unprovable and unfalsifiable, so perhaps we should consider things both in terms of “movement and change”, and in terms of “movement and change within Time”, and see how things look ( as opposed to only trying to verify something we assume must exist “Time” ). So perhaps, your suggestion ( without Time as a thing ) could be re-considered as, ------ Gravity and velocity don't affect Time, but rather, they affect the rate at which things are changing. Change is something that things do. That includes us. Time isn't the dimension. It's a term we use to describe [ the dimension / measurable quantity of ] motion through space. So we are in motion through space. It is only that which is present that exists. ( The present is a term describing our current position. It isn't stationary. The present is constantly changing. ) The present is a term that describes everything through which we are moving, and all of this is constantly changing. (Einstein got it wrong with his block theory of time. The entire universe exists in a singular present) Interpreting Relativity as showing block-time may be invalid, The entire universe may all just exist and be changing, in alignment with relativistic effects, but all just in what is 3 dimensionally present, and observably moving. ---- M.M.
i still didinot get how if you travel speed of light go to sun and back it take 15 minute to light havenot take same to you ? you have same speed so ......what ? if you go 100/000 light way in a day you travel to sun 0 secend or even Negative minus 0 or what ?
All of physical reality/existence is always, only, and exactly Now (Now has no duration). All of physical reality is 'simply' the current continuum state of all forces (energy if you like) flowing from Now causing the next Now. We perceive time because 1) physical reality is changing, and 2) we have memory storing previous states, and 3) our brain compares now to stored memory. No memory a/o no change = no perception of time. The universe is just running/flowing. Enjoy the ride.
The story of Einstein's insensitivity - in attempting to console his dead friends grieving widow by telling her that time didn't exist - is an oft-told one, which is a shame, because it didn't happen. First, the person that had passed away was a man named Michelle Besso, and he and Einstein were very close friends who had known each other for a very long time, he wasn't just an associate whose death the bumbling Einstein was largely insensitive to, and so, aside from Michelle's immediate family, there was probably nobody else on Earth that felt his loss more keenly. Second, Einstein's letter of condolence - that contained the now infamous line about time not being "real" - WAS NOT addressed to Michelle's wife, he wrote the letter to his friends adult _daughter._ And this fact alone crucially changes the entire nature of the story. Third, Einstein didn't merely say that time isn't real, so death doesn't matter. Because, even if he said this not to the wife, but to the daughter, then it would _still_ be largely insensitive. Rather, _after_ expressing his own personal sadness at his friends passing, and _after_ offering his sympathies to what Michelle's daughter must have been going through, Einstein _finally_ told her that, as physicists now knew, time did not pass in the linear way of our human intuitions, and that as such, although she could not see him right now, her father, in some very real sense, was still alive - waiting for her on the other side of a hill. So, in summary, Einstein wrote a heartfelt, sympathetic, and potentially even uplifting letter to the daughter of his best friend. And the picture of him being an insensitive, bumbling, crazy-haired scientist is simply wrong. Well... he _did_ let his hair get pretty wild in his later years, so I suppose there's that. I don't know exactly where, or why, or how, the story above got "juiced-up", but I do know that almost every quote, anectdote, or story thats been popularly attributed to almost _any_ historical figure is likely just as wrong. Cleopatra, for instance, didn't die after placing an asp to her breast (rather, she stabbed herself with a hair-pin that had a hidden cavity in it containing poison). Marie-Antoinette did _not_ inconsequentially say "Let them eat cake!". Rather, both she and Louis XVI were painfully aware of just how much at the mercy of the people of France they had become. They might have lived in palatial luxury, but they knew full-well that their people didn't. And when it was drafted the section in the US constitution that states "All men are created equal" only applied to those citizens that could vote, and the only people that could vote were white males who owned private property. Females wouldn't be given the right to vote for nearly another 200 years, and people of colour not for some years after _that._ Which is why women and black people haven't historically been treated equally in the US - because they _weren't_ equal. Not, I should add, that they necessarily were anyplace else! I've used the three above examples to show that, however much you might think "Oh, but that (quote, anecdote, fact, story etc.) _must_ be true!", it almost certainly isn't. Or, at the very least, it won't be the _whole_ truth. Our historical version of reality is built on a game of telephone. Paradoxically, however, though you might expect a story to change more and more as time between the original event and its current retelling passes, the belief that the latest version of events is a true and accurate account of what originally happened also becomes more firm with time passing. And so what naturally happens then, is that people come to believe more in a version of events the _more that that version changes._ Which is pretty whack, huh?
I think time is a property of space. If you remove all matter and radiation then space is expanding and this change defines time. Once you introduce light then this wave in the medium of space has a speed which depends on the tension in the medium of space. Once you introduce matter then the neutron proton and electron are looped waves in the medium which is why there is a time dilation effect depending on the velocity relative to the rest frame of the medium. Thus time is best thought of as a property of the medium of space.
Pure state then the big bang. Masses of entropy. Disorder everywhere. But then order came about thanks to gravity. Galaxies with star systems were formed. Planets, some with life. At least one with an unbroken jug. Surely this demonstrates that entropy isn't only one way?
Where did all the stuff in the Universe come from? "It came from the negative something Big Bang something something gravity something energy." SO WHERE DID ALL THAT ENERGY COME FROM THEN EH? "This morning I want to talk about..." YOU WON'T GET AWAY WITH IT!!! 😀
Question: "Where does all the matter in the universe come from?" Guru: At the big bang we had "negative gravitational energy". We had masses together and had to put energy into it to pull it apart. And that potential energy comes from before the universe... What? This guru takes it for granted that there was anything before the big bang was initiated. There was nothing before the big bang. Time started at the same time as the big bang, didn't it? There can not be a cause before the big bang that made the big bang happen. Could it? I will have to ask the guru who knows it all
Logically there must be a before the big bang and a cause of time but that doesn't sit well with the humanist perspective so better just to ignore the logic and say there was no before the big bang.
Experience is not for the weak The result is a “theory of everything” in a simple device. Einstein dreamed of measuring the speed of a train, a car - using the Michelson experiment of 1881/2024, and only then the experiment would be 100% completed. This can be done using a fiber optic HYBRID gyroscope. Based on a 100% completed Michelson experiment, the following postulates can be proven: Light is an ordered vibration of gravitational quanta, and dominant gravitational fields adjust the speed of light in a vacuum.
The Story of Time, Combining the three pillars. In this talk Professor Al-Khalili asks the question Why does time have a direction, and describes the problem of unifying three problems with time,... He also suggests “we see the past receding from us” to give some idea of this direction. But if we are being rigorously scientific I would start by questioning this idea, Given the problems presented, it is not enough to just say, well I agree and you know what I mean etc. We may see countless objects and matter in the world around us constantly moving and interacting, changing form and location, integrating and disintegrating so much we can not see their individual atoms etc, but do we actually in fact see anything in anyway recede into a (temporal ) past ? In other words, unless there is an actual experiment that shows the past is more than a useful idea then we should be very careful in using the term here. Likewise, do we see the effects of an invisible future approaching behind us ( so to speak ) ? or do we just see animals and object moving chaotically or orderly depending on there own internal mechanisms and how they react to their orderly or chaotic surroundings ? Concerning the specific pillars, 1 dynamical equations 2 general theory of relativity 3 Entropy / thermodynamics For what it's worth.... 1 dynamical equations ( where we are just using a number ) It may be worth considering very carefully where in any simple dynamical experiment and related equations, we are actually getting the number we use for t. Typically this might be from an analogue watch, which is simply a machine made such that a hand rotates on it's dial at a steady, standardised rate. In which case the numbers we use relate directly to the speed and location of a specific rotating reference object ( a watch hand ). Thus, if we are say measuring the speed of a train travelling 100 metres, and saying it took 20 seconds, then, no matter how might abstract it, what we are actually doing is comparing the speed and travel of the rotating pointer to the speed / travel of the train. i.e. I could say the train took 20 seconds, or / measure the distance the hand travelled ( say 20 cm ) and legitimately say, as the hand travelled 20 cm the train covered 100 m, so the train is travelling 500 times the speed of the pointer. -In which case I am comparing like for like, and know where my mysterious t values come from and are. 2 The theory of relativity In On the Electro-dynamics of moving bodies, Einstein's paper says... We have to take into account that all our judgments in which time plays a part are always judgments of simultaneous events. If, for instance, I say, ``That train arrives here at 7 o'clock,'' I mean something like this: ``The pointing of the small hand of my watch to 7 and the arrival of the train are simultaneous events.'' What is observed here is that a train can be moving or stationary, a pointer on a dial can be moving or stationary, and their locations can be being compared. If we look at Special Relativity as if it might only be about movement and rates of change, then perhaps it is completely true that fast moving objects may be changing more slowly than stationary objects. Thus the hands on a fast moving “clock” may increasingly lag behind those of a stationary one, because of relativistic effects...( as explained by light clocks ) but the fact things are changing more slowly may not prove that there is a past, a future and a thing called time which is passing more slowly. (in other words, if there is a thing called time, then a rotating had shows this, but a rotating hand might not prove there is a thing called time) This means the concept of 4d block-time might be invalid, and instead there may be just what we observe, 3d space in which things are inteacting, with the 4th dimension ( measurable quantity) just being the measurable quantity of movement and change. And if we are mistaken about block-time ( all of time existing at once ) the conflict with procedual ( encreasing ) time, or an arrow of time disolves as a factor. 3 Entropy / thermodynamics The talk points out that entropy is universally increasing, So, it may be worth considering that entropy is exactly what it is, ie. The fact that things do tend to disintegrate into disorder and their components tend to dissipate in to the endless surroundings. The point being this may just be happening, as opposed to happening because there is also a thing called time passing, or happening because a past is constantly receding or because a future is constantly arriving. Perhaps entropy can be said to have a general direction, as in everything dissipating outwards, but perhaps this does not prove or require that a thing called Time , with or without a direction also exists. The point being that -if in dynamical equations we are just ultimately comparing motion, -and in relativity we are observing dilated rates of change ( but not the dilation of a thing called time) -and if entropy is just the action of matter, heat etc dispersing, Then each of these things can be explained in terms of things just moving and interacting and ther is no conflict. - and if we have no experiment to show the actual existence of a past and or future, then perhaps our equations are just comparing motion, clock hands are just useful rotating objects, things change relatavistically more slowly if they are moving fast, and everything is expanding. In which case, perhaps the answer to the professors question “why does time have a direction?” may be, despite the fact the universe is irreversably expanding outwards and despite or "feeling" that there is a thing called time progressing, and despite the usefulness, language and mathamatics around the idea of time, time may be just and only be a useful idea and as such the question of it having a direction may be invalid. Just some thoughts. M.M.
actually the speed of light is Incredibly slow on the astronomical scale. It takes 40 billion years....... for a light beam, to travel from the east coast to the Westcoast of the US, if the size is scaled down to the size of America, where our sun is as small as a grain of dust, fitting between the lines of our fingerprints.
Someone asked on X, what is time, I can answer that question, but I look at it like we humans move around the physical world, so time moves around us, Neil Turok postulates that the big bang was a point of quantum entanglement as well, peace
His documentaries are fascinathing p, we learn a lot. But in one of them, he ends it by saying: « The big bang, creation of the universe out of nothing » for that sad sentence I cannot watch his videos anymore. Very sad....
This was a meandering talk which did little to clarify the problem and possible solutions. I don’t watch this guy much but I was thoroughly unimpressed.
He said he cannot point at the time axis because he has to go beyond the 3 spatial dimension. Well, that's wrong because time is not a spatial dimension. So if you know some of physics vocabulary, then what he said is dimensionally incorrect
Experience IS the facilitator of time, and the only "time" that exists is, therefore, the present. The time this gentleman speaks about, that's an idea, a story. It exists only insofar as experiential agents follow its rationale
You cannot present dimensions 1 or 2 in reality. Math needs them to work. That is the same with time. Math needs it to count sequences. Physics is 100% math, and that drove me insane that an analogous description tool describing nature piecemeal is the only real science. A fluid CAUSE will evade modern science forever while they describe the pieces, because once it becomes math, it becomes CONSTANT. "The wheels on the bus go round and round." This kid song describes everything you see a bus do exactly like math, but it is not understanding a bus from causality. The variables in gravity math are likely not causal, just like those wheels. Modern science is not so successful when I describe it. Put that in your book.
Zero does not exist physically and you cannot move from 0 to 1 due to infinite numbers in between. Nothing is absolute all illusion. Enjoy the confusion, chaos and uncertainty.spread infinitely all around.
Bro said a whole lotta nothin, just discusses the different perspectives of time. Wish he got more into how is it a fabric of space. Cuz that would imply that it’s physical
Kept waiting and waiting for some discussion of the perception of the individual. There is subjective versus objective. Time is subjective. Time is a collective construct but ultimately depends on the perception of the individual. The primary drive for everyone's life is the sun rise and the sun set. Very Very Very simple. That's it. Period. All of this discussion is irrelevant. By the way for me, i exist in the world of Eastern Standard Time. Subjective and simple. 😳
@@MrDumile if time ends and starts again it has to do that within a bigger time concept, so it would be time within time... so a universe within a bigger universe...
I thought that was a very poor answer to the question of where all the matter came from. Why not just say that the Big Bang theory violates the law of conservation of energy. A rough estimate of the total mass in the universe is 10^54 kg being an estimated 10^12 galaxies of 10^42 kg each. The Big Bang theory says you can take this matter back in time to the point where it fitted in a volume the size of a grapefruit.
You are correct, Big Bang theory is incorrect! - It is not a Scientific. It is a product of Belgium Priest. No matter what "They" fantasizing, Time is a fundamental element of the Universe. Exactly Time is providing the irreversibility of the Physics processes. There is a great explanation of Space and Time in the book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe"
If time is a dimension, every point on it must exist. That means, tomorrow must exist today. Space dimensions, x=1 m , y=2 m , z=3 m exist now, so is x=1000, y=2000 and z=3000 m exist now, so time=now+1day must exist now and today. That's a paradox, tomorrow does not exist now, never existed before. Thus time can not be a axis, axis points must exist.
Time is not a dimension. It's that which the clocks show. Since there can be an arbitrary number of clocks, there can also be an arbitrary number of times. Their relationships depend on the motion history of the clocks.
@schmetterling4477 Time bends. Time slows down, time is a physical thing, just like space x,y,z time is t, that's why its called space time in physics. X,y,z is axis and every point in x,y,z exist now, time t doesn't. Future t's do not exist now, will exist tomorrow
The Buddha said "There's really no such thing as time. There is really only Now--an eternally present Present with no beginning and no ending. Everything is completely new, distinct, and original every instant, with no real "change" or "motion" at all." He got there first 😂
Is time similar for a being with an endoskeleton like a human being to a being with an exoskeleton like a lobster? Certainly, a lobster can sense when its exoskeleton has been replaced by another because it has become too small and is preventing it from growing. This is a biological experience that humans do not experience. Their endoskeleton grows for a while along with everything else, and then they stop growing. A lobster changes its exoskeleton every two months and can live for 100 years. This means that it can feel the passage of time 600 times. Perhaps it can count this, perhaps not. We have no way of knowing how a lobster experiences and counts time. A human can live on average 80 years and he cannot change any bones, although his bone mass may decline after a certain age. A lobster-man would probably experience time very differently from a lobster and from a human. He would have the advantage of reflecting in extremely deep, physiological, philosophical and physical ways about the passage of time. Perhaps he even collected his exoskeletons, something a lobster does not do (at least as far as we know). Lobsters have been shedding their exoskeletons and experiencing time for 75 million years. Hominids have existed for 2 to 6 million years and only really became a species with high cognitive capacity 200,000 years ago. Lobsters have had much more time than homo-sapiens to solve the paradoxes of time, but they have not bothered to do so and the lack of science has not affected their existence and evolution. But man can decree his extinction and "the end of times" through a nuclear war, something that lobsters would probably consider stupid... because they want to keep shedding exoskeletons and producing little lobsters. Do we still have time to learn something from lobsters? This is a question that physicists generally do not ask.
,.Our interpretation of time is only in a reaction dimension (of which are dimension actually is) there is no time in a negatively charged dimension) but should are grandchildren build the mk v craft and be aboard it thy would still age in the mk v in a negatively charged dimension due to the mk v craft is still a reaction system as thy are ,yes complex to grasp but the equation of physics says its fact. Due to all matter in are dimension emits phase wave interaction sequences.due to a reaction taking place = a phase wave is emited via said reaction .
![[#2024MAMA] G-DRAGON - 무제(Untitled, 2014)+POWER+HOME SWEET HOME+뱅뱅뱅+FANTASTIC BABY | Mnet 241123 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ox29z5Nf1Uk/mqdefault.jpg)
Note that I got the wrong number of '9's on the slide when I talk about how fast you need to travel to cover the entire galaxy in a day. I said 0.99999999c, whereas it should have been 0.9999999999999999c. I mean, do you really care? Well, we do need to get our sums right. So apologies for my mistake.
Well now it just doesn't seem feasible!
Yes, I noticed that.
There is another mistake physics has made. Take a look:
In order to have a complete description of the motion, we must specify how the body alters its position with time; i.e. for every point on the trajectory it must be stated at what time the body is situated there. These data must be supplemented by such a definition of time that, in virtue of this definition, these time-values can be regarded essentially as magnitudes (results of measurements) capable of observation. [Relativity The Special and the General Theory, Albert Einstein, Crown Publishers, Inc., 1961.]
Tautology. Logical imperfection does not a valid principle theory make. Reliable, but what does physics measure when it gets magnitude for time-values? Distance. Tautology.
Define time relativistically and you get the clock face, not the relative motion of the hands. Now ask yourself, what in human experience never changes, like the clock face never changes? You personal identity, ego, narrating self, etc.
Makes perfect sense. Down to statements by Denis Nobel such that physiology is directed. Take Maxwell's demon and now you understand how life works and how flow for time is quale for motion.
Think about this. In Self Comes to Mind, Damasio notes that the brain makes maps. Now ask yourself if there is anything in human experience which could act like a north pole, a fixed point of reference and only against which motion could be intelligible.
Personal identity is a continuity. For collapse of the wave function in vision: Coppola and Purves 1996. Now read Purves et al 2015 Will understanding vision require an entirely empirical paradigm? Because INSTANT isn't CAUSAL.
Your "Atom" series and many others are perfect and inspiring! Thank you a lot professor Al-Khalili! 💖
Nein, es ist mir egal
Jim Al Khalili is one my favourite educators, up there with Carl Sagan, this vid is Jim on form as usual
Agreed. Never mind the other comments!
What a brilliant man Jim is.
Everyone should want to be a Physicist after listening to him.
We could still draw, paint, write poetry, do art in our spare time.
Jim Al-Khalili is my favorite science docu star. It was "The Secret Life of Chaos" that sparked my doubts about reality and religion, and got me down the rabbit hole of science and philosophy.
Favourite.
When i met with the Proof. Jim, we converse in 3 languages.
Love you and your fans world wide.
Learn more from Nigeria 🇳🇬
He is a favorite of mine most definitely! So great to see he is still out there!
Favourite.
Definitely one of my favourite popularisers of science and I agree that the interdependence of space and time is where the real interest in relativity lies. It's also interesting that he addresses the experience of the immediate moment and the 'flow of time', as this is rare for a physicist. All the same, a lot more can and has been said on the subject, and a good reading of Bergson, James and/or Husserl would help to articulate the issue better.
Jim U are so awesome to watch and listen 2 . I look forward to all your talks n lectures .
It’s really nice to hear the professor without the obnoxious overly loud background music on most of his videos. I could actually hear him this time!🤗
If entropy did flow backwards it would have to do so for the entire universe in unison... and we would never know it happened.
The biggest confusion people have about time is that they mistake time for clocks.
Clocks are only what we use to measure what we think time is.
Correct. That is why dynamic and thermodynamic equations use real time, and the theory of relativity uses a clock that is always slow. That is why I consider the theory of relativity a myth. Physicists say look, time is dilaing, but in fact the clock is ticking slower.
Love the "Val" aside right at the start!
The whole lecture was, of course, fascinating and thought provoking. Since big brained, cleverer people than me haven't come up with an all-inclusive time theory that combines dynamic equations, general relativity and thermodynamics, I thought I'd give it a whirl ...
Nope, my little brain hurts. I'm inclined to suggest we ask 6 or 10 yr olds who haven't been indoctrinated by school physics and maths, and the idea of what is "right" - their imaginations can be startling and original. Then someone has to convert the idea in to equations ...
What they have verified many times and take for granted that it exists turns out to be nothing more than a hypothesis, but literally, without going on to deduce the validity of a final formula and they are 100% sure of something that they do not know.
Don't we live in the past, by the time we react to stimulus it is already history.
But human brains also predict/anticipate the future along with memory of the past.
Time is the measurement of movement. Not movement of the speed of light, which can't be proven; but of the spin and orbit of the earth.
Fundamentally there can be no movement without time... by definition... right? ✅️
Otherwise all matter would be in at least 2 places at once!
But we know that things do move... therefore we know time exists...But time can still pass (at whatever rate) without any need for movement or measurement or even any need for photon involvement at all 🤔
Right?
(My brain hurts😂) ⏳️
Every particle is a clock vibrating at its specific frequency, measuring time at different rates.
What happens when all the particles in the universe decay? If there are no clocks to record it, does time exist?
The most common mistake is confusing time with clocks.
In GPS systems the satellites emit a time signal and your device, phone or whatever does the number crunching. The satellites clocks are already set to match the time on land despite them actually aging slower by about 7 nano seconds a day. This is how they address Special Relativity. However on the land the gravity is a bit stronger and so time passes slower than the satellites making gravity a factor, by about 45 nano seconds, addressed in General Relativity. By Subtracting the 7 from 45 as part of the location calculations from the satellites, your device can show you where you are. You have to be there, it's relative to you at that moment in SpaceTime. Nobody else will get the same result. If your device shares the result that's another story.
More difficult "We can travel back in time, relative to another person, but as we travel back we don't meet with the expected "past moment ", indeed for ourselves we have altered time, but for the other person, they remember you in their past "as though all is normal ",
River analogy, but if we picture a sea, and there's a flow within the body of water, but then also eddy's different flows within the body of water.
I find it curious that according to Roger Penrose, the picture of the universe that we get from the Cosmic Microwave Background is of a universe at maximum entropy, when obviously it had to have started in a state of minimal entropy. Can’t get my head around that.
Was it at maximum entropy? I understand matter was evenly spaced out, but before the atoms were formed there was a lot of potential energy from the separated charges, no?
Thank you for the talk, it was most interesting. I have one question. You mentioned philosophy and physics but not biology. When defining time, a good starting point might be to ask "what is time used for". Humans use time to detect change, and synchronize activities. Other animals use time in the same way. At the simplest level single celled organisms use biological clocks in mitosis to ensure that the cell divides in the correct sequence with no overlap in the stages. Therefore a sense of time appears to be a fundamental requirement of life (not for life) and life cannot exist without this sense. No inanimate object uses time (except perhaps for a computer) therefore this suggests that time is a creation of life and it does not exist where there is no life. In Einstein's thought experiments, he required at least one observer. Time could simply be defined as the chemical delay between the stages of mitosis - a variable length gap between events. So my question is "Why did you consider biological time to be irrelevant?"
What is a delay, if it is not time-like? And if it is a delay in time, are you then not just defining time as time?
@@gxfprtorius4815 I wholeheartedly agree with you, time = time, delay = delay, duration = duration, delay = time, duration = time, day = time (and also distance), hour = time (and also distance) etc. I think this may be semantics and it doesn't get us very far. My contention is that time/delay/duration is a creation of biology, an essential of life but an inessential of anything else. If one defines time as the gap or delimiter between events, time disappears at the quantum level because there are either no events (only probabilities of events) or we don't have a clock fast enough to measure the quantum events.
@@gxfprtorius4815 For clarification, think of time as a wave or pulse. Draw a graph starting from 0 and going to 1 on the Y axis. Leave the X axis blank for now. Draw a vertical line from the X axis to the Y value of 1, then draw a diagonal line from the top of the vertical line down to the X axis. Where the line meets the X axis draw another vertical up to Y value of 1. The first vertical line is sunrise, the second vertical line is sunrise. The gap or wavelength between the points on the X axis is 40075 kilometres (the circumference of the earth). Draw another graph in the same way with 4 vertical lines. These now represent sunrise, sunset, sunrise and sunset. At the equator the wavelength is 20037.5 kilometres but at other latitudes the wavelength is uneven because night and day have different lengths. The Y axis is the true of false existence of an event, the X axis is the wavelength between events or what we call time. The wavelength is not necessarily regular and consistent. You could draw similar graphs for hours, minutes, seconds and fractions of seconds. The wavelength would decrease until you reached the quantum level. A graph of mitosis would look the same and have 5 vertical lines, one for each stage. The wavelength between each stage varies depending on the organism and whether the organisms is in a favourable or less favourable environment. The important thing is the event or stage not the gap/wavelength between the events. If you draw a graph for the quantum level it will either be a solid block of all possible unseparated events at all possible wavelengths or more likely a completely blank graph because there are no events until we observe them. Humans operate at a wavelength of about 116 metres, therefore any events which have a wavelength significantly less or more than this become increasingly more difficult to observe. We can only see grass grow by using a time-lapse camera to decrease the wavelength used by grass and we can see insect activity by using a slow-motion camera to increase the wavelength used by insects.
I move a magnet and pick up a paper clip at one location and continue the movement to a new location and pick up a second paperclip. If the laws of physics play equally backwards as forwards. I would expect that moving the magnet backwards from its end position, it would drop both paperclips at the same time. What am I missing
I believe that time is an important human sense and of course clocks are excellent for navigation and coordinating with others. Non-human animals do not use clocks, although they likely sense time in the same way humans do. Reversing time may be a possibility, but entropy is not humanly reversible, so we are stuck moving forward along our worldliness toward the future, with the past irretrievably left behind, except for memories.
Memories are not much different than perception or imagination, if at all. Time exists so long as the observer is unaware of its own reality. It’s all nothing more than human sense-which is nonsense 😂 but it’s beautiful. What fun!
I don't think of time in terms of relativity. I think of time as a measurement of change. As for NOW, now is thought of as a specific moment in time, but when is now? It is always now, and if it is always now, that is the whole of time and the whole of time is an eternity. I think of an eternal now.
They're is no such thing as now. The intuitive nature of it, is Paradoxal. It is always an estimation, but that's not what we mean when we say, or think of it. An unsolvable puzzle, with our thoughts being at odds with what we intend.
Physics is flowing in the direction of mathematics.
No, it isn't. Please take a look at what mathematicians are talking about, which are all abstracts. Physicists are talking about concretes. Energy is a concrete property. It costs money and it can kill you if you aren't careful with it. I have never seen anybody being slain by a monster group. I did almost electrocute myself once, though. Trust me, once was quite enough. It hurt like hell. ;-)
@@schmetterling4477 True. Physics is way more than theoretical physics. Stay safe.
Jim Al Khalili is love
Funny claim universe is expanding based upon cosmological red shift in far away galaxies. Despite all this expansion, andromeda and milky way are getting closer to merge overcoming the overall expansion.
What if our observational universe confined by particle horizon turns out to be a tiny fraction of overall universe? May be the overall universe is crumbling crunching back as we can't see beyond the particle horizon.
Here is a question that leads to a “rabbit hole” if there ever was one.
Can Space exist without time?
For if Spacetime is what Einstein theories says it is then what happens to it when time is removed?i.e with the “Time” component removed from the equation, what would Space alone look like and how would it behave or does it disappear along with the “Time component”. Perhaps the “Event Horizon” of a blackhole where Time seems to stop is also where Space ceases to exist. The acceptance of such a thing opens up a whole new playing field to think about. With the acceptance of the removal of Time "and" Space. So perhaps the immense Gravitational effect near a BH is actually more of a Vacuum pressure effect on Spacetime itself. So then within the Sphere surrounded by the EH of any BHSpace and Time would not exist. The EH would then be thought of as a boundary between the Existence of SpaceTime and the Non Existence of SpaceTime since when Time stops therefore Space disappears also. So then within the EH there would be truly “no thing” as we perceive it.
This may help to explain the apparent proportionality of the violence at the EH where Matter is converted into Energy some of which leaks out as Hawking radiation and some which fuels the Potential-Tension contained within the expansion of the EH itself.
This is a thought that just came to me so I am in the “infant stage” as to where to take it.
Time may be real,
But our personal perspective of time becomes problematic, if we want to study the universe on larger scales.
It could happen! A shuffle could place cards in "the order that we find pleasing"
Just a thought... the first state of the sequence of causality is an "effect", which decays into many "causes", that fuse into an "effect", which decays into many "causes", etc. Causality may be described as a continuous process of decay and fusion. i.e. "Space and Time"
Process of Śiva - Brahma (Vișnu behind the scenes).
Over-complicating a simple idea.
So the first cause must be uncaused and always existed.
Because there can't be an effect without a cause of the effect.
@ yes cause beyond effect. Light beyond darkness. The shining Self ever pure. Brahman
@@andrewdouglas1963 close...the first "effect" was causeless. A "cause" is a reason for a happening. The first "Effect" had no reason to exist. So it decayed. The initial process of decay created the first causes.
We can test that! We can set an electronic monitor to watch a traveller, as they speed away, and then return
If time is non-reversible according to thermodynamics, how is traveling back in time not ruled out according to physics?
... i love it ...
I like the way Jim mentioned God in a humanist convention. It is only a matter of time. It gets under the skin and ignites gashed senses and roughs up humanists with attitude.
At the moment of the big bang everything was entangled. Interesting.
Why?
@CliffSedge-nu5fv IDK it was mentioned in the lecture.
How can there be time.? When that what has been seen cannot be unseen.! That which has been, cannot undone.! Then what is time.!?
What is the music named at 15min?
Respect Super mind Time is unknow for everyone know for someone
Here's a suggestion on the nature of time, that I find most useful. Gravity and velocity don't affect time, but rather, they affect the rate at which things time. Time is something that things do. That includes us. Time isn't the dimension. It's a term we use to describe our motion through that dimension. Let's call it a temporal dimension.
So, we are in temporal motion from the past to the future, but it's not the present that exists. The present is a term describing our current position. It isn't stationary. The present is constantly changing. Einstein got it wrong with his block theory of time. The entire universe exists in a singular present moment.
Hi, FLW
I would basically agree ( as in that's a suggestion worth exploring ), but change it slightly.
Consider two ideas,
1- Things are moving, changing and interacting.
2- Things are moving, changing and interacting., within a thing called Time.
Most people might agree they observe statement 1 to be true, but that statement 2 is more complete. But statement 2 is perhaps unprovable and unfalsifiable,
so perhaps we should consider things both in terms of “movement and change”, and in terms of “movement and change within Time”, and see how things look ( as opposed to only trying to verify something we assume must exist “Time” ).
So perhaps, your suggestion ( without Time as a thing ) could be re-considered as,
------
Gravity and velocity don't affect Time, but rather, they affect the rate at which things are changing.
Change is something that things do.
That includes us. Time isn't the dimension. It's a term we use to describe [ the dimension / measurable quantity of ] motion through space.
So we are in motion through space.
It is only that which is present that exists.
( The present is a term describing our current position. It isn't stationary. The present is constantly changing. )
The present is a term that describes everything through which we are moving, and all of this is constantly changing.
(Einstein got it wrong with his block theory of time. The entire universe exists in a singular present)
Interpreting Relativity as showing block-time may be invalid, The entire universe may all just exist and be changing, in alignment with relativistic effects, but all just in what is 3 dimensionally present, and observably moving.
----
M.M.
Stop confusing time with clocks and it will make sense.
@CliffSedge-nu5fv where do you see me confusing time with clocks?
This is all called dialectics.
@@Comondor-Tika what it's called is immaterial. What matters is whether it makes sense or not.
Thanks
There is talk about tired light, so what about tired time?
Only a material object can get tired, but time is not material, it is a measure of change.
We're just surfing 🌊 the sands of time ⌛ dude
Does time flow through us or we through time
Time is not matter, so it cannot flow.
i still didinot get how if you travel speed of light go to sun and back it take 15 minute to light havenot take same to you ? you have same speed so ......what ? if you go 100/000 light way in a day you travel to sun 0 secend or even Negative minus 0 or what ?
All of physical reality/existence is always, only, and exactly Now (Now has no duration). All of physical reality is 'simply' the current continuum state of all forces (energy if you like) flowing from Now causing the next Now. We perceive time because 1) physical reality is changing, and 2) we have memory storing previous states, and 3) our brain compares now to stored memory. No memory a/o no change = no perception of time. The universe is just running/flowing. Enjoy the ride.
You're in the Zeus time zone
The story of Einstein's insensitivity - in attempting to console his dead friends grieving widow by telling her that time didn't exist - is an oft-told one, which is a shame, because it didn't happen.
First, the person that had passed away was a man named Michelle Besso, and he and Einstein were very close friends who had known each other for a very long time, he wasn't just an associate whose death the bumbling Einstein was largely insensitive to, and so, aside from Michelle's immediate family, there was probably nobody else on Earth that felt his loss more keenly.
Second, Einstein's letter of condolence - that contained the now infamous line about time not being "real" - WAS NOT addressed to Michelle's wife, he wrote the letter to his friends adult _daughter._ And this fact alone crucially changes the entire nature of the story.
Third, Einstein didn't merely say that time isn't real, so death doesn't matter. Because, even if he said this not to the wife, but to the daughter, then it would _still_ be largely insensitive. Rather, _after_ expressing his own personal sadness at his friends passing, and _after_ offering his sympathies to what Michelle's daughter must have been going through, Einstein _finally_ told her that, as physicists now knew, time did not pass in the linear way of our human intuitions, and that as such, although she could not see him right now, her father, in some very real sense, was still alive - waiting for her on the other side of a hill.
So, in summary, Einstein wrote a heartfelt, sympathetic, and potentially even uplifting letter to the daughter of his best friend. And the picture of him being an insensitive, bumbling, crazy-haired scientist is simply wrong.
Well... he _did_ let his hair get pretty wild in his later years, so I suppose there's that.
I don't know exactly where, or why, or how, the story above got "juiced-up", but I do know that almost every quote, anectdote, or story thats been popularly attributed to almost _any_ historical figure is likely just as wrong. Cleopatra, for instance, didn't die after placing an asp to her breast (rather, she stabbed herself with a hair-pin that had a hidden cavity in it containing poison). Marie-Antoinette did _not_ inconsequentially say "Let them eat cake!". Rather, both she and Louis XVI were painfully aware of just how much at the mercy of the people of France they had become. They might have lived in palatial luxury, but they knew full-well that their people didn't. And when it was drafted the section in the US constitution that states "All men are created equal" only applied to those citizens that could vote, and the only people that could vote were white males who owned private property. Females wouldn't be given the right to vote for nearly another 200 years, and people of colour not for some years after _that._ Which is why women and black people haven't historically been treated equally in the US - because they _weren't_ equal. Not, I should add, that they necessarily were anyplace else!
I've used the three above examples to show that, however much you might think "Oh, but that (quote, anecdote, fact, story etc.) _must_ be true!", it almost certainly isn't. Or, at the very least, it won't be the _whole_ truth.
Our historical version of reality is built on a game of telephone. Paradoxically, however, though you might expect a story to change more and more as time between the original event and its current retelling passes, the belief that the latest version of events is a true and accurate account of what originally happened also becomes more firm with time passing.
And so what naturally happens then, is that people come to believe more in a version of events the _more that that version changes._ Which is pretty whack, huh?
Or the absence of it. The no time.
I think time is a property of space. If you remove all matter and radiation then space is expanding and this change defines time.
Once you introduce light then this wave in the medium of space has a speed which depends on the tension in the medium of space.
Once you introduce matter then the neutron proton and electron are looped waves in the medium which is why there is a time dilation effect depending on the velocity relative to the rest frame of the medium.
Thus time is best thought of as a property of the medium of space.
Pure state then the big bang. Masses of entropy. Disorder everywhere.
But then order came about thanks to gravity. Galaxies with star systems were formed. Planets, some with life. At least one with an unbroken jug.
Surely this demonstrates that entropy isn't only one way?
“In time, take time, though time will last. For time is no time when time is past.”
Where did all the stuff in the Universe come from?
"It came from the negative something Big Bang something something gravity something energy."
SO WHERE DID ALL THAT ENERGY COME FROM THEN EH?
"This morning I want to talk about..."
YOU WON'T GET AWAY WITH IT!!! 😀
Question: "Where does all the matter in the universe come from?"
Guru: At the big bang we had "negative gravitational energy". We had masses together and had to put energy into it to pull it apart. And that potential energy comes from before the universe...
What? This guru takes it for granted that there was anything before the big bang was initiated. There was nothing before the big bang. Time started at the same time as the big bang, didn't it? There can not be a cause before the big bang that made the big bang happen. Could it? I will have to ask the guru who knows it all
Logically there must be a before the big bang and a cause of time but that doesn't sit well with the humanist perspective so better just to ignore the logic and say there was no before the big bang.
All the matter in the universe is the same as all the empty space in the universe. It just happens that emptiness has non-trivial properties. ;-)
@@schmetterling4477
The empty space isn't actually empty.
@@andrewdouglas1963 Yes, it is. That's the beauty of it. All is nothing. ;-)
Experience is not for the weak
The result is a “theory of everything” in a simple device.
Einstein dreamed of measuring the speed of a train, a car - using the Michelson experiment of 1881/2024, and only then the experiment would be 100% completed. This can be done using a fiber optic HYBRID gyroscope. Based on a 100% completed Michelson experiment, the following postulates can be proven: Light is an ordered vibration of gravitational quanta, and dominant gravitational fields adjust the speed of light in a vacuum.
The Story of Time, Combining the three pillars.
In this talk Professor Al-Khalili asks the question Why does time have a direction, and describes the problem of unifying three problems with time,...
He also suggests “we see the past receding from us” to give some idea of this direction. But if we are being rigorously scientific I would start by questioning this idea,
Given the problems presented, it is not enough to just say, well I agree and you know what I mean etc.
We may see countless objects and matter in the world around us constantly moving and interacting, changing form and location, integrating and disintegrating so much we can not see their individual atoms etc, but do we actually in fact see anything in anyway recede into a (temporal ) past ?
In other words, unless there is an actual experiment that shows the past is more than a useful idea then we should be very careful in using the term here.
Likewise, do we see the effects of an invisible future approaching behind us ( so to speak ) ? or do we just see animals and object moving chaotically or orderly depending on there own internal mechanisms and how they react to their orderly or chaotic surroundings ?
Concerning the specific pillars,
1 dynamical equations
2 general theory of relativity
3 Entropy / thermodynamics
For what it's worth....
1 dynamical equations
( where we are just using a number ) It may be worth considering very carefully where in any simple dynamical experiment and related equations, we are actually getting the number we use for t.
Typically this might be from an analogue watch, which is simply a machine made such that a hand rotates on it's dial at a steady, standardised rate.
In which case the numbers we use relate directly to the speed and location of a specific rotating reference object ( a watch hand ).
Thus, if we are say measuring the speed of a train travelling 100 metres, and saying it took 20 seconds, then, no matter how might abstract it, what we are actually doing is comparing the speed and travel of the rotating pointer to the speed / travel of the train.
i.e. I could say the train took 20 seconds, or / measure the distance the hand travelled ( say 20 cm ) and legitimately say, as the hand travelled 20 cm the train covered 100 m, so the train is travelling 500 times the speed of the pointer.
-In which case I am comparing like for like, and know where my mysterious t values come from and are.
2 The theory of relativity
In On the Electro-dynamics of moving bodies, Einstein's paper says...
We have to take into account that all our judgments in which time plays a part are always judgments of simultaneous events.
If, for instance, I say, ``That train arrives here at 7 o'clock,'' I mean something like this: ``The pointing of the small hand of my watch to 7 and the arrival of the train are simultaneous events.''
What is observed here is that a train can be moving or stationary, a pointer on a dial can be moving or stationary, and their locations can be being compared.
If we look at Special Relativity as if it might only be about movement and rates of change, then perhaps it is completely true that fast moving objects may be changing more slowly than stationary objects.
Thus the hands on a fast moving “clock” may increasingly lag behind those of a stationary one, because of relativistic effects...( as explained by light clocks ) but the fact things are changing more slowly may not prove that there is a past, a future and a thing called time which is passing more slowly.
(in other words, if there is a thing called time, then a rotating had shows this, but a rotating hand might not prove there is a thing called time)
This means the concept of 4d block-time might be invalid, and instead there may be just what we observe, 3d space in which things are inteacting, with the 4th dimension ( measurable quantity) just being the measurable quantity of movement and change.
And if we are mistaken about block-time ( all of time existing at once ) the conflict with procedual ( encreasing ) time, or an arrow of time disolves as a factor.
3 Entropy / thermodynamics
The talk points out that entropy is universally increasing, So, it may be worth considering that entropy is exactly what it is, ie. The fact that things do tend to disintegrate into disorder and their components tend to dissipate in to the endless surroundings.
The point being this may just be happening, as opposed to happening because there is also a thing called time passing, or happening because a past is constantly receding or because a future is constantly arriving.
Perhaps entropy can be said to have a general direction, as in everything dissipating outwards, but perhaps this does not prove or require that a thing called Time , with or without a direction also exists.
The point being that
-if in dynamical equations we are just ultimately comparing motion,
-and in relativity we are observing dilated rates of change ( but not the dilation of a thing called time)
-and if entropy is just the action of matter, heat etc dispersing,
Then each of these things can be explained in terms of things just moving and interacting and ther is no conflict.
- and if we have no experiment to show the actual existence of a past and or future,
then
perhaps our equations are just comparing motion, clock hands are just useful rotating objects, things change relatavistically more slowly if they are moving fast, and everything is expanding.
In which case, perhaps the answer to the professors question “why does time have a direction?” may be, despite the fact the universe is irreversably expanding outwards and despite or "feeling" that there is a thing called time progressing, and despite the usefulness, language and mathamatics around the idea of time, time may be just and only be a useful idea and as such the question of it having a direction may be invalid.
Just some thoughts.
M.M.
actually the speed of light is Incredibly slow on the astronomical scale. It takes 40 billion years....... for a light beam, to travel from the east coast to the Westcoast of the US, if the size is scaled down to the size of America, where our sun is as small as a grain of dust, fitting between the lines of our fingerprints.
What time is it now 🤔
twenty five to twelve, in the morning.. (uk)
where are you? 🙂
Now, does not exist. Impossible.
@@davidpetrosky what about then now 🤔
Is gravity the time manipulator?
No, time is not an object. Time is not the matter. So gravity cannot influence on time
Someone asked on X, what is time, I can answer that question, but I look at it like we humans move around the physical world, so time moves around us, Neil Turok postulates that the big bang was a point of quantum entanglement as well, peace
Time is an idea, we've no idea where we are or how we got here or what is to come
You sound confused.
His documentaries are fascinathing p, we learn a lot. But in one of them, he ends it by saying: « The big bang, creation of the universe out of nothing » for that sad sentence I cannot watch his videos anymore. Very sad....
This was a meandering talk which did little to clarify the problem and possible solutions. I don’t watch this guy much but I was thoroughly unimpressed.
It’s all various levels of focus. Mental constructs are a toggling of a finite selection (perception) of infinite nothingness.
Deepity.
He said he cannot point at the time axis because he has to go beyond the 3 spatial dimension. Well, that's wrong because time is not a spatial dimension. So if you know some of physics vocabulary, then what he said is dimensionally incorrect
The Present steals the Past from the Future
✨️🙂✨️
Experience IS the facilitator of time, and the only "time" that exists is, therefore, the present. The time this gentleman speaks about, that's an idea, a story. It exists only insofar as experiential agents follow its rationale
You cannot present dimensions 1 or 2 in reality. Math needs them to work. That is the same with time. Math needs it to count sequences. Physics is 100% math, and that drove me insane that an analogous description tool describing nature piecemeal is the only real science. A fluid CAUSE will evade modern science forever while they describe the pieces, because once it becomes math, it becomes CONSTANT. "The wheels on the bus go round and round." This kid song describes everything you see a bus do exactly like math, but it is not understanding a bus from causality. The variables in gravity math are likely not causal, just like those wheels. Modern science is not so successful when I describe it. Put that in your book.
Zero does not exist physically and you cannot move from 0 to 1 due to infinite numbers in between. Nothing is absolute all illusion. Enjoy the confusion, chaos and uncertainty.spread infinitely all around.
"Quantum Gravity" is a pretty nonsensical notion.
Bro said a whole lotta nothin, just discusses the different perspectives of time. Wish he got more into how is it a fabric of space. Cuz that would imply that it’s physical
Kept waiting and waiting for some discussion of the perception of the individual. There is subjective versus objective. Time is subjective. Time is a collective construct but ultimately depends on the perception of the individual. The primary drive for everyone's life is the sun rise and the sun set. Very Very Very simple. That's it. Period. All of this discussion is irrelevant. By the way for me, i exist in the world of Eastern Standard Time. Subjective and simple. 😳
You're conflating time, random chance and thermodynamics
Thermodynamics doesn't appreciate time travel
Thermodynamics doesn't want to go on holiday
Everything comes and goes... Galaxies, suns, planets... Only the concept of time stays... Time is the only constant, it is the universe...
How convinced are you that it doesn't end or start again?
@@MrDumile if time ends and starts again it has to do that within a bigger time concept, so it would be time within time... so a universe within a bigger universe...
@@PrototypePrjs an even bigger letter T! So it's not out of the question ...just out of today's answers
I thought that was a very poor answer to the question of where all the matter came from. Why not just say that the Big Bang theory violates the law of conservation of energy.
A rough estimate of the total mass in the universe is 10^54 kg being an estimated 10^12 galaxies of 10^42 kg each.
The Big Bang theory says you can take this matter back in time to the point where it fitted in a volume the size of a grapefruit.
You are correct, Big Bang theory is incorrect! - It is not a Scientific. It is a product of Belgium Priest. No matter what "They" fantasizing, Time is a fundamental element of the Universe. Exactly Time is providing the irreversibility of the Physics processes. There is a great explanation of Space and Time in the book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe"
ok
ok
If time is a dimension, every point on it must exist. That means, tomorrow must exist today. Space dimensions, x=1 m , y=2 m , z=3 m exist now, so is x=1000, y=2000 and z=3000 m exist now, so time=now+1day must exist now and today. That's a paradox, tomorrow does not exist now, never existed before. Thus time can not be a axis, axis points must exist.
Time is not a dimension. It's that which the clocks show. Since there can be an arbitrary number of clocks, there can also be an arbitrary number of times. Their relationships depend on the motion history of the clocks.
@schmetterling4477 Time bends. Time slows down, time is a physical thing, just like space x,y,z time is t, that's why its called space time in physics. X,y,z is axis and every point in x,y,z exist now, time t doesn't. Future t's do not exist now, will exist tomorrow
Lol seriously? They confuse when events occur simultaneously, with when they observed simultaneously?
Time = God
There is no god. God is human's idea only.
Trying to characterize something that doesn't exist tends to be difficult.
What is it that you think doesn't exist? (Here's a hint: you're wrong.)
The Buddha said "There's really no such thing as time. There is really only Now--an eternally present Present with no beginning and no ending. Everything is completely new, distinct, and original every instant, with no real "change" or "motion" at all." He got there first 😂
Um, Time/Space is doomed..............see more modern physics, a la Don Hoffman's fabulous work based on better physicists than you sir
Time is simple, this this delusion.
Time is only a human construct for measurement. There is only atrophy.
Is time similar for a being with an endoskeleton like a human being to a being with an exoskeleton like a lobster?
Certainly, a lobster can sense when its exoskeleton has been replaced by another because it has become too small and is preventing it from growing. This is a biological experience that humans do not experience. Their endoskeleton grows for a while along with everything else, and then they stop growing.
A lobster changes its exoskeleton every two months and can live for 100 years. This means that it can feel the passage of time 600 times. Perhaps it can count this, perhaps not. We have no way of knowing how a lobster experiences and counts time. A human can live on average 80 years and he cannot change any bones, although his bone mass may decline after a certain age.
A lobster-man would probably experience time very differently from a lobster and from a human. He would have the advantage of reflecting in extremely deep, physiological, philosophical and physical ways about the passage of time. Perhaps he even collected his exoskeletons, something a lobster does not do (at least as far as we know).
Lobsters have been shedding their exoskeletons and experiencing time for 75 million years. Hominids have existed for 2 to 6 million years and only really became a species with high cognitive capacity 200,000 years ago. Lobsters have had much more time than homo-sapiens to solve the paradoxes of time, but they have not bothered to do so and the lack of science has not affected their existence and evolution. But man can decree his extinction and "the end of times" through a nuclear war, something that lobsters would probably consider stupid... because they want to keep shedding exoskeletons and producing little lobsters.
Do we still have time to learn something from lobsters? This is a question that physicists generally do not ask.
First questioner, nightmare to listen to.
,.Our interpretation of time is only in a reaction dimension (of which are dimension actually is) there is no time in a negatively charged dimension) but should are grandchildren build the mk v craft and be aboard it thy would still age in the mk v in a negatively charged dimension due to the mk v craft is still a reaction system as thy are ,yes complex to grasp but the equation of physics says its fact. Due to all matter in are dimension emits phase wave interaction sequences.due to a reaction taking place = a phase wave is emited via said reaction .
MOT
🤍💛💙🤍
🍄