The Physics of Time | Robert Wright & Tim Maudlin [The Wright Show]
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 17 сен 2024
- 0:39 Three fundamental questions about time
12:47 Revisiting the famous “twins paradox” thought experiment
20:45 Why Tim thinks mainstream physicists are wrong about time
36:42 Einstein and determinism
46:00 Why Einstein was wrong about quantum entanglement
64:26 Non-locality, the weirdest thing in physics
Robert Wright (Bloggingheads.tv, The Evolution of God, Nonzero, Why Buddhism Is True) and Tim Maudlin (New York University)
Recorded July 27, 2018
Join the conversation on MeaningofLife.tv: meaningoflife.t...
Subscribe to the podcast: meaningoflife.t...
Subscribe to the MeaningofLife.tv RUclips channel: goo.gl/J9BHA4
Follow us on Twitter: / meaninglifetv
Like us on Facebook: / meaningoflife.tv
![Explaining Quantum Mechanics | John Horgan & Tim Maudlin [Mind-Body Problems]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/7hJWOld5EsM/mqdefault.jpg)
![Free Will, and the Nature of Time | Robert Wright & Ted Chiang [The Wright Show]](/img/1.gif)
That was pretty painful. I have heard Tim being interviewed several times. Nobody interrupted him as much as this guy did.
Why do an interview if you don’t let your guest finish answering the questions you ask them? If you want to hear yourself talk then just do solo videos.
Wright doesn't let his lack of comprehension stop him from asking the hard questions!
V😢. 😮 😮😮xv. 😮V. X. x😮😮😮😮😮😮Xasssssss we will s xssss😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮 v. 😮v. CC 🥛💚🍯💚💚💚🍯🍩🙏🏿🙏🏿🙏🏿🙏🏿🙏🏿💋😶😶😶🙏🏿🙏🏿🙏🏿🙏🏿🙏🏿🙏🏿🙏🏿🙏🏿🙏🏿🙏🏿🙏🏿🙏🏿🙏🏿😶💚💚💚💋💄💄😶😶💋🧊🧊🐪🦧🔧🔧🔧🚰🚰🚰🚰🚰🚰🚰🚰🚰🎁🔮🔮🚰🎁🎁🎁🎁🎁🎁🎁🎁🚰🚰🚰🚰🔮🚰🚰🚰🚰🚰🚰🎁🚰🚰🎁🎁🚰🚰🚰🚰🚰🚰🚰🚰🚰📬🎁🎁⚗️🪅🪥🪥🪅🪥🪥🪥🪥🪥⚗️⚗️⚗️⚗️🪥🚰🎁🪥🪥🪥🪥🪥🪥🪥🪅🪥🪥🪥🤠😅😅o😅u😅i😅.😢😢😅 20:16 😅 20:16 😅 20:16 😅 20:16 😅 20:16 😢😅😅😅I
Ask all the hard questions you must, but gosh, have the decency to not interrupt and let one guy trying to clarify talk.
God bless both of these guys-Maudlin for his clarity of understanding, and Wright for his patience and openness
Yes please stop interrupting. Thanks in advance.
I have to commend Tim on his patience. Also, Mr Wrights voice is very grating.
I get why some wouldn't like the interview style but this made me laugh out loud at times. More important the interviewer asked all the right questions, getting to the point, with the right amount of skepticism in his voice. Most of these are way too polite and the interviewers don't want to admit confusion. This was great. Well done both of you.
The host on the left is too loud in your earphones. The guest on the right is low on volume, speaks less and is interrupted by the host when the host is not distracted by something else.
I've watched multiple videos that show how acceleration explains the twin paradox. Tim has, once again, blown my mind.
Bob, I like your interviews, but on this one, you spent too much time trying to explain your understanding of physics instead of allowing your guest to provide information and his own expertise.
Trust me when I say Tim Maudlin has very little expertise to share when it comes to physics.
@@buzzknutson what is your credential?
I’m with Oners82 on this one!
5:55 "Jules Verne". He means H.G. Wells.
Right you are. My bad.
Q. If nothing ever happened, no cause or effects, no events at all. Would time still exist? Or is time simply an artifact to measure a series of events as they occur?
of course we could go backward in time... the problem is it would be like rewinding a tape... we would loose all the memories and experience of the future... we would never know it happened and then relive the moments without any knowledge of the event. Makes perfect sense.
"of course"? Why "of course"? How is this obvious?
A problem when traveling in time is the suitcases has to travel with you.
As you have only a pair of socks that can not be replicated at all locations in time, you will have to patiently wait for the suitcases to arrive.
Travelling backvards into the past requires total control of all the mess you are in right now so you can reorder stuff without anyone noticing it is the past.
You have to rewind all clocks and return the toilet paper you flushed to pristine condition.
While doing so you will affect other things so when people look closely they will find you secretly refilled the toothpaste tube from one you had hidden.
Collecting the toothpaste from the where it is was initially gone would delay your reverse time travel immensely.
To skip forward in time you have to arrange all molecules to match the future.
That requires you can command each particle to a particular location assign the correct speed.
If you can freeze everything to a standstill time may stop too.
Who will be arround to start it again. It will be in standstill forever. Whatever that means, as no future will be different than the current.
If all observers are also in standstill it will be the end.
No one would even know it is, as no brain is running and even the aliens are suspended.
One may wonder if everything suspended is a valid existence as it has new laws of not moving. Energy, inertia, interaction cancelled.
An unrealistic idea.
If applied, it would be the end.
Causation is a big problem. Things tend to fly in all directions. The absolute reverse is hard to arrange.
An explosion of a balloon or a bomb is unlikely to run in reverse.
Houses do not erect themselves.
Plants do not regret their existence and grow back into the seed.
That is, if you associate time with existence.
This was good stuff. Tim Maudlin is, in my opinion, one of the most important philosophers working right now. Of course, if we'd actually paid attention to Bell, half a century ago, Maudlin would have much less work to do. But I love reading and listening to Maudlin so much. One thing I'd say on the Determinism issue, though, is that Robert is trying to express the Libertarian Free Will view, in which we can right now make the future become one way or the other. There is no way it "will be". Sure "what will be will be" SOUNDS tautologous, but so does "what Harry Potter will do is what he will do", and actually there's an important counter-point: Harry Potter doesn't exist. Likewise, the future states *existing* vs. not existing does change the framework in which we talk about free will.
Honestly, Maudlin's genius is so incisive and so impressive, but in any given subject, he seems to stop more abruptly than he could. If he gave half the time to thinking about the Determinism vs. Libertarianism problem that anyone else would give it, he'd probably see the issue more clearly than most and give much more satisfying answers. But he hasn't thought it through well enough, in my opinion. Same for moral truths, same for the beginning of existence, and same for consciousness.
I re-read this and realized it sounded a little mean. I don't mean to say any one philosopher should actually spread themselves out into all these different issues. I just means Maudlin's clear way of cutting through conceptual confusions would do awesome things if turned toward any of these issues. But, fortunately, for consciousness/mind and free will, we have Peter Hacker.
@@Mentat1231 Nice to see another Peter Hacker fan here. I'm similarly impressed by Maudlin.
"One thing I'd say on the Determinism issue, though, is that Robert is trying to express the Libertarian Free Will view, in which we can right now make the future become one way or the other." You misunderstand Maudlin's point: he is saying that the structure of spacetime per se doesn't imply determinism or preclude libertarian free will, which means that the 'opposite light-cones model,' so to speak, of spacetime doesn't preclude that "we can right now make the future become one way or the other." An opposite lightcones universe is perfectly consistent with a universe where human libertarian free choices are part of the causal nexus that engenders the "contents," or events, of the future directed cone.
@@FruitGod
If there is a fact of the matter about future decisions, then we are not free.
@@Mentat1231 That is not true. You can know what someone will do, but it is still up to that person whether or not he does it. There is no logical implication from it being true that a person will do x to that person being free with respect to x. It is only if our actions are the result of sufficient antecedent causal conditions that we are not free.
I am confused by two statements that seem to contradict. At 32:57 Maudlin says there is a mistaken belief that "motion is relative... and Newton could have told him it was false". Maudlin later says "There are no absolute velocities" . Doesn't the latter imply the former?
i would guess he'd say either that when people say motion is relative, they are saying something that is better put by saying there isn't any motion (like what he was saying about simultaneity), or else there is motion but it's just a matter of changing spatial relationships, which are not relative to any frame of reference. Either way, latter doesn't imply the former. That's trivial in the first case. In the second case it's true because there is more to having a velocity than changing your spatial relationship to other objects (e.g. because the whole universe could be moving at a constant velocity). tl;dr velocity is relative to frames of reference, motion either doesn't exist or is just a matter of non-relative change in spatial relationships
Woo. I am not disappointed that we can never know the exact value of the hidden variables. This means humans can continue to be open to a serious of revisions of understanding. That is fun. The unknown variables are the parents to Art,Philosophy,Poetry.
Science,I left science off the little list.
@@zstephaniestar9 including, seemingly, everything that is a function of consciousness
Einstein wrote to his friend's wife after he passed away: ‘Now he has again preceded me a little in parting from this strange world. This has no importance. For people like us who believe in physics, the separation between past, present and future has only the importance of an admittedly tenacious illusion.’
So it seems Einstein actually thought about time as of something fixed (as in block theory of time).
This is the quote that is trotted out over and over. Please note: Einstein wrote this, just months before his own death, not in a scientific paper or account of his views on time, but in a condolence note to the family of Michele Besso, who just died. What does it show? Does it show that Einstein held a cryptic and completely secret view about the nature of time that he nowhere exposited in his work explicitly devoted to that subject, and fortunately revealed this great secret in a very strange place just before he died? Or doe it show that Einstein was a decent and nice person, writing something to make a grieving family feel better.
What do you think?
Since I haven't done any research of Einstein's work myself nor did I read lots of books written by those who's done it, I am not in a position to hold any kind of strong opinions on this. I am quite doubtful, though, that a good scientist could mention science in a personal letter and make some sort of a statement that would contradict to his own views (if it did, in this case) on a scientific matter just to make someone feel better. It's like, roughly speaking, if Darwin would have told some religious relative of his who was doubting their personal views because of his theory, that no, in fact he does not think the theory has any basis for it. Again, I'm not claiming anything, but then I also don't know if Einstein's scientific papers would be any different if he did or did not actually think that time was only an illusion.
So, I don't know. That's what I think.
Vitaly:
I understand that that is what you think. But, as you say, you have not done any research on Einstein's work, so you are not familiar with it. I have, and I am, and I know people even more familiar with it than I am, and I assure you that this particular widely-shared passage (someone else on this very thread cited it) is not representative of Einstein's views in any way. And I assure you, that when he was writing a note of condolence to his best friend's family, the farthest thing from his mind (as it would be for any normal person) was expositing his views on the nature of time. The whole idea of it is kind of absurd.
Tim Maudlin, well, I can see your point. And I think you're probably right on this one.
Thank you for the replies! It's great to see how much you're involved in this comment section. Have a nice day.
Thanks!
Proper time gives that foliation: how could anybody miss that is the real mistery...
Indeed, among other things, yes: the travelling twin gets into the future of the twin that stays.
(I am not allowed links here or I'd have attached a spacetime diagram.)
Simple reflection would reveal that space and time are different animals. You can be in the same space at 2 different times, but you cannot be in 2 different places at the same time. Time is a degree of freedom that allows things to happen and space is degrees of freedom that things can happen in. So space and time don’t have to have the same symmetries.
Proper time, τ, is a very local phenomenon. τ time always advances at 1 sec / sec.
Dimensional time, t, is not the same. Many paths exist from (x,y,z,t) to (x,y,z,t'); the clocks going different paths take different times. Unlike distance where the shortest distance between two points is a straight line, the straight path in which (x,y,z) never change as t does, takes the longest τ.
Think of τ emerging from each point at 1 sec / sec. The rate of this emergence is affected by the average density of all matter at that point. The average density of matter provides the shape of spacetime; there is an easiest way to go at each point.
Tim maudlin must be one of the most patient men I ever knew 😅
He certainly is one of the most clueless ones. ;-)
Prof TMaud you enlighten me time doesn’t go forward and backward , it oscillates outward or inward and like on a river force pushing u forward or flowing down like in a whirlpool going dowwwwnnnnnnn…???
Also thanks for video , interrupting can stop train of thought and could be improved on, still a 8.5 out of 10 for me so thanks both of you.
Time is relational. Think of the brain as simply as possible, a bit of information say a photon is caught by a sensor then stored and there is a reaction. This is an experience, you cannot be aware of the reverse process of experience. You are a vessel that collects and reacts to the inflowing stimulus, you cannot be the reverse and take note of information that is unrecorded and leaves you.
In Euclidean Geometry any broken line between 2 given points is longer than straight line. I the metrics of (x,t) plane the broken line is longer than straight line. This is how explained the Twin Paradox
It's funny how people spend so much time thinking about time.... 😏
Time is just a convenient convention/tool that allows us to describe an object's evolution of states... It's just easier to say that "an object is in state A at t=T1 and evolves to state B at t=T2." The concept of "time" is simply a consequence of our environment (i.e. Earth's revolution around the Sun), and it turned out to be a convenient "reference point" when describing a system.
Like many commentators stated, i also do think the host could have let the guest speak more instead of constant interruptions and long explanations of ones own confusions and thinking. Asking short questions and letting the guest talk would have done a better job.
I would really like to know how modern physicists measure time and what they mean by it. The talk should've started with that.
Just saying "its' obvious time is just here" sounds kind of absurd to me even as a layman. If you don't have a clock with you all day, as a layman you don't even think about time.
Thank you for your insights. Kant avered that space and time are transcendentally ideal, that they are mere “forms” of intuition, and that they depend upon the “subjective constitution of the mind,” which he lays out in the Critique and Aesthetics. More recently Godel discovered a solution to the equations of general relativity (GR) allowing Closed Timelike Curves (CTCs) known as the Gödel metric. Einstein's reaction to this solution to his field equations prompted him to write to the Widow of a friend, “To those of us who believe in physics, “this separation between past, present, and future is only an illusion if a stubborn one." Interpreting time, therefore, from a Lorentz observer's viewpoint as a classical, distinguished, absolute, external, global parameter may not succeed when wedding GR with QM even though an operational approach to measurement, or considering time an entanglement phenomenon may preserve time's arrow. For one example, Hawking's "imaginary time" provides a way of looking at the time dimension as if it were a space dimension so that it is possible to move forwards and backward along it.
I would love to hear/read Maudlin deal with what the whole story looks like if we merge a Neo-Lorentzian view of STR and a Bohmian view of QM.
OK, here is not quite your wish.
Until at least 1963 and maybe until the 70s (when the first really clean tests of violations of Bell's inequality for experiments done at spacelike separation started coming in), no one had any good empirical reason to doubt that physics was local. Of course, Schrödinger had fingered entanglement as the key aspect of quantum theory already in 1935, but if you asked whether a theory that gave all the same predictions as QM but used a completely different conceptual/mathematical basis was possible, there would not be a reason in the world to say "no". That is what Einstein had been searching for, to banish the spooky ghost, and what (of course) he never found. But until Bell, there was no decent argument that what Einstein wanted could not exist.
But once we take Bell on board, we know that we need to have some non-locality in the theory, so we ought to think about how it gets implemented.
One's first thought-I take it the one you are having-is we ought to rewind all the way back to a classical spacetime, and maybe all the way, way, way back to Newtonian Absolute Space and Absolute Time. And at that point the physicists will (rightly) scream that they have been using restrictions of local Lorentz invariance for a century to great effect and they would rather not give that up, thank you.
And the physicists have a pretty good point.
But we still have to do *something* to accommodate the non-locality. So how about this.
We keep the entire Relativistic space-time structure-all of it-as it appears in SR or even GR. So every trick that the physicists have used is still fine. But to that Lorentzian spatiotemporal structure we *add* a preferred foliation. Yes, an objective, Lorentz-symmetry-breaking preferred foliation. We just add it, and then we use it. Use it how?
Bohmian mechanics is absolutely perfect here. Since the wavefunction never collapses in that theory, there is no call to refer to the foliation for the dynamics of the wavefunction. Just keep the Dirac equation or whatever that you have been using all along. The physicists breathe a sign of relief.
Where you want to use the foliation-where you need to use it-is in the guidance equation. And since the average physicist would not know the guidance equation from a hole in the wall, because they have no idea what Bohmian mechanics even is, they won't kick too much about that either (or they should not). And-hey presto-you are done. A fundamentally non-Relativistic Bohmian theory set in a Lorentzian signature space-time + preferred foliation. The theory automatically makes Lorentz-invariant predictions for exactly the same reason that you can't send superluminal signals: quantum equilibrium. Done and Done.
We even have a model for this: Classical EM taking the scalar and vector potentials as physically primitive (to account for the Aharonov-Bohm effect) but gauge-fixed to Coulomb gauge rather than Lorenz gauge. If Maxwell had stumbled over the A-B effect in the lab, and just drawn the conclusion that he had to treat the potentials seriously, then he would have either 1) Gauge-fixed to Lorenz gauge and discovered SR or 2) Gauge-fixed to Coulomb and discovered SR + a foliation. Until the 1970s, everyone reasonable would have done 1) and just noted that 2) was a mathematical possibility that one had no reason to take seriously, given the greater symmetry of 1). But once you have Bell and Bohm, then 2) just jumps out at you as a cool idea that gives you everything you want. Motivated just out of classical EM, which is local, and the A-B effect, which also can be accounted for locally, in principle. But you just switch to 2) when Bell does his work and you have to give up 1) anyway.
Pretty neat, huh?
I never in a million years thought I'd actually get a response, but now I'm really glad I asked the question! That option just makes so much sense, and it amazes me how it's just an accident (or series of accidents) of history that puts us where we are instead of there. I need to read that book you mentioned in the video.
As it is, the germ of my question was Quentin Smith's paper in an anthology that you also contributed to (Einstein, Relativity, and Absolute Simultaneity, I think it was called).
Anyway, thanks so much for the response, and keep doing the awesome work you do.
de nada
@Oners82
I don't remember trolling anything, but I do think the A-theory of time is not only true but obviously true. Why, do you have some argument against it?
@Oners82
Have I offended you in some way? I apologize if I did.
And I didn't mean to shift the burden of proof. The A-theory, as I understand it (and I may be totally wrong, so correct me if I am), is the manifest image that everyone naturally and intuitively believes before being given some reason not to. If you were to ask anyone on the street, so to speak, whether things come into existence and then go out of existence, or whether change really occurs (rather than everything being static, but just different "over here" than "over there" in a 4-d block), I'm pretty sure they'd say change and coming-into-existence is real, no?
So, the burden should surely be to show why what seems so natural and obvious to the average person is so completely wrong, no? I mean, it may be wrong (after all, some things that seem obvious do turn out to be wrong), but the burden of proof is surely on the person pulling us away from what seems obvious.
I mean, if you disagree, and think that I should give arguments for the manifest image, I can do that. For example, our conscious experience constantly changes (even you reading this now and having thoughts about it is a change from your mental state a few seconds ago). The B-theorist would have to say that this is an illusion, but that won't work because the illusion itself is a conscious experience that is dynamically changing. I have no idea how a B-theory can accommodate our experience. I mean, even convincing someone that B-theory is right would require a change in their ideas and beliefs, but change does not occur on the B-theory.
I’ve enjoyed some or Maudlin’s lectures, but here he is making issues even more confusing than they need to be. He makes statements like “there is no such thing as velocity”, which is pointless statement when the interviewer clearly is referring to the relative rate of directional change between two observers.
Furthermore, he never says WHY Feynman was wrong about acceleration explaining why one twin is older than the other. If he has a better answer, I’d like to hear it.
Overall, he was extremely frustrating to listen to here. He seems more concerned with word definitions when he should have, as a philosopher, listened to Wittgenstein: meaning is use.
It's all relative.
If we placed our solar system near enough to a black hole to have our time slowed down., but not close enough to get sucked in.
We would not know the difference, our perception of time would be the same. Nothing would change. From our perspective and point of view we would the same as it is here.
Only the outside observer , if there was one would see us in slow motion from their perspective .
Great stuff!!
Tim Maudlin is correct In his understanding of time ...I am a scientist And have been doing time travel experiments And all my experiments have given me The same answers as Tim Maudlin's understanding , or , his explaination of it And how do I know this It's because I use time in my experiments In the way that this gentlemen explains it to be (the way that time really exist , in reality) So yes he is correct in his explaination of """TIME""" !!!! ....Most physists have the """WRONG""" understanding of time They (most scientist) understand and explain time """In An Incorrect Way""" !!!
so wait...does entanglement imply einstein was wrong about (absolute) simultaneity?
William Lane Craig says yes. Maudlin ? Not sure. You tell me
Simultaneity stands for a kind of 'being' through the occurrence of a condition that has no time course. In physics, the relativity of simultaneity is the concept that distant simultaneity - whether two spatially separated events occur at the same time - is not absolute, but depends on the observer's reference frame. Quantum nonlocality is sometimes understood as being equivalent to entanglement. However, this is not the case. Quantum entanglement can be defined only within the formalism of quantum mechanics, i.e., it is a model-dependent property. In contrast, nonlocality refers to the impossibility of a description of observed statistics in terms of a local hidden variable model, so it is independent of the physical model used to describe the experiment. Einstein, therefore, did not believe in absolute simultaneity and produced a counterargument to non-locality in his EPR paper, which was subsequently refuted by Bell's theorem and ensuing experimental data. In addition, Bohm showed that any deterministic hidden-variable theory that is consistent with quantum mechanics would have to be non-local.
Great! Like most, some of the talk was out of reach. But I have in my own humble way believed in the non-determinant, hidden variable aspect of what all this ....is
Regarding Special Relativity, does anyone have an answer for the following twin paradox variation: A pair of twins are each in open space moving towards each other. A light source equidistant between them emits a flash of light which triggers each of their clocks to start. They continue moving towards each other and, when they pass one another, each notes the elapsed time shown on the other twin's clock. Which clock will have moved slower? According to special relativity each twin will see the other twin's clock as having moved slower than his. This results in a logical absurdity which cannot be explained away by acceleration or changed inertial frames.
I'd say if they move with the same speed, their clocks also move with the same speed. Why should they show different times? I guess movement is absolute in that regard. If one moves faster, than that clock moved less, though.
Note, that I use "moving clock" instead of "time on a clock", because I honestly don't think we're even able to measure time - I know not of such a device - and think its an abstract concept. It's a matter of definition.
Great talk, Bob. Not that I understood it. :-)
All this one particle influencing another when measured and the double slit experiment has never rely been demonstrated adequately to the general public
20:00 Ok in Planet of the Apes they come back after say 1 year and the world had gone through 3000 years. Einstein would say that is possible, wouldn't he? That is exactly the twin’s paradox.
Wouldn't you say that the astronauts came back to their future? Of course they exist in NOW, but 3000 years have elapsed.
I agree that the block universe interpretation is nothing more than a physical interpretation (platonic belief) of maths equations, i.e., mathematically time is treated as being fused together with space (although time is still treated differently to space), which itself is the characteristic that implies that the past, present, and future, all exist in 1 timeless instant of causality... which I believe is nonsense (I got interested in special relativity when creating my website explaining about infinity being a misconception).
Regarding simultaneity... personally I like to take the position of being a 3rd observer who is watching the faster travelling body travelling away from the slower travelling body, noticing their clocks ticking at different speeds, and therefore it is logically correct for the 3rd observer to say that in a single instant (arguably the same time) some common event occurs, it is just that everyone's clock is ticking (aging) at a different rate. Therefore, the term “simultaneity” might not be the most intuitive term to help clarify the straightforward time dilation (ignoring length contraction for simplicity's sake) that occurs.
Also, although there is no so-called “preferred” reference frame, there has to be a potentially fastest clock rate... the CMB is typically used (at least as an approximation). Logically therefore, absolute rest can be thought of as not moving relative to the CMB.
Additionally, evolution and free will go hand in hand, and it is extremely difficult to defend the block universe interpretation when considering those implications. Free will remains a mystery, that by definition, cannot have a logical description, but that in itself isn't a contradiction, and therefore doesn’t disprove its existence.
37:26 - there might also be an option of many worlds combined with the block universe. It still is deterministic though.
If the two particles are at
rest with respect to each other (in the same reference frame), it seems that
yes Einstein was wrong...these are cases where if one particle (in some cases)
is "observed" to have spin up (say) the other instantaneously
(simultaneously) will have spin down (say). If, however they are in relative
motion to each other, I'm not sure exactly what simultaneity would mean.
Suppose they move with respect to each other but are ten billion light years
apart. Now suppose that one particle starts to be in relative motion to the
other (say normal to the line that connected the two particles at rest) then
these particles will start moving into the future/past of each other. Their
clocks will start varying significantly given the distance they are apart, and
when one particle is observed at t (1) local time the other particles clock
will be registering quite a different time So it seems that in this case we would think that observing one at local t (1)
could not possibly be simultaneous to the determining of the other particle’s
spin. I might be wrong on this and would love to hear what others have to say
on it.
Man, the concept of time is so difficult for most people to grasp.
that is a gratuitously patronising thing to write
Please let Tim speak.
Robert Wright is brilliant. The Moral Animal was the first Evolutionary Psychology book I read and then I read 50 over 20 years.
If
then
If time can be reversed then it can also stand still.
39:00 What do the laws of physics say about what happens? I am all in favor of the laws of physics describing what happens. I am completely opposed to the laws of physics determining what will happen.
physicists don't sit around making things up without supporting mathematics. big difference between this guy criticising or me without any math and showing where the equations break down... he needs to show the math.
So buy my book: Philosophy of Physics: Space and Time. It is all there. And it is all correct.
I think that Einstein was wrong, that time is a constant, that only our ability to measure time is skewed by gravity, not time or space-time itself and that dark matter is the limiting factor of the speed of light.
God save me!
i had a sneaky suspicion that this guy had at some level completely misunderstood or failed to understand the implication this whole debate around time and the odometer analogy confirmed it. the odometer are not measuring two different routes and showing different results they have been down the SAME route, the same amount of time and show different results
that's the whole point, that thought experiment is hard to grasp but is seems this guy has not even tried
By the way, your guest hardly seemed excessively sentimental at all. :-)
Is it possible you (if it is you, and you actually read any of this jazz) could link to his detailed argument re how the block space-time universe doesn't kill free will? Cause I don't be gettin' it noways no how from what he says here.
1:05:07 .... woe to the woo persons nicely explained. If you put in the time in Bob's interviews, they get rolling, and there is much to learn, thankyou!
Brilliant little nugget back and forth up to when Bob utters "....that's a disappointment...." 1:08:45
go go bob
The interviewer talks way too much. Moreover, he has an annoying voice.
The interviewer is an example of one who knows little but spews rubbish way too much.
AT 1/2 THE SPEED OF LIGHT ETHER INTERACTS WITH MATTER AT ANOTHER RATE
"Ether" doesn't exist.
What I'm gathering is theoretical physics is lost in the math and losing view of reality.
Check out Lion Roar's article from Dainin Katagiri on Dogens " Being in Real Time" that is if you have time 😜
I have always fantasized about being in the position Bob was in with an eloquent physicist and be able to ask the questions he asked. Thanks for your intelligent persistence Bob, I appreciate you having the conversation I will never be in the position to have. I wish we were single because I think you are my soul mate.
Little do you know... Bob's talking to a philosopher!
Evidence of going back in time? We have it don't we? The pictures from the Hubble telescope depicting light from galaxies far away and the gases from the early beginning of our solar system and to this evidence an indication that it (time and space) isn't what we have experienced in the life's past but rather what energy was used as a human in an energy relative reality.
wtf are you on about????????? seeing the past doesn't mean you can reverse time or travel back in time. when i talk to someone 1m away from me , I am seeing and hearing the past( a very tiny fraction of a second ,but still the past ) I cannot go back to before I started talking to that person and say something different.
The facts are that time travels in one direction , the laws of physics are the same everywhere. because the laws of physics don't change then space and time have to change to accommodate . so anything from zero space & time( for light ) to above , but never minus.
@@nopants4259 I didn't mention reversing time. I meant witnessing the past in the current time - going back in terms of seeing evidence of the past.
Time exist and real in the conventional truth but it doesnt exist in the ultimate truth.just as we dont exist in the the ultimate sense.our body is like lego bricks forming a body but nobody can stop its disintegration when death comes.how can we say something exist as ultimate truth when every second our body is changing.
I was watching to see what they have to say about time until they got to Twin Paradox. I had no hope that Roberts Wright to undrestand anything becuase he is lost in the basics it seems, but I hoped Tim Mudlin to say something meaningful. However I god disappointed that he neither undretands the meaning of this phenomena called Twin Paradox. It is a paradox simply becuase in relativity we cannot decide who is moving and who is stationary! As simple as that and as such it would be a PARADOX to say the one on Earth gets older.
Hi Mr. Robert Wright. I don't know if you read this comment or not. I see that you, as well as many others, puzzled about what the Time is. If you really want to know what exactly the Time is, then you can contact me so we can have 15 minutes chat then I will explain it to you, once for all. You can record the conversation (free of charge for this question) first. If you do not like my answer, then you can delete and forget about it. If you believe that listening over one hour to this nonsense from your guest is OK, then it will be a nice deal giving 15 minutes to hear the only answer which makes sense. Have a nice day.
Ok. I'm out of here. I just can't stand all this interruption. You're supposed to be interviewing Maudlin, man. Very poor. Very, very poor. It's like you're trying to strut your knowledge around or something. Here you've got a highly trained expert on the philosophy of science in the conversation and you're jumping him every time he doesn't say all the same things idiots off the street say.
An interesting interview though I think Wright and Maudlin were talking past each other at times. I don't really understand why Maudlin was so adamant that the 'block universe' picture is inaccurate, whilst occasionally lapsing into describing things in terms of 'spacetime' himself. I wonder if what he is suggesting is not that this interpretation of relativity is incorrect but that relativity itself is not correct.
Oh my gosh Tim - did you just attribute "The Time Machine" to Jules Verne????? H.G. Wells wrote that, dude.
And yes, I'm six minutes in and already annoyed at the host for talking over his guest. Holy cow, man.
Shows like this is why i listen to bloggingheads. All that transgender, millennial etc crap on some of the other bloggingheads shows doesn't interest me
I second that, as the second commenter on this upload.
That's why there are two separate web sites and two separate RUclips channels for bloggingheads and meaningoflifetv
The “woo” reference was obnoxious and a deviation from prior humility*
* Although Wright’s defensiveness was also not very humble.
I’d love for Maudlin to give us his in depth analysis of Cardena (2018), Storm et al (2010), Hodgson (1898), etc.
NEWTON DIDN'T STUDY EM
EINSTEIN IS ALL GRAVITY AND NO PLASMA EM FORCE. SO, HE IS LIMITED
I have some plasma, if you want to use as lubricant.
The guest seems to think the truth acquires validity according to the degree of his belief, when, in fact his confidence is not relevant.
The interviewer is unfortunately affected by his ad hominens, but is by far the most honest.
You, my friend, clearly don't know what the words 'truth' and 'valid' mean (arguments are valid; propositions are true), and you simply assert that Maudlin is wrong without any argument or evidence in support, which is lazy at the very least. If Maudlin is right, then confidence is no charge against him but a virtue; should not we all be confident in the truth? Furthermore, you don't know what 'ad hominem' means, for being confident in one's beliefs or assertions is not an ad hominem, or any fallacy of reasoning at all for that matter.
ca. 42:00, huh? as in WTF???
One of the worst interviewers I've had to endure. LET YOUR GUEST SPEAK! Robert Wright should learn to listen instead of all the constant interrupting. Yikes!
"Think twice before you speak once and you'll speak twice the better."
Thank heaven's for the 'no follow'. Buh bye Robert Wright.
Whether you interrupt the white noise that is known as Tim Maudlin or not is of no importance. ;-)
Are there devils?
Such as bad ones?
Show me a gram of time. Show me an erg of time. Show me a frequency of it . Show me any fucking proof that time is a thing. I dare you. Show me film of ten thousand time-travellers at the crucifixion. Time is NOT a thing.
Time isn't a thing, it's a dimension. Show me a gram of distance. Show me and erg of distance.
As fas a frequency, show me a frequency without time. Frequency is defined in terms of time. In fact make any predictions using the laws of physics and it will contain some notion of time because time is fundamental.
I don't believe in space either, just quietly. So I really can't show you a gram of space. Time isn't a thing, it's a dimension ? OK I'm fine with that. How do we measure frequency . . . . . um, we compare it to some other frequency. ? The clock ticks X many times for every time the Earth turns, and the world turns once for every X ticks of the clock. Seems to be something lacking there.
@@sciencetroll6304 Comparing frequency measurements works if they are on the same scale. Frequency scales are usually defined in terms of time.
Time is real, it how to measure it that is tricky.
Comparing frequency measurements works no matter what scale they are on. If you were Autistic enough to want to, you could work out how many hummingbird wingflaps since the pyramids were built. Frequency scales are not defined in terms of time. They are defined in terms of other frequency scales. Day: the frequency of the world spinning. Year. The frequency of the world orbiting. Don't get me wrong, I understand I'm not in yesterday anymore, but the more I try to visualize time the more I just see other things.
@@sciencetroll6304 Frequency scales are not defined in terms of time? Hmmm
What are some frequency scales?
GHz, MHz, KHz and plain old hertz (Hz) are all scales defined as something per second. Seconds are a measure of _time_.
The speed of light, how far light travels over a period of _time_.
Heart Rate and music tempo is beats per minute (_time_) .
Time is basis for much of what is real.
The interviewer talks too much
I can't listen to this interviewer. Will catch Maudlin elsewhere.
Robert is usually great, but way too defensive and argumentative here
You really should not interupt this much.
"People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion." -Albert Einstein
See my reply to Vitaly above. This is one of the most widespread and persistent myths about Einstein, and one of the silliest. But there are many others too.
Word salad interviewer incapacity
He is bad at explaining his position
wright has the most irritating voice
You know, these academics need to somehow justify their salaries.
What else are they supposed to do, if not academic research?
@@77Fortran useless academic research
@@jag0937eb They are supposed to do useless academic research? I don't think so!
@@77Fortran yes they are, waste of everybodies money.
@@jag0937eb Maybe give up using your computer/phone/internet because the theoretical frameworks underlying all these things came from academia. I'm sure there were people saying the research that led to quantum mechanics was a waste of time.