A Matter of Time
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 2 июн 2024
- The nature of time is an age-old conundrum for physicists, philosophers, biologists and theologians. The Newtonian picture of time-a kind of cosmic clock that ticks off time in a manner that applies identically to everyone and everything-tightly aligns with our experience. But with special and general relativity, Einstein showed the fallacy inherent in experience: the rate at which time elapses depends on circumstance and environment. These discoveries raise even more basic, long-standing puzzles: What is time? Is it a fundamental feature of reality or something we humans impose on experience? Does time come into existence with the universe or does it transcend it? Why does time exist at all?
The World Science Festival gathers great minds in science and the arts to produce live and digital content that allows a broad general audience to engage with scientific discoveries. Our mission is to cultivate a general public informed by science, inspired by its wonder, convinced of its value, and prepared to engage with its implications for the future.
Subscribe to our RUclips Channel for all the latest from WSF.
Visit our Website: www.worldsciencefestival.com/
Like us on Facebook: / worldsciencefestival
Follow us on twitter: / worldscifest
Original Program Date: June 02 2013
MODERATOR: Ira Flatow
PARTICIPANTS: Paul Davies, Craig Callender, Tim Maudlin, Max Tegmark
Ira Flatow's Introduction 00:00
Participant Introductions 1:03
How did Einstein get involve with time? 3:36
What is the symmetry of time? 8:20
What was Einsteins concept of time? 10:09
Tim Maudlin has his own opinion on time. 12:42
How do you prove time dilation? 16:40
Can we look at the cosmos and see gravity's effect on time? 22:34
By moving faster we can travel forward in time? 29:03
If the universe is expanding what is it expanding into? 35:58
What does the universe look like? 40:38
Is time an illusion? 45:28
Does time flow? 49:16
Does time pass in a specific direction? 1:01:38
The geometry of spacetime. 1:04:35
The flow of time vs the time asymmetry.1:11:45
If it's fact that time passes then does Einstein agree? 1:17:09
What is the experimental evidence? 1:24:13 
Наука
![DRAGON BALL: Sparking! ZERO - Fused Warriors Trailer [BUDOKAI TENKAICHI Series]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/84p4Lvyfyes/mqdefault.jpg)
Hello, RUclipsrs. The World Science Festival is looking for enthusiastic translation ambassadors for its RUclips translation project. To get started, all you need is a Google account.
Check out A Matter of Time to see how the process works: ruclips.net/user/timedtext_video?ref=share&v=G8FnFjqiAWs
To create your translation, just type along with the video and save when done.
Check out the full list of programs that you can contribute to here: ruclips.net/user/timedtext_cs_panel?c=UCShHFwKyhcDo3g7hr4f1R8A&tab=2
The World Science Festival strives to cultivate a general public that's informed and awed by science. Thanks to your contributions, we can continue to share the wonder of scientific discoveries with the world.
World Science Festival is
Time tends to pass by quicker than the nail
World Science Festival
I am no scientist, but I personally believe Time is just waiting, until employed and given direction, purpose. Example ? I can't explain it., but maybe my thought makes sense. Excellent debate, thank you for this excellent show.
Heillo aftermorning
E = mc² = Time
Time is the effect of (Result of) E = mc²
E = mc² creates Time
'Time is just one damn thing after another.. " - Paul Davies ...LOVE it! #BestQuoteOfTheDay : )
Except that it potentially has a start?
time is gone ....
It could also be one clever thing after another . Is it not??
@@alexanderdmello2749 Time is an illusion. It' always the present.
"History - just one bloody thing after another " ~ anon
I cannot express in words how much I enjoy these lectures in physics, either classical or quantum mechanical. I believe anyone interested in either subject should make it a habit to download these videos and give them a listen. It is not all about entertainment, rather, it is about learning that makes these forums so educational or intellectually stimulating. Thanks for uploading these videos.
"I think that you just logically self-destructed"
-Max Tegmark
Awesome put down. Almost as good, but certainly less subtle, than the phrase attributed to Pauli: "Not is only is it not correct. It's not even wrong.'
@SuperSatan666devil 1st Fool means a flower in hindi
It would be nice if these WSF films put the name of the panelists in the description above, and even better if it included a very short one or two line bio for each. Often a panelist will say something that makes me wonder about their occupation - math, physics, philosophy etc. and many times I'd love to see the correct spelling of their names. As it is now I have to go back to the beginning to listen to the introductions again. Besides that - I LOVE WSF - Keep up the wonderful uploads!
Good ideas. Not sure a short bio is needed 🤔 but I hope someone listens to your suggestions
The names are in the blurby-blurb, click SHOW MORE. and links to points in the show. I guess you can ask Google for the bio's. I also can't remember names unless I can keep refering back to them when they talk, fortunately it seems like that makes me normal, phew
time out
I'm the one on the left
I dont need a bio. I just need to hear WHAT the scientist is talking about.
What they do doesn't give them more credit. What they KNOW does. No matter if they are a scientist or a fisherman.
I love to watch the World Science Festival. Keeps my brain working and therefore young. Brain exercises for real.
I just subscribed recently, I definitely agree. I love science, and being enlightened/educated is mentally stimulating. I have to agree.
This is more than my brain can handle. Had to watch it in small fragments. Very fascinating!
Another gem! My favourite topic and Paul Davies as a guest, he's one of my favourite physicists. This channel is absolutely wonderful!
Maudlin's alternative topology axioms are just a special case of one-dimensional open set point topology that he rejected at the start. So he really did not add anything new to "geometry", and in fact he made open set topology just harder to do for general spaces. All he really claims is that the geometrical basis for physics can be a restricted field of open set topology. What's more, he is wrong about putting directions on open sets. Most open sets admit a vector field which is often orientable. But further, many of the more interesting and perhaps physically relevant geometrical spaces are non-orientable. Such are spacetime that contain closed timelike curves. So while Maudlin's Line Axioms are a useful simplification, it is hard to credit that they can be used as a complete basis for mathematical physics as we currently know it, especially if close timelike curves can be found, since then time would not be orientable as Maudlin seems to think it is, and that's a response Davies should have mentioned, to whit, one can possibly do experiments to show spacetime is non-orientable which would empirically justify Davies interpretation that we what perceive is time asymmetry of states, not time flow or time direction. Of course, when time asymmetry is observable then a natural direction to time can be defined, it is phenomenal though, not fundamental in the laws of physical (physical states are not physical laws), I think that's what Davies was trying to say, but they kept interrupting him.
Another thing is that Maudlin's language is nothing but Penrose-Rindler Twistor theory. And Tegmark is right that this does not help explain the psychological "flow" of time. And Davies is correct, in the sense that the best science can determine is that the "flow of time" is psychological, and is based on the rock solid reality of time asymmetry. A simple thought experiment can show this, imagine a putative Strong AI entity run in a computer that is set up with future boundary conditions at our "present" and then run entirely backwards in computer simulation time from our perspective. Would the AI have a consciousness? We might grant yes (some philosophers would say yes, at least plausibly, by any reasonable Turing test and assuming functionalist theories of consciousness) but then this AI creature would experience a flow of time exactly opposite to ours. Meaning that flow of time is real enough, but is relative to states of consciousness, in other words, flow of time is real psychology but illusory as fundamental physics. The root of Maudlin's confusion I think is precisely that, as he points out, time is one-dimensional, and therefore there are only two orientations that time permits, and so it is too easy to be fooled into thinking one of those orientations is the real objective flow direction of time. Once one realises this source of easy enticement I think Davies' view becomes far more sensible.
BTW: I read a few comments dissing Maudlin, but as Tegmark pointed out, the discussion got most interesting when Maudlin made his provocative claims about an intrinsic direction to the time dimension. Even if someone ultimately is spouting nonsense, it can reveal useful truths or questions that have not been fully answered.
For life-living object( Biology ) ,Time flow is asymmetrical. But for non-life-matter( Chemistry ) Time flow is symmetrical . For Mathematical-Physics (SpaceTime is valid from Quark-microworld to
Cosmos-macroTensorCalculusWorld) . Newton-Einstein are just an approximationDescription ! Hawkin-PENROSE used QuantumGravity still carry on , disturb by BlackHole , 'Before BigBang' investigation ! Philosopy/MATHS just supporting idea/concept only !
I'm not sure that that's what Davies and Tegmark were trying to say.
Davies' main criticism seems to be Maudlin's equating the flow of time with the notion of temporal asymmetry, which are both clearly different concepts. Although the passage of time may arguably require an asymmetry between past and future of some sort, we can easily imagine instances of asymmetry (for example of a spatial variety) that do not require a passage of time. As someone who's seen Maudlin mix the two up in his other works, I can understand where that frustration is coming from, since he has a habit of definining certain terms in unusual ways (for instance, he states that he believes in a "block universe" where a "block universe' is simply a form of anti-temporal solipsism). Of course, it was difficult to get into what Davie's actual critique was since Tegmark kept derailing things (perhaps unintentionally since he may have thought incorrectly that he and Davies were on the same page) so I can't really be sure, but that was the sense that I got out of his objections.
Speaking of which, Tegmark's argument seemed to have been that because two models make the same empirical predictions, then they should be treated as having the same explanatory power. That I consider to be wrong headed for I can easily devise a model of the world that predicts every current observation by way of brute fact. In a sense, this model is more of a list of phenomena rather than any system of rules and relations. Such a model would of course be empirically equivalent to our current best scientific models (indeed it was built that way). However, it would be hard to say that such a model is explanatorily on a par with those other models, for the latter actually describes an underlying system while the latter does not. In addition Tegmark's position would also seem to undermine the debate between quantum interpretations (all of which are based on the same scientific theory) and also interpretations of relativity theory if he suggests that they are all equally preferable on the basis of their explanatory strength.
And as for Craig Callender, I didn't even know he was there.
Always good to see a discussion on something that doesnt even exist! Time is what we use to measure change, flow or process. There is always only this moment now, but everything flows into this moment and creates what we call action or flow (process or change) and we then experience 'time' as a result of this happening.
There is always only now and as Immanuel Kant puts it : Time and space are the framework within which the mind is constrained in order to construct its experience of reality.
Absolutely love these debates & lectures WSF. Yet this was one of the most awkward, vague and deflecting panel I have yet to watch. Don't get me wrong, complete respect for every view, and every person willing to share their view on a subject. Yet the breakdown in the last 40mins was hard to watch. Wow.
It's somehow getting creepy how good the youtube algorithm know's what I'm thinking about, e.g. the topic of time as literally every day I get exactly the videos recommended that are fitting to the topic, not only trivial ones like time. Synchronizities can be quite irritating ^^
That's actually a good and a concerning thing. Our apps and devices snoop on us. The good is that you see less random crap and suggestions.. the 'problem' imho is that our lives are being 'artificially' steered by those algorithms.... So your direction of life is being modified... And that is somewhat concerning. Prior to this people/children were free to chose their own direction in what interested them... Maybe they like dinosaurs.. then later in life find cosmology fascinating and become a great astronomer... But today a child shows a small interest in a dinosaur one day... And are bombarded with paleontology directed content only... later in life they just never had any randomness and become a paleontologist and hate it... Who knows... I'm just cautious of algorithms online and how they steer social development.. it could be used to manipulate society.... Etc....
must be nice
giggles...It should be creepy. Google owned RUclips ist aware of everyone's
RUclips preferences...Unless of course you do a few quite simply und easy things
to completely shut them down from knowing anything about you.
Google's Algorithm doesn't know anything about me. :-)
This is what I'm trying to move away from using google's apps... RUclips's a hard one though
Biometrics via our thumbs through touchscreen smart phones. Its my opinion that the "algorithm" would not perform similarly while using a laptop or flip phone
When I look back at my perception of the world as a Kidd, everything from a grain of sand to the stars felt like pure information.every single shred of light my eyes looked at was as interesting as life itself. I miss that feeling of magic so much...
Ty S . Don’t know how old you are but at my age nothing at all has any taste or flavour. I surfed for 40 plus years but as I got into my 50s arthritis set in and can’t do that any more. Launching oneself down the face of a descent sized wave sure made time slow.
@Ty S The real magic is the rare occasion in which someone is able too maintain that level of curiosity and wonder, from childhood, all the way through there adulthood!😉 That's a very rare occurrence.
Its because of the different brain structure that you have as a child, there is actually a talk from the science festival here on youtube that covers this. It's about psychedelics
Never seen someone else say this, I feel the exact same man
This is an amazing group of people to have a discussion on time with.
Really interesting lecture!!! On a side note, they should have the RUclips posters on the panel as they have all the answers and know everything lol.
Tim you are my hero! (1) your fellow panelists don't get the difference between the language and the story (2) any aspect or reality could be deemed an illusion (composed of or reducible to other phenomenon) or thought of as emergent from all the other aspects of reality (3) physics hasn't answered the big questions about time and space so I think it is a bit premature to be calling Time an illusion with certainty (4) quantum mechanics seems to describe a limit to our knowledge of physical reality - when we impose macroscopic conceptual models and parameters onto and constrain the very small - and so maybe this means we need a meta-language to overcome the limits of current mathematical approaches which is based on the wave function and linear algebra. In the realm of Time, there is still an important role for metaphysics to play in this whole debate. (5) How can there be an asymmetry in something that does not exist (6) the ancient Greeks intuitively knew that we lived in a dynamic universe where change (time) was fundamental. Who can argue with an ancient Greek? (7) How can anything move (Zeno) without change (flow) in space? Motion is not just an ordering of configurations - how did those configurations arise and unfold? (8) Einstein was wrong about Quantum Mechanics too! (9) These other guys are creating a problem due to the misuse of language. (10) There may need to be a distinction made between time as we perceive it and time as the entropy of the universe and time on the quantum scale. Anyhow thanks for bringing some intellectual integrity to this debate. (11) Physicists also don't understand gravity, dark matter or black holes (12) How can time be malleable if it doesn't exit (13) how can the twin that travels near the speed of light be younger, if time does not exist? Yes his cells are in a different configuration because time has flowed at a different rate due to his acceleration. Time defines the rate of change in a system under different influences and conditions relative to others. Thus it is an aspect of physical reality and one that defines our lives and our very existence. No time, no change, no physics. Also thanks to the moderator for pointing out that a theory (time is an illusion) must be falsifiable.
This discussion seems to be colored by the perception, that some qualities are more valuable than others. A rather confronting setting in which to discuss science and philosophy. These guys should also make a documentary, so they wouldn't have to cut each other off all the time. Then they would all have a better chance to project their views on Matter of Time. They all seem to have brilliant points. My oppinion. :)
Anders Axelsen Tim Maudlin - the philosopher in black - didn't have a clue. I was cringing at how wrong he was.
If these people represent the leading edge of the science of time, then it seems, that we really don't have a clue.
Why do I feel like I just watched chess game between a man and a pigeon? You know the one where the man knows the rules and makes moves based on experience and careful judgment, while the pigeon knocks over the pieces, shits on the board, and struts around like it won.
somebody should add this to tim maudlins wikipedia page. describes him perfectly
Omg this made my day lol
you're right Maudlin is an angry rude incompetent person.
Because the game is a 2 vs 1 with a pigeon shitting on the board. But the pigeon is self aware that it is shitting on the board but can't escape. Poor pigeon.
and a pigeon that doesn't know it's a pigeon. I would like to hear guy 2 and 4 talk alone with weed
Amazing discussion, really makes you stop and wonder how beautifully complicated the world around actually is.
One problem here is that Physicists tends to assume that the algebraic relationships we daily use, are the truly unique one. The math relationships that commonly we use is one of the infinite algebras that can be defined. And you can reformulate the complete physics theory using a different form of (well defined) math. Differents foundations can predict same results that the commonly used math and eventually provided new properties.
equivalently, one can describe physics in English, French, German ect...nothing new here lol
Max Tegmark has to be one of my favorites!
This is very entertaining and I am none the wiser.
But still I am happier than before I watched this.
22:08 - The equivalence principle states that you can't tell the difference between being in a gravitational field and being accelerated. If you are passing a star and are in its gravitational field, you are being accelerated.
Your actually going in a straight line, following the curvature of space, that curve is a gravity well, angular momentum keeps you from falling to its center, that angular momentum is the acceleration you speak of !!
The philosopher has very good ideas. It's too bad those physicists can't understand that the language we use to describe things is important.
I agree. They took offence thinking a philosopher was proposing a new scientific model rather than translating the existing model in words that make more sense of it. They didn’t listen and rebutted a strawman like a couple babies.
I've tried to give Tim Maudlin, the philosopher, a chance when listening to him defend temporal becoming (the flow of time), and he just didn't do a very convincing job. It seems like he just wants the formulate ways to make our perceptual experience an objective feature of time. I admit that this experience can be quite stirring to many, but if our best physical theories go against it, we should think twice. There are good philosophical arguments against the idea that we even experience the flow of time, such as those formulated by Dr. Simon Prosser.
What a fitting ending: “We’ve run out of time”
One thing that has fascinated me is the difference between children's time & adult time ...My summer holidays to Christmas always seemed to be long long time ..yet now the speed of time summer winter summer winter appears SO swift ..guess that's a physical thing rather than a universe thing...
REALLY understanding the concept of time, is one of the most important topics in physics. Still not solved....many ways to approach this. I want smartass Hockenberry on this...haven't checked out the other participants yet. Still at 0:46
"Time is a system we invented for keeping track of our daily and yearly passing's. Time passing is an illusion created by the harnessing of our planet's rotations for time's invention"
Time is the thing that prevents everything from happening at once.
add to that ... Space is the thing that prevents everythingh from happening at the same location.
Who r u 2 who r so wise in the way of science
- Ray Cummings
really enjoyed this one.
Wonderful and entertaining discussion, thank you 😂. And may I say ALL these guys' views were worth hearing. Play on.!
Space is information. Time is the clock rate (think CPU clockrate) that that information is processed at, ie. evolves. Spacetime is a localized cluster of computation. The more space you have in a cluster, the slower information is processed, so everything else evolves faster (think being at the edge of an event horizon and seeing the universe fast forward to its end, a lot of information is queued - compressed like space - in front of you and you process it but at a much slower speed due to the large amount). And gravity is just the force that creates local computing clusters and at the same time prevents too much information from clustering together by way of Hawking radiation. In those clusters, there are specialised decisional cores created by intermolecular forces (biological systems). More analogies can be made. In the end you can argue that the universe is just a very complicated super computer very different from and a whole lot more complex than human-made super computers. A fixed length simulation. An experiment to see if artificially created consciousness can ascend the boundaries of their enclosing universe.
The guy in the middle is so cute 🥰 and his slight little stutter
To Sergio, I couldn’t agree more- too cute!👍
Intelligence is sexy lol
Since when did you started to like him? In which space time did those feelings began and are you personally moving with it towards a Big Bang?? 🤣🤣
Good to see the debates get a bit heated now and then.
YEAH. I cant stand when they just blabber the whole discussion. I like to see a debate get a bit heated with passion and conviction.
NOT ALWAYS ANGER.
Without it....
ITS BORING.
Very important discussion for me. Thank you. Absolutely emergent. 1:26:00
Most intriguing scientific conversation I've heard between two relatively distant intervals of time! i.e. In a long time! Don't know when the present state of spacetime would pass through a similar interval in the future. Waiting for it though!
The key to this is that acceleration is always stretching space time ,... with each second of time continually growing longer, not going slower as a present experience, but slower only if you were able to compare the present rate span of a present second to say a thousand year old rate span of a second.
Explain that again. This time without trying to sound smart
@@syriouskash537 Apparently you're not able to understand such, so you attack me?,....So, do You have a possible theory? Lets hear it,..And I'm sure you don't,... all you're able to come up with will sound like your reply to what I've written, So,.. lets see if you're bold enough to step out of your safe place and give the world your idea ,...on anything,.. IF you have one.
@@randykuhns4515
You feel attacked? You Must be Gen Z.
All I asked you was to explain that same thing again .... without trying to sound so wise.
Explain that like youre talking to a 10 year old.
@@syriouskash537 Nope, not "gen z" , just too used to smart** comments from those who roam the comment sections, and throw thinly veiled insults thinking they can somehow sound or feel smart by placing themselves over others,.. I do a lot of wonder for pleasure, but it seems all one can get are snarky remarks,...... such as yours.
@@syriouskash537 ALSO,... I looked closer and found this was written five years ago,.. a lot of "water under the bridge", when I wrote this and I was relatively new to the "internet", thus, not touchy about replies,.. but to this present time I have found NO ONE who would even venture to discuss issues but only those who wield insults that have nothing to do with the content, and everything to do with "ad hominem" insults, thus why I give back what has been given, this has been the greatest let down about being able to reach the world with an idea and put it out to get a critically formed comment, sans the flippant comments of a heckler,.. maybe you can understand,..
Take a shot each whenever someone says 'time.'
I did and I just woke up after 3 months of unconsciousness
@@yixe2253 That's a long time.
I don't have time for these games...
I was always under the assumption that redshift was because of the stretching of the photons wavelength due to the stretching of space time, not that it was because of the acceleration of the distant galaxy away. There you go!
I liked this astonishing debate about time! So I propose a way to describe the illusion of time in a model of many clocks that, emerging from the singularity in a regular distance, they point the seconds perceived by a distant observer in blue or red. This chain of clocks represent the distortion of time caused by the distance of the singularity. The perception of "flowing time" depends on the block of gravitational influences where the clock is marking its rhythm, and the changes caused by the distance from the singularity. It is not expected that this distortions become to change our daily and distant from singularities lives. Revert the illustration to compare the emergence of time from the region where the time is known as stopped seems to be more useful. By this way, the natural state of time is null in the deep of singularity. The rhythm of the clock can now be compared with the scintillation of a photon.
I actually met the Andrew Hamilton mentioned in this video while in my Black Hole Physics class :3
He's pretty awesome.
Time is not philosophy, time is measurement. Time is a measurement of the rate of change between multiple elements.
+Velexia Ombra I agree with you except that I believe the quantum vacuum is space not just product of space and that the quantum vacuum works by a kind of quantum entanglement.What I mean is the star over there is compressing the neutron in your coffee here.Did a few RUclipss on this that are crude and incomplete but could get you started.looks at how slowing time must contract matter in a way thats indistinguishable from space expansion and no its not Lorentz contraction.Really its great at explaining inflation the big bang etc, all,.Its an actual theory because it gives easily testable predictions.No I cant understand why its so unknown..
@@ultarnerd Nassim Haramein & I, understand what you are talking about. As some of the old, wise phylosophers /sages of past & modern times. 🤗
so did you suck ?
Could time be a factor in "Red Shift"?
If the early universe was smaller (More dense), The curving of Space-time "Gravity" would be more dominant then it is now and cause time to move slower due to gravity's effect on time. Light waves emitted during this time would appear to us as moving slower (in Relativity perspective). As light departs this (slower) extreme gravity and travels through less warped (quicker) Time-space it would be stretched out, like spaghettification in a Black-hole. Causing a Red-shift consistent with a light source moving away.
The greater Red-shift observed in farther away galaxies might not be from an expanding universe but could instead be from the conditions that existed at the time the light was emitted.
Nearer galaxies may have emitted the same extreme Red-shifted light at that same time long ago. Those light waves have long since past us by and what we see now is their light waves affected by the lesser gravitational force present when they were emitted.
The apparent speeding up of the expansion of the universe & Dark Energy might all just be an allusion of time.
Please reply, for or against.
For this "Red Shift" had a Nobel prize..I'm sorry!
I would agree! Nice theory that fit your argument and observation presented - plus am how's to this as fits toy model for the universe's creation. Well done! Maybe the owner of that NPP should share it with you!
@@alphaomega1089 This comment is 6 years old. What are you trying to find? How can I help? I can offer you unorthodox ideas and some resources. My mind is to open to say that I'm right but, I think what I think and I find 'out side of the box' to be familiar ground for me... Thank you and good luck.
Jeff
One idea I always get when I think about time, is that it is a 4th dimension - a literal direction in space (not spacetime; just space) that matter can traverse. Just like up, down, forward, and backward, there is +w and -w as well, and along with the momentum in the 3 "familiar" directions, we were also given momentum in the w direction, at the big bang. We experience this as time "flow" but it is not time that is moving, but us moving through space along 4 axes. Perhaps time dilation i s what parallax looks like to 3d beings in a 4d space. Sadly, I don't know how to do any of the maths to find out if any of that makes sense, or it could be exactly what they're saying but in different words....idk.
I have this exact same thought and identical issue with lacking mathematical knowledge. I would love to know wether this is out of the question entirely or just not the most likely possibility
Cause of time: Since space expansion and time flow are the same, C / T = 1. We are felt that change of space and energy due to expansion is a flow of time.
I”m always surprised about comments everyone leaves. We all think we are smart.
So surprising
Speak for yourself. I'm a moron and am more aware of the fact with each passing day.
We are, Daniel.
We are all junior scientists, these guys just get paid.
Ask a room of people to put up their hand if they're they think they're smarter than the average person and then have a giggle at result.
48:11 - Random low level piano music that only lasts for a few seconds?..... Um, ok?
I hardly even noticed it its so quiet
Sometimes I think the universe is about the flow of information and that reality is just the medium where information evolves.
Everyone laughed at his simplified explanation of an odometer=clock twin effect; am I the only one who sees the profundity in this simplistic explanation? I know I'm stoned, but that shit was such a beautiful way to explain that...
I've no idea why they even bother discussing with that philosopher. He has no real arguments, and he is 100 % sure that he is correct - no matter what anyone else presents of arguments against it. He's like a child.
+Sarah Tenna Tobiasen I of course understand your point of view, but we can no more dismiss philosophy than we can any other 'non-physical' constituent of the Standard Model. QM 'non-physical' stuff (e.g. forces) affect physical 'matter' & so does philosophy (e.g. thoughts/beliefs cause us to do one thing rather than another). Philosopher expresses 'alternatives' including peoples general non QM views. However you do write THAT philosopher' & agree that HE is too dogmatic
Zoey Noémie totally agree. He had the audacity to tell actual physicists, how physics works - and even thought he'd written a completely new mathematical language.. without being able to answer any useful questions about it (or whether it even agrees with Einstein or not). What a joke
I agree with both of you. I found it disheartening as I am passionate about both physics and philosophy to find such an immature philosopher. I think he was overwhelmed and intimidated by them, though none of them were imposing and all three of them went out of their way to entertain his ideas even if they probably thought they were ridiculous. I found two particular things he said/did that just grated at me. The accusation that no one was listening to him, when in fact it was him not listening to them and when asked if he could put general relativity into his new math and get the same results. To which he said of curse I can, I can make it work. Which to me was the exact opposite of what a true scientist would say. They would hope it would work, but wouldn't know on that level. It implies that he would tweak the math until it did what he wanted to, which to me isn't math but just an imaginary idea that sort of resembles math and so is lazily called math. Just my two cents. If he could get out of his own way he probably would have been able to better contribute.
I agree. He seems more interested in broadcasting his worldview which is totally non-negotiable than engaging in a real scientific discussion. I'm always suspicious when i hear people announce "I HAVE THE ANSWER. TO EVERYTHING". I've never watched such an uncomfortable, awkward, belligerent WSF session before.
Yeah, the problem is that analytic philosophers too often think that to have an intellectual discussion you have to be critiquing and arguing against the other person. Basically, they're often jerks. That's why I left the field and went into something else! Where the people are nicer....and just as smart.
Someone has commented that the philosopher is quibbling over semantics. But semantics are ultimately important as we can only get to meaning by using words accurately, and those words can only have one definition. However the definitions will have to use words, which themselves must have only one definition, and so on. So we end up with semantic regress. If we have read Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason" then we will be aware that we can only think by categorization, and we categorize and cross-categorize everything if there is but one arbitrarily designated attribute on which to categorize/cross-categorize. By this process we automatically sense of spectrum of attributes which we extend in two directions, like bigger and smaller. One of Kant's questions concerned to what extent it is legitimate to to assume the human-constructed spectrum extends to infinity in both directions. This leads to Kant's "antinomies" in which two opposing ideas can seem equally plausible, like such and such has always existed, or it had a begining, but if a beginning, what before that? In other words, many of these questions may be invalid, but how do we know? Kant suggested that reason, upon which we totally rely in the modern world, has some built in flaws, and asked what could we use to study reason itself to be more sure or less sure of it's projected outcomes? What all this means relative to this topic is that we may be somewhat on the wrong track and never even know it. A first try at thinking outside the same old box is to deny the spectrum idea. So a big apple is not just a larger version of the small apple, but they are unique individuals. We could toss out time, which we think of as a spectrum, a line, a time line, but retain distance and position and even change of position. This is mentally hard to do, and seems kooky, but may for all we know be a step in the right direction. It may be that our sense of time is purely biological, due to the need to eat from time to time, sleep, and of course because we are all time-limited. I think time is a good candidate for rejection, and then we would not ask about "before" the Big Bang, but ask where was such and such before it was there, and how did it get from where it was to where it is? Then to ask why it took such and such a time to move would only be a relative comparison to our biological sense of time, a purely human construct, and we could just as easily measure against something else that is moving, or merely say the individual was there, then there, then there and so on. We can still plate chromium onto steel, and talk about the movement of the chromium atoms and the ions, and just be aware that when we specify the time it takes to plate to a given thickness such is just an expression of our annoyance that our time is running out, and we'd thus prefer the plating to go faster. I don't think atoms and electrons and energy fields are aware of time, but they are "aware" of each other when they attract and repel. In this way of thinking change of position is relative to mass and energy. If two rocket ships with equal mass but different strength engines and thus energy-efficiency race each other, we antsy humans would declare one the winner of the race, but without the human time sense, we would say that when fuel was spent, one was there, and the other one over there.
Wonderful presentation, thank you.
Dude on the very left is so nervous lol aww cute
When you force introverts to speak in public 😬
U are cute
Yeah and handsome
he is self aware, its a sign of intelligence
I am nervous too.
Space exists so everything doesn't happen to me, and time exists so it doesn't happen all at once.
Brilliant.
Perfectly said..
i've seen this response on other vids - either you stole it, or someone else stole it from you, or the response always existed and time is repeating.
' Love it ! ' We can totally relate to how you could come to this hypothesis .
@@needle1939 Time is repeating ! . Space-time exist because of that statement. As a matter fact it was a version of that statement which brought Space-time into existence . It went something like this ! , GOD quoting " Let Space-time be so that all of the crap happening all at once with in me can be expelled from me through all of eternity " .
I'd like to spend more time watching such debates please. In-between keeping my own 'time' at the drums of course.
The thought experiment with two boxes with light balls traveling back and forth between mirrored walls within explains how clocks measure distance. The time is measured slower in the box that starts moving. It can be seen that the light ball has a longer path length as the ball travels (at light speed C) from wall to wall.
Tim Maudlin. If you were ever to read this. Arrogance is not a nice trait to possess. I find Max Tegmark to be more humble towards you than you actually deserve. Especially when you mix things up and suggest that your "co-talkers", might not be as "sane" as you thereby imply, you are.
That aside. Why wasn't Sean M. Carroll invited to this talk?
+HongXiuYing Very much agreed. Paul Davies, as well, was far more respectful in tone than Maudlin warranted with his comments and behaviour. An extremely unpleasant individual.
Max Tegmark is a cool guy, Tim Maudlin is a complete tool.
I agree.....that philosopher is an arrogant ass and quite rude. He is a wanna be scientist no doubt.
Totally agree , that birch is too dumb for words , a total miscast in this discussion .
Philosopher is a narcissist that feels everyone but him is an idiot. Makes for a hostile panel
Philosofer in glasses Is overannoying
I agree.
Yep... His worry about clocks going around a star and coming up with different time readings displays he has no concept of frame drag around a rotating mass.
Phil O'Sopher from the pub is just about the right amount of annoying.
over9000annoying
They both have glasses....
Another way to look at it is that everything moves at the speed of light all the time in 4 physical dimensions. Depending on the chosen 3d projection of the object it could be standing still or moving at the speed of light. From the viewpoint of a photon, having a tangental 3d projection, we are moving at the speed of light (and vice versa).
At 22:00 or so, the philosopher is misspoken. If you "send two clocks around a star, there's no acceleration, it's all gravitational lensing."
Going "around" something is, by definition, acceleration, as your velocity is constantly changing (as a result of the direction constantly changing).
Could the mathematics of quantum mechanics represent the physics of ‘time’ as a physical process with an emergent future unfolding relative to the atoms of the periodic table therefore unfolding relative to our own actions? This is the idea that this theory is promoting that the wave particle duality of light and matter in the form of electrons is forming a blank canvas that we can choose how we interact with forming a future of our own choice relative to the energy and momentum of our actions.
i don't think there's any other way to put it but simply "no"
WSF & WSU ... consistent providers of awesome content !
WSU world science university... is another channel but they have a website where Brian Greene did a full course on special relativity....the most comprehensive I've ever seen.....with or without math, clever animations, charts, graphs, interactive examples etc..... truly some next level stuff....& theres courses coming soon on GR & QM ...depends on what your're after..I dig these wsf discussion panels 2....but wsu is thE shizzle in free online education.
I'm with the guy who looks like a close relative of Ed Byrne. He's advocating not for a new theory, but a new language to discuss existing theory more clearly. It is an aid to comprehension and communication, enabling a much more productive discussion.
Does time simply change close to or away from gravity simply because space is being bent and so the distance traveled is either greater or less?
This doesn't mean time it's self changes, only the distance really traveled.
You would think you are moving in a straight line but due to space being as it is, i.e able to bend, you are in fact moving along a curved surface.
The other thing i wonder about is that if as you move closer to the speed of light, you are moving into the future, then how come we see light?
If light it's self is moving in the future, it would then always be ahead of us in time and therefore we wouldn't be able to see it right?
When it comes to the clock experiment where they have one high up traveling fast and the other stationary on the ground, does gravity affect the atom within the clock?
So again, rather than time it's self changing, might it be that gravity is somehow changing how the atom within the clock moves and so giving the dfferent time to the stationary one?
Just my thoughts.
Max Tegmark looks like he time-traveled here from the 80's.
Paddy Slattery . I also time travelled from the 80s, unfortunately my 20 something body didn’t come with me.
Back to the future
It's the haircut. And...the fact...that 'Max', is an epic, 80' name. (Remember Max Headroom? Lol). If you don't remember Max Headroom...Google or RUclips him. Then it will all make sense. Lol.
The shaggy philosopher needs a proper lesson in relativity. Painful.
He needs to shut up . Moreover in a room filled with nerds.
No I love these kinds of discussions with disagreements, I hate when everyone that learned from the same traditional teachers just sitting there saying the same thing.
i've come back just to listen to how much of a dick he is
He attended the forum to be right, rather than to get it right, which may illustrate why he's a philosopher and not a physicist.
@@yixe2253 right, thats one of the legs that moves the scientific world forward.
Time is the definition - the 'measurement' - of an 'interval' between two or more events. A change in a relation between two 'entities'. Without any change... there is no time. Time is another word for changes... or perhaps a 'byproduct' of them. It is US that are 'moving' or 'changing' ... and we can measure the "time" it takes to do so.
Time just exists, time doesn’t pass. we are the ones who move through time. We give time a measure in order to situate ourselves within time.
If you could attach a clock to a particle in an accelerator & a clock to a static target the particle is aimed at, then fire the particle & accelerate it to 99% the speed of light & allow it to travel around the accelerator for a while before colliding it with the target, at which point both clocks record the time of the collision, when you check the two clocks they would show two different times for a single event that happened at one point in time & space? Wtf is that about?!
What's the problem? You are just restating the twins paradox in different terms. Both clocks are correct, to even talk about a single point in space and time is meaningless, that is the whole point of special relativity. There is no such thing as the absolute present, there is only the present in different reference frames, all of which are different.
The accelerated particle sees time in the world around it speeding up, but thinks his time is totally normal. We from outside see his time slowing down, and consider our time totally normal. When he stops he has traveled into a time what he considers his present, but our future, that is why time travel into ( someone else's ) future is possible, but not into your own. This has been tried many times in accelerators ( not by attaching a clock to a particle , but by sending around something that has a well known periodic property, like a radioactive element emitting something every millisecond, that can be detected - the detector will click every 2..3..etc milliseconds while the particle in the accelerator ). This is one of -many- ways to prove special relativity.
It's about Relativity
3 dimensional time
This documentary will be an Epic and will be celebrated as the triumph of science in 3000 AD
think the question "For how long was there no time before the big bang" is always a kick in the nuts for science...
So my head is older than my feet?
a teeny tiny bit! :)
Relatively
Too much word play and nonsensical arguing. Zzzzz
I agree....give us some f'ing maths.
I am not a specialist, but I liked the video. Also Maudlin's contribution, because without him it would hardly be a debate. Moreover, his point of view seems to go the same direction as Smolin's. Like Smolin and Unger he points out that mathematics is a language and that, like any language, it brings with it certain hidden assumptions. More in particular: it reduces 'time' to t; it is atemporal per se. What I am missing is someone who adopts J.T. Fraser's point of view, where reality has several 'layers' of complexity, each with its own 'time'; time emerging from the atemporal level of quantum physics.
Sending two clocks around the star or black hole in different paths does not mean "they are not accelerating". On contrary, they are accelerating into the middle of the gravitation "hole". And if they use different paths, their acceleration is different and from our point of view they will have "different" time.
I think Tim the topologist is the one that has the spacetime and lightcone things to work like relativity is supposed to work. Whew. What a workout!
If you’re moving through these videos looking for “something,” start asking questions and keep creating! However, I do ensure a good meditation will present the Eureka moment you seek❤️🧠🕰🧘🏽♂️
If you’re here for leisure and growth-likewise- continue the path. We’re on the brink of beauty and compassion. Make it your business to understand your art 🔥☀️
The world awaits your greatness✍🏽
As for me, space (of axions) is 2-d sheet with fractals/particles, surface of icosahedrons
(contact number); time is directions in/of graphs of algorithm on impulse map=space of wave packets=virtual particles (vacuum 0-state). Sometimes, cycled megamultidigraphs on map/algorithm mean different cycles for life.
"Matter moves through time - time does not flow past matter. In the same way a boat can move through still water - the water appears to flow past the boat - but this is an illusion." seems to be what PD is trying to explain.
Anyway I'm off to boil a couple of eggs for yesterdays breakfast...
+MumblingMickey welcome back!
was anyone annoyed by the philosopher? i liked that it was engaging but to me, he felt out of place.
+Angel Silva yep, lol
+Angel Silva Being formally trained as a philosopher, I found him to be quite spot-on in his analysis. The job of the philosopher is often just to make sure people FULLY understand the problem, which is essentially analogous to graphing/plotting key disparity points (eg. setting equation equal to 0 and solving for x, y, z, etc.)
Socrates annoyed people as well. But they needed to be 'annoyed' and jolted out of their false perceptions. People don't like contradictions inherent within their own worldviews. So even though they may have been annoyed, the seeds of internal doubt were being planted by Socrates.
+Angel Silva Or perhaps... out of time?
+Steve Bergman If you believe that, then fine. We've nothing more to discuss. You didn't give a SINGLE example. Not one. Not a SINGLE quote. Nothing but ad hominem -- which is no more valid in the field of natural philosophy (science) than it is in any other kind of philosophy.
+Steve Bergman I have seen quite a few of your comments and they strike me as coming from someone with that same superficial understanding that you accuse others of having. But don't worry. You are sure to have your talent found in youtube comments. ROFLMAO. You can't find what's wrong with someone's statement, so you just say they're incompetent. This is normal for your particular brand of hubris. People don't have to agree with you to be competent. Furthermore, clearly the people on the panel knew him and understood his arguments. Unlike you -- if you went on there, I am sure people would be laughing at your ignorance. But hey -- prove me wrong.
Thanks for uploading this! A great discussion. I listened while cooking. 👍
Fascinating and entertaining discussion with few boring moments, in large part due to the philosopher in the mix.
As a non-scientist I'm a bit worried that bringing philosophers into debates like this kind of muddies the waters. I'd like to start by understanding the basic scientific, physical, mathematical principles and ideas, and I'm not sure a philosopher makes for the best interpreter or bridge between the scientist and the layperson like me. The problem is translating complex questions and theories that perhaps can only be truly precisely expressed in equations into plain accessible English - Feynman could do it, but hey, I guess genius polymaths with a gift for communication don't exactly grow on trees, sadly...
Everything is connected. Everything and every being have something to do with the other. We should include all beings from all backgrounds. Everything is connected and is one. Our inability to comprehend all things in one moment is what forces us to separate it into many different things, attempting to separate and divide until it is on a scale that our brain can comprehend. For some it must be broken down to 1 + 0 = 1, for others it can be left in a complex equation.
+Jordan Babcock while you eat an intelligent living being
I agree bringing philosophers to this discussion takes away from the real science. They often misinterpret science.
I think that's kind of their idea though because you get a better debate by mixing the crowd. The World Science Festival seems to do this quite often. They get more interest from a wider range of people this way too. Otherwise it's just a lecture.
Isla Arundel you are all missing the point...Einstein was a great philosopher himself so was Newton to some degree. They all interpreted life outside the box before finding out their equations...The problem here is that some guests were not fully equipped with their subjects and this reflected on their performance, perhaps they were nervous too.
The interesting stuff starts at 1:01:30 minutes ------ that is the only real challenge to the normal relativistic view, and as you can see at the end the other two physicists concede some of the point.
The first two thirds of the video is just more of the same as any other on the subject.
Thank you.
somniumisdreaming ==
You're welcome, I hate that I want to further the knowledge base about a subject, and though I am for a BRIEF introduction of he subject the majority of it should be spent furthering the issues or the points where there is NO consensus, so, establish where things stand, where there is no disagreement, then the majority of the time should be spent arguing or even fighting over the areas that are not fully understood or not in full agreement.
In this video they spent two thirds telling us what all other videos tell us; even some of the same examples!!
Or how do you like it when they ask a question and the person REPEATS the question or outright tells you that is not the right question, which is seldom the case, or they answer a RELATED question, etc you get tired of watching the same info with different experts on the subject.
I didn't see any concessions. I did see some incredulity at the "philosopher's" misunderstanding of basic concepts, however.
+Dark Matter,
Again -- you are the one who is incredulous. Identity issues arise when space and time are both set to being equal. And to not understand that -- and consider it 'incredulity' or 'misunderstanding' only proves that it's YOU who needs to learn the topic more.
I LOVE how the philosophical and scientific paradigms' perceptive strength and weaknesses at the frontier of knowledge and wisdom play out in this debate, hearing philosophers describing the substance of time and scientists describing the meaning of time, and the limits of each perspective revealed by their arguments.
The questions debated here suggest a fundamental perceptional distortion from each paradigm, as each panelist argues his perspective. It's akin to asking sensory-based questions like "Does this taste big?" or "Does this look salty?" They challenged the philosophers to describe how something works and the scientists to induce what something means -- interesting role reversal. Very different ways of describing the same concept/thing -- we're ALL blind me trying to describe our elephant after all!
Keeps quite a few of us up late at night, doesn't it? :D
Time is a measurement tool that can be influenced by different factors and the expansion of the universe(or what we call the arrow of time) being an always present factor.
If only Neil deGrass or Brian Green were also here to argue : ))
This is beyond deGrasse level. Sean Caroll is person that should be here.
No to Neil.
I like Tim, he keeps them honest, and he explains in a most understandable way.
Thanks Tim.
+David Roberts
I think he trespasses into pedantry territory quite a lot. When he says regarding the twins paradox that it isn't about travelling near the speed of light because we're always travelling near c in somebody's reference frame, he really started to irritate me.
He knows bloody well that Davies meant near c from the frame of the other twin, he was just being pedantic for the sake of argument.
I thought he was so clearly wrong, so often.. it's like he has to pretend time dilation is simpler, because he can't understand it
Tegmarks usage of the word 'static' may not be 100% accurate here, but it makes his point totally clear. Any event in spacetime is 'there' in an atemporal and absolute non-changeable sense. Like all movie scenes, including both, the first and the last scene, are there in total on a DVD, although they are placed in a certain order.
Maudlin attempt of clarification was destructive and had the total opposite effect. But to be honest, I'm not sure if clarification was Maudlins main concern here. His whole attitude and behaviour during the conversation speaks another language. He seems to think he's the smartest person in the room ... by far.
Ok, this may be a subjective view, but it seems I'm not the only one.
1:23:30 Pay close attention because E is a single whole unit of measurement: one for one. This guy see the blocks used to count with. However space is connected to time and does have a direction but why someone would gave it the name “axis of evil” is beyond me. Data from the Keck telescope is claimed by some to indicate the fine structure constant was once smaller, and some claim the data from the Very Large Telescope indicates the opposite, that the fine structure constant was once larger. Keck points in the northern hemisphere, while the VLT is pointed south. This means that in one direction, the fine structure constant was once smaller and in exactly the opposite direction, it is bigger. The ratio of {a} is never the same twice. And we find ourselves in the middle, where the constant is now apox 1/137.03599… which shows time running backwards to move forward increasing mass densities which makes sense when you think about it as we all fit in made of different frequencies but it will certainly make your head spin as the contradictions that create frames of information are mind bending. There are wait states of immense size that physics has yet to add into the calculations. The observer does not see it's own wait states as relativity predicts, only the wait states of other observers made of the same "E" that do not exist at the exact same time as it appears which explain the paradox of measuring events with the speed of light. (I see your clock slow down, not my own and you see my clock slow down not your own)
This is an invitation to see a theory on the nature of time! In this theory we have an emergent uncertain future continuously coming into existence relative to the spontaneous absorption and emission of photon energy. Within such a process the wave particle duality of light and matter in the form of electrons is forming a blank canvas that we can interact with forming the possible into the actual! The future is unfolding with each photon electron coupling or dipole moment relative to the atoms of the periodic table and the individual wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum. As part of a universal process of energy exchange that forms the ever changing world of our everyday life the ‘past’ has gone forever. At the smallest scale of this process the ‘past’ is represented by anti-matter annihilation with the symmetry between matter and anti-matter representing the symmetry between the future and the past as the future unfolds photon by photon. In such a theory the mathematics of quantum mechanics represents the physics of ‘time’ with the classical physics of Newton representing processes over a period of time, as in Newton’s differential equations. In my videos I explain how this process is relative to temperature and the phase changes of matter.
wrong
At the end there this moderator is starting to annoy me. How many times does he have to repeat that the *FLOW* of time is an illusion, not time itself?! And then 2 seconds later the moderator still asks "can you prove that time is an illusion". IT'S NOT!!!! THE *FLOW* OF TIME IS! Jesus Christ.
i was frustrated with the whole prove an illusion gambit He had stated his case clearly by that point as you pointed out but the host clearly didn't get it. He realized that and tried to explain it a different way but the host butted in and kept pushing the whole prove thing. I love the study of time and got a lot from this video, but man its probably the worst video of theirs I have seen so far.
Time in science is exactly the relative difference (which is the definition of perception) between two states of matter having the human chosen standard (invented, created and accepted - a biological limitation) - the clock and the time unit (this can be elaborated as well). In humans is based on hypnosis and impossibilyty to adapt and follow (move at that speed if you want - synchronize and create the hypnosis with that thing)
Brilliant, great stuff thanks
.
My goodness, it's the second World Science Festival video that I'm watching which features a mixed panel coming from physics and from humanities. I have nothing against philosophy! But this feels like two guys making fools of themselves in front of two other guys. The one that's 2nd from the left is being so pathetic trying so hard to show off by beating the physicists at their own game.
+Jacek2048 The one second from the left actually makes the most sense, having studied and am continually studying advanced topology and geometry, I may be biased but a lot of what he says about the asymmetric properties of time, the intrinsic properties of space-time with respect to topology but the lack of tools for Physics to solve the problems about the understanding of time is a real problem in itself. The biggest point about the video is that I took away (having been familiar with much of the video and getting bored) the Physicists are actively demanding an extension to the notion of "continuity" as given by topology to express whether there is a directionality, or a "flowing" of time, with respect to its parametrisation in Euclidean space. But I feel sorry for the philosopher because his psychology barely made a dent into something that properly and deeply answers the questions posed. Human perception is a strange thing, and in an infinite world of quantum fluctuations, we are thrown into a perception of just one out of infinitely many states that matter could be in before we observe it, if anything quantum mechanics does a better job of explaining how time is something more than the psychology of how we perceive it. If a human perceives time then the questions about their own perceptions are meaningless because they already know what it encompasses, on the other hand, wave-particle duality would explain that time is a mess of neurons processing light discretely (much like a camera) and so we get an illusion of flowing when time could in fact be discrete in the sense it progresses from one point to the next, and the world is a slideshow. What they meant about the DVD analogy is the DVD could be in digital discrete time, or it could be more like a mathematical continuum, both possibilities are covered by topology. The guy second from the left is a bit of a try hard, but part of what he is saying is correct and he is doing the right thing by demanding new mathematical abstractions.
+Sam Meachem Ok, honestly, what you're saying is beyond my comprehension, so I'm not going to argue xD
The thing that confuses me about "Time Dilation" is, does the presence of force/thrust make the mechanism of the clock slow down (rather than time itself slowing)?
Thrust makes things seem heavier (G-Force). The gears in a watch are being subjected to the force of thrust, and wouldn't that make the watch tick that much slower while it's being subjected to the thrust. The end result would show a difference in what watch A (stationary on the ground) measured compared to watch B (put in motion, particularly on the Concord).
Even w/ Atomic clocks, the "gears", so to speak, are still subject to the physical laws of gravity and motion, etc (and the so called dilation is so much more subtle than if you ran the experiment w/ a grandfather clock on a concord).
In a nutshell, is the experiment (that demonstrates Time Dilation) really just showing that motion has an effect on physical objects?
Time dilation under acceleration ( or gravity ) has nothing to do with mechanism of the clock ,you can use any periodic event as a clock ( like half time of a radioactive element ) and will get the same result , it is time itself that slows down relative to an external observer if you feel acceleration ( or are exposed to gravity ) , or from opposite perspective you see the external observer's time speding up vs yours. If you start same place , both accelerate opposite direction, and come back, the clock will show same time. If you start same place , but only you accelerate away and than back, the other guy stays in rest vs itself , your time will show less when you come back. If you stay in rest vs yourself ,the other guy accelerates away and than back, his clock will show less vs yours. So via acceleration (or gravity) you can travel into each other's future, but not into your own. This effect is totally miniscule at earthy conditions , luckily, else imagine you forgot your condoms , and by thr time you are back from the corner shop your teen girlfriend is a granny...
Pillbox07 No no,Time Dilation is mechanistic. It is an ingrained part of nature, like the Uncertainty Principle: it has nothing to do with the technology of the instruments, it is ingrained in the nature of QM.
When I think about it, I like to think that since the Speed of Light C is constant (it's been proven over and over again that C in a vacuum is constant) than how can nature get around the problem that when, say, a car going 100 mph to a fixed observer is going 50 mph for a car going 50 mph.
Since C is constant, going .5C doesn't make C .5C, so how does nature get around this? It slows down time so that so matter how fast you go relative to C, nature won't allow you to observe C at any other speed, so it has to slow you down to allow C to remain constant.
Pillbox07 i had the same thought.
If you are on one of the GPS satellites watching the clock it would appear to operating perfectly and accurately. It is spacetime itself that is in a different state.
I liked the DVD analogy but then I thought about it too much. Yes, there is only that on the disc, but before it was made into a dvd there was an idea, a casting call, the film being made, editing, bloopers, perhaps even two versions made (directors cut). So... using the dvd analogy, a whole lot could have happened before our world came to be. The "no north of the north pole" analogy fits better, but also considering we're not on a flat earth it is in itself a weird one because everyone's North is different (yes we have defined poles but I mean if you were to just "head north" you'd go forever)
Brain is right pickled😂 thanks for another great video