If you watch PBS Space Time from the beginning, it feels like Matt is constantly preparing us mentally for the episode where he tells us the Real Meaning of Life.
I have a PhD in physics. I teach physics in college. Despite all my experience, this video makes me rethink my notion of space and time. I love it. PBS Spacetime provides amazing contents that can be meaningful to all level of physics enthusiasts. Thank you to all the people involved in making those videos!
PBS Spacetime was one of the main contributing factors for me to go to college. I found myself ravenously consuming scientific media, on top of understanding what was being said. While I might not have the foundational knowledge to grasp all the concepts, the exposure to them would lead me down one rabbit hole after the other. Do not discount the power of an enthusiastic, curious, and humble science educator/presenter. Sometimes all someone needs is that first spark, that first thought that "maybe I can do this too" and bam, the whole world just kind of opens up.
BA chemist here. I repost a lot of these, though honestly, many are above my head to a greater or lesser extent. Others seem incomplete or improbable (not the program's fault, rather the physics). I have particular difficulty with the ideas that I somehow inhabit an infinite subset of an infinite number of other universes (seems messy) or that I (and everything else) are an immobile thread in some gargantuan block universe (to quote Duran-Duran, "too much, information!" But agree, disagree, or "huh?", all of the episodes make me think.
%100! Physics would not exist otherwise. It all began with natural philosophy. Also, even with all our modern progress and knowledge, the Greek philosophers really set the bar high.
Space is real. Time is not. Time only methamatical value invented to represent movement in space. We can't move through time. We can only move through space. Simple
I'm in energy generation but this man and his programme and/or channel make me want to study higher physics for real now. Extremely well articulated ideas. Impressive and eye-opening.
This is not physics. It's epistemology, one of the more speculative, and least testable, areas within philosophy. Don't worrry. Nobody's been doing any physics in America since the Feynman Papers in 1971, and even with them you have to be careful: The 25th Anniversary Edition had to be hunted down and pulped after their inauguration of the 100-inch yard was rejected by us iggerant masses.
Matt, Sabine & Anton are intelligently awesome people. They try their best to teach complex and challenging topics to the masses. Sincerely. Thank you.
Your videos are so cool that whenever I watch them but get distracted by e.g., making a coffee for myself, I need to (I want to) roll back to rewatch parts of it, because I do not want to skip important parts, even though I had my earprohes on me the whole time. You make all seconds count. Full with vital information and useful explanations. Thank you!
Well, it seems now that they think it's reasonable to think there's a possibility that spacetime is a thing that the quantum fields operate on. There is no indication of such possibility though, any more than that anyone has ever shown there is a possibility that (a) god(s) can exist. Another thing it has in common with gods is that it solves no problems. It's just throwing horseshit against the wall to see what sticks and continue to throw it and be convinced it's reasonable to do because so far nothing has stuck. Good science produces useful models. If adding a something doesn't give a more useful model the simpler model is preferred. Adding unnecessary things that don't add information isn't good science. Sometimes I feel like some scientists used Occam's razor to cut parts of their own brains out.
It is not a trick. The simple answer is NO: Space nor Time are anything Real or Tangible or Enumerable. They are empty containers for real things like EM Inertial Dipoles mass ~~ 10^(-78) kg per EM Field Inertial Dipole aka Graviton. All Inertial Dipole derivative particles like electrons and photons are BECs of trillions of condensed Planck sized dipoles have an enumerable amount of dipoles swirling inside their QSF. A group of condensed dipoles moving through the Vacuum's Ambient EM Field at a velocity relative to other EM Field Inertial Dipoles gives a relative Momentum which is what we are familiar with on the Macroscopic level. The Inertial Dipoles of the EM Field carry ALL Momentum in the Universe. Ambient EM Field Mass Energy Density in Vacuum can change and this Gradient of Mass Density over Distance in Vacuum produces uneven Vacuum Pressure aka Quantum level Inertial Dipole Collisions causing an uneven momentum transfer to any particle in that gradient and this is what we call Gravity. All Quantum Mechanical Clocks experience more Ambient EM Field Drag and tick slower in more dense Ambient EM Fields. Clocks tick faster in less dense Ambient EM Fields due to less quantum level drag. Clocks change tick rates based on local media densities but TIME DOES NOT CHANGE EVER BECAUSE IT IS NOT A THING!
Mechanical Clocks tick slower under water and faster in a vacuum chamber due to changes in atmospheric drag. Same is true on the quantum level Ambient EM Fields that fill the Vacuum.
After following this channel for years I can honestly feel this is the start of your most important series. Break physics out of the box it's been stuck in for the last half century! There's no more appropriate topic for the time we're living in.
And we struggling when we cannot get much new data. Saying Relativity breaks down at points we can't actually test means we saying something untestable is breaking something confirmed by testing. A sign we might need to stop handing out Doctorates in Physics that require original work for awhile. Going to have to wait till even bigger particle accelerators built type of stuff.
@@bxyhxyh no, no it is not. Just because you're a dense mf with a room temperature IQ and can't connect the pieces doesn't mean you know better than those with a PHD or even any degree in the field.
So, what did you understood after watching this? Please tell us. Hollywood movies are fake? It's impossible to travel back in time to kill john conner's mother to change the present.
No. He gets a ton wrong and wastes a ton of time on things that are distinctions with out difference to pad his content. There are a ton of things he could be talking about but doesnt and the things he does talk about are done poorly because he doesn't really understand everything he is talking about.
I've followed a bachelor education in physics to become a high school teacher. These videos do a great job of helping me understand the underlying concepts of what I teach my students!
When I was in high school, it would have been helpful to me if a teacher had pointed out that the laws of physics and rules of chemistry are a description of how the world works rather than prescriptive. The laws are an aspect of matter not something separate.
The example of temperature as an analogy for explaining the nature of fields is amazing. Ive never heard that before and it deffinitely helps me understand my faulty grasp on the fundamental "what is" a field. Thank you, genuinely.
Would that "space as property" explain (a bit) the weirdness of non-locality in particle entanglement ? Thank you so much for this episode (and in advance for the rest of this mini-series).
I gather the answer is No. but I suspect the ‘weirdness of non-locality of a particle in superposition might be better understood that way FWI, I think Arvin’s episode goes well with this one: ruclips.net/video/wXJ9eQ7qTQk/видео.html Along with his discription on entanglement, found pinned in the comments
I've just recently, in the last two years or so become quite interested in physics, and have not been able to get enough of it since! I honestly pride myself on the amount of understanding I think I've gained in that amount of time. For instance, I can now somewhat intelligently make my way through a conversation about Schrödinger's cat, the double slit experiment, spooky action at a distance or the laws of thermodynamics. However, whenever I watch THIS channel, I'm immediately catapulted back to day one and reminded that actually, I have NO understanding of physics whatsoever. Lol. Everything on this channel is way over my head. That now makes my eventual understanding of it one of my life's goals, haha. It will happen!
I just finished reading _The Case Against Reality_ by Donald Hoffman, a very interesting way of rethinking our current understanding of physics and moving forward.
I@@sumanamjs If you wish to be taken for, and treated as an imbecile child, that is one way of going about it. Is it Down's syndrome that you have? It certainly seems as if it is, poor you.
Everything about this episode reminds me how grateful I am for this channel, and my lifelong side quest as a science groupie. The episode itself broke my brain in that way that fills me full of awe and wonder; again. The seemingly endless “layers of the onion” continue to blow me away. The content is presented in a way that a normie like me can be taken on the journey, while actual physicists are taking it with me, and themselves potentially learning a different perspective! Were it not for PBS Spacetime I would not believe it possible to create physics content refined down to my level of understanding that could also be impactful with actual physicists! Then we have the amazing questions and comments from previous episodes and the enlightening responses, followed by an inevitable and welcome jaunt down humor lane! I frikkin love this show, man!
It never ceases to amaze me how they are often still relevant. Even when they were wrong! Future physicists will be quoting contemporary physicists. It's all a simple matter of (space) time.
What you described is also how 3D video games work: the objects are not actually physically close, the engine just makes them interact when their coordinates degrees of freedom are sufficiently close.
Most of them work on newton's absolute space, it'd be a major pain to emulate spacetime or relative positioning where every object would need an array of distances to each other object (even worse if they would be represented as particles). Imagine if you'd have to store a monad for each pair of objects, storage complexity would go ~O(n^2)
Voltages occuring inside a silicon chip are being displayed through electromagnetic waves as if there is a relation between the two. Its like drawing pictures that represent of a bunch of number sequences.... this isnt reality though. Because your brain can distinguish certain images due to evolution and actual energy interactions, there is a difference between that and bypassing the light interacting with a material to display it to your brain and simply just having light display things in ways we recognise. In actual reality. there is ONLY energy. the scientific term "space" means energy and the scientific term "time" means that energy moving. And you can ONLY ever stay at the point of interaction, you can't go back or forward in the reactions. As in you can't be energy and go back to a sequence of energy that has already occured because energy has moved and its doing "THIS" "now". And it is always "now" to make it more simple.
I had this hypothesis before you brought up Leibniz's theory, that properties like energy, velocity and position are properties of the relationship between objects because you can't know the position of an object without comparing it to another. The velocity of an object is measured differently depending on the positions and velocities of the observer so it makes sense that rather than the object having its own velocity quantity, that it is defined by the relationship between the two objects
That sums the problem. The reason it exists at all is because we believe in extension, that distances exist. Our perceptions make energy barriers look like space. Larger barriers look like greater distances and it takes more energy, like gasoline, to drive there. Actually, you never moved a bit.
I love this channel a bit too much. Don't ever leave me, PBS Space Time. I wish there were more channels like you! We need more content built for non-scientists that doesn't treat us like fools. Thank you deeply. Glad to be a longtime Patreon.
Thanks so much for having this idea, and then for breaking it into episodes. Really enjoyed this historical intro to the different philosophies. Looking forward to Part Two!
I am so pumped for this new series, this is by far one of the most interesting topics out there. I always sort of hoped you guys would touch on these concepts a little, but as a fundamentally cosmology and particle physics channel I never expected an entire series on it considering it rly is looking at the cross section of physics/neuroscience/natural selection/and even philosophy or metaphysics. I have a degree in neuroscience and love thinking about how our own interpretation of “objective reality” described by physicists is inherently biased by our extremely narrow and specific perception of reality that was shaped by evolutionary pressures and is adapted for specific functions. Understanding the true nature of reality is not one of them, and likely would actively be selected against over time bc how tf would you focus on eating and reproducing if you can’t help noticing that you’re actually a holographic projection of oscillating strings of energy encoded by dimensionless particles outside of spacetime on the infinite boundary of some topological manifold 😂
Wow, you guys actually listened to my survey. First, more videos explaining the strong force. And now, longer-form videos going into greater depth. Thanks for care, PBS.
Wolfram's description of discrete spacetime has always struck me as a fascinating and satisfying model (I particularly like the image that all the universe is just the 'foam' on an sea of invisible quantum activity), and I was happy his work was mentioned. I'd love an episode that discussed the information-theory/computational roots of this theory or others in more detail. The suggested parallels between computer science concepts, such as the halting problem, and quantum phenomenon has always felt quite profound to me, but as a non-physicist that impression may mean diddly. Would love to hear your take on some of these concepts and where the research is at. Love the show!
Forgive the bashful blatancy but, I like this one: You guide me, holding my attention the whole way through (That's an important distinction because sometimes I'm susceptible to neural drift), captivated enough to be, suddenly inspired and subtly instigated to the arousal that piques the curiosity of my eyes to fly astray. Until ushered by your guidance, I get accidentally bound to an orbit that experiences realization. Of course in regard to the resplendence you've glown on reality but also to that instinctual recognition of Harmony. A cadence naturally tuned to the tempo of my spirit's spin. Kudos for the oodles of abysmal delights!
I've long wondered if we would get to a point where out brains wouldn't be able to process or grasp enough of what is needed to progress further in physics. Given what our brains evolved to see and process and such. So. Looking forward to this series.
We got to that point by the 1890s. There is nothing intuitive about relativity or quantum physics to our banana-scale brains. No one can really claim to have actually processed any of it. We can do the math, and accept that it's making valid predictions, but we can't really advance by thinking about it. Fortunately, our brains aren't the limiting factor. We can do experiments and let the Universe itself help us progress.
As Einstein found, sometimes it's just a matter of perspective. I'm less concerned with brain evolution and more concerned with education and a culture that fosters true discovery and not just "innovation."
@@TysonJensen our brains may still be a limiting factor even if we build our models of the universe with a mathematical framework. it may be that even with math as a tool, we still don't have the intellectual capability to reach a full understanding (or math model) of the true fundamental nature of reality.
@@francisrodriguez2369 it’s not even just intellectually capacity. It’s that our brains evolved to do very specific things and none of it is about perception of the true or “natural” world if such a thing even exists. Like Matt alludes to, even things like Color which we perceive as a natural quality of the world is just completely made up by our brains to distinguish between different wavelengths of light. and only an extremely narrow band of the EM spectrum, and the only reason it evolved this way is to better differentiate shades of green due to the world and pressures of evolution. Your brain even is flipping the image coming in through your eyes without you thinking about it, and is able to ignore probably 99% of all of what’s going on around us at any moment to focus on what it was bred to do. The way we see and perceive and test and approach reality is necessarily rooted in our brain’s’ ability to perceive the world around it and our idea of truth might only make sense to us.
I would love an episode that compares/contrasts/explains those different interpretations mentioned toward the end (Wolfram cellular automata, Arhani-hamed amplituhedra)! I saw Wolfram present his NKS book at Yale when it first came out, and it was cool, but seemed like it had too many degrees of freedom to be intrinsic (ie it's a generalization of "algorithms", which ... you can express any function that way). That said, I don't actually understand the details under the hood, and would love to learn why I'm wrong!
Ahhh finally you guys made a video about the death of spacetime! But it seems you barely touched the surface. Maybe an in-depth-video of Nima Arkani-Hamed Amplituhedron? That would be amazing=)
Wow, this is an amazing video! I've been hearing off and on for most of my adult life that time may be an illusion and not really exist, but I never accepted this idea because time certainly seems real to me, and so does space! But I've never thought about this question as deeply as you've presented it here. For one thing, I never thought much about space and time being relational rather than absolute, and I always assumed they were absolute. But you did an excellent job of explaining Leibniz' relational point of view, which now makes perfect sense to me! In addition, one of the most important things that quantum mechanics has taught us is that it's impossible to separate the observer from the system being observed, whence I now understand much better what is meant by "space and time existing in our minds". Perhaps a better way to say this is that space and time are relational, but part of that relationship involves the existence of conscious observers like ourselves. Once again, great job!
I love this channel! Absolutely top stuff, thank you for being here! :) i just woke up so its probably not the best time for me to be absorbing knowledge about the fundamental nature of our universe but i appreciate it none the less! :)
Brilliant topic!!! Looking forward to watching further episodes! And thanks for the channel overall. An absolutely invaluable source of understandable physics for me. Thank you.
I've always felt we are seeing spacetime like artists in the Middle Ages, not knowing about perspective. I'm thrilled where Matt is going to take us :)
The artists back then knew about perspective. The art style is intentional. I think it had to do with not over glorifying people over magic but I don't remember if that's the case.
he isnt going to take anybody anywhere... actual scientists that do actual work are the ones pushing things forward. all he does is regurgitate what others say and frequently it is done poorly.
I was having a minor anxiety attack waiting for Matt to say "spacetime" at the end. Like he kept saying things that sounded like the usual outro but he couldn't say it normally because this episode is literally calling into question space and time themselves. Then he finally found a way to say and I breathed an audible sigh of relief XD
The more I think of the "gridification" of space and time in physics the more I think of the "gridification" of modern music through the use of DAWs. Many producers who worked on analog setups almost always mention a loss of "feeling" in the mechanical exactness of snapping the time and place of a note to a grid. Seems weirdly parallel to the relational or absolute argument in some ways. Or, it's early and I'm making no sense at all lol
You make so much sense ! At least to me. On the same note, it baffles me when I hear "Mathematics are the source code of the universe". I mean, maths are a very usefull tool, but that's all there is : a tool designed to help us quantify and simplify everything within the reach of our poor human brains. Trying to do anything and everything (even music), while staying purposefully within the limits of some conventional logic, lowers our potential in both creativity and experience.
There is no sound an analogue instrument can make that cannot be perfectly reproduced digitally, and this is a mathematical fact. What you are describing has more to do with the inherent imprecision of analogue instruments making them always sound slightly off, but with enough tweaking you can do the exact same thing digitally
If one accepts that the source of all electrons whether directly or indirectly is from the nucleus of atoms and their internal interactions. Remove the electrons, it becomes nucleus on nucleus interaction. Absorbing emitting reabsorbing when/with contact with eachother. I think the perspective only works for a single moment in time. Spherical with many points of contact, not perfectly spherical though. What's getting in the way space and time. No not space and time this time. No, that spacetime is other nucleuses of atoms in the way. Same result, either a nearly untraversable casm of space or an impenetrable wall of atomic nucleus. So much closer though. And planets stars and everything else that has its own larger gravitational potential than a single atomic nucleus. Idk it'd have to have something like macro balls and mini balls. Macro balls planets and stars and such and the mini balls would be the individual atoms. Onion rings around stars depicting their orbits, 2d spherical orbits of planets around stars. Mobius loop would work I'd think. Depending on orientation it is to your view. The planet is either on the near side of the sun from the observers perspective when the energy signature shows it to be on the outside of the loop. When the planet is on the far side of the star the energy signature would show it to be on the inside of the 2d mobius loop orbit, I'd suppose. And in turn the sun is mobius looping around the planet also,just not nearly pronounced. So the entire universe is turned into something sorta like giant neutron star.
@James Black yes, except in this analogy "quantum" would be the wrong comparison. Quantum mechanics introduces the uncertainty principle which is the exact opposite of what quantized music in a DAW is.
That explanation of relational space reminds me of reading Flatland for the first time when I was a little kid and how it absolutely blew my tiny mind. Core memory, that. Love your work!!
I have a BS in Math/Chemistry. Used that to get into Medical School in 1977. Specialized In Diagnostic Radiology. You guys drive home the fact that…. The more you know….. the more you realize how VERY little you know! Thanks so much for these vids.
I love how I can watch your videos, find out that some questions I ask myself are valid questions but the scientists who ask these questions can actually put their theories into practice.
4:05 The coordinate system shown in this picture is actually left handed coordinate system, but the standard coordinate system is always right handed. This changes few fundamental vector properties. The video was amazing but just wanted to point this out.
Yes, but I take issue with the whole "wasn't commonly used until...1637." What does he mean by "commonly used." There were no public schools, as we know them, back then. But you can't go exploring and come home with maps of your travels without SOME kind of grid system. Piri Reis, in his map of 1513, gives credit to information from even older maps that were available to him. 🖖
This is the second video in a row where the background music has been too distracting and I had to quit it. (It started getting noticeable around 9:30, and swelled to a volume that was too high at 11:50-ish.) Is there a transcript of the episode anywhere? This is a very fascinating topic. Edit: there was a simple solution. Muting the video and watching Closed captions. Not ideal (especially since I miss out on Matt's voice!), but it worked. I'd hate to have missed out on the important labradoodle facts at the end. Poor Steve.
So glad we returned to this channel recently. Please, could Leibniz also, as Descartes, be introduced as both mathematician and philosopher? Just a personal preference of mine as a philosophy kid haha.
I just finished reading "Time Reborn" by Lee Smolin and it's interesting to see how your deconstruction of time and physics has some parallels to his. He finally ends up postulating that time is somehow the base unit of reality and we need to reinterpret physics and the rules of the universe around it. I'm looking forward to this series to see what else I can learn!
"He finally ends up postulating that time is somehow the base unit of reality" Well, he's closer than some people. Consciousness is the base unit of reality - science will figure this out soon enough (we're almost there, for real!!). Pure Presence. Absolute. I AM. ness. Cheers.
oh my goodness, I'm so excited about this series! The timing is incredible. I've been looking into the brain's concept of time these past few weeks and it's absolutely wacky. I was even wondering if PBSST would ever do such an episode and to see this pop up just a week later... well, I'm going to buy a lotto ticket right now! Can't wait to watch this series, Dr O'Dowd :)
I've recently tried to grapple with it using this analogy: On computers, we see windows, controls, text, etc and they all interact with each other visually. Most strikingly in games. However, nothing is actually moving. Nothing is colliding, or occluding. The "objects" in memory merely have their properties updated, and the values of the properties can be represented visually as positions on the screen, colours, etc. But the visual representation is just a way to make sense of the actual state of the objects in computer memory.
This is like the holographic universe theory maybe? But at the same time there is an analogue output on a screen, which must be derived from something, somewhere.
Yes but that is a system entirely created with the intention of human logic and viewpoint. The universe doesn't exist for us or abide by our need for logic we simply exist within it. To think otherwise is complete arrogance.
@@fireteamomega2343 I did NOT say that's how the universe worked. I SAID that it was an ANALOGY I was using to come to grips with the idea expressed in the video.
"People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion." - Albert Einstein Nice to see physics finally start to catch up with his century old General Relativity.
ky of thi quote: "who believe"... Einstein, and many others, never understood Kant's transzendental properties. Hence he and many others do not understand what i means to use language
I personally think time is an effect of our movement through space. Just think about it... We are never in the same point in space. We move the earth moves the sun moves around the galaxy. And our galaxy moves through the universe.
space is not a thing, its a measurement time is "real" for physical things, as its the measurement of change in these things, but fundamentally its not real you cannot go back in time, you cannot go forward in time, the past does not exist, the future does not exist, the present does not exist, the only thing that exists is the ever constant moment of time..like being a tiny float in a river that goes forever until you the physical thing eventually disintegrates and become back one with the river like a clock, the hands show the passage of time so to speak, but the center of the clock is timeless
That's because the longer you live the faster time seems to go. When you are one years old you had only been alive for one single year so that's your entire frame of reference for everything and each day felt like an eternity of its own. By the time you make it into your twenties you finally start noticing how time begins to go by faster and faster with every passing month. By the time you're in your 30s week seemed to go by as if it were just a single day and when you make it into your 50s an entire year doesn't feel that long at all. If you were to live for thousands of years until your decades would go by in a blink of an eye
@@DarkSaber-1111 it actually seems to have more to do with how much energy is leftover for your brain after living, as kids who are sleep deprived report time going by faster more than their age peers. Young adults with chronic fatigue also report time seeming faster than their age peers. Your brain has to take quite a lot of calories to pay close attention, not just to the space around you but also the scale and order of events. The more tired you get, the more you zone out, and the more time seems to slip.
Time has not moved the same since 2013 when I was 24... and now since 2020 I feel like there was another jump. Tho it slowed down again, 2020-2022 was really a blip to me 😅
I just read some stuff about the Amplituhedron. It is well beyond me, but it seems really exciting. It appears to make QM calculations massively simpler than integrating the effects of millions of Feynman diagrams, by avoiding the need to consider space (specifically avoiding consideration of virtual particles popping in and out of existence in space). This seems like a massive paradigm change. I'd love to see it explained more.
So, a question about Space potentially not existing: What does this mean for hypothetical wormholes? How do they fit within a spaceless model? Further, does spacelessness help explain entanglement interactions being instant, or would that still be a mystery of its own?
If space doesn't exist, there are more fundamental questions that put the entire physics field (humanity really) in crises mode than the impact of wormhole theory.
Everything in this simulation is the same relative length away from the CPU, so, spooky action at a distance is not all that spooky, because distance is an illusion. Also, everything is entangled, and there are virtually infinite wormholes because every pair of entangled particles requires a wormhole through space-time.
I have asked myself this before. If time is relative, does it make sense to think about the Universe from NO ONE perspective in particular? I'm glad I found this video
One reason would be time dilaition. If person A and B are floating in dark space, and one of them is taken by an invisible hand and moved near the speed of light for a decade before being returned, it will look to both parties that the other accelerated away. So both A and B see the same thing. But, they will know which one of them actually moved by the fact that one wouldn't have aged as much as the other. So there's something beyond being relative
@@jamesalexander958are you sure in that situation one would age faster? Does it not require that the 'stationary' one was existing somewhere within a mass' field of gravity for that to happen?
@@HK_Musician Yep the one who spent a decade (a decade from the other's perspective) close to light speed will barely age or experience time. The stationary one will age for that decade. Gravity could also create time dilation but it would make the hypothetical more complicated
No time is correct, all mass has its own time, often mass is traveling through time at the same rate as other things nearby. Ask yourself what happens if something was to "slow down" to a speed of zero. (Because everything is relative nothing can stop moving. If it was possible though, for that thing that stopped, all time would happen instantly.
@@HK_Musiciannothing absolutely nothing is stationary, or all of time would happen instantly (due to time dilation.) Causing the object to age into nothing.
I reallyove that you guys have maintained the same intro music since 10 years now. Love it. Subtle but catchy and edgy. Been following this channel for long time now. Thank you for all the curiosity that you quenched of mine.
Amen! I'm so glad you covered this "fringe physics" topic. We HAVE to get out of our intuitions in order to move past Einstein and in order to progress our understanding of physics. String theory feels just like a bandaid to me...
Came here to say the same thing - I've seen a lecture on it and read much of their site, but I'm not really qualified to judge whether it's feasible. It sounds good, but everyone's theory does when they get to choose which information to present :) I'd love an independent review of the theory by a trustable source.
I would love that also. I've read all of NKS and the Project to Find the Fundamental Theory of Physics books. His ideas have evolved even within the past year to the concept of the Ruliad, where the Universe is an application of all rules and the very successful physical models that we have produced so far (GR and QM) are slivers of this ruliad that are readily interpret-able to humans by the nature of humans being part of the Universe, and not outside observers.
So happy to hear this. Not sure how much others contributed, but I have been promoting this for years now and you're the first I hear saying it. In short: Time and Space are phenomena which means they are real but they do not have attributes of their own. Therefore, we can still use Spacetime because it is not about space or time, but rather about the behavior of matter. A tool therefore. The clocks did not dilate time; the matter of the clocks changed when in spatially different frameworks. Or, we can replace Spacetime with Gravity + Fourth Motion (which should be called First Motion) to say the same thing. Thank you for going where few have gone before : - )
If we use the lesson that massive black holes taught us, they are the ones instrinsict wirh their ou "timezone", which seems more in line with Leibniz, ate last on that part. When the Universe cooled down for the first time, after 300k years, time probably was also diferent, due to the types of particles, universe expansion etc
I support this re-evaluation of Space-Time, as i actually have been asking for a separation of the two, or at least, redefine what we mean with these concepts. Curious to see where it leads to.
I have been playing with a fundamental idea for a long time but since I am not a trained mathematician / scientist I felt that this idea was just a wacko part of my own attempt to understand things beyond my own abilities. Still, for some reason I would like to share it here if nowhere else. That idea is this: we speak of dimensions constantly even when we are not speaking of them implicitly. All our mathematics are dimensional in some form or another, as is our own perceptions of the world around us, height, width, depth, and so on. But are the dimensions only a form of measurement as it would seem to be or is there more to it. All our understandings, both in terms of perception and in terms of our ability to "describe" objects and motion, even how energy is related to objects in motion, are based on how those objects relate to each other dimensionally, but are dimensions just a way of relating objects and motion. I struggle with this for the simple reason that it seems to me that at the fundamental level it is the dimensions themselves that determine all the qualities of both objects and motion rather than just how these qualities relate. That the dimensions are determinative rather than qualitative. Ok, that's the best I can do with this and since neither my professional life nor my social life are dependent on this in any way I will leave it there and just accept the fact that I am probably just a quack of some kind. It's been fun thinking of this though. I understand why you guys and gals enjoy this work so much.
I love these videos, and they go way beyond what I can comprehend. Love getting baffled by science, lol. Would love to see you do one of these in a suit if that's something you're comfortable with. Just curious what it'd look like :)
His hilarious dancing made watching this gibberish worthwhile. Okay, maybe it wasn't gibberish. I'm not very good at listening to 'science' while (or is it whilst?) simultaneously watching art. And his hand movements are pure art. Good on ya, Matto. Peace
you should do an episode on Nikolai Gorkavy (Николай Горькавый) and his theory of cyclical cosmology. It's absolutely brilliant and litteraly deserves a Nobel prize for solving 99% jf problems in cosmology
What is space? An abstract concept, the absence of objects. What is time? Time is an abstract concept, consisting of points in time. A point in time is a particular localization arrangement of all existing objects. Localization is the distance between objects. What is physics? the rational study of objects and their motions. What is philosophy? The rational study of abstract concepts.
I remember learning about Leibniz's views, including the Monads, as presented here in a college philosophy class. It gets even weirder. Philosophers can construct worldviews that go in pretty strange places, just like physicists, but he stood out. To be blunt I thought he sounded insane.
The very fact that imaginary things don't interact with real things but potentially interact with each other proves it :). Not that I'm claiming this to be Leibniz' train of thought.
Leibniz attacked Newton's absolutist views in both physics and metaphysics. Newton thought space is "an instrument which God uses to experience things". Leibniz replied, that it limits God's creative power and the immediacy of his knowledge. And that the world, being perfect creation, didn't need any guidence or intervention from God. Newton claimed, that the world operating without God's intervention is fatalistic (doesn't need God at all). Leibniz stated that space cannot be absolute, because, devoid of things, has no orientation and no meaning. Newton believed that this orientation was given by God, who created it. Yeah, Leibniz and Newton were at total war :)
It's an example of mathematical currying and uncurrying, ie changing your point of view from a function that takes in multiple variables to that of a function that takes in a singlur variable (or even no variables!) and outputing a function. For instance, we can change the binary function, f(x,y) = z to the unary function, g(x)(y) = z, and back again if we so wish.
When you realise that for a photon that has spent billions of years crossing the universe no time has passed at all. Then it starts to make you wonder what distance actually means, and if time, dimensions and mass only exist as a emergent property of objects traveling at less than speed of light. And then I go get a Gin and Tonic.
Ah well then this implies that space only exists as an emergent property of objects moving less than the speed of light in time axis. I think we are incapable of explaining anything to do with time without circular definitions/tautologies. And now Matt has made us realise this about space too. Oh no
About higher dimensions: 2D creature could fully see 1D line (world of 1D creatures), but couldn't see many, many of them at once. 3D creatures (like we) CAN see many of 1D worlds at once, even "infinitely many of them", by simply stacking them parallelly together, and can see a full 2D world by looking at it "from above", but now they have a problem with seeing multiple 2D world at once - if you stack them together, then they would be overlapping or obscuring each other, but what if 4D creature was looking at them? Could 4D creatures see however many 2D worlds they want, by simply stacking 2D ones in some parallel way that allows them to look at all of them? And now, what about generalizing this? Are "2 dimensions of difference" enough for higher dimensions? To see may possible 3D worlds at once, would a creature need to be 5D? Or it changes in higher dimensions and even higher dimension would be needed?
Human's say that 'Seeing is Believing'. Since we cannot see any more than 3 Dimensions it is a pretty hard sell to get people to believe in another see-able dimension. Our brains are simply not up to the job. Entanglement hints at a 4th spacial dimension wherein the 4th coordinate for both is fixed at the moment of entanglement which changes not one iota no matter the movement of the particles in 3D space. This would make Spacetime 5 dimensional and scare the crap out of those String Theorist lunatics but it's out there as an idea. Not Hidden Variables but a Hidden Dimension ... erhaps rolled up so small we can not see it etc.
As our system and every other is travelling through space at immense speeds and every angle conceivable, I can not reconcile how the stars remain in the same relative position to each other for such a long period of history.
Reality is weird asf. I have had strange personal experiences that make me think about topics like this that and quantum physics. I've had dreams that have played out identically in the "future" in real life. Then recently I had a dream where I looked at a clock that said 3:03 then woke up and it was 3:03am. I really want scientists to investigate phenomenons like that more. I know I can't be the only one with such experiences.
I had future dreams when I was younger. It was only a glimpse without any use, but when the event occurred that glimpse would be part of the event and the same as my dream. Sometimes I had the same future dream multiple times.
This is exactly what I imagine the first time I heard about entanglement in HS. Obviously space didn't exist and it didn't take much to realize that "distance" is just how we perceive the universe but in truth it is more like seeing colors. Space is just how our brains naturally make sense of this.
I must say I'm a huge fan of any Labrador cross, although no boy or girl will ever be as good as my purebred labrador mowi. He was a rescue dog who was rejected by the Queensland police for being too friendly, I ended up bringing him into the family and that quality made him perfect for 6-10 years old me, and his loyalty was beyond comparison. We saved him from the pound, and he ran in to save my family countless times. Both from threats we could see, and ones we couldn't. Best boy hands down.
we get so fixated on the words humans came up with in our made up languages to describe these complex concepts but I think our obsession with labeling and categorizing things to a degree has confined the way we're able to think of them. while language has certainly allowed us to evolve mathematically and express our understanding of the universe, notice it's always the oddball geniuses who were at some point deemed crack pots and go against the norm - it is they who are the very few that have lifted all of mankind on their shoulders
The geniuses stand on the bedrock of discoveries made before them. Generally they're able to make connections between existing concepts that they wouldn't be able to make if the groundwork wasn't already in place And most "geniuses" are just hardworking and obsessed
Why do *you* -yes -*-You-*- titch, because that is what 'we' means, you and your interlocutor get fixated as you put it- you being the fixated one; nobody knows more about you than you, so why do you hide behind some imaginary " we" as if it were something other than you? Do you understand that 'we' means, or indicates the user of the term -that's you titch, and his immediate interlocutor of which you are short to the exact tune of any-at-all? There is no *we* titch, you are strictly on your own. Of what else can you have direct immediate personal experience or knowledge but whatever you suppose yourself to be? You cannot get more completely alone - just you titch, than that.
@@dakariuish7004 Tee hee. It can test it out so easily by going to the top of the nearest skyscraper, cliff or v tall building and jumping; soon see about the reality of time and space then and it can try shouting none of this is real and on passing X looking out of the window half way down it can shout "so far so good"
I was simply shocked to find out how accurate Isaac Newton was in his explanations, about the space and time, to me he was truly a genies, that kind of understanding in his time, was just out of this world.
If you watch PBS Space Time from the beginning, it feels like Matt is constantly preparing us mentally for the episode where he tells us the Real Meaning of Life.
is that not what he's doing? I was under the assumption.
February: Could aliens come to earth?
March: Aliens may have come to earth.
April: BIG ANNOUNCEMENT 🎉
May: How to introduce yourself to aliens
Beginning*
Agreed, my headcanon is he's secretly a grey, and the last episode before the singularity takes hold is gonna be a true face reveal
But Matt isn't the original host
I have a PhD in physics. I teach physics in college. Despite all my experience, this video makes me rethink my notion of space and time. I love it.
PBS Spacetime provides amazing contents that can be meaningful to all level of physics enthusiasts.
Thank you to all the people involved in making those videos!
The half life of a physicist is two years so after half a century, I’m down to next to nothing. Thanks for rejuvenating these old brain cells!
You forgot to tell your kids that everything they are about to learn is the source code of the simulation.
PBS Spacetime was one of the main contributing factors for me to go to college. I found myself ravenously consuming scientific media, on top of understanding what was being said. While I might not have the foundational knowledge to grasp all the concepts, the exposure to them would lead me down one rabbit hole after the other.
Do not discount the power of an enthusiastic, curious, and humble science educator/presenter. Sometimes all someone needs is that first spark, that first thought that "maybe I can do this too" and bam, the whole world just kind of opens up.
PBS spacetime has gone meta, asking if it's real
BA chemist here. I repost a lot of these, though honestly, many are above my head to a greater or lesser extent. Others seem incomplete or improbable (not the program's fault, rather the physics). I have particular difficulty with the ideas that I somehow inhabit an infinite subset of an infinite number of other universes (seems messy) or that I (and everything else) are an immobile thread in some gargantuan block universe (to quote Duran-Duran, "too much, information!" But agree, disagree, or "huh?", all of the episodes make me think.
I love the fact that this series recovers the sense of natural philosophy. The real questions are asked here. Thank you to the PBS team❤️❤️
Sounds like useless philosophical chauvinism to me.
@@helloyes2288 elaborate.
@@SaphreCoalwolf self explanatory
%100! Physics would not exist otherwise. It all began with natural philosophy. Also, even with all our modern progress and knowledge, the Greek philosophers really set the bar high.
Space is real. Time is not. Time only methamatical value invented to represent movement in space. We can't move through time. We can only move through space. Simple
I'm in energy generation but this man and his programme and/or channel make me want to study higher physics for real now. Extremely well articulated ideas. Impressive and eye-opening.
Yeah. Actual classes in astrophysics are not always this entertaining but damn if it’s not material to obsess over.
This is not physics. It's epistemology, one of the more speculative, and least testable, areas within philosophy.
Don't worrry. Nobody's been doing any physics in America since the Feynman Papers in 1971, and even with them you have to be careful: The 25th Anniversary Edition had to be hunted down and pulped after their inauguration of the 100-inch yard was rejected by us iggerant masses.
Matt, Sabine & Anton are intelligently awesome people. They try their best to teach complex and challenging topics to the masses. Sincerely. Thank you.
Add Arvin and Nick to that list.
@@PGGraham literally came here to add Arvin to that list as well!
@@ilanstermonster if you haven't seen Nick Lucid, (science asylum) you should check him out as well.
Add David Kipping to that list as well!
Who is Anton??? Need to see him too!
Your videos are so cool that whenever I watch them but get distracted by e.g., making a coffee for myself, I need to (I want to) roll back to rewatch parts of it, because I do not want to skip important parts, even though I had my earprohes on me the whole time. You make all seconds count. Full with vital information and useful explanations. Thank you!
Egyértelműen nem az a típusú content ami mással való foglalkozás mellett a háttérben akar hallgatni az ember :D
We are eternal our energy bounces along and crunches along w the universe
PBS Space Time isn't real.
@@NeonVisual Time is d word we have labeled the Reaction of quantum fluctuating particles that move between our universe and the antiverse
@@NeonVisual but ur right space is what matters occupies..and time is the fluctuating particles seperate things, it destroys and creates
"The greatest trick PBS Space Time ever played was convincing the audience that space time doesn't exist."
-Professor Keyser Söze
Well, it seems now that they think it's reasonable to think there's a possibility that spacetime is a thing that the quantum fields operate on. There is no indication of such possibility though, any more than that anyone has ever shown there is a possibility that (a) god(s) can exist. Another thing it has in common with gods is that it solves no problems. It's just throwing horseshit against the wall to see what sticks and continue to throw it and be convinced it's reasonable to do because so far nothing has stuck.
Good science produces useful models. If adding a something doesn't give a more useful model the simpler model is preferred. Adding unnecessary things that don't add information isn't good science. Sometimes I feel like some scientists used Occam's razor to cut parts of their own brains out.
It does, but not by itself.
It is not a trick. The simple answer is NO: Space nor Time are anything Real or Tangible or Enumerable. They are empty containers for real things like EM Inertial Dipoles mass ~~ 10^(-78) kg per EM Field Inertial Dipole aka Graviton.
All Inertial Dipole derivative particles like electrons and photons are BECs of trillions of condensed Planck sized dipoles have an enumerable amount of dipoles swirling inside their QSF.
A group of condensed dipoles moving through the Vacuum's Ambient EM Field at a velocity relative to other EM Field Inertial Dipoles gives a relative Momentum which is what we are familiar with on the Macroscopic level. The Inertial Dipoles of the EM Field carry ALL Momentum in the Universe.
Ambient EM Field Mass Energy Density in Vacuum can change and this Gradient of Mass Density over Distance in Vacuum produces uneven Vacuum Pressure aka Quantum level Inertial Dipole Collisions causing an uneven momentum transfer to any particle in that gradient and this is what we call Gravity.
All Quantum Mechanical Clocks experience more Ambient EM Field Drag and tick slower in more dense Ambient EM Fields.
Clocks tick faster in less dense Ambient EM Fields due to less quantum level drag. Clocks change tick rates based on local media densities but TIME DOES NOT CHANGE EVER BECAUSE IT IS NOT A THING!
Mechanical Clocks tick slower under water and faster in a vacuum chamber due to changes in atmospheric drag. Same is true on the quantum level Ambient EM Fields that fill the Vacuum.
Perhaps Space Time is just a great model like the standard model of the atom. Great models but not the way things actually are.
One of the best movies in existence...
I can stop watching for a year, come back, and episodes continue to be fresh and mind blowing. Thank you!🎉
I've been doing the same too mate. After a while it can get a bit too mind bending so good to have a break from it to let your brain recover!
I watch most episodes several times
After following this channel for years I can honestly feel this is the start of your most important series. Break physics out of the box it's been stuck in for the last half century! There's no more appropriate topic for the time we're living in.
Well, that box is more truer than this thought process/thought experiment kind of thing.
Well, you can imagine any kind of dreams I guess.
If space and time are not real then that might help to explain why so many girls I organised to date in my youth never appeared
And we struggling when we cannot get much new data. Saying Relativity breaks down at points we can't actually test means we saying something untestable is breaking something confirmed by testing.
A sign we might need to stop handing out Doctorates in Physics that require original work for awhile.
Going to have to wait till even bigger particle accelerators built type of stuff.
@@bxyhxyh no, no it is not. Just because you're a dense mf with a room temperature IQ and can't connect the pieces doesn't mean you know better than those with a PHD or even any degree in the field.
this was also broken down into much more understandable chunks than some of the other videos. Great job
Can we take a moment to apreciate matt’s ability to explain such hard topics to understand?
Im amazed👏
can we all just take a moment to realize that using this stupid meme, yet again, is not really as complimentary as someone might foolishly beleive?
It was a great episode, 5 out of 5 Labradors 🐩🐩🐩🐩🐩
So, what did you understood after watching this? Please tell us.
Hollywood movies are fake? It's impossible to travel back in time to kill john conner's mother to change the present.
No. He gets a ton wrong and wastes a ton of time on things that are distinctions with out difference to pad his content. There are a ton of things he could be talking about but doesnt and the things he does talk about are done poorly because he doesn't really understand everything he is talking about.
Of course he IS working from a script. But he also DOES appear to grok the message...
I've followed a bachelor education in physics to become a high school teacher. These videos do a great job of helping me understand the underlying concepts of what I teach my students!
When I was in high school, it would have been helpful to me if a teacher had pointed out that the laws of physics and rules of chemistry are a description of how the world works rather than prescriptive. The laws are an aspect of matter not something separate.
Bro that's messed up that you studied physics for years and need a tv show to tell you what you should know
The example of temperature as an analogy for explaining the nature of fields is amazing. Ive never heard that before and it deffinitely helps me understand my faulty grasp on the fundamental "what is" a field. Thank you, genuinely.
Would that "space as property" explain (a bit) the weirdness of non-locality in particle entanglement ?
Thank you so much for this episode (and in advance for the rest of this mini-series).
No, no. Space is property, and similarly, time is money.
@WouaQazamBouga: Nice observation!
If space isn’t real, that makes non-locality seem a little more sensible
there is life, and death, and likely both are the same. Don't look too much beyond this or you'll get lost
I gather the answer is No. but I suspect the ‘weirdness of non-locality of a particle in superposition might be better understood that way
FWI, I think Arvin’s episode goes well with this one:
ruclips.net/video/wXJ9eQ7qTQk/видео.html
Along with his discription on entanglement, found pinned in the comments
I've just recently, in the last two years or so become quite interested in physics, and have not been able to get enough of it since! I honestly pride myself on the amount of understanding I think I've gained in that amount of time. For instance, I can now somewhat intelligently make my way through a conversation about Schrödinger's cat, the double slit experiment, spooky action at a distance or the laws of thermodynamics. However, whenever I watch THIS channel, I'm immediately catapulted back to day one and reminded that actually, I have NO understanding of physics whatsoever. Lol. Everything on this channel is way over my head. That now makes my eventual understanding of it one of my life's goals, haha. It will happen!
I know exactly how you feel.
Who cares
If you think you understand quantum physics, then you definitely don’t understand quantum physics.
I am not alone! Thank you for sharing this! I have the same feeling :)
@@racontoor I do.
I just finished reading _The Case Against Reality_ by Donald Hoffman, a very interesting way of rethinking our current understanding of physics and moving forward.
How did Donald Hoffman define reality which no doubt he subtitled the nothing against anything which he never wrote in that witty way of his.
And how does Hoffman define reality or identify whose reality he has in mind?
This podcast appearance of his inspired me to pick up his book. Fascinating work ruclips.net/video/dd6CQCbk2ro/видео.html
@@vhawk1951kl😂
I@@sumanamjs If you wish to be taken for, and treated as an imbecile child, that is one way of going about it.
Is it Down's syndrome that you have? It certainly seems as if it is, poor you.
Me olvido de todos mis problemas y me inunda la felicidad cada vez que reviso el contenido de este canal.
Everything about this episode reminds me how grateful I am for this channel, and my lifelong side quest as a science groupie. The episode itself broke my brain in that way that fills me full of awe and wonder; again. The seemingly endless “layers of the onion” continue to blow me away. The content is presented in a way that a normie like me can be taken on the journey, while actual physicists are taking it with me, and themselves potentially learning a different perspective! Were it not for PBS Spacetime I would not believe it possible to create physics content refined down to my level of understanding that could also be impactful with actual physicists!
Then we have the amazing questions and comments from previous episodes and the enlightening responses, followed by an inevitable and welcome jaunt down humor lane! I frikkin love this show, man!
The episodes where a bunch of old philosophers are quoted are my favorites.
Sometimes they are surprisingly relevant.
It never ceases to amaze me how they are often still relevant. Even when they were wrong!
Future physicists will be quoting contemporary physicists. It's all a simple matter of (space) time.
Wouldn't it be ironic if for all the Hawkings and Einsteins they turned out to be right.
What you described is also how 3D video games work: the objects are not actually physically close, the engine just makes them interact when their coordinates degrees of freedom are sufficiently close.
Oh please
@@saramolet3614 What?
Most of them work on newton's absolute space, it'd be a major pain to emulate spacetime or relative positioning where every object would need an array of distances to each other object (even worse if they would be represented as particles). Imagine if you'd have to store a monad for each pair of objects, storage complexity would go ~O(n^2)
Voltages occuring inside a silicon chip are being displayed through electromagnetic waves as if there is a relation between the two.
Its like drawing pictures that represent of a bunch of number sequences.... this isnt reality though. Because your brain can distinguish certain images due to evolution and actual energy interactions, there is a difference between that and bypassing the light interacting with a material to display it to your brain and simply just having light display things in ways we recognise.
In actual reality. there is ONLY energy. the scientific term "space" means energy and the scientific term "time" means that energy moving. And you can ONLY ever stay at the point of interaction, you can't go back or forward in the reactions. As in you can't be energy and go back to a sequence of energy that has already occured because energy has moved and its doing "THIS" "now". And it is always "now" to make it more simple.
I had this hypothesis before you brought up Leibniz's theory, that properties like energy, velocity and position are properties of the relationship between objects because you can't know the position of an object without comparing it to another. The velocity of an object is measured differently depending on the positions and velocities of the observer so it makes sense that rather than the object having its own velocity quantity, that it is defined by the relationship between the two objects
That sums the problem. The reason it exists at all is because we believe in extension, that distances exist. Our perceptions make energy barriers look like space. Larger barriers look like greater distances and it takes more energy, like gasoline, to drive there. Actually, you never moved a bit.
I love this channel a bit too much. Don't ever leave me, PBS Space Time. I wish there were more channels like you! We need more content built for non-scientists that doesn't treat us like fools. Thank you deeply. Glad to be a longtime Patreon.
infinite series left. dropped n-dimensional simplices and left
Thanks so much for having this idea, and then for breaking it into episodes. Really enjoyed this historical intro to the different philosophies. Looking forward to Part Two!
I am so pumped for this new series, this is by far one of the most interesting topics out there. I always sort of hoped you guys would touch on these concepts a little, but as a fundamentally cosmology and particle physics channel I never expected an entire series on it considering it rly is looking at the cross section of physics/neuroscience/natural selection/and even philosophy or metaphysics.
I have a degree in neuroscience and love thinking about how our own interpretation of “objective reality” described by physicists is inherently biased by our extremely narrow and specific perception of reality that was shaped by evolutionary pressures and is adapted for specific functions.
Understanding the true nature of reality is not one of them, and likely would actively be selected against over time bc how tf would you focus on eating and reproducing if you can’t help noticing that you’re actually a holographic projection of oscillating strings of energy encoded by dimensionless particles outside of spacetime on the infinite boundary of some topological manifold 😂
This one talk is the heart of the heart of physics. If this talk doesn't rearrange your mental furniture, you didn't realize you had furniture.
where to place them?
Leibniz best invention was his chocolate biscuits
Fun Fact - Newton invented Jaffa Cakes
@@Skip_Stakey Good joke!!!!.
However, did you know that in 1920, Niels Bohr invented the process for the manufacture of Kit Kats
Basically, the whole purpose of life, the universe and everything is to bring better chocolate into existence.
@@eltodesukane so they put it all in dictatorship venezuela, make it make sense
Fun fact Willy Wonka is actually a scientist/inventor..not a chocolate maker 😂
Wow, you guys actually listened to my survey. First, more videos explaining the strong force. And now, longer-form videos going into greater depth. Thanks for care, PBS.
No bro, it was me and my survey.
@@oldmandoinghighkicksonlyin1368 It was the info stored in the database, not the info stored in any one particular survey 😉
an ego is an ego is an ego
No, this had nothing to do with your survey or any of our feedback…
The labradoodles work in mysterious ways that we cannot yet comprehend.
Wolfram's description of discrete spacetime has always struck me as a fascinating and satisfying model (I particularly like the image that all the universe is just the 'foam' on an sea of invisible quantum activity), and I was happy his work was mentioned.
I'd love an episode that discussed the information-theory/computational roots of this theory or others in more detail. The suggested parallels between computer science concepts, such as the halting problem, and quantum phenomenon has always felt quite profound to me, but as a non-physicist that impression may mean diddly. Would love to hear your take on some of these concepts and where the research is at.
Love the show!
Forgive the bashful blatancy but, I like this one: You guide me, holding my attention the whole way through (That's an important distinction because sometimes I'm susceptible to neural drift), captivated enough to be, suddenly inspired and subtly instigated to the arousal that piques the curiosity of my eyes to fly astray. Until ushered by your guidance, I get accidentally bound to an orbit that experiences realization. Of course in regard to the resplendence you've glown on reality but also to that instinctual recognition of Harmony. A cadence naturally tuned to the tempo of my spirit's spin. Kudos for the oodles of abysmal delights!
I've long wondered if we would get to a point where out brains wouldn't be able to process or grasp enough of what is needed to progress further in physics. Given what our brains evolved to see and process and such. So. Looking forward to this series.
We got to that point by the 1890s. There is nothing intuitive about relativity or quantum physics to our banana-scale brains. No one can really claim to have actually processed any of it. We can do the math, and accept that it's making valid predictions, but we can't really advance by thinking about it. Fortunately, our brains aren't the limiting factor. We can do experiments and let the Universe itself help us progress.
@@TysonJensen very nicely written, thank you..
lots of love from india
As Einstein found, sometimes it's just a matter of perspective. I'm less concerned with brain evolution and more concerned with education and a culture that fosters true discovery and not just "innovation."
@@TysonJensen our brains may still be a limiting factor even if we build our models of the universe with a mathematical framework. it may be that even with math as a tool, we still don't have the intellectual capability to reach a full understanding (or math model) of the true fundamental nature of reality.
@@francisrodriguez2369 it’s not even just intellectually capacity. It’s that our brains evolved to do very specific things and none of it is about perception of the true or “natural” world if such a thing even exists. Like Matt alludes to, even things like Color which we perceive as a natural quality of the world is just completely made up by our brains to distinguish between different wavelengths of light. and only an extremely narrow band of the EM spectrum, and the only reason it evolved this way is to better differentiate shades of green due to the world and pressures of evolution.
Your brain even is flipping the image coming in through your eyes without you thinking about it, and is able to ignore probably 99% of all of what’s going on around us at any moment to focus on what it was bred to do. The way we see and perceive and test and approach reality is necessarily rooted in our brain’s’ ability to perceive the world around it and our idea of truth might only make sense to us.
I would love an episode that compares/contrasts/explains those different interpretations mentioned toward the end (Wolfram cellular automata, Arhani-hamed amplituhedra)! I saw Wolfram present his NKS book at Yale when it first came out, and it was cool, but seemed like it had too many degrees of freedom to be intrinsic (ie it's a generalization of "algorithms", which ... you can express any function that way). That said, I don't actually understand the details under the hood, and would love to learn why I'm wrong!
Ahhh finally you guys made a video about the death of spacetime! But it seems you barely touched the surface. Maybe an in-depth-video of Nima Arkani-Hamed Amplituhedron? That would be amazing=)
Wow, this is an amazing video! I've been hearing off and on for most of my adult life that time may be an illusion and not really exist, but I never accepted this idea because time certainly seems real to me, and so does space! But I've never thought about this question as deeply as you've presented it here. For one thing, I never thought much about space and time being relational rather than absolute, and I always assumed they were absolute. But you did an excellent job of explaining Leibniz' relational point of view, which now makes perfect sense to me!
In addition, one of the most important things that quantum mechanics has taught us is that it's impossible to separate the observer from the system being observed, whence I now understand much better what is meant by "space and time existing in our minds". Perhaps a better way to say this is that space and time are relational, but part of that relationship involves the existence of conscious observers like ourselves.
Once again, great job!
I love this channel! Absolutely top stuff, thank you for being here! :) i just woke up so its probably not the best time for me to be absorbing knowledge about the fundamental nature of our universe but i appreciate it none the less! :)
Brilliant topic!!! Looking forward to watching further episodes! And thanks for the channel overall. An absolutely invaluable source of understandable physics for me. Thank you.
I've always felt we are seeing spacetime like artists in the Middle Ages, not knowing about perspective. I'm thrilled where Matt is going to take us :)
The artists back then knew about perspective. The art style is intentional. I think it had to do with not over glorifying people over magic but I don't remember if that's the case.
he isnt going to take anybody anywhere... actual scientists that do actual work are the ones pushing things forward. all he does is regurgitate what others say and frequently it is done poorly.
@@thomgizziz lol yeah okay
Love the philosophical episodes. Crazy how philosophers of the past become relevant in theoretical physics episodes!
I always like it when science and philosophy come together.
The philosophers he mentioned all had the same idea. Kant was the contrast but he never mentioned him.
I have a labradoodle! And I appreciate your sense of their importance, especially as I integrate my home space and time!
I was having a minor anxiety attack waiting for Matt to say "spacetime" at the end. Like he kept saying things that sounded like the usual outro but he couldn't say it normally because this episode is literally calling into question space and time themselves. Then he finally found a way to say and I breathed an audible sigh of relief XD
I breathed an audible sigh of disappointment.
Happens to me every single time.
he said it a bunch of times... why are people like you?
@@thomgizziz Why are people like me what ?
really you get worked up over this to the point of anxiety attacks? Are you on meds?
The more I think of the "gridification" of space and time in physics the more I think of the "gridification" of modern music through the use of DAWs. Many producers who worked on analog setups almost always mention a loss of "feeling" in the mechanical exactness of snapping the time and place of a note to a grid. Seems weirdly parallel to the relational or absolute argument in some ways. Or, it's early and I'm making no sense at all lol
You make so much sense ! At least to me. On the same note, it baffles me when I hear "Mathematics are the source code of the universe". I mean, maths are a very usefull tool, but that's all there is : a tool designed to help us quantify and simplify everything within the reach of our poor human brains.
Trying to do anything and everything (even music), while staying purposefully within the limits of some conventional logic, lowers our potential in both creativity and experience.
As a synth nerd I concur. The blend between the analog and digital systems is a satisfying metaphor for the way the universe seems to works.
There is no sound an analogue instrument can make that cannot be perfectly reproduced digitally, and this is a mathematical fact. What you are describing has more to do with the inherent imprecision of analogue instruments making them always sound slightly off, but with enough tweaking you can do the exact same thing digitally
If one accepts that the source of all electrons whether directly or indirectly is from the nucleus of atoms and their internal interactions. Remove the electrons, it becomes nucleus on nucleus interaction. Absorbing emitting reabsorbing when/with contact with eachother. I think the perspective only works for a single moment in time. Spherical with many points of contact, not perfectly spherical though.
What's getting in the way space and time. No not space and time this time. No, that spacetime is other nucleuses of atoms in the way. Same result, either a nearly untraversable casm of space or an impenetrable wall of atomic nucleus. So much closer though. And planets stars and everything else that has its own larger gravitational potential than a single atomic nucleus. Idk it'd have to have something like macro balls and mini balls. Macro balls planets and stars and such and the mini balls would be the individual atoms. Onion rings around stars depicting their orbits, 2d spherical orbits of planets around stars. Mobius loop would work I'd think. Depending on orientation it is to your view. The planet is either on the near side of the sun from the observers perspective when the energy signature shows it to be on the outside of the loop. When the planet is on the far side of the star the energy signature would show it to be on the inside of the 2d mobius loop orbit, I'd suppose. And in turn the sun is mobius looping around the planet also,just not nearly pronounced. So the entire universe is turned into something sorta like giant neutron star.
@James Black yes, except in this analogy "quantum" would be the wrong comparison. Quantum mechanics introduces the uncertainty principle which is the exact opposite of what quantized music in a DAW is.
That explanation of relational space reminds me of reading Flatland for the first time when I was a little kid and how it absolutely blew my tiny mind. Core memory, that. Love your work!!
I have a BS in Math/Chemistry. Used that to get into Medical School in 1977. Specialized In Diagnostic Radiology. You guys drive home the fact that…. The more you know….. the more you realize how VERY little you know!
Thanks so much for these vids.
As an aficionado of pop physics videos, I declare this to be one of the best of all time! I can't wait for the next installment in this series.
In this episode of Space Time: We learn how the space-time we live in and want to learn more about was inside us all along.
The real space-time was the friends we made along the way.
I love how I can watch your videos, find out that some questions I ask myself are valid questions but the scientists who ask these questions can actually put their theories into practice.
Time and space are indeed relative - the more time I spend with my relatives the more space I need
4:05 The coordinate system shown in this picture is actually left handed coordinate system, but the standard coordinate system is always right handed. This changes few fundamental vector properties. The video was amazing but just wanted to point this out.
Yes, but I take issue with the whole "wasn't commonly used until...1637." What does he mean by "commonly used." There were no public schools, as we know them, back then. But you can't go exploring and come home with maps of your travels without SOME kind of grid system. Piri Reis, in his map of 1513, gives credit to information from even older maps that were available to him.
🖖
The video is prob mirror imaged Ja. That's most likely. A lot of videos are flipped.
There exists no field empty of space
@@zxZXPwnAgeZXzx the vacuum
@@thenoobalmighty8790 Heisenberg's uncertainty principle will take care of the Goldstones. Knock Knock. Who's there. Why is time ticking? Idk!
This is the second video in a row where the background music has been too distracting and I had to quit it. (It started getting noticeable around 9:30, and swelled to a volume that was too high at 11:50-ish.) Is there a transcript of the episode anywhere? This is a very fascinating topic.
Edit: there was a simple solution. Muting the video and watching Closed captions. Not ideal (especially since I miss out on Matt's voice!), but it worked. I'd hate to have missed out on the important labradoodle facts at the end. Poor Steve.
So glad we returned to this channel recently. Please, could Leibniz also, as Descartes, be introduced as both mathematician and philosopher? Just a personal preference of mine as a philosophy kid haha.
I just finished reading "Time Reborn" by Lee Smolin and it's interesting to see how your deconstruction of time and physics has some parallels to his. He finally ends up postulating that time is somehow the base unit of reality and we need to reinterpret physics and the rules of the universe around it. I'm looking forward to this series to see what else I can learn!
"He finally ends up postulating that time is somehow the base unit of reality"
Well, he's closer than some people.
Consciousness is the base unit of reality - science will figure this out soon enough (we're almost there, for real!!).
Pure Presence.
Absolute.
I AM.
ness.
Cheers.
What an incredible show and host, thanks all
oh my goodness, I'm so excited about this series! The timing is incredible. I've been looking into the brain's concept of time these past few weeks and it's absolutely wacky. I was even wondering if PBSST would ever do such an episode and to see this pop up just a week later... well, I'm going to buy a lotto ticket right now! Can't wait to watch this series, Dr O'Dowd :)
This Video is LOVED by Physics students from St. Finian's College Secondary School Mullingar Co. Westmeath Ireland
I've basically been watching this episode on loop since it came out. Can't wait for more!
I have no words for the incredible efforts of this channel. Amazing.
How about gibberish?
I've recently tried to grapple with it using this analogy:
On computers, we see windows, controls, text, etc and they all interact with each other visually. Most strikingly in games. However, nothing is actually moving. Nothing is colliding, or occluding. The "objects" in memory merely have their properties updated, and the values of the properties can be represented visually as positions on the screen, colours, etc. But the visual representation is just a way to make sense of the actual state of the objects in computer memory.
This is like the holographic universe theory maybe?
But at the same time there is an analogue output on a screen, which must be derived from something, somewhere.
Whoa. This comment is amazing. Mind blown!
Yes but that is a system entirely created with the intention of human logic and viewpoint. The universe doesn't exist for us or abide by our need for logic we simply exist within it. To think otherwise is complete arrogance.
@@fireteamomega2343 I did NOT say that's how the universe worked. I SAID that it was an ANALOGY I was using to come to grips with the idea expressed in the video.
@@kwanarchive
You seem very triggered by the idea of not having to "come to grips" with the idea the universe is an illusion. Glad I could help 🙏
I am amazed by how I got used to your speed. 2 years ago, I used to watch in 0.75 speed, now I watch 1.5 or 1.25
"People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion." - Albert Einstein
Nice to see physics finally start to catch up with his century old General Relativity.
Truth.
Mediocrity must be of some nostalgic value... I reckon...😊
Did he forget about entropy?
ky of thi quote: "who believe"... Einstein, and many others, never understood Kant's transzendental properties. Hence he and many others do not understand what i means to use language
I personally think time is an effect of our movement through space. Just think about it... We are never in the same point in space. We move the earth moves the sun moves around the galaxy. And our galaxy moves through the universe.
space is not a thing, its a measurement
time is "real" for physical things, as its the measurement of change in these things, but fundamentally its not real
you cannot go back in time, you cannot go forward in time, the past does not exist, the future does not exist, the present does not exist, the only thing that exists is the ever constant moment of time..like being a tiny float in a river that goes forever until you the physical thing eventually disintegrates and become back one with the river
like a clock, the hands show the passage of time so to speak, but the center of the clock is timeless
That's the normal, common concept of time...
Excellent content and THANK YOU for slowing down the pace just a bit!
I'm 70yrs old now and time is definitely going twice or even three times faster than before.
That's because the longer you live the faster time seems to go. When you are one years old you had only been alive for one single year so that's your entire frame of reference for everything and each day felt like an eternity of its own. By the time you make it into your twenties you finally start noticing how time begins to go by faster and faster with every passing month. By the time you're in your 30s week seemed to go by as if it were just a single day and when you make it into your 50s an entire year doesn't feel that long at all. If you were to live for thousands of years until your decades would go by in a blink of an eye
@@DarkSaber-1111 Not quite.
@@ThePowerLover any reason as to why you disagree or are yoy going to state that yoy disagree without a proper explanation?
@@DarkSaber-1111 it actually seems to have more to do with how much energy is leftover for your brain after living, as kids who are sleep deprived report time going by faster more than their age peers. Young adults with chronic fatigue also report time seeming faster than their age peers. Your brain has to take quite a lot of calories to pay close attention, not just to the space around you but also the scale and order of events. The more tired you get, the more you zone out, and the more time seems to slip.
Time has not moved the same since 2013 when I was 24... and now since 2020 I feel like there was another jump. Tho it slowed down again, 2020-2022 was really a blip to me 😅
Recently I've been struggling with the notion of time and now you have called into question space. I'm looking forward to future programs.
Future?
What are you looking 'forward' to...with no space or time to be forward in? :)
Things don't need to be real for us to experience them as such 🤷♀
It's all about time, space is just a pleasant side effect.
This is a big big topic and I am so glad you are covering it PBS Space Time - I am so ready for my intuition to be blown apart by Matt. Many thanks!
I just read some stuff about the Amplituhedron. It is well beyond me, but it seems really exciting. It appears to make QM calculations massively simpler than integrating the effects of millions of Feynman diagrams, by avoiding the need to consider space (specifically avoiding consideration of virtual particles popping in and out of existence in space). This seems like a massive paradigm change. I'd love to see it explained more.
I've been studying functional programming recently and was seriously freaked out to learn Leibniz discovered the concept of a monad😮
Did you know some of Newtons formulas are used for the quantum mechanisms in your SSD drive?
Or Maxwells formulas for any reputable CGI illumination?
@@syntaxed2 quantum mechanics cannot be described by newton formulas what are you talking about?
So, a question about Space potentially not existing: What does this mean for hypothetical wormholes? How do they fit within a spaceless model? Further, does spacelessness help explain entanglement interactions being instant, or would that still be a mystery of its own?
If space doesn't exist, there are more fundamental questions that put the entire physics field (humanity really) in crises mode than the impact of wormhole theory.
Everything in this simulation is the same relative length away from the CPU, so, spooky action at a distance is not all that spooky, because distance is an illusion.
Also, everything is entangled, and there are virtually infinite wormholes because every pair of entangled particles requires a wormhole through space-time.
I have asked myself this before. If time is relative, does it make sense to think about the Universe from NO ONE perspective in particular? I'm glad I found this video
One reason would be time dilaition. If person A and B are floating in dark space, and one of them is taken by an invisible hand and moved near the speed of light for a decade before being returned, it will look to both parties that the other accelerated away. So both A and B see the same thing. But, they will know which one of them actually moved by the fact that one wouldn't have aged as much as the other.
So there's something beyond being relative
@@jamesalexander958are you sure in that situation one would age faster?
Does it not require that the 'stationary' one was existing somewhere within a mass' field of gravity for that to happen?
@@HK_Musician Yep the one who spent a decade (a decade from the other's perspective) close to light speed will barely age or experience time. The stationary one will age for that decade.
Gravity could also create time dilation but it would make the hypothetical more complicated
No time is correct, all mass has its own time, often mass is traveling through time at the same rate as other things nearby.
Ask yourself what happens if something was to "slow down" to a speed of zero. (Because everything is relative nothing can stop moving. If it was possible though, for that thing that stopped, all time would happen instantly.
@@HK_Musiciannothing absolutely nothing is stationary, or all of time would happen instantly (due to time dilation.) Causing the object to age into nothing.
I reallyove that you guys have maintained the same intro music since 10 years now. Love it. Subtle but catchy and edgy. Been following this channel for long time now. Thank you for all the curiosity that you quenched of mine.
if it isn’t, then I want my money back for watching so much PBS Spacetime !!
Amen! I'm so glad you covered this "fringe physics" topic. We HAVE to get out of our intuitions in order to move past Einstein and in order to progress our understanding of physics. String theory feels just like a bandaid to me...
Could you do an episode on Wolfram's Physics? 🤞🤓💜
Came here to say the same thing - I've seen a lecture on it and read much of their site, but I'm not really qualified to judge whether it's feasible. It sounds good, but everyone's theory does when they get to choose which information to present :) I'd love an independent review of the theory by a trustable source.
I would love that also. I've read all of NKS and the Project to Find the Fundamental Theory of Physics books.
His ideas have evolved even within the past year to the concept of the Ruliad, where the Universe is an application of all rules and the very successful physical models that we have produced so far (GR and QM) are slivers of this ruliad that are readily interpret-able to humans by the nature of humans being part of the Universe, and not outside observers.
So happy to hear this. Not sure how much others contributed, but I have been promoting this for years now and you're the first I hear saying it.
In short: Time and Space are phenomena which means they are real but they do not have attributes of their own. Therefore, we can still use Spacetime because it is not about space or time, but rather about the behavior of matter. A tool therefore. The clocks did not dilate time; the matter of the clocks changed when in spatially different frameworks. Or, we can replace Spacetime with Gravity + Fourth Motion (which should be called First Motion) to say the same thing. Thank you for going where few have gone before : - )
I loved this video, and want to see the whole series! :)
If we use the lesson that massive black holes taught us, they are the ones instrinsict wirh their ou "timezone", which seems more in line with Leibniz, ate last on that part. When the Universe cooled down for the first time, after 300k years, time probably was also diferent, due to the types of particles, universe expansion etc
Time prevents everything from happening at once. Space prevents everything being in same place. Guess I was leibnitzian
LOOL. wrong direction
In my opinion the best channel in Space and Time.
I'm betting the universe is relational, and entanglement is the glue holding it together.
I support this re-evaluation of Space-Time, as i actually have been asking for a separation of the two, or at least, redefine what we mean with these concepts.
Curious to see where it leads to.
I have been playing with a fundamental idea for a long time but since I am not a trained mathematician / scientist I felt that this idea was just a wacko part of my own attempt to understand things beyond my own abilities. Still, for some reason I would like to share it here if nowhere else. That idea is this: we speak of dimensions constantly even when we are not speaking of them implicitly. All our mathematics are dimensional in some form or another, as is our own perceptions of the world around us, height, width, depth, and so on. But are the dimensions only a form of measurement as it would seem to be or is there more to it.
All our understandings, both in terms of perception and in terms of our ability to "describe" objects and motion, even how energy is related to objects in motion, are based on how those objects relate to each other dimensionally, but are dimensions just a way of relating objects and motion. I struggle with this for the simple reason that it seems to me that at the fundamental level it is the dimensions themselves that determine all the qualities of both objects and motion rather than just how these qualities relate. That the dimensions are determinative rather than qualitative. Ok, that's the best I can do with this and since neither my professional life nor my social life are dependent on this in any way I will leave it there and just accept the fact that I am probably just a quack of some kind. It's been fun thinking of this though. I understand why you guys and gals enjoy this work so much.
Hi I'm Scott Danforth I want to thank you so much you're influencing my book so much thank you
I love these videos, and they go way beyond what I can comprehend. Love getting baffled by science, lol. Would love to see you do one of these in a suit if that's something you're comfortable with. Just curious what it'd look like :)
Very stimulating, I have the urge to discuss math 😋 My theory is one of perspective, so Leibniz theory is very interesting to me.
His hilarious dancing made watching this gibberish worthwhile. Okay, maybe it wasn't gibberish. I'm not very good at listening to 'science' while (or is it whilst?) simultaneously watching art. And his hand movements are pure art.
Good on ya, Matto.
Peace
Profound. Looking forward to watching this episode again 🙏🏼
you should do an episode on Nikolai Gorkavy (Николай Горькавый) and his theory of cyclical cosmology. It's absolutely brilliant and litteraly deserves a Nobel prize for solving 99% jf problems in cosmology
What is space? An abstract concept, the absence of objects.
What is time? Time is an abstract concept, consisting of points in time. A point in time is a particular localization arrangement of all existing objects.
Localization is the distance between objects.
What is physics? the rational study of objects and their motions.
What is philosophy? The rational study of abstract concepts.
I remember learning about Leibniz's views, including the Monads, as presented here in a college philosophy class. It gets even weirder. Philosophers can construct worldviews that go in pretty strange places, just like physicists, but he stood out. To be blunt I thought he sounded insane.
You cant calculate time on each planet and then talk about there different reality's and then say theres no time 😂 lol
Do you have any resources about why Leibniz thought the space/time was relational?
This was the most fascinating episode, to me, to date!
The very fact that imaginary things don't interact with real things but potentially interact with each other proves it :). Not that I'm claiming this to be Leibniz' train of thought.
Leibniz attacked Newton's absolutist views in both physics and metaphysics. Newton thought space is "an instrument which God uses to experience things". Leibniz replied, that it limits God's creative power and the immediacy of his knowledge. And that the world, being perfect creation, didn't need any guidence or intervention from God. Newton claimed, that the world operating without God's intervention is fatalistic (doesn't need God at all). Leibniz stated that space cannot be absolute, because, devoid of things, has no orientation and no meaning. Newton believed that this orientation was given by God, who created it. Yeah, Leibniz and Newton were at total war :)
It's an example of mathematical currying and uncurrying, ie changing your point of view from a function that takes in multiple variables to that of a function that takes in a singlur variable (or even no variables!) and outputing a function.
For instance, we can change the binary function,
f(x,y) = z
to the unary function,
g(x)(y) = z,
and back again if we so wish.
Many years from now, it will be called: "The reality formally known as space time".
*formerly lol
@@JH-tc3yu Could've meant a "formal definition of reality", both would be right.
This episode is like a stream of fresh air differentiating itself from the other channels on the topic.
First of all, what do you mean by 'real'?
When you realise that for a photon that has spent billions of years crossing the universe no time has passed at all. Then it starts to make you wonder what distance actually means, and if time, dimensions and mass only exist as a emergent property of objects traveling at less than speed of light. And then I go get a Gin and Tonic.
Ah well then this implies that space only exists as an emergent property of objects moving less than the speed of light in time axis.
I think we are incapable of explaining anything to do with time without circular definitions/tautologies. And now Matt has made us realise this about space too. Oh no
About higher dimensions: 2D creature could fully see 1D line (world of 1D creatures), but couldn't see many, many of them at once.
3D creatures (like we) CAN see many of 1D worlds at once, even "infinitely many of them", by simply stacking them parallelly together, and can see a full 2D world by looking at it "from above", but now they have a problem with seeing multiple 2D world at once - if you stack them together, then they would be overlapping or obscuring each other, but what if 4D creature was looking at them?
Could 4D creatures see however many 2D worlds they want, by simply stacking 2D ones in some parallel way that allows them to look at all of them?
And now, what about generalizing this? Are "2 dimensions of difference" enough for higher dimensions?
To see may possible 3D worlds at once, would a creature need to be 5D? Or it changes in higher dimensions and even higher dimension would be needed?
Human's say that 'Seeing is Believing'. Since we cannot see any more than 3 Dimensions it is a pretty hard sell to get people to believe in another see-able dimension. Our brains are simply not up to the job. Entanglement hints at a 4th spacial dimension wherein the 4th coordinate for both is fixed at the moment of entanglement which changes not one iota no matter the movement of the particles in 3D space. This would make Spacetime 5 dimensional and scare the crap out of those String Theorist lunatics but it's out there as an idea. Not Hidden Variables but a Hidden Dimension ... erhaps rolled up so small we can not see it etc.
As our system and every other is travelling through space at immense speeds and every angle conceivable, I can not reconcile how the stars remain in the same relative position to each other for such a long period of history.
Well that’s a spicy title, looking forward to this one.
I honestly don't think there's a spicer title for video on this chance
Reality is weird asf. I have had strange personal experiences that make me think about topics like this that and quantum physics. I've had dreams that have played out identically in the "future" in real life. Then recently I had a dream where I looked at a clock that said 3:03 then woke up and it was 3:03am. I really want scientists to investigate phenomenons like that more. I know I can't be the only one with such experiences.
I had future dreams when I was younger. It was only a glimpse without any use, but when the event occurred that glimpse would be part of the event and the same as my dream. Sometimes I had the same future dream multiple times.
Information can flow back in time. I am personally convinced as well.
This is exactly what I imagine the first time I heard about entanglement in HS. Obviously space didn't exist and it didn't take much to realize that "distance" is just how we perceive the universe but in truth it is more like seeing colors. Space is just how our brains naturally make sense of this.
I must say I'm a huge fan of any Labrador cross, although no boy or girl will ever be as good as my purebred labrador mowi. He was a rescue dog who was rejected by the Queensland police for being too friendly, I ended up bringing him into the family and that quality made him perfect for 6-10 years old me, and his loyalty was beyond comparison. We saved him from the pound, and he ran in to save my family countless times. Both from threats we could see, and ones we couldn't. Best boy hands down.
we get so fixated on the words humans came up with in our made up languages to describe these complex concepts but I think our obsession with labeling and categorizing things to a degree has confined the way we're able to think of them. while language has certainly allowed us to evolve mathematically and express our understanding of the universe, notice it's always the oddball geniuses who were at some point deemed crack pots and go against the norm - it is they who are the very few that have lifted all of mankind on their shoulders
The geniuses stand on the bedrock of discoveries made before them. Generally they're able to make connections between existing concepts that they wouldn't be able to make if the groundwork wasn't already in place
And most "geniuses" are just hardworking and obsessed
Why do *you* -yes -*-You-*- titch, because that is what 'we' means, you and your interlocutor get fixated as you put it- you being the fixated one; nobody knows more about you than you, so why do you hide behind some imaginary " we" as if it were something other than you?
Do you understand that 'we' means, or indicates the user of the term -that's you titch, and his immediate interlocutor of which you are short to the exact tune of any-at-all? There is no *we* titch, you are strictly on your own. Of what else can you have direct immediate personal experience or knowledge but whatever you suppose yourself to be? You cannot get more completely alone - just you titch, than that.
louder
@@dakariuish7004 Tee hee. It can test it out so easily by going to the top of the nearest skyscraper, cliff or v tall building and jumping; soon see about the reality of time and space then and it can try shouting none of this is real and on passing X looking out of the window half way down it can shout "so far so good"
No.
I was simply shocked to find out how accurate Isaac Newton was in his explanations, about the space and time, to me he was truly a genies, that kind of understanding in his time, was just out of this world.
Newton was actually an extraterrestrial
Imagine what he could've figured out with modern day knowledge
@@369Sigma, impossible. Now it's not the same time as 17th century.
Sure he could, even now.
@@alexeygourevich6967 wtf lol
Not only is the universe expanding but so are our minds.
Celestial bodies move. Nothing happens to space.
@@aliensarerealttsa6198 If celestial bodies move space changes.