What If Space And Time Are NOT Real?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 22 фев 2023
- Thank you to Brilliant for Supporting PBS. To learn more go to brilliant.org/SpaceTime/
PBS Member Stations rely on viewers like you. To support your local station, go to:to.pbs.org/DonateSPACE
Sign Up on Patreon to get access to the Space Time Discord!
/ pbsspacetime
Physics progresses by breaking our intuitions, but we’re now at a point where further progress may require us to do away with the most intuitive and seemingly fundamental concepts of all-space and time.
Check out the Space Time Merch Store
www.pbsspacetime.com/shop
Sign up for the mailing list to get episode notifications and hear special announcements!
mailchi.mp/1a6eb8f2717d/space...
Search the Entire Space Time Library Here: search.pbsspacetime.com/
Hosted by Matt O'Dowd
Written by Bahar Gholipour & Matt O'Dowd
Post Production by Leonardo Scholzer, Yago Ballarini & Stephanie Faria
Directed by Andrew Kornhaber
Associate Producer: Bahar Gholipour
Executive Producers: Eric Brown & Andrew Kornhaber
Executive in Charge for PBS: Maribel Lopez
Director of Programming for PBS: Gabrielle Ewing
Assistant Director of Programming for PBS: John Campbell
Spacetime is produced by Kornhaber Brown for PBS Digital Studios.
This program is produced by Kornhaber Brown, which is solely responsible for its content.
© 2023 PBS. All rights reserved.
End Credits Music by J.R.S. Schattenberg: / multidroideka
Space Time Was Made Possible In Part By:
Big Bang Sponsors
Ian Jones
Bryce Fort
Peter Barrett
David Neumann
Leo Koguan
Sean Maddox
Alexander Tamas
Morgan Hough
Juan Benet
Vinnie Falco
Fabrice Eap
Mark Rosenthal
Daniel Muzquiz
Quasar Sponsors
Alex Kern
Ethan Cohen
Stephen Wilcox
Christina Oegren
Mark Heising
Hypernova Sponsors
Ivari Tölp
Vyce Ailour
Kenneth See
Gregory Forfa
Kirk Honour
Joe Moreira
Bradley Voorhees
Marc Armstrong
Scott Gorlick
Paul Stehr-Green
Ben Delo
Scott Gray
Антон Кочков
John R. Slavik
David S. Cerutti
Donal Botkin
John Pollock
Edmund Fokschaner
Chuck Zegar
Jordan Young
Glenn Sugden
Gamma Ray Burst Supporters
Thomas Nielson
Joe Pavlovic
Ryan McGaughy
Mark West
Chuck Lukaszewski
Edward Hodapp
Kevin Tillery
Marc Forand
Andrea Galvagni
Jerry Thomas
Nikhil Sharma
Ryan Moser
Jonathan Cordovano
John Anderson
David Giltinan
Scott Hannum
Paul Widden
Bradley Ulis
Craig Falls
Kane Holbrook
Ross Story
Teng Guo
Mason Dillon
Matt Langford
Harsh Khandhadia
Thomas Tarler
Susan Albee
Frank Walker
Matt Quinn
Michael Lev
Terje Vold
James Trimmier
Anatoliy Nagornyy
Andre Stechert
Paul Wood
Kent Durham
jim bartosh
Ramon Nogueira
Paul Suchy
Ellis Hall
John H. Austin, Jr.
Faraz Khan
Almog Cohen
Alex Edwards
Ádám Kettinger
Endre Pech
Daniel Jennings
Cameron Sampson
Geoffrey Clarion
Russ Creech
Jeremy Reed
David Johnston
Michael Barton
Andrew Mann
Isaac Suttell
Oliver Flanagan
Bleys Goodson
Robert Walter
Mirik Gogri
Mark Delagasse
Mark Daniel Cohen
Nickolas Andrew Freeman
Shane Calimlim
Tybie Fitzhugh
Robert Ilardi
Eric Kiebler
Craig Stonaha
Graydon Goss
Frederic Simon
Dmitri McGuiness
John Robinson
Jim Hudson
Alex Gan
David Barnholdt
David Neal
John Funai
Bradley Jenkins
Daniel Stříbrný
Cody Brumfield
Thomas Dougherty
King Zeckendorff
Dan Warren
Patrick Sutton
John Griffith
Dean Faulk
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 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
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.
"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 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 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
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.
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 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.
"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?
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
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 😂
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.
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 😅
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 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.
Me olvido de todos mis problemas y me inunda la felicidad cada vez que reviso el contenido de este canal.
Excellent content and THANK YOU for slowing down the pace just a bit!
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.
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 loved this video, and want to see the whole series! :)
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.
Quantum physics in general shows us that something beyond our minds perspective is happening when it comes to locality.
@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'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.
Your next challenge: End each episode with a reference to labradoodles. But still make "spacetime" the final word 🙂
What an incredible show and host, thanks all
This is some of the best scientific content out there, and it's all freely accessible... Simply awesome!
100% it almost seems wrong for me to watch!
And yet, they don't apparently know what 'space' and 'time' actually are. And yet also, claim matter warps the fabric of spacetime. How does that work if space and/or time does not actually exist?
@@charlesbrightman4237 Something can be a result of its surroundings without existing. You have dreams, a result of your brain, but they don't exist. But we can observe them and affect them without them existing.
@@bobclack3256 'Speed' is distance divided by time. Distance being 2 points in space with space between those 2 points. "IF" space and/or time did not have some sort of actual existent reality, then 'speed' could not exist in our reality, other than just as a concept. Then also, the speed of light could not actually exist in our reality, other than just as a concept, which would put a major kink in a lot of physics formulas.
"IF" the Speed of Light actually exists in reality, then BOTH space and time have to have some sort of actual existent reality.
For me at this time (until something better comes along):
SPACE and TIME: (copy and paste from my files):
'Space' is energy itself. Wherever space is, energy is. Wherever energy is, space is. They are one and the same thing. And for me, the 'gem' photon is the energy unit of this universe that makes up everything in existence in this universe. 'Space' is most probably energy itself in the form of gravitational fields, electrical fields and magnetic fields, varying possibly only in energy modality, energy density and energy frequency.
'Time' is the flow of energy.
'Time' (flow of energy) cannot exist unless 'space' (energy itself) exists. And 'space' (energy itself) that does not flow (no flow of time / energy) is basically useless. An entity cannot even think a thought without a flow of energy. If all the energy in the universe stopped flowing, wouldn't we say that 'time stood still'? Time itself would still exist, it would just not be flowing, (basically 'time' stopped).
But then also, how space and time are linked in what is called 'space time', (energy and it's flow).
* And everything in existence currently appears to be eternally existent energy interacting with itself. There is truly only 1 single 'eternal day', the day of eternally existent ever flowing energy.
@@charlesbrightman4237 I think your question borders on more philosophical than what we might consider scientifically "physical". In physics, it's a requirement to assume that the world is self consistent and necessarily dictated by physical laws that result from observations. "Space" and "Time" are very "physically real" because they are required to explain what we observe, at least to the extent that general relativity accurately describes observations (which it does precisely at the scales discussed in the video). Could all of the effects predicted by general relativity be due to some other mysterious construct that aren't "space" and "time"? Absolutely, but we are none the wiser on what those might be. These are just the physical "things" which describe what we observe, and they do nearly perfectly.
But, does that mean "space" and "time" actually exist outside of our perception? It's impossible to know, and comes down to what you are willing to assume about what reality "is"
Time and space are indeed relative - the more time I spend with my relatives the more space I need
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
p = f(t1 t2) is basically this but can also be done with Newton and Einstein rules. Essentially (t1 t2) is kind of like what you show at 11:11 you just need to plug separate points of Spacetime into 't1' and 't2', '' is the energy exchange between 't1' and 't2'. 'f' represents the constants that underline the rules that '(t1 t2)' must follow. This provides a double feedback information loop.
When spelled out it basically states "The Universe is equivalent to a double feedback information loop between two (or more) locations in spacetime that follow a set of underlying rules that provide a structure to build upon."
The information loop for our universe would be two or more points (t) in spacetime communicating through energy '', the numbers represent the separate locations of the two points relative to each other, and the rule/constant 'f' would be the speed of light.
Taking it a bit further you could say that 't1' is perspective and 't2' is understanding and '' represents how they influence each other through the exchange of knowledge & information. In this case 'f' is harder to pin down, but we know it should exist, whatever "it" is, otherwise reality wouldn't make any sense.
This basically suggest that while our own experiences, viewpoints, information, knowledge, perception, and understanding can shape reality in some way, we cannot change or effect the underlying principles that laid the foundation of reality itself. However just because we cannot change it does not mean we cannot reverse engineer it, and I believe that's what Quantum Mechanics is doing.
Keep in mind, while we cannot change the foundations of our own reality, it would be possible for new realities to be created within our own, and those new realities would shape the Multiverse.
Just finished the video and what I propose above is essentially suggesting we live in an Absolute - Relational Spacetime. While Spacetime is relational, the properties that govern the relation are absolute.
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
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.
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 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.
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=)
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.
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 :)
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.
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 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?
I love the PBS Spacetime ditty in the openings.
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.
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!
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!
This is so good. Matt you stay with PBS. Science communication benefits a lot from you. Thanks
Good episode. The question of what is spacetime is a favorite of mine. Another question is why three dimensions? The anthropic principle?
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! :)
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
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!
Thank you. Your videos are always engaging and make me think, sometimes in gauge.
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.
So, I do have one problem with the proposal that there is no fundamental frame of reference, which is that it gets very hard to propose an initial state for the universe without it.
Lets take a universe expressing particles with three degrees of freedom - T and X and VX (time and one positional dimension with velocity).
Then we start putting particles into this universe. Don't really know where they came from or why, but they're showing up. We immediately run into a problem - without a shared frame of reference, their initial values are necessarily arbitrary. If they all show up at once, we've defined a Zero Time, so they do necessarily share a fixed referential time - if they DONT all show up at once or in some fixed relationship to each other, then they could show up at any time at all from -inf to +inf time.
We also don't have a zero X OR a zero VX, so they can appear at any position (out to infinity), and at any velocity. We'll assume that the relative speed of light holds, but they can still appear with unbounded energy relative to each other, as relativity doesn't limit energy.
So... our particles will appear at infinite distances from each other, possibly at any time from -inf to inf, and their respective energies will be infinitiely different were two of them to ever collide - which won't happen anyway.
This... doesn't work at all? We don't have a universe. We have a bunch of particles appearing in their own arbitrary existences with no relationship to each other. They'd never interact, they'd never be aware of each other at all, and if they COULD interact that collision would represent the exchange of infinite energy.
The only proposal that avoids this without a background reference frame proposes that everything appears at one SINGULAR point in space/time (T-0.0). All the mass ever necessarily appears at a single moment in time and space and then... somehow expands. But this point has virtually no properties, and there is no proposed mechanism for it to either expand - quite the opposite, our current physics strongly implies that it should remain a static singularity for eternity doing absolutely nothing of interest - and were it to expand, there are no physics whatsoever to describe how it would start spawning separate particles out of itself. The information to describe those particles *doesn't exist* in a true singularity.
So yeah, the lack of any shared referential frame is problematic, and I'm not sure we have a good answer for that that comports with Relativity yet. The big bang does suggest that everything appeared more or less at once (or at least in a relatively short period), but the fact that it expanded at all suggests that it didn't actually appear as a 'singularity' as is usually described - and that leads us back to figuring out why there is any relationship between different particles AT ALL.
It's worth mentioning that a 'fundamental reference frame' is by no means required to be rigid. It could change shape and scale, and these properties need not be consistent across its breadth - it must simply exist so that particles CAN relate to each other meaningfully.
The best model to explain it all is that space and all we experience is in a record that we are accessing.
The akashik record is a great model to understand life.
LOVING the long episodes!!❤
Same
2
@@LaurinkoSattumaa Pac
@@briangarcia1540 Man...
Are they longer? I didn't even realise as I was enjoying them so much
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 😉
I have found it convenient to think of time as a measurement, the way temperature is a measurement of heat. Not a perfect analogy but it helps work out what the numbers mean.
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.
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!
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 😂
Exactly! I've always questioned these two concepts based on the Limited Human Understanding of using the Earth's Rotation & Orbit around the Sun & distance as the Standard Measuring Sticks of Space/Time...
Thank you for the video. There is a hypothesis - a single picture of the universe: When moving and fluctuating in a vacuum, the electromagnetic field in the nodes - Forms quanta of gravity - Which carry the speed of light. Suppose - Can be detected using a mobile, new hybrid - the experience of Michelson Morley, if it is in motion relative to the DGF - the dominant gravitational field, for example in 🚆, as in Einstein's mental experience.
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!
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
The velocity of light is not relative, space and time are. The velocity of light (‘c’) isn't just how fast light goes, it's a number somehow woven into reality itself - that is, space and time organize themselves around ‘c’. Every moving body will have a relative speed to every other moving body in all of space. None can be faster than the velocity of light. This ‘limiter’ informs the structure of the universe.
I enjoy very mu7ch watching and listening to you explainthe dificult subject and the history of it, please vdonmt stop as you awaken my intrest .
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.
Always a wonderful moment to be on time for a PBS Space Time RUclips video.
What if we could travel as far back in time as time is moving forward
Here is the full clip : ruclips.net/video/0AwaNY9cVgM/видео.html
on spacetime
@@osmosisjones4912 It's already possible. A mysterious turnstile appeared somewhere that allows for your entropy to be reversed
well it would be if time were real
I love how it can be felt when he's about to finish off with "space time"
Very stimulating, I have the urge to discuss math 😋 My theory is one of perspective, so Leibniz theory is very interesting to me.
I'm gonna love this series (this first episode certainly hasn't disappointed)!
This is addressing the very fundamentals of nature, an area that's been bothering me for years.
Natural selection is responsible for creating our minds and the way we interpret the world we live in.
We interpret the world the way we do because it's a way of processing information in a way that optimises our ability to survive and reproduce. It is not necessarily a good representation or even a close one, it's merely one that works, for us, and I think we should bear that in mind whenever some observation or conclusion appears to be counterintuitive.
Can't wait for the next one!
Exactly. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Ask a rock what time it is and you'll get no answer. A rock that isn't alive knows nothing of time or space or distance or velocity. No matter where you take that rock nothing will change for the rock. Even at the speed of light....the rock is just a rock. Only the living can witness time pass for the rock. Only the living can see the rock interact with other things. Only the living understand how to manipulate the rock for one purpose or another. Now the only problem is, if reality only exists for the living how did the living come to be in the first place? That's why I think the answer is still out there. Somewhere between philosophy and Newtonian Physics. It's just so difficult for us to grasp as we're victims of our own circumstance.
It is difficult to imagine universe without PBS spacetime.
Maybe PBS space time is not out there in the universe but just a fundamental property of all of us.
@devluz whats going to blow your mind is this.
There is a theory that the universe is infinate like how earth is.
You can go around and around and around. But when you do you arrive where you started. The theory adds ab extra element that is whrre yoh arrive is a different multivefse from where you left.
This means not every version of your self has acess to pbs spacetime
@@mr.voidroy6869 You can have a new experience that is identical to previous experiences. Imagine eating 1 cheese burger, okay now imagine eating another cheese burger that is identical to the first. A new experience that doesn't feel new. New might not be all that different from old. If given an eternity, you either become super computer, repeat identical experiences, have random bizzare experience or eternity of bliss and nothing.
In my opinion the best channel in Space and Time.
Time is an necessary illusion that anchors our consciousness to this 3D space. To poke your consciousness outside of time and look back at the 3D space would appear as a hologram depicting past present and future simultaneously, it would all be viewable with just a glance.
I have a labradoodle! And I appreciate your sense of their importance, especially as I integrate my home space and time!
This melted my brain. I've never been convinced that time is a universal constant, more what happens because of entropy or falling to a lower state of energy. But space is a thing, not on a universal grid thought, we just use whatever coordinates help us reason about it, model it. I get "color is a wavelength", what if space is also just some delta of some properties. Geometry works too well me to see that. I'll go be a puddle now.
A good way to question time is visit the atomic clock at a young age and hear them say they use xyz atom vibrations to track it better than before. My brain was like wait what, that sounds like BS of some sort, lol.
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 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 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...
I have no words for the incredible efforts of this channel. Amazing.
How about gibberish?
Ive been thinking about exactly this for a few years now, I think its relational, although our understanding is based on absolutes so we need them to compartmentalize information. I think everything exists in relationship to something else
so, one small correction - the "island of stability" referred to at 24:05 - is not in the periodic table, but the chart of nuclides where the isotopes are plotted out by mass number.
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 keen to see the rest of this series. Too many people get their brains hard wired on newton. I know they say metaphysics has no place in "real" physics, but in reality even the most disciplined physicist starts with a metaphysical proposition. If we are to contemplate spacetime as nothing more than a conceptual abstraction as well as lean upon many of the propositions of quantum physics I think we will soon find ourselves falling back toward the realm of metaphysics, at least in some part.
>
P.S. I always find it fascinating that our brains can often solve the complex problems of physics prior to us demonstrating and proving it in a lab.
These episodes make my mind hurt - in a good way - from stretching. Thanks!
Cartesian and Polar coordinates, and the trigonometry needed to convert between these (which I had to use to draw an analogue clock on a computer screen as that is a cartesian XY referencial plane and the analogue clock is a polar coordinates one. That was my "trigonometry studying" while I was having that subject at maths, the result was my best math exam ever without actually studying, the programming I had to code to make the clock was enough to get it all done and them some hehe
I've basically been watching this episode on loop since it came out. Can't wait for more!
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.
Would you please point out to the source of Einstein calling himself Leibnizian? Excellent show btw. especially this episode is truly fantastic. I just wanted to follow up on Einstein original writing and couldn't find the reference where he call himself Leibnitzian.
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 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.
Wow! Very exciting and enlightening ideas, while at the same time amusing and confusing.
Relational space & time theory remind me of when I watched a video about coding in a futile attempt to make a game lol, however in the video I was learning about procedural generation and Perlin noise. I’m not a smart guy but my gut for a lack of a better word, tells me that programming concept could help understand the relational space and time theory.
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.
I'm betting the universe is relational, and entanglement is the glue holding it together.
There was a recent paper in Nature Physics about temporal wave reflections as opposed to reflections in space. Since I have no idea what this means, could Space Time do a video about that. A video about reflections in space vs reflections in time seems a natural for Space Time. And who knows, maybe space and time really are real.
I watch these videos before I go to sleep. It's just a good way to end the day for me
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.
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