I'm so glad I found this channel. This is the kind of content that should have been on television since it's invention. What kind of society would we have now if these types of discussions had been sparking the general population's curiosity from the 1950s, 1960s and up to now?
Robtk3 Could not agree more. Instead, the history Channel shows ancient aliens and swamp people. The science Channel has shark week. It is the dumbing down of a country.
@@robtk3 man I hear you. I wised up and cut cable out five years ago. Not only is there a commercial break every five minutes ( that has eight commercials in a row), I just could not take the stupidity any more. My fault for paying good money to have crap piped into my house. No more.
He does a great job of explicating the major conceptual considerations, but I think there’s a more succinct answer. I think it is misleading to say that time and space are the “same thing.” That’s not what the science says. The science says that, macroscopically, time and space are linked together, are integrated and articulating. That doesn’t mean they are the same thing. If you think about directions on a map: if you are traveling north at a constant speed, you can turn a little bit to the right and now you are also travelling a bit east. You can turn 90 degrees from your original direction and now you are fully traveling east. You’ve made a transformation from north travel to east travel, but that’s not quite the same as saying north and east are the same thing. It may be true that the outcome of physics experiments in a lab that is heading north are the same in one that is heading east, and thus that physics is invariant under a rotational transformation from north to east - in that sense, north and east are the “same” but clearly if you are trying to get to a location in a frame that did not undergo the same transformation, the two directions are certainly not interchangeable. The integration of space and time that leads to people saying “there’s no difference between them” comes from special and general relativity principles such as the constancy of the speed of light to observers in all reference frames and the equivalence principle. To make this all work, it is necessary to conclude that objects that are stationary in space - and can be thought of as moving forward in time at the speed of light - lose a little bit of their “time velocity” if they want to move in space at something other than zero velocity. If you could move in time at “full speed” - the speed of light, and also move in space at some finite speed, the vector sum of those two motions would exceed the speed of light and violate special relativity. So due to Einstein and prior work by Lorentz et al, motion in space must be accompanied by a “slowing” of motion in time from the point of view of an observer in an inertial reference frame - so that the sume of the velocities through space and time don’t exceed the speed of light. In this sense, motion through space can be thought of as a rotation of the motion vector from time to space, the rotation increasing as the amount of spatial velocity increases. As the velocity approaches the speed of light, time stops. That’s why its often said that photons do not experience the passage of time (or as Penrose memorably puts it, its impossible to bore a photon.) In that sense, there is a continuum between space and time. Strong gravity results in highly curved spacetime, meaning among other things that the “coordinates” of a spacetime map can become rotated and curved. Traveling at human-scale speeds, we move in space and in time. We have a destination that is a point in space and a point in time - our destination is not really just a location but an event. Under the severe curvature of spacetime under the effect of extreme gravity, the geodesics of spacetime increasingly lead us purely in the direction of increasing time - there is no longer any way to “move” in space. One way of thinking about a black hole event horizon is that its the point in space where spacetime becomes so curved that all motion is completely dominated by motion along the time axis. Given the speed of light as a universal limit, it is no longer possible to move meaningfully in space as one rushes forward in time towards the point of infinite curvature, the singularity. So one way of thinking of the black hole interior is its the place where motion in space becomes so highly constrained that there is literally only one point in spacetime in your future - the singularity. I think this (I know its highly simplified and glosses over numerous details) is the way in which space and time can be thought of as unified and deeply connected and articulating. But I think that’s a better paradigm than calling them the “same thing.” Indeed, the fact that cosmologists attribute very different limitations and meanings to “timelike” and “spacelike” paths in Penrose diagrams should be a clue that they’re not quite “the same thing.”
The most important and logical (if radical) conclusion from the block universe is that everything has been determined since the conception of time. Superdeterminism!
Time is not a dimension in itself. Time is a change in dimension. Think of Time as a shrinking or enlarging of space: an impression of magnification or miniaturization, unfolding or folding. Similarly think of space as a slowing or speeding of time: an impression of stillness or flow, sameness or change.
I agree on that. Time has no dimensions. It's particles etc moving relative to each other. The more I learn about "spacetime" the more I disagree. In my opinion as long as scientists are stuck in this spacetime term, we wont get any major breakthrough. I consider time as an illusion for movements. We even measure time by movements :)
@@Bevallalom I think the impression of change is important. Dimension is a catchall term that can be used to mean many things, besides what scientists mean by it. A study of linear algebra gives a mathematical meaning of dimension. But I think that mathematical formulation is misleading. As misleading as the word dimension itself. Change like dimension can have more than one meaning. Our minds and senses can not all be reduced to math. Shapes, topology, knots, strings, imaginary numbers, etc.. These are some of the known models. Are there others yet to be imagined? I think so. Our impressions of the world, and their artistic expression may yet yield insight. There is a caveat, however, a good simulation, no matter how good, is just that: a simulation. Not reality itself. An understanding of reality itself may require a deeper apprehension than what sensual impressions offer. Than what quantum mechanics and general relativity indicate.
these are basically my thoughts too for a very long time but if a mathematician says reality is so and so and he has proof its hard to disagree as a layman. If I check the spacial coordinates on two different clocks and the hands show different locations how do you even come to the conclusion you need an *additional* thing called time that I cant measure? Its much simpler to think that the length of space might have changed because THATS what I can measure. I also have this feeling that people are stuck in time (pun intended) just because they assume it exists for a few thousands of "years".
I'm sorry to disagree, I think it is not a good explanation. The Spacetime "block" description in this video does the typical over simplification mistake that in fact makes difficult to understand Einstein theory. The only way to understand Einstein is to follow his reasoning since the very beginning to the very end. Spacetime as a "block" is just a possible description as "a consequence", it's not related with the starting hyphotesis at all. Einstein Spacetime "block" is not what people think intuitively (the way they normally think about it really matches Newton mechanics and not Einstein ). The Einstein Spacetime "block" can look very different for each observer, and in that differences is where the theory has most of the interesting substance, and also where the Spacetime lines warp into an apparent singularity, with all the time curves leading to a same point and no way for time itself to go past this point, as wherever you go the time dimension will go backwards. In fact to understand Einstein the block description is almost irrelevant
@@javiej Doesn’t the spacetime concept for different individuals as being different also extend into their perceptions of reality contained in their societal languages? Aren’t there extra spacetime dimensions in those fabrics of individual words and their contexts? Taking all those into accounts of course the reality and the simultaneity of events differ for all members of any society. No wonder then, the quantization principles apply at the macro level as well, if we can imagine the entire humanities as being part of a multidimensional cognitive spectrum.
@@scoreprinceton Be careful, introducing the cognitive process into Einstein theories is like opening the Pandora box. Not only because every individual experiences a different time and different reality (that's the easy part), but specially because you get multiple instances of a same individual experiencing reality at all the different time slices simultaneously, because all your past and future cognitive experiences are already in the Spacetime block. No physicist have explained this problem yet, which basically tell us that Einstein theory must be a simplified model of something more profound yet to be discovered. In fact, thinking about a "Spacetime block" is an extra over simplification that only complicates the understanding of problems like this much more.
@@javiej Einstein’s field equations and the gauge symmetry applied to the biology of brain cells might also warrant years of graduate level work to confirm by experimental methods
@@javiej You don't understand what he said. The block contains all possible points of view; that's the point. A slice at any given angle represents the point of view of an observer at a particular velocity.
What I miss in many of these discussions is that the 4d model of the universe is a model. Yes, it helps to understand in some cases but there is more, like for example causality and its preservation.
If time is relative, then can it implies that everything is happening simultaneously but it appears to happen in a succession only because we become aware of the event in now and then fashion. What if our awareness pervades all of the loaf of bread (mentioned by Einstein) , can we still have notion of time? Just curious!!!
Space "vs." Time: Note that, due to the mechanism of "the speed of light", [the 'manifestation' of] separation (or "extension") in(/as) "space" and separation (or "extension") in(/as) "time" are [intrinsically] "the same phenomenon". Space-Time "event" as "Individual photon-emission/absorption circuit": The function of "spatially distributed 'mass'-particles, and the myriad larger scale composite 'structures' thereof)" -- which I will refer to in general as "particulate mass-objects" (PMOs) -- is to 'redirect' ('reroute') the series of [many] 'photon-waves' generated sequentially [i.e. individually in/over/as "time"] by each them back onto itself in such a way as to change the sequence and wavelengths of different portions of that stream to thereby construct the universal 'spatially-distributed PMO network's 'manifestation' of itself as its 'self-awareness waveform'. The requirement for the sequential series of "many" (i.e. multiple, as opposed to just one) perfectly-["time"]-synchronized EMR waves - i.e. all propagating in 'lock-step' at the same "finite, constant (and asymptotic maximum accelerated velocity limit for PMOs with respect to each other) speed of light" in order to "manifest" as (a single, complex-structured [and 'kaleidoscopically' evolving] 'standing waveform' comprising) "multiple 'concurrent' spatially distributed PMOs" (i.e. as "existing [at/as different locations in space" as/] "at the same time" from the 'point of view'/'perspective' of each [and "every"] one of "them" constitutes "proof" of the 'unity' of (what we humans have historically perceived and described as) "the material universe" as a single, self-configuring 'intelligent self-awareness waveform'-generating 'mechanism', or 'device' if you will, comprised of the self-relative motion ("acceleration") of an otherwise Scale-Uniform superfluid Medium (SUM).
Time is abstract human construct of complex changes in space. If there is no changes everything will be frozen and time will be equal to zero. So, time is invented not discovered.
Tocno. Misaoni eksperiment koji radim je,kad bi sve bilo zamrznuto,bez kretanja,sto je onda uopce vrijeme? Kako bi znali da vrijeme uopće teče? Nikako. Stvarnost je što zapravo ne postoji stanje u kojem je SVE zamrznuto. I zato cemo uvijek 'osjecati' protok vremena.
A real eyeopener explanation. The loaf of bread example is amazing. I wish I could have a better grasp for understanding "slicing the bread with a different angle". What exactly does this mean? What is the reality of the slicer?
Excellent explanation. The most difficult concept to grasp is the curvature of space-time due to gravity. Even more difficult is the possibility of a wormhole that could connect one distant part of the universe with other.
There is no curvature of space time. There is a curvature of space & the interaction of the “particle” with the rest of space that it warps, causes it’s thermodynamic interactions (how we measure “time”) to be different
that's a good question. Going Further one can ask how we even measure time when all we can actually do is measure spacial coordinates (for example on a clock).
One-Way Entanglement Between Isolated Energies: "Time taken in stocking energy to build an energy system added to the time taken to build the system will always be longer than the entire useful lifetime of the system. "Energy, like time, flows from past to future" Therefore, Speed will never slow or accelerate Time.
What is meant by "moving at a different speed"; who is it that is "moving at a different speed"? And who is it that differs with my perspective that WWI, e.g., occurred (in time-linear terms) before WWII?
The construct of space time being stretched or deformed by the presense of matter (more matter = more stretching) is what causes the phenomina of gravitational acceleration. Think of an elastic space time matrix. in the presence of a body of mass like the earth, the matrix will be stretched toward the point center of the gravitational mass of the earth. Meaning all objects will fall and accelerate toward that center. Far away from the mass, the distortion in the space time matrix will be minimal and so will the acceleration. As the observer object draws closer to the mass the deformation in the matrix is increased (each block of space time is getting progressively stretched further and further the closer to the center of the mass that you get.) An object accelerating toward a mass doesnt know that it is in the presence of a gravitational field. What is taking place to cause the acceleration of the observer body is that as it draws nearer to the mass it must reconcile the deformity in space time by crossing each block in the now stretched grid in the same time as it crossed the undeformed grid and so the speed of the observer object (relative to the gravitational mass) accelerates.
maybe contracting gravity of time produces an expanding gravity of space in all directions, including in the direction of classic gravity attraction between classic objects / particles?
What I don’t understand is why you can go forwards and backwards in 3D space, but why is time only positive (one-directional)? And I assume the corollary is that space-time is generated continuously (a bit like a “time worm”). It has a “present”, but nothing exists in front of this 4D “present” in space-time. (And at least that means conscious actions can change the shape of the 4D “future” coz it’s not a static fixed 4D loaf of bread yet. And where does space-time grow into if there’s nothing yet in existence in the future? Explain.
> Nothing new here. - Just a rehash of the same old thing. Not really explaining it's initial question of why space & time are the same thing. When everyone knows one is 3d & the other -1d? - Another example of people not really knowing what the hell they are jabbering about.
I really enjoyed this one..Einstein's theory is stunningly beautiful AND transformative which is WHY it's so easy to be a relativist..Sadly it has become apparent that GR is critically flawed, and NOT just because of the gravity contradiction..Still, It is arguably one of the greatest accomplishments of the human mind and MOST of its insights will be used centuries from now..Thanks.
Thee is no Gravity Contradiction at all. GR has been proved over and over again observationally, so you need to explain what you mean. Sat Navs would not work properly without adjustment for GR. Newton would not give us this adjustment.
@@julianmann6172 Thanks for the reply friend..Now retired, I have plenty of time to explain. Newtonian physics CORRECTLY predicts the behavior of a wide array of objects in motion..The benefits this theory has provided us is of inestimable value, and it is STILL used today..Theories are like tools..Newtons equations enabled the space program and work perfectly well for navigation, and much more.. Nonetheless they are FATALLY flawed and ultimately can't be true..Along comes GR. An even WIDER array of observations are accounted for, like the anomaly in the orbit of Mercury, time dilation, black holes and the like..Considered to be mans greatest theory through the early 20th century..THEN QM began blossoming and finally became testable..It's incredible predictions began to be verified one by one..QFT emerges from it..Predictions are measured to a precision never previously achieved..The mortal wound that is inflicted on GR cannot be overstated..Space is NOT some smooth continuous pliable field, neither is gravity..It's quantized into discreet packets..Amoung other things, Gravity can NO LONGER be seen as a simple geometric bending of space..In the same fashion that GR superceded Newtons idea, same here..BOTH cannot be correct, and obviously QM is more fundamental..It explains what GR does PLUS MUCH more as theoretical physics 3.0 should.. Indisputably our best description of the way particles behave, and SINGLE-HANDEDLY ushering in the electronics age..More and more in physics the old guard is quaintly referred to as relativists..This is already too long, but are there any objections, questions, or clarification s friend? Peace.
@@Bill..N Good reply Bill, but I don't agree entirely with your way of looking at these issues. I would not say that either Einstein or Newton were mistaken in their theories. These are just the best possible descriptions of Gravity etc utilising different frameworks. Rather like using 2 different languages to describe the same thing. There is no widespread consensus that space and gravity are quantised. Given the success of GR in theoretical physics, I would say this is highly unlikely. I do not believe in Quantum Gravity either. I would say that the reason that GR and QM appear incompatible is that they follow different arrows of time. QM appears to me to follow retro causality, rather than classical time. This would be a major departure from current theory, in so far as I say that time only remains classical down to the subatomic level. Below that I would say it flips into the other mode, as a result of which QM becomes subject to probability theory and the uncertainty principle. Whereas classical mechanics does not.
When somebody say something is relative it means it doesn't exist fundamentaly.Both Space and Time doesn't exist that is why we struggle to get hold of it..
I would say that the construct we live in is 8 dimensional: supperpose light as a second dimension to each one of the four dimensions you are talking of: light time, light d1, light d2, light d3. The singularity would be the 9 uncharted dimension exterior to the 8 dimensional construct.
I live in tve samz house for the last twoo decades but the size of my house stayed tbe same but i got twoo decades older in time. How can time and space be the same thing?.
if A travels close to light speed and comes back to earth, let's assume someone B is dead on earth by the time A returns, and A now can meet B; am not sure if A can meet old ppl or future ppl, but am wondering how is time changing all these? how can someone travelling as close to light has got to do with perception, reality, etc?
The only way I can wrap my simple mind around this is that space-time is the fluid upon which all motion takes place. It is like water, just another medium that contains everything we can interact with
Wow, here is a guy explaining it differently.....he seems to have much more ready understanding of Einstein's theories than the others Kuhn has had on. Kuhn is awesome, as ever.
People who have NDEs generally talk about being outside of the linear time we all know. they say they get to experience all the time that they existed. Kind of like a historical documentary of the time they were in the four dimensions of space and time... My Mind is Blown, when I think about what this Universe has in store for all of us..?!
It’s total bs. There’s no such thing as space time. Time is just something we use to quantify the amount of interactions that have completed entropically. There are no slices in a statue as he describes. They also believe in multiple universes of collapsing wave functions and claim that all futures are true until measurement happens. They can’t have it both ways for one thing. So many of these scientists are grifters. Just cause a math equation is coherent for mapping separate areas of observations, doesn’t mean they understand what is actually occurring
I've always wondered how gravity can work over lightyears in one "correct" order when Everyone participating at different "speeds" observe an individual order of events. I cant answer this questions because of my lack of understanding the math but I seldom hear scientists explain this layman concerns.
Ethereal space, however subtle, is a physical element. It conveys sound, which is the physical object perceived by the physical auditory system. Time is quite different from space, for it has no physical substance and can be perceived only by the rising and setting of the sun.
Read the book: ''Laminated Space-Time", by Barbara Dewey. Theories and Models are just symbols that direct us toward reality. This book makes it all a bit more understandable!
I'm still waiting for these explanations to include assumptions about temporal ontology. That is to ask, are these blocks or "slices" of time equally real or do they become real then change their status? It seems this particular thinker implicitly answered this but I'd like to see this problem analyzed directly. I think it would go a long way in helping others understand this issue.
You could be waiting a long time for a treatment that you would find philosophically satisfying. The reason why is because physicists and mathematicians aren't particularly interested in philosophical notions. Their interest lies respectively in what can be empirically demonstrated or mathematically derived, and once that's done for the day, it's time to go home. It would be professional overreach to speculate beyond what physics and math can properly deliver. That's not to say that there aren't people who are willing to bridge the gaps. For example, a philosopher might be willing to learn enough physics and math to fully inform her speculation. But in practice this seems to be increasingly rare as the physics and math become increasingly elaborated. It's not as if these disciplines are inherently incommensurable. That would imply that somehow reality were ultimately a matter of perspective, and objectivists would necessarily be obliged to disagree on such an implication. The "load of bread" analogy used in the video illustrates how we would prefer the matter of relativism to be resolved, by formally accounting for differing observer effects in a common underlying reality that we can all, in principle, agree upon despite our differing observations. If instead we can't agree, then we literally can't have the conversation and we can thus have no expectation of being able to move forward except in each in our own solipsistic echo chamber.
By the way, your concern about the slices of time is misplaced. They are all always equally real with or without observers. The model is a mathematically complete mapping over spacetime, which makes it ontologically complete under the assumption that spacetime is a sufficient frame of reference for existence. I'm a bit sorry that the only use of mathematics in this video was the reference to the negative sign on the time dimension. I think that was a deliberate choice in favor of making the content more accessible, but it means that we don't get to see the lovely equations or their hyperbolic projection. It's all conic sections, really quite intuitive to look at as well as mathematically rigorous. It would then be obvious that there are no "gaps" in the model itself into which ontological questions could be inserted. That's not to say that the model is correct. In fact, we know that spacetime is not flat but instead is distorted by mass, and we know that this in turn is not compatible with our accounts of quantum uncertainty. That's where we know there are gaps, quite possibly ontological ones.
@@starfishsystems I don't disagree with anything you have said here. My concern is primarily didactic. I do believe it would be outside of their common professional concern to speculate on many philosophical assumption they make (as this would be true for every profession I suppose). However it might be highly instructive to introduce the audience to some of the competing temporal foundations. The vast majority of the viewers of this video, for example, will operate under the assumption that all states of time have ontological asymmetrical relationships. That by itself is not a problem but it would certainly inhibit their ability to grasp what is being taught here. The foundation in this lecture is that temporal eminence is not a true feature of space time and even parity of temporal constituency is a fiction of perception. That's a large disadvantage for the learner. For those of us who get immersed in the finer details this may seem irrelevant but on that point I'd be forced to disagree.
All "slices of time" in this context are equally real. This was actually specifically addressed in this video clip (this is what the horizontal slice versus French slice metaphor was about).
The only reason this works is because time is an infinitesimal compactified dimension. If we had any actual play (like the infinities we have in spatial dimensions) this conception wouldn’t work. This model is predicated on a quality of time and then generally ignores this quality.
I think that space and time are only measures between our own purposes. Time is the only the distance between events that we created in the first place and simply a measure of our own memories. Even clocks are our own inventions . And space is only the distance between our objectives which influences the calibration of our measures. The smaller things are which are right next to us are actually further away then if they were larger
@@scienceisall2632 I mean that there would be no time as we know it if we didn’t have man-made events to measure them by. And what we call space or how we measure space is only between a distance of two things that we have purpose for. In other words if we measured the border of United States and it’s something like 8000 miles, if we then measured it section by section it would come out bigger than that Because close up there’s more things to measure such as Hills, valleys rocks and stones. The meaning of the measure would change the distance
Honest question: why does every scientist get this wrong? No observer at any speed sees any event WHEN it happens. All observers see the photons that left the event at some time later. Those photons that we see four years later, four light years away are NOT the event. If proxima centauri went supernova, and we see it four years later, and another observer see it eight years later...that doesn't change when the event happened. If a star went supernova at the same time, eight ly from us, but four ly from observer two, the simultaneity of the events is not dependent on who saw which one first. One did not happen first for one observer but second for the other observer. They both happened simultaneously. There are things happening simultaneous to me writing this which we won't see on earth for another thirteen billion years. That doesn't mean they didn't happen yet. I think our greatest scientists have confuser themselves with their own philosophies.
Dear Mr. Robert Lawrence Kuhn. How mach effort and patience and immagination You always put in questioning the experts. They do not deserve be interviewed by You. They know less than You. Always avoiding the answer and they tell You nothing. And in reality: You are a Genius.
That’s an odd perspective. Most of the guests are more than generous with their explanations, even trying their best to speak in terms understandable by regular people.
@@buddyrichable1 He also apparently thinks that Kuhn reads the comments and that these are new videos made for RUclips when like most of them, they're clips from Kuhn's television show that are more than 10 years old.
Time itself is static, non existent but it is light that travels through space that gives the notion of time which really is distance and the duration/period of distance traveled happening at the same time. Distance and duration/period of distance traveled are not really one because while distance can be described as material (space) duration/period of distance traveled is immaterial. As an illustration when I'm walking in the sun although the light of the sun is all over me and we both seem to be moving together at the same time nevertheless I and the light of the sun are not actually one. We are two different kinds that do not mix. If light travels through real empty space that is totally void of anything material then the light has not travelled at all but has just lit up empty space, just existing and omnipresent. Time is really the result of the interaction between light and darkness.
this dude has no clue. Einstein strongly opposed geometric interpretation. It was Minowski who introduced spacetime as a single entity in order to simplify his math that he did for Einstein. Other than that, "spacetime" is not a physical thing just like centrifugal force is not fundamental but is useful mathematically.
Space and time are not the same things! By time i mean Event Times which requires clock for measuring interval duration of events ! Due to the finite speed of the photon simultaneous observations are not possible This fact has nothing to due to the curvature of space due to mass -energy density.Photons will travel this curved path but its velocity is fixed at c
The way we measure time is a construct. Hours, minutes, seconds are all made up by man. The same way feet, yards, miles are all a construct too. Despite this, space and time are very real. They are do not care how we measure them.
Inevitable post in comment section for 10+ year old clips: Commenter: Thank you Robert! Another great new video! Keep up the good work! Can't wait for the next one! You and your friends are so smart! Do you all live in the same apartment building? It's cool how they're willing to help you make your RUclips videos! You should interview Joe Rogan! Can I friend you on Facebook?
There is no such thing as time. If everything stopped there would be no need for time. Time is used to measure change or motion. It's a consequence. If the earth stopped rotating you wouldn't need a watch. But if everything stopped, we wouldn't be here
Anyone using my question in any way owes me 2% gross of anything made from it. At what mass and volume would it take for the slightest movement measure at the speed of light?
@@donemigholzjr.7344 I'm not avoiding anything. Honestly, I wasn't sure if you intended your question as a joke or not. If you're being serious you're a crackpot. Your question is very poorly framed and arguably incoherent, but in either case there's nothing deep about it. If you really want a serious answer, there are two limits to consider, the practical limitations, which aren't fixed but change as technology improves and we can accurately measure light speed with less and less equipment, and the physical limitations, which are fixed and determined by the smallest possible physical dimensions in which light can freely travel and be measured.
@@b.g.5869 See, now you are thinking. I will help you. There should be a whole new vocabulary that must be introduced. Possibly explaining dimensions with a type of periodic table based on volume and mass when light from one dimension no longer pertains to the next dimension.
At the Planck length, as expressed as a tetrahedral "solid" of that size, all mass/energy/spacetime is incompressible via solved quantum gravity- reality is granular therefore IMO singularities are mathematical only, we just need the final renormalization for the TOE.
J.r. Gotta I like the idea that time is energy of the content of space. Ie. Its not really empty. You could also compare the amount of space energy to the energy of some objectx occupying space to get a relative difference . There is contrary to einstein no 4th dimension analogous to 3 space but there is content of emptiness.
Space and Time are two consecutive laws. They are not of physics. The two laws are Continuance and Indefinite Procedure. In physics they become light and magnetism.
For mortals, although space and time, is controlled by your traveling speed, immortals, are not affected by time. They can travel across the universe in an instant. I have traveled beyond our universe at the blinking of an eye...
A laser beam shot from a stationary point passed a spaceship moving 1/2 the speed of light. The spaceship shot a laser beam to chase the first laser beam. Would the second laser shot catch the first one?
One peculiar thing about Einstein is that he was not only an intellectual, but had a very prominent "spiritual"(for a lack of better word) capacity, so unfortunately judging him and his discoveries only intellectually will produce a distorted vision of him and his discoveries.
Here's another way space and time can be the same thing... The TL;DR: Because it's a misunderstanding. We don't have a good definition of what time is, and therefore we confuse different things for being the same. Now for the long version... ... Special relativity, a thought experiment. You have a person on earth, and an austronaut in space, stationary to the sun. As both observe earth going around the sun, the time in the earth-centric system should dilate according to the autstronaut. That means that the moon must orbit earth slower. After a few years, they will disagree on where the moon is. Impossible, of course. You may have objections. "But gravity", and "oh, circles!". This thought experiment can easily be translated to a linear scenario, with a train moving in a straight line. No worries. So how do we solve this? Well, take a look at the relativistic trolley paradox (you know how google works) and the solution. There you have it. Space and time bend and deform stuff. But, the wheel turns exactly one full turn between the same points along the track, regardless of reference frame. The same applies to the moon. And mechanical clocks. Everything that goes around in circles. With this, we realize that we don't know what a month, or a day, or an hour is. Because all those clocks we use to measure time, will agree with all frames of reference. We will never observe time dilation ourselves, because all those clocks will agree with each other. So the conclusion is that time according to relativity is something abstract, above and outside our reality. ... General relativity. How is it that we have observed time dilation using atomic clocks? Well, let's summarize what scientists have all told us: 1. Spacetime is curved. Either space "flows" towards matter (PBS Spacetime, youtube channel), or its "density" (in lack of another word) gradually changes with distance from matter. Because that is what curved space would look like, if you could visualize it. 2. Quantum mechanics - they say particles are like waves sometimes. They talk about pair production, virtual particles and vacuum fluctuations. What do all these things have in common? They describe a medium in which everything exists. It used to be called ether. Today it's more modern to say quantum fields instead. So we have particles - the atoms in an atomic clock - that are waves, propagating through fields, space, ether whatever... And the ether is "curved", or it "flows". How would curved space affect wavelike particles? With lesser density near matter, the waves would propagate more slowly. That would indeed look like time dilation. And waves are bent (refraction) towards lesser dense areas. Voilá, we have gravity! Exactly like Einstein predicted, but with a different story. What does this do for us? It allows us to keep Einstein as our god, while also correcting the wrong assumptions he made. And we have finally figured out what time dilation is, and how it relates to quantum mechanics.
The universe does not have any dimensions. We can never see a dimension. Also, we can never see a coordinate system. The number of dimensions being used is ALWAYS defined by the observer, to suit whatever is being measured. Only something very close is ever measured with left/right, up/down, toward/away. The reference point for these 3 dimensions is the person looking in those directions. Another person, standing in another place, will have different distance measurements when looking in those 3 directions. In astronomy, right ascension and declination are always used for celestial measurements. Because the center of the Earth is the reference point for this pair of angular dimensions, all observers can share their measurements, after accounting for their offset in position from this coordinate system's reference point at the center of the Earth. Dimensions are used only by the observer and cannot physically be part of an object or of the universe. our GPS coordinate system uses lines of latitude and longitude but the Earth does not have or possess these 2 dimensions. We defined them. An object can have size but it does not define its own dimensions, which can be measured in many different units. Einstein's theory of relativity defined the special moving observer's reference frame as space-time. Relativity is a background independent theory, meaning this reference frame has no defined coordinates in space (the background) outside the observer's current position. The universe does not have space-time; only the special moving observer has (or uses) the 4-dimensions of space-time. The black hole is a corruption between geometry and physics. When the special, moving observer of relativity moves to a very massive body, their path is curved to the center of that body. The center of a body, no matter its shape, is described in geometry as a point. To all other observers, the mass remains at its position in space. The black hole proposes the mass is somehow contained within a point, which is only a concept in geometry. Since a point is not a measurable entity in physics, the point must have zero size. Putting mass into a zero volume must have infinite density. Putting amass into a geometric point while maintaining its force of gravity is another violation of physics with a black hole. Claiming the entire mass simply disappears for all other observers is also impossible. Black holes don't exist. They are needed to explain X-ray point sources. Cosmologists ignore the work of plasma physicists, like Winston Bostwick who discovered the plasmoid in the 1950's. A plasmoid can be the source of synchrotron radiation to X-ray energies. The torus imaged at the center of the M87 galaxy was a plasmoid, not a black hole as claimed. A black hole having an accretion disk is an impossible combination to achieve thermal radiation to the energy of X-rays. The number of dimensions being used by any observer is irrelevant to the impossible black hole. When string theorists need many dimensions to measure expected behaviors, then the universe never has these dimensions. The universe cannot somehow take possession of someone's definition of how they wish to measure something. The universe remains unaffected by our current coordinate system's definition which we require for our measurements. By agreeing on a coordinate system, we can share our measurements to confirm repeatability among others. The universe and the stuff in it remains unaffected by our selections of dimensions. There is NO correct number of dimensions. However, to share our measurements we must agree on the definition of whatever number and configuration of them are being used at the time.
J. Richard Gott doesn't understand it. For all the things in the Universe, one of the 4 dimensions is always zero. Time is forever "now". Which of the 4 dimensions is zero, that is, which one is time, depends on the relative rotation of the different frames of reference. Likewise, the photon also has 3 non-zero and 1 zero-value dimensions. But its frame of reference is rotated in relation to ours, so that 1 of our spatial dimensions is its time-dimension, that is, zero-value. So, we think that time stopped for the photon. But it didn't. The photon does not see everything all at once from the Big Bang to the End of Time. It does experience the passage of time, through events like redshift, refraction, etc., in its spatial dimensions - just like we do. Thus, each of its "now" moments is as distinct as ours - but through the other 3 dimensions that don't line up with ours.
Either you need to move or just the time capsule 💊 to time travel, Universe allows the Capsulated time travel very much. Another way is create immense gravity to slower the time & then escape from it when needed. 😊
ok I can Visualize why when some one leaves earth at near the speed of light and comes back I'll only aged a year while they have aged much much more.. this assumes some local .. lowest speed possible.. i say this because i don't recall reading or watching any one ow to halt time as we perceive it .. technically if i'm traveling in a ship at the speed of light, time stops.. so as soon as the speed of light is reached .. perceptually I will instantly arrive at my destinations... NO need to worry about deep sleep or dyeing before we reach it. ok .. but why is it that i can't halt my motion relative to any thing i can only increase it?... So if i'm standing still and you fly off at the speed of light .. your traveling threw space but not threw time... While trying to find out how old i would be upon your return i found this .. which is the exact thought process i was having "the rub is in trying to get the twins back together at the same place and the same time so they can compare their ages. That's the 'return' in your question. This will necessarily require a change in velocity -- hence an acceleration. But an accelerating frame is not an inertial frame. Thus, without knowing the details of how we bring the twins together, there really is no way to say for sure who will be older -- but in most cases it will be the travelling twin." again you fly off time stops for you but not for me .. now i've traveled threw time and have +n distance in time ahead of you.... you now travel to the place you left less then a second ago.. what would you find .. not me.. I'm at a different space time coordinate .. or would you ?? if you left at the sped of light you could travel any were ytouy wanted and return adn i'd be in the same vector space .. i would not have aged .. .. ok some one bail me out here..
In electrotechnic , time (or frequency) is treated as an imaginary number : s = iw Spacetime is a four-vector of real numbers with a negative sign for time. [x,y,z,-t] Minkovsky space is a four-vector of real numbers for the spacial coordinates , and an imaginary number for the time coordinate [x,y,x,it]. Why does imaginary time play such an important role , is it more than a convenient mathematical tool ?
Typical Closer To Truth comment section: *New* *Age* *Guy* : "The universe is the awakening of cosmic consciousness 🙏" *The Hindu* : "All was said already in Bhagavad Gita thousand years ago." *The Physics Kook* : "Einstein's equations are a scam. I can prove them wrong but Big Science won't publish my work." *The Creationist* : "This hars all lies from the pit of hell from sinners aferred of judgement by Jesus." *The Broadly Crazy Person* : "Space Time is the Time of Space! All Things are actually on Mars! Mars is the Warehouse of The Universe!" *Person* *That* *Thinks* *This* *Is* *Just* *Roberts* *Personal* *RUclips* *Channel* *And* *Has* *No* *Clue* *That* *Most* *Of* *These* *Videos* *Are* *Well* *Over* *10* *Years* *Old* *From* *A* *TV* *Show* *Over* *20* *Years* *Old* : "Another great video Robert! Keep at it! Trust me, you WILL be noticed! Today you may just be an obscure RUclipsr, but in a few years? Fame!!! Can we be Facebook friends?"
Space is the most subtler entity of the visible physical realm and the only one that is infinite by nature. Time is subtler even than the space, though invisible by nature. As per my understanding about the nature of the universal existence, it is the infinite nature of the space that may act as a bridge between the space and the time and one may assume these two to be the same thing. Otherwise time is existentially more fundamental as compare to space. In order to understand the nature of ultimate existential reality, one will have to shift on to subjective awareness or consciousness, because it is only the subjective consciousness that is more subtler and existential as compare to time. And the science may never prefer to shift on to the subjective consciousness and awareness.
When you sleep and dream you are actually everyone and everything inside of your dream however you still experience the dream through your own eyes and not the eyes of the other you making reality a first person view and a experience.
Time existed before the Big Bang ;; it’s just that we don’t understand it . Something was happening before the Big Bang and we have no way of discovering what it was . Everything needs a medium to travel through , so if the Big Bang is real , what medium did the universe travel through in order to expand .???
Dear Dr. Gott! Can energy exist without matter and of course without space and time? Energy exists forever, it can’t be created and can’t disappear. Does it mean that energy exists forever together with matter, space and time? Does it mean that energy, matter, space and time is one thing which created everything - The God himself? Besides nobody knows what is Energy, Space and Time. In reality everything is significantly more complicated, I just didn’t want to write a scientific article here. Please answer me Dr. Gott. Thank you! Dr. Agre.
@@b.g.5869 lol, does anyone? Something about the order or chaos in a system. I think time maybe in there too. Lol couldn’t exactly remember I was going for Brilliantly “”Chaotic”” Yeah, I thinking I butchered that one
Space and time are not the same thing. Relativity just represents 3 dimensions of position, and 1 dimension of time, similarly, all using orthogonal lines. Also, neither space nor time has any substance to affect anything, so a curvature of spacetime can not possibly physically affect anything, making relativity theory physically illogical. I have 8 RUclips videos advertising my unifying physics theory, matter theory. Search keywords: matter theory marostica.
I'm so glad I found this channel. This is the kind of content that should have been on television since it's invention. What kind of society would we have now if these types of discussions had been sparking the general population's curiosity from the 1950s, 1960s and up to now?
The general population is far more interested in the Kardassians.
Robtk3 Could not agree more. Instead, the history Channel shows ancient aliens and swamp people. The science Channel has shark week. It is the dumbing down of a country.
@@1gallimaufry Let's not forget "The Learning Channel". The epitome of doublespeak.
@@robtk3 man I hear you. I wised up and cut cable out five years ago. Not only is there a commercial break every five minutes ( that has eight commercials in a row), I just could not take the stupidity any more. My fault for paying good money to have crap piped into my house. No more.
He does a great job of explicating the major conceptual considerations, but I think there’s a more succinct answer. I think it is misleading to say that time and space are the “same thing.” That’s not what the science says. The science says that, macroscopically, time and space are linked together, are integrated and articulating. That doesn’t mean they are the same thing. If you think about directions on a map: if you are traveling north at a constant speed, you can turn a little bit to the right and now you are also travelling a bit east. You can turn 90 degrees from your original direction and now you are fully traveling east. You’ve made a transformation from north travel to east travel, but that’s not quite the same as saying north and east are the same thing. It may be true that the outcome of physics experiments in a lab that is heading north are the same in one that is heading east, and thus that physics is invariant under a rotational transformation from north to east - in that sense, north and east are the “same” but clearly if you are trying to get to a location in a frame that did not undergo the same transformation, the two directions are certainly not interchangeable.
The integration of space and time that leads to people saying “there’s no difference between them” comes from special and general relativity principles such as the constancy of the speed of light to observers in all reference frames and the equivalence principle. To make this all work, it is necessary to conclude that objects that are stationary in space - and can be thought of as moving forward in time at the speed of light - lose a little bit of their “time velocity” if they want to move in space at something other than zero velocity. If you could move in time at “full speed” - the speed of light, and also move in space at some finite speed, the vector sum of those two motions would exceed the speed of light and violate special relativity. So due to Einstein and prior work by Lorentz et al, motion in space must be accompanied by a “slowing” of motion in time from the point of view of an observer in an inertial reference frame - so that the sume of the velocities through space and time don’t exceed the speed of light. In this sense, motion through space can be thought of as a rotation of the motion vector from time to space, the rotation increasing as the amount of spatial velocity increases. As the velocity approaches the speed of light, time stops. That’s why its often said that photons do not experience the passage of time (or as Penrose memorably puts it, its impossible to bore a photon.) In that sense, there is a continuum between space and time.
Strong gravity results in highly curved spacetime, meaning among other things that the “coordinates” of a spacetime map can become rotated and curved. Traveling at human-scale speeds, we move in space and in time. We have a destination that is a point in space and a point in time - our destination is not really just a location but an event. Under the severe curvature of spacetime under the effect of extreme gravity, the geodesics of spacetime increasingly lead us purely in the direction of increasing time - there is no longer any way to “move” in space. One way of thinking about a black hole event horizon is that its the point in space where spacetime becomes so curved that all motion is completely dominated by motion along the time axis. Given the speed of light as a universal limit, it is no longer possible to move meaningfully in space as one rushes forward in time towards the point of infinite curvature, the singularity. So one way of thinking of the black hole interior is its the place where motion in space becomes so highly constrained that there is literally only one point in spacetime in your future - the singularity.
I think this (I know its highly simplified and glosses over numerous details) is the way in which space and time can be thought of as unified and deeply connected and articulating. But I think that’s a better paradigm than calling them the “same thing.” Indeed, the fact that cosmologists attribute very different limitations and meanings to “timelike” and “spacelike” paths in Penrose diagrams should be a clue that they’re not quite “the same thing.”
Hmmm
Mr. J.Richard Gott sounds like Ross Geller from friends.
Not even close. Gott has a southern accent, which Geller didn't.
@@b.g.5869 I didn't notice the accent but his voice sounded like Ross's (to me).
May be you are right.
The most important and logical (if radical) conclusion from the block universe is that everything has been determined since the conception of time. Superdeterminism!
The Holographic universe
Time is not a dimension in itself. Time is a change in dimension. Think of Time as a shrinking or enlarging of space: an impression of magnification or miniaturization, unfolding or folding. Similarly think of space as a slowing or speeding of time: an impression of stillness or flow, sameness or change.
I agree on that. Time has no dimensions. It's particles etc moving relative to each other. The more I learn about "spacetime" the more I disagree. In my opinion as long as scientists are stuck in this spacetime term, we wont get any major breakthrough. I consider time as an illusion for movements. We even measure time by movements :)
@@Bevallalom I think the impression of change is important. Dimension is a catchall term that can be used to mean many things, besides what scientists mean by it. A study of linear algebra gives a mathematical meaning of dimension. But I think that mathematical formulation is misleading. As misleading as the word dimension itself.
Change like dimension can have more than one meaning. Our minds and senses can not all be reduced to math. Shapes, topology, knots, strings, imaginary numbers, etc.. These are some of the known models. Are there others yet to be imagined? I think so. Our impressions of the world, and their artistic expression may yet yield insight.
There is a caveat, however, a good simulation, no matter how good, is just that: a simulation. Not reality itself. An understanding of reality itself may require a deeper apprehension than what sensual impressions offer. Than what quantum mechanics and general relativity indicate.
these are basically my thoughts too for a very long time but if a mathematician says reality is so and so and he has proof its hard to disagree as a layman.
If I check the spacial coordinates on two different clocks and the hands show different locations how do you even come to the conclusion you need an *additional* thing called time that I cant measure? Its much simpler to think that the length of space might have changed because THATS what I can measure.
I also have this feeling that people are stuck in time (pun intended) just because they assume it exists for a few thousands of "years".
best explanation ever about this matter ..
I'm sorry to disagree, I think it is not a good explanation. The Spacetime "block" description in this video does the typical over simplification mistake that in fact makes difficult to understand Einstein theory. The only way to understand Einstein is to follow his reasoning since the very beginning to the very end. Spacetime as a "block" is just a possible description as "a consequence", it's not related with the starting hyphotesis at all. Einstein Spacetime "block" is not what people think intuitively (the way they normally think about it really matches Newton mechanics and not Einstein ). The Einstein Spacetime "block" can look very different for each observer, and in that differences is where the theory has most of the interesting substance, and also where the Spacetime lines warp into an apparent singularity, with all the time curves leading to a same point and no way for time itself to go past this point, as wherever you go the time dimension will go backwards. In fact to understand Einstein the block description is almost irrelevant
@@javiej Doesn’t the spacetime concept for different individuals as being different also extend into their perceptions of reality contained in their societal languages? Aren’t there extra spacetime dimensions in those fabrics of individual words and their contexts? Taking all those into accounts of course the reality and the simultaneity of events differ for all members of any society. No wonder then, the quantization principles apply at the macro level as well, if we can imagine the entire humanities as being part of a multidimensional cognitive spectrum.
@@scoreprinceton Be careful, introducing the cognitive process into Einstein theories is like opening the Pandora box. Not only because every individual experiences a different time and different reality (that's the easy part), but specially because you get multiple instances of a same individual experiencing reality at all the different time slices simultaneously, because all your past and future cognitive experiences are already in the Spacetime block. No physicist have explained this problem yet, which basically tell us that Einstein theory must be a simplified model of something more profound yet to be discovered. In fact, thinking about a "Spacetime block" is an extra over simplification that only complicates the understanding of problems like this much more.
@@javiej Einstein’s field equations and the gauge symmetry applied to the biology of brain cells might also warrant years of graduate level work to confirm by experimental methods
@@javiej You don't understand what he said. The block contains all possible points of view; that's the point. A slice at any given angle represents the point of view of an observer at a particular velocity.
What I miss in many of these discussions is that the 4d model of the universe is a model. Yes, it helps to understand in some cases but there is more, like for example causality and its preservation.
Refreshing to listen to a discussion that does not include quantum mechanics.
Agreed.
True😄
If time is relative, then can it implies that everything is happening simultaneously but it appears to happen in a succession only because we become aware of the event in now and then fashion.
What if our awareness pervades all of the loaf of bread (mentioned by Einstein) , can we still have notion of time?
Just curious!!!
Dr. Gott explained a complex phenomenon with simple example 👍👌
Space "vs." Time:
Note that, due to the mechanism of "the speed of light", [the 'manifestation' of] separation (or "extension") in(/as) "space" and separation (or "extension") in(/as) "time" are [intrinsically] "the same phenomenon".
Space-Time "event" as "Individual photon-emission/absorption circuit":
The function of "spatially distributed 'mass'-particles, and the myriad larger scale composite 'structures' thereof)" -- which I will refer to in general as "particulate mass-objects" (PMOs) -- is to 'redirect' ('reroute') the series of [many] 'photon-waves' generated sequentially [i.e. individually in/over/as "time"] by each them back onto itself in such a way as to change the sequence and wavelengths of different portions of that stream to thereby construct the universal 'spatially-distributed PMO network's 'manifestation' of itself as its 'self-awareness waveform'. The requirement for the sequential series of "many" (i.e. multiple, as opposed to just one) perfectly-["time"]-synchronized EMR waves - i.e. all propagating in 'lock-step' at the same "finite, constant (and asymptotic maximum accelerated velocity limit for PMOs with respect to each other) speed of light" in order to "manifest" as (a single, complex-structured [and 'kaleidoscopically' evolving] 'standing waveform' comprising) "multiple 'concurrent' spatially distributed PMOs" (i.e. as "existing [at/as different locations in space" as/] "at the same time" from the 'point of view'/'perspective' of each [and "every"] one of "them" constitutes "proof" of the 'unity' of (what we humans have historically perceived and described as) "the material universe" as a single, self-configuring 'intelligent self-awareness waveform'-generating 'mechanism', or 'device' if you will, comprised of the self-relative motion ("acceleration") of an otherwise Scale-Uniform superfluid Medium (SUM).
Time is abstract human construct of complex changes in space. If there is no changes everything will be frozen and time will be equal to zero. So, time is invented not discovered.
Exactly. You get it. Now the question is, what do we call the process from one state to the next. How can it transition, without “time”
Tocno. Misaoni eksperiment koji radim je,kad bi sve bilo zamrznuto,bez kretanja,sto je onda uopce vrijeme? Kako bi znali da vrijeme uopće teče? Nikako. Stvarnost je što zapravo ne postoji stanje u kojem je SVE zamrznuto. I zato cemo uvijek 'osjecati' protok vremena.
I wrestle with these extraordinary complexities.....and I get body slammed every time.
One thing is certain: I'm not smart enough to ever understand these concepts. But I still like watching videos like this one.
A real eyeopener explanation. The loaf of bread example is amazing. I wish I could have a better grasp for understanding "slicing the bread with a different angle". What exactly does this mean? What is the reality of the slicer?
Space is an angle
Excellent explanation. The most difficult concept to grasp is the curvature of space-time due to gravity. Even more difficult is the possibility of a wormhole that could connect one distant part of the universe with other.
There is no curvature of space time. There is a curvature of space & the interaction of the “particle” with the rest of space that it warps, causes it’s thermodynamic interactions (how we measure “time”) to be different
Also, look up
Eugene physics general relativity and time dilation
It’s a female narrating with simulation animations. She’s very good
If nothing moves in the block universe, who are the travellers/observers being referred to? Consciousness?
that's a good question. Going Further one can ask how we even measure time when all we can actually do is measure spacial coordinates (for example on a clock).
I’ve watched quite a few of these videos and they freak me out!
One-Way Entanglement Between Isolated Energies: "Time taken in stocking energy to build an energy system added to the time taken to build the system will always be longer than the entire useful lifetime of the system.
"Energy, like time, flows from past to future"
Therefore, Speed will never slow or accelerate Time.
What is meant by "moving at a different speed"; who is it that is "moving at a different speed"? And who is it that differs with my perspective that WWI, e.g., occurred (in time-linear terms) before WWII?
I appreciate professor Gott so much... he has very special way of explaining things.
ruclips.net/video/s9AuqxSVHUY/видео.html
The construct of space time being stretched or deformed by the presense of matter (more matter = more stretching) is what causes the phenomina of gravitational acceleration. Think of an elastic space time matrix. in the presence of a body of mass like the earth, the matrix will be stretched toward the point center of the gravitational mass of the earth. Meaning all objects will fall and accelerate toward that center.
Far away from the mass, the distortion in the space time matrix will be minimal and so will the acceleration. As the observer object draws closer to the mass the deformation in the matrix is increased (each block of space time is getting progressively stretched further and further the closer to the center of the mass that you get.)
An object accelerating toward a mass doesnt know that it is in the presence of a gravitational field. What is taking place to cause the acceleration of the observer body is that as it draws nearer to the mass it must reconcile the deformity in space time by crossing each block in the now stretched grid in the same time as it crossed the undeformed grid and so the speed of the observer object (relative to the gravitational mass) accelerates.
The sliced loaf analogy is the most wonderfully clear explanation that I've heard yet.
Without question. I thought Sean Carroll could explain this really good but this guy...
maybe contracting gravity of time produces an expanding gravity of space in all directions, including in the direction of classic gravity attraction between classic objects / particles?
What I don’t understand is why you can go forwards and backwards in 3D space, but why is time only positive (one-directional)? And I assume the corollary is that space-time is generated continuously (a bit like a “time worm”). It has a “present”, but nothing exists in front of this 4D “present” in space-time. (And at least that means conscious actions can change the shape of the 4D “future” coz it’s not a static fixed 4D loaf of bread yet.
And where does space-time grow into if there’s nothing yet in existence in the future?
Explain.
> Nothing new here.
- Just a rehash of the same old thing. Not really explaining it's initial question of why space & time are the same thing. When everyone knows one is 3d & the other -1d?
- Another example of people not really knowing what the hell they are jabbering about.
I really enjoyed this one..Einstein's theory is stunningly beautiful AND transformative which is WHY it's so easy to be a relativist..Sadly it has become apparent that GR is critically flawed, and NOT just because of the gravity contradiction..Still, It is arguably one of the greatest accomplishments of the human mind and MOST of its insights will be used centuries from now..Thanks.
Thee is no Gravity Contradiction at all. GR has been proved over and over again observationally, so you need to explain what you mean. Sat Navs would not work properly without adjustment for GR. Newton would not give us this adjustment.
@@julianmann6172 Thanks for the reply friend..Now retired, I have plenty of time to explain. Newtonian physics CORRECTLY predicts the behavior of a wide array of objects in motion..The benefits this theory has provided us is of inestimable value, and it is STILL used today..Theories are like tools..Newtons equations enabled the space program and work perfectly well for navigation, and much more.. Nonetheless they are FATALLY flawed and ultimately can't be true..Along comes GR. An even WIDER array of observations are accounted for, like the anomaly in the orbit of Mercury, time dilation, black holes and the like..Considered to be mans greatest theory through the early 20th century..THEN QM began blossoming and finally became testable..It's incredible predictions began to be verified one by one..QFT emerges from it..Predictions are measured to a precision never previously achieved..The mortal wound that is inflicted on GR cannot be overstated..Space is NOT some smooth continuous pliable field, neither is gravity..It's quantized into discreet packets..Amoung other things, Gravity can NO LONGER be seen as a simple geometric bending of space..In the same fashion that GR superceded Newtons idea, same here..BOTH cannot be correct, and obviously QM is more fundamental..It explains what GR does PLUS MUCH more as theoretical physics 3.0 should.. Indisputably our best description of the way particles behave, and SINGLE-HANDEDLY ushering in the electronics age..More and more in physics the old guard is quaintly referred to as relativists..This is already too long, but are there any objections, questions, or clarification s friend? Peace.
@@julianmann6172 Ps..Spoiler alert..Qm is incomplete as well, BUT is expected to remain intact once nuances are figured out..
@@julianmann6172 I "LIKED" your comment friend..
@@Bill..N Good reply Bill, but I don't agree entirely with your way of looking at these issues. I would not say that either Einstein or Newton were mistaken in their theories. These are just the best possible descriptions of Gravity etc utilising different frameworks. Rather like using 2 different languages to describe the same thing. There is no widespread consensus that space and gravity are quantised. Given the success of GR in theoretical physics, I would say this is highly unlikely. I do not believe in Quantum Gravity either. I would say that the reason that GR and QM appear incompatible is that they follow different arrows of time. QM appears to me to follow retro causality, rather than classical time. This would be a major departure from current theory, in so far as I say that time only remains classical down to the subatomic level. Below that I would say it flips into the other mode, as a result of which QM becomes subject to probability theory and the uncertainty principle. Whereas classical mechanics does not.
Both are aspects of change. Change is the universal substrate of material reality.
One of your best discussions: he really makes things so much more obvious than almost anyone else I've listened to or read.
When somebody say something is relative it means it doesn't exist fundamentaly.Both Space and Time doesn't exist that is why we struggle to get hold of it..
I would say that the construct we live in is 8 dimensional: supperpose light as a second dimension to each one of the four dimensions you are talking of: light time, light d1, light d2, light d3.
The singularity would be the 9 uncharted dimension exterior to the 8 dimensional construct.
To mess with peoples minds, I call it 'timespace'.
😂
Me tooooooo!!! ⏰ 🌎 😆
They already messed with our mind, call it place time better, maybe it makes more sense
It worked-my mind's a total mess!🤪
Get real, time is not a dimension. Ha, trying to make sense out of nonsense.
This is such a great show. Thanks for sharing.
might time be negative to space as contracting gravity, where space is expanding gravity?
The answer is 42.
So true…
I live in tve samz house for the last twoo decades but the size of my house stayed tbe same but i got twoo decades older in time. How can time and space be the same thing?.
This should be educated at all schools so you give everyone this insight everyone is "relative generally" in existence.
Who knew Doc Severinsen was so knowledgeable about Einstein and space-time?
if A travels close to light speed and comes back to earth, let's assume someone B is dead on earth by the time A returns, and A now can meet B; am not sure if A can meet old ppl or future ppl, but am wondering how is time changing all these? how can someone travelling as close to light has got to do with perception, reality, etc?
The only way I can wrap my simple mind around this is that space-time is the fluid upon which all motion takes place. It is like water, just another medium that contains everything we can interact with
Well, the aether is a fluid of a field.
Space-time doesn’t exist though. Time is not a physical dimension. You can call it a parameter
Why can’t empty space itself be the fluid or medium where all motion takes place consequently giving rise to time as well.
@@johnlotaj3515 exactly. That was what I was attempting to convey but you did so much more eloquently
Wow, here is a guy explaining it differently.....he seems to have much more ready understanding of Einstein's theories than the others Kuhn has had on. Kuhn is awesome, as ever.
He doesn't understand it better than the other physicists Kuhn has had on, he just explains it better.
This clip is over ten years old by the way.
People who have NDEs generally talk about being outside of the linear time we all know. they say they get to experience all the time that they existed. Kind of like a historical documentary of the time they were in the four dimensions of space and time... My Mind is Blown, when I think about what this Universe has in store for all of us..?!
I have seen 10 videos explaining why time and space are the same and I still dont get it. I dont think the interviewer gets it either.
It’s total bs. There’s no such thing as space time. Time is just something we use to quantify the amount of interactions that have completed entropically. There are no slices in a statue as he describes. They also believe in multiple universes of collapsing wave functions and claim that all futures are true until measurement happens. They can’t have it both ways for one thing. So many of these scientists are grifters. Just cause a math equation is coherent for mapping separate areas of observations, doesn’t mean they understand what is actually occurring
I've always wondered how gravity can work over lightyears in one "correct" order when Everyone participating at different "speeds" observe an individual order of events.
I cant answer this questions because of my lack of understanding the math but I seldom hear scientists explain this layman concerns.
Universe is wonderbread. Got it
Ethereal space, however subtle, is a physical element. It conveys sound, which is the physical object perceived by the physical auditory system. Time is quite different from space, for it has no physical substance and can be perceived only by the rising and setting of the sun.
Your free will just left the chat.
Read the book: ''Laminated Space-Time", by Barbara Dewey. Theories and Models are just symbols that direct us toward reality. This book makes it all a bit more understandable!
Wait if nothing moves inside spacetime how can there ever be moving observers?
I'm still waiting for these explanations to include assumptions about temporal ontology. That is to ask, are these blocks or "slices" of time equally real or do they become real then change their status? It seems this particular thinker implicitly answered this but I'd like to see this problem analyzed directly. I think it would go a long way in helping others understand this issue.
You could be waiting a long time for a treatment that you would find philosophically satisfying. The reason why is because physicists and mathematicians aren't particularly interested in philosophical notions. Their interest lies respectively in what can be empirically demonstrated or mathematically derived, and once that's done for the day, it's time to go home. It would be professional overreach to speculate beyond what physics and math can properly deliver.
That's not to say that there aren't people who are willing to bridge the gaps. For example, a philosopher might be willing to learn enough physics and math to fully inform her speculation. But in practice this seems to be increasingly rare as the physics and math become increasingly elaborated.
It's not as if these disciplines are inherently incommensurable. That would imply that somehow reality were ultimately a matter of perspective, and objectivists would necessarily be obliged to disagree on such an implication. The "load of bread" analogy used in the video illustrates how we would prefer the matter of relativism to be resolved, by formally accounting for differing observer effects in a common underlying reality that we can all, in principle, agree upon despite our differing observations. If instead we can't agree, then we literally can't have the conversation and we can thus have no expectation of being able to move forward except in each in our own solipsistic echo chamber.
By the way, your concern about the slices of time is misplaced. They are all always equally real with or without observers. The model is a mathematically complete mapping over spacetime, which makes it ontologically complete under the assumption that spacetime is a sufficient frame of reference for existence.
I'm a bit sorry that the only use of mathematics in this video was the reference to the negative sign on the time dimension. I think that was a deliberate choice in favor of making the content more accessible, but it means that we don't get to see the lovely equations or their hyperbolic projection. It's all conic sections, really quite intuitive to look at as well as mathematically rigorous. It would then be obvious that there are no "gaps" in the model itself into which ontological questions could be inserted.
That's not to say that the model is correct. In fact, we know that spacetime is not flat but instead is distorted by mass, and we know that this in turn is not compatible with our accounts of quantum uncertainty. That's where we know there are gaps, quite possibly ontological ones.
@@starfishsystems I don't disagree with anything you have said here. My concern is primarily didactic. I do believe it would be outside of their common professional concern to speculate on many philosophical assumption they make (as this would be true for every profession I suppose). However it might be highly instructive to introduce the audience to some of the competing temporal foundations. The vast majority of the viewers of this video, for example, will operate under the assumption that all states of time have ontological asymmetrical relationships. That by itself is not a problem but it would certainly inhibit their ability to grasp what is being taught here. The foundation in this lecture is that temporal eminence is not a true feature of space time and even parity of temporal constituency is a fiction of perception. That's a large disadvantage for the learner. For those of us who get immersed in the finer details this may seem irrelevant but on that point I'd be forced to disagree.
All "slices of time" in this context are equally real. This was actually specifically addressed in this video clip (this is what the horizontal slice versus French slice metaphor was about).
The only reason this works is because time is an infinitesimal compactified dimension. If we had any actual play (like the infinities we have in spatial dimensions) this conception wouldn’t work. This model is predicated on a quality of time and then generally ignores this quality.
Who are the people who thought not to enjoy this? Please explain here:
I think that space and time are only measures between our own purposes. Time is the only the distance between events that we created in the first place and simply a measure of our own memories. Even clocks are our own inventions . And space is only the distance between our objectives which influences the calibration of our measures. The smaller things are which are right next to us are actually further away then if they were larger
What do you mean buddy
@@scienceisall2632 I mean that there would be no time as we know it if we didn’t have man-made events to measure them by. And what we call space or how we measure space is only between a distance of two things that we have purpose for. In other words if we measured the border of United States and it’s something like 8000 miles, if we then measured it section by section it would come out bigger than that Because close up there’s more things to measure such as Hills, valleys rocks and stones. The meaning of the measure would change the distance
everything, i still not yet to understand how time and space could be one thing if our conciseness distinguish them self
Honest question: why does every scientist get this wrong? No observer at any speed sees any event WHEN it happens. All observers see the photons that left the event at some time later. Those photons that we see four years later, four light years away are NOT the event. If proxima centauri went supernova, and we see it four years later, and another observer see it eight years later...that doesn't change when the event happened. If a star went supernova at the same time, eight ly from us, but four ly from observer two, the simultaneity of the events is not dependent on who saw which one first. One did not happen first for one observer but second for the other observer. They both happened simultaneously. There are things happening simultaneous to me writing this which we won't see on earth for another thirteen billion years. That doesn't mean they didn't happen yet.
I think our greatest scientists have confuser themselves with their own philosophies.
Dear Mr. Robert Lawrence Kuhn. How mach effort and patience and immagination You always put in questioning the experts.
They do not deserve be interviewed by You. They know less than You. Always avoiding the answer and they tell You nothing.
And in reality: You are a Genius.
Kuhn doesn't read the comments, and this clip is well over ten years old.
That’s an odd perspective.
Most of the guests are more than generous with their explanations,
even trying their best to speak in terms understandable by regular people.
@@buddyrichable1 He also apparently thinks that Kuhn reads the comments and that these are new videos made for RUclips when like most of them, they're clips from Kuhn's television show that are more than 10 years old.
Time itself is static, non existent but it is light that travels through space that gives the notion of time which really is distance and the duration/period of distance traveled happening at the same time. Distance and duration/period of distance traveled are not really one because while distance can be described as material (space) duration/period of distance traveled is immaterial. As an illustration when I'm walking in the sun although the light of the sun is all over me and we both seem to be moving together at the same time nevertheless I and the light of the sun are not actually one. We are two different kinds that do not mix. If light travels through real empty space that is totally void of anything material then the light has not travelled at all but has just lit up empty space, just existing and omnipresent. Time is really the result of the interaction between light and darkness.
Hmmm
this dude has no clue. Einstein strongly opposed geometric interpretation. It was Minowski who introduced spacetime as a single entity in order to simplify his math that he did for Einstein. Other than that, "spacetime" is not a physical thing just like centrifugal force is not fundamental but is useful mathematically.
Beautiful : ) I love with when someone can articulate the direction I’m trying to go
Space and time are not the same things! By time i mean Event Times which requires clock for measuring interval duration of events !
Due to the finite speed of the photon simultaneous observations are not possible This fact has nothing to due to the curvature of space due to mass -energy density.Photons will travel this curved path but its velocity is fixed at c
I have always thought time is just a man made idea/concept. A way to coordinate people to do something or when something happened in the past.
it is
The way we measure time is a construct. Hours, minutes, seconds are all made up by man. The same way feet, yards, miles are all a construct too.
Despite this, space and time are very real. They are do not care how we measure them.
id say time is a product of space, not the other way round
So did I watch this video at the same time, played like American bread or at a different time like French bread? Damn. Now I want some bread.
LOL
Lol a simpler slice of bread ey..
If time was truly the same as the space dimensions then traveling in time including the past shouldn't have been a problem at all!
Inevitable post in comment section for 10+ year old clips:
Commenter: Thank you Robert! Another great new video! Keep up the good work! Can't wait for the next one! You and your friends are so smart! Do you all live in the same apartment building? It's cool how they're willing to help you make your RUclips videos! You should interview Joe Rogan! Can I friend you on Facebook?
I’ve read like 3 or 4 of your comments and you’ve had to edit all of them and your grammar is atrocious.
There is no such thing as time. If everything stopped there would be no need for time. Time is used to measure change or motion. It's a consequence. If the earth stopped rotating you wouldn't need a watch. But if everything stopped, we wouldn't be here
Exactly
Anyone using my question in any way owes me 2% gross of anything made from it.
At what mass and volume would it take for the slightest movement measure at the speed of light?
I just won five dollars by entering your question in a "Dumbest Question Possible" contest (your question won!).
How do I send you your ten cents?
@@b.g.5869 Avoiding the subject with a Bartender's mentality much?
@@donemigholzjr.7344 I'm not avoiding anything. Honestly, I wasn't sure if you intended your question as a joke or not.
If you're being serious you're a crackpot.
Your question is very poorly framed and arguably incoherent, but in either case there's nothing deep about it.
If you really want a serious answer, there are two limits to consider, the practical limitations, which aren't fixed but change as technology improves and we can accurately measure light speed with less and less equipment, and the physical limitations, which are fixed and determined by the smallest possible physical dimensions in which light can freely travel and be measured.
@@b.g.5869 See, now you are thinking. I will help you. There should be a whole new vocabulary that must be introduced. Possibly explaining dimensions with a type of periodic table based on volume and mass when light from one dimension no longer pertains to the next dimension.
At the Planck length, as expressed as a tetrahedral "solid" of that size, all mass/energy/spacetime is incompressible via solved quantum gravity- reality is granular therefore IMO singularities are mathematical only, we just need the final renormalization for the TOE.
Hmmm
J.r. Gotta
I like the idea that time is energy of the content of space. Ie. Its not really empty. You could also compare the amount of space energy to the energy of some objectx occupying space to get a relative difference . There is contrary to einstein no 4th dimension analogous to 3 space but there is content of emptiness.
I🙄need my own private space... time? There's nothing we can do to stop time...but with plenty of money 💲 available, I can fool time to my advantage.
you think "space and time" is counter intuitive ? What about that there is no time at all in the scale of universe ? This is COUNTER INTUITIVE !
Space and Time are two consecutive laws. They are not of physics. The two laws are Continuance and Indefinite Procedure. In physics they become light and magnetism.
For mortals, although space and time, is controlled by your traveling speed, immortals, are not affected by time. They can travel across the universe in an instant. I have traveled beyond our universe at the blinking of an eye...
A laser beam shot from a stationary point passed a spaceship moving 1/2 the speed of light. The spaceship shot a laser beam to chase the first laser beam. Would the second laser shot catch the first one?
They would travel at the same speed, the speed of light. So no, one would not overtake the other.
Memory is also a dimension
One peculiar thing about Einstein is that he was not only an intellectual, but had a very prominent "spiritual"(for a lack of better word) capacity, so unfortunately judging him and his discoveries only intellectually will produce a distorted vision of him and his discoveries.
Here's another way space and time can be the same thing... The TL;DR: Because it's a misunderstanding. We don't have a good definition of what time is, and therefore we confuse different things for being the same.
Now for the long version...
...
Special relativity, a thought experiment.
You have a person on earth, and an austronaut in space, stationary to the sun. As both observe earth going around the sun, the time in the earth-centric system should dilate according to the autstronaut. That means that the moon must orbit earth slower. After a few years, they will disagree on where the moon is. Impossible, of course.
You may have objections. "But gravity", and "oh, circles!". This thought experiment can easily be translated to a linear scenario, with a train moving in a straight line. No worries.
So how do we solve this? Well, take a look at the relativistic trolley paradox (you know how google works) and the solution. There you have it. Space and time bend and deform stuff. But, the wheel turns exactly one full turn between the same points along the track, regardless of reference frame. The same applies to the moon. And mechanical clocks. Everything that goes around in circles.
With this, we realize that we don't know what a month, or a day, or an hour is. Because all those clocks we use to measure time, will agree with all frames of reference. We will never observe time dilation ourselves, because all those clocks will agree with each other. So the conclusion is that time according to relativity is something abstract, above and outside our reality.
...
General relativity.
How is it that we have observed time dilation using atomic clocks? Well, let's summarize what scientists have all told us:
1. Spacetime is curved. Either space "flows" towards matter (PBS Spacetime, youtube channel), or its "density" (in lack of another word) gradually changes with distance from matter. Because that is what curved space would look like, if you could visualize it.
2. Quantum mechanics - they say particles are like waves sometimes. They talk about pair production, virtual particles and vacuum fluctuations.
What do all these things have in common? They describe a medium in which everything exists. It used to be called ether. Today it's more modern to say quantum fields instead. So we have particles - the atoms in an atomic clock - that are waves, propagating through fields, space, ether whatever... And the ether is "curved", or it "flows".
How would curved space affect wavelike particles? With lesser density near matter, the waves would propagate more slowly. That would indeed look like time dilation. And waves are bent (refraction) towards lesser dense areas. Voilá, we have gravity! Exactly like Einstein predicted, but with a different story.
What does this do for us? It allows us to keep Einstein as our god, while also correcting the wrong assumptions he made. And we have finally figured out what time dilation is, and how it relates to quantum mechanics.
If space stopped expanding would time stop too?
The universe does not have any dimensions. We can never see a dimension. Also, we can never see a coordinate system. The number of dimensions being used is ALWAYS defined by the observer, to suit whatever is being measured. Only something very close is ever measured with left/right, up/down, toward/away. The reference point for these 3 dimensions is the person looking in those directions.
Another person, standing in another place, will have different distance measurements when looking in those 3 directions.
In astronomy, right ascension and declination are always used for celestial measurements. Because the center of the Earth is the reference point for this pair of angular dimensions, all observers can share their measurements, after accounting for their offset in position from this coordinate system's reference point at the center of the Earth.
Dimensions are used only by the observer and cannot physically be part of an object or of the universe.
our GPS coordinate system uses lines of latitude and longitude but the Earth does not have or possess these 2 dimensions. We defined them. An object can have size but it does not define its own dimensions, which can be measured in many different units.
Einstein's theory of relativity defined the special moving observer's reference frame as space-time. Relativity is a background independent theory, meaning this reference frame has no defined coordinates in space (the background) outside the observer's current position.
The universe does not have space-time; only the special moving observer has (or uses) the 4-dimensions of space-time.
The black hole is a corruption between geometry and physics. When the special, moving observer of relativity moves to a very massive body, their path is curved to the center of that body. The center of a body, no matter its shape, is described in geometry as a point. To all other observers, the mass remains at its position in space.
The black hole proposes the mass is somehow contained within a point, which is only a concept in geometry. Since a point is not a measurable entity in physics, the point must have zero size. Putting mass into a zero volume must have infinite density. Putting amass into a geometric point while maintaining its force of gravity is another violation of physics with a black hole. Claiming the entire mass simply disappears for all other observers is also impossible.
Black holes don't exist. They are needed to explain X-ray point sources. Cosmologists ignore the work of plasma physicists, like Winston Bostwick who discovered the plasmoid in the 1950's. A plasmoid can be the source of synchrotron radiation to X-ray energies.
The torus imaged at the center of the M87 galaxy was a plasmoid, not a black hole as claimed.
A black hole having an accretion disk is an impossible combination to achieve thermal radiation to the energy of X-rays. The number of dimensions being used by any observer is irrelevant to the impossible black hole.
When string theorists need many dimensions to measure expected behaviors, then the universe never has these dimensions. The universe cannot somehow take possession of someone's definition of how they wish to measure something.
The universe remains unaffected by our current coordinate system's definition which we require for our measurements.
By agreeing on a coordinate system, we can share our measurements to confirm repeatability among others. The universe and the stuff in it remains unaffected by our selections of dimensions.
There is NO correct number of dimensions. However, to share our measurements we must agree on the definition of whatever number and configuration of them are being used at the time.
They can be the same the same way matter and energy are the same.
J. Richard Gott doesn't understand it.
For all the things in the Universe, one of the 4 dimensions is always zero. Time is forever "now". Which of the 4 dimensions is zero, that is, which one is time, depends on the relative rotation of the different frames of reference.
Likewise, the photon also has 3 non-zero and 1 zero-value dimensions. But its frame of reference is rotated in relation to ours, so that 1 of our spatial dimensions is its time-dimension, that is, zero-value. So, we think that time stopped for the photon.
But it didn't. The photon does not see everything all at once from the Big Bang to the End of Time. It does experience the passage of time, through events like redshift, refraction, etc., in its spatial dimensions - just like we do.
Thus, each of its "now" moments is as distinct as ours - but through the other 3 dimensions that don't line up with ours.
Either you need to move or just the time capsule 💊 to time travel, Universe allows the Capsulated time travel very much. Another way is create immense gravity to slower the time & then escape from it when needed. 😊
Thats like saying water and rocks are the same thing in making a stream
Speed of light is constant. But space/time is relative.
ok I can Visualize why when some one leaves earth at near the speed of light and comes back I'll only aged a year while they have aged much much more.. this assumes some local .. lowest speed possible.. i say this because i don't recall reading or watching any one ow to halt time as we perceive it .. technically if i'm traveling in a ship at the speed of light, time stops.. so as soon as the speed of light is reached .. perceptually I will instantly arrive at my destinations... NO need to worry about deep sleep or dyeing before we reach it. ok .. but why is it that i can't halt my motion relative to any thing i can only increase it?... So if i'm standing still and you fly off at the speed of light .. your traveling threw space but not threw time... While trying to find out how old i would be upon your return i found this .. which is the exact thought process i was having "the rub is in trying to get the twins back together at the same place and the same time so they can compare their ages. That's the 'return' in your question. This will necessarily require a change in velocity -- hence an acceleration. But an accelerating frame is not an inertial frame. Thus, without knowing the details of how we bring the twins together, there really is no way to say for sure who will be older -- but in most cases it will be the travelling twin." again you fly off time stops for you but not for me .. now i've traveled threw time and have +n distance in time ahead of you.... you now travel to the place you left less then a second ago.. what would you find .. not me.. I'm at a different space time coordinate .. or would you ?? if you left at the sped of light you could travel any were ytouy wanted and return adn i'd be in the same vector space .. i would not have aged .. .. ok some one bail me out here..
what are you even talking about lol?
@@alexanderabrashev1366 ruclips.net/video/rD_F5OdWxZA/видео.html
In electrotechnic , time (or frequency) is treated as an imaginary number : s = iw
Spacetime is a four-vector of real numbers with a negative sign for time. [x,y,z,-t]
Minkovsky space is a four-vector of real numbers for the spacial coordinates , and an imaginary number for the time coordinate [x,y,x,it].
Why does imaginary time play such an important role , is it more than a convenient mathematical tool ?
Typical Closer To Truth comment section:
*New* *Age* *Guy* : "The universe is the awakening of cosmic consciousness 🙏"
*The Hindu* : "All was said already in Bhagavad Gita thousand years ago."
*The Physics Kook* : "Einstein's equations are a scam. I can prove them wrong but Big Science won't publish my work."
*The Creationist* : "This hars all lies from the pit of hell from sinners aferred of judgement by Jesus."
*The Broadly Crazy Person* : "Space Time is the Time of Space! All Things are actually on Mars! Mars is the Warehouse of The Universe!"
*Person* *That* *Thinks* *This* *Is* *Just* *Roberts* *Personal* *RUclips* *Channel* *And* *Has* *No* *Clue* *That* *Most* *Of* *These* *Videos* *Are* *Well* *Over* *10* *Years* *Old* *From* *A* *TV* *Show* *Over* *20* *Years* *Old* : "Another great video Robert! Keep at it! Trust me, you WILL be noticed! Today you may just be an obscure RUclipsr, but in a few years? Fame!!! Can we be Facebook friends?"
Lol, accurate. This video is nonsense though
Motion is first
future time and past space? space is past time?
Space is the most subtler entity of the visible physical realm and the only one that is infinite by nature. Time is subtler even than the space, though invisible by nature. As per my understanding about the nature of the universal existence, it is the infinite nature of the space that may act as a bridge between the space and the time and one may assume these two to be the same thing. Otherwise time is existentially more fundamental as compare to space. In order to understand the nature of ultimate existential reality, one will have to shift on to subjective awareness or consciousness, because it is only the subjective consciousness that is more subtler and existential as compare to time. And the science may never prefer to shift on to the subjective consciousness and awareness.
If you liked this, try "Science and Sanity".
It looks like a movie because the human brain is too slow to absorb it all at once.
When you sleep and dream you are actually everyone and everything inside of your dream however you still experience the dream through your own eyes and not the eyes of the other you making reality a first person view and a experience.
Very true.
All I got from this video is how much he sounds like David Schwimmer ,seriously, close your eyes and listen...
Who is that?
Time existed before the Big Bang ;; it’s just that we don’t understand it . Something was happening before the Big Bang and we have no way of discovering what it was . Everything needs a medium to travel through , so if the Big Bang is real , what medium did the universe travel through in order to expand .???
Dear Dr. Gott!
Can energy exist without matter and of course without space and time? Energy exists forever, it can’t be created and can’t disappear. Does it mean that energy exists forever together with matter, space and time? Does it mean that energy, matter, space and time is one thing which created everything - The God himself? Besides nobody knows what is Energy, Space and Time. In reality everything is significantly more complicated, I just didn’t want to write a scientific article here. Please answer me Dr. Gott. Thank you!
Dr. Agre.
That’s what I thought!
Time only goes one way
As simple as possible, but yet, NOT Simple.
Brilliantly Entropic
You obviously don't know what entropy means.
@@b.g.5869 lol, does anyone? Something about the order or chaos in a system. I think time maybe in there too.
Lol couldn’t exactly remember
I was going for Brilliantly “”Chaotic””
Yeah, I thinking I butchered that one
Surely the man to ask about this subject is Dr Who.
If anyone has the answers about spacetime it must be him.
Space and time are not the same thing. Relativity just represents 3 dimensions of position, and 1 dimension of time, similarly, all using orthogonal lines. Also, neither space nor time has any substance to affect anything, so a curvature of spacetime can not possibly physically affect anything, making relativity theory physically illogical. I have 8 RUclips videos advertising my unifying physics theory, matter theory. Search keywords: matter theory marostica.
If you don't shave or shower and talk about this on the subway, they may ask you to leave or give you spare change.
Not much different. It’s crazy bs the same as some dude on the street rambling
Never
🆙