Lee Smolin | Temporal naturalism
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 31 июл 2024
- Lee Smolin is an American theoretical physicist, a faculty member at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics and an adjunct professor of physics at the University of Waterloo. In this talk, he argues for temporal naturalism, which holds that 'time, in the sense of the succession of present moments, is real and that laws of nature evolve in that time.' His paper on temporal naturalism can be found at arxiv.org/pdf/1310.8539.pdf.
Sign up to our mailing list if you would like to be notified about future events: eepurl.com/hrHdCb
Information about the Oxford Karl Popper Society can be found at the following websites.
Facebook: / oxfkarlpoppersoc
Twitter: / oxfordpopper
Patreon: / karlpopperoxf 
Кино
He is such a great communicator, He has got it
It explains the static and dynamic as well and tames the infinities
Temporal Naturalism could change the basic assumptions of physics and astronomy. If time is fundamental then space becomes emergent. Space-time behavior then follows a gradient defined by the density of matter per unit volume. The speed of light would be determined by that density. One, two and three physical dimensions become emergent behavior defined by tipping points. The space-time gradient would determine the vacuum energy. A very interesting proposal.
I really admire and appreciate that Dr Smolin and his colleagues are thinking differently. It's exciting to hear unique theories after decades of nothing but String Theory.
I think fundamental physics education needs an overhaul as well. It seems as though students are being taught to think exactly as the preceding generation and thus we're fumbling on the same problems and falling into the exact same traps.
True. Fundamental nature of reality is all about how the material world can simulate intelligent conscious observer, collapsing the quantum fields into particles of the standard model. In the TAO of Physics, the author tries to solve this problem, claiming eastern mystics solved it, but I think the degree of success is debatable and to some extent uncertain. The answer I think can only be achieved by brute force, Intelligent Design. There can be a number of circumstantial evidence, but I will provide just one quote from Penrose, that convinces me (I don't know about others): Mathematics is based on faith.
@sprock Like our consciousness is simulated by the participation of matter and particles, cosmic consciousness similarly is a simulation of all the material/particles/fields etc., making the whole universe.
@@sonarbangla8711 I completely disagree. Mathematics is the opposite of faith
@@mitchellhayman381 What you say is meaningless, 'mathematics is opposite of faith' is meaningless. Like Penrose, if you have to believe in 'faith', you will have a deep understanding of mathematics and you may be lucky to see 'intelligent design' of life and consciousness and 'soul' ( due to coherent QM).
Nice quote from Heisenberg. I suspect we will find the maturation of the ER=EPR conjecture to reveal something along the lines Heisenberg may have been alluding to (perhaps without knowing it fully himself). If we have non-trivial topology (wormholes, the "ER" in "ER=EPR) then the future can causally effect the present and past, but only on the Planck scale (or the "ER" scale) and combined with the fact the thermodynamic arrow of time only gives us solid knowledge of the past, this gives you the basic reason it is our future that requires a wave function description, it's basically the epistemic-Psi interpretation. It's not that a wave function would not be needed to describe backwards time evolution, it would, but rather that we don't need it because we have a record already of most past measurement results, so the backwards directed wave-function works but doesn't give us much of use we do not already know (that's of any use --- sure I admit figuring out amplitudes for who committed crimes etc., might be useful, but I'm just talking basic physics lab experiments here).
Thanks. I lov Smolin.
This is really fascinating, though it does lead you to conclude, that we have literally no idea where space and time come from.
In terms of vector Matric Mechanics you can think of it in terms of Inner product Dot product wedge products. Planck Length “Graham scan” The Non Locality is from the projection from the vertex in SU2 Translating locally to points etc.. It can’t be seen cuz all the edges and seems are dicreetized by “Dehn -Operation” >… sorta thing
Sir, there is a question i want to ask.could u simulate a proton and antiproton moving in a flat space time over a very long distance? I feel like thing might move little different.since they are different in symmetry and if there was no matter and anti matter and matter falling towards a blackhole with same intial condition.
they would cancel each other?
With our language including math being so tuned for approximation in our study of the creation and how to convey it im not surprised something so paradoxical working within probability is difficult ..
That said we have strayed from these goals.
The movement of Digging back up old dualism and reversing well established phylosphy that had done a great job unifying the ancient dualism that held the greeks back. Was a mistake !
Our representation of time is falss. Nothing exciting happens in gradualism. Its safe for us but all the amazement happens in extreme critical states .
Yes ! Universe and the Quantum can be SEEn . There is an “Other” to the observable, But the observable is part of it
If we only use time as realty description we are rather loose the elements of representation of reality known as space and time .Unless we don't have a dynamics of continue representation as time first and space as emerging from time.
Time is naturally a single infinitesimal. There is only the present.
Charge is rotation into and out of that infinitesimal (Planck moment) present.
Because of gravity/thixotropy the manifold is cardioid. The infall to most dense region (event horizon) maps onto periphery (deep voids) where it re-emerges in concentrate (neutron) which then tangentializes and manifests its field of influence (proton+electron=hydrogen) only to slowly fall until repackaged again in future.
Eternally. Neutron decay cosmology.
No where becomes now here by movement of a space. Sounds like teleportation.
Physical reality is dual in nature. Energy/momentum, symmetry/anti-symmetry, definite-indefinite, past and future etc., implies benevolence/malevolence. atheists and believers, day and night.
It depends on your model.
@@tensevo Which model do you prefer?
I have no problem with the ideas of evolution, with random mutations thrown in, but you still end up asking, out of what? from what? into what?
@sprock the oness is on the determinist, to prove biological systems, sentient beings, part of the universe, are fully deterministic. Currently, there is no proof, so it's just a conjecture.
Time is the rate at wich things happen and this is governed by gravity.
Our universe is a ball of spacetime and that spacetime has/is mass.
Turbulence in spacetime leads to variance in density and stress.
When spacetime exceeds 0K it relieves stress as EM.
Everything quantum is a consequence and nothing to do time (or mass
or gravity).
Our mental skills in dreaming mislead us about the nature of time.
The laws of QM are the script which the actors follow, spacetime
is the theatre. There is nothing 'real' about QM, it is fleeting
and ephemeral, reality is spacetime. The actors do not affect the stage
and so quantum gravity is a nonsense.
The best thing to do with QM when discussing time (or mass or gravity)
is to ignore it.
The arrow of time exists because we do not have anti-mass or
anti-gravity in our universe, hence entropy.
The planets, the stars, the galaxies, life, light, electrons, are
all just consequences of the energy within spacetime, vacuum energy.
There is only now, the past is gone and the future has not been
defined yet, chaos and uncertainty make the future problematic.
Our universe is simple, it is just an expanding fabric under
stress as seen in the cosmic web and CMB.
Just some thoughts.
I somewhat agree, but saying "Our universe is a ball of spacetime", encourages the question, within what? a ball within what?
Surely it only appears as a ball, with us at the centre, because that is all we can see.
Also, saying that "Time is the rate at which things happen and this is governed by gravity." seems a bit insufficient.
My view is that time is the thing we perceive, as the undetermined becomes determined, perhaps this process is distorted by mass.
@@tensevo 'Within what' is a critical question. I think that the laws of physics will prevent us from ever getting a definitivs answer to that one. I think that the universe has a centre but we will never be able to locate it because it will 'look' like everywhere else. We already know that gravity governs the rate of time, we measure it, calculate it and use it in or technology with some accuracy. Our rate of time changes as the gravity working upon our bodies changes, altitude, proximity to massive objects, travel, the position of the moon all modify it. What we don't have is an understanding of gravity in terms of quantum mechanics, and that's because there isn't one, particles and radiation are affected by time and not the other way around. To understand our rate of time completely we need to account for all of the gravity acting upon us. Start with the Earth and Moon, add the solar system, then the Milky Way, then the Andromeda galaxy, then.......everything that adds to our weight, the entire universe.
@@tensevo If you were to total up all of the gravity that is propelling you through the universe, I wonder what your true mass would be ? As it is impossible to escape a positive gravitational influence anywhere in our universe, it is impossible to have a negative rate of time.
@@AmbivalentInfluence
I am not entirely sure I follow your statements:
1. gravity governs the rate of time,
2. particles and radiation are affected by time and not the other way around.
You can tie yourself in knots with causal relationship assumptions.
What if mass governs gravity, which distorts our perception of time, like lensing of light, but, time itself is not governed by gravity, it is independent of gravity, just affected by it, from our view point.
@@tensevo Yes, mass governs gravity which then governs time. A gravity map is a time-dilation map, is a vacuum density map, The more mass the Andromeda galaxy has the greater its gravitational influence on us....and on our rate of time. Our rate of time varies with the tides due to the pull of the moon. I am talking about reality, mass gravity and time, peoples perceptions are irrelevant. Reality does not care whether we perceive it or not, it existed long before perception and will long outlast it. We need an understanding of time to allow us to plan and strategise but that understanding is not an instrument and does not need to be/can be. I had to think about your statement about independence (thank you for that, a special gift). Time can not be independent because without mass nothing happens, there are no things, there is nothing....a true void.
This doesn't pass the smell test. It's not a stupid idea to heed Einstein and look for foundations for physics which are simple but no simpler than necessary. Using non-trivial spacetime topology one can recover most of quantum mechanics, so there's little need for all this causal set and "becoming" nonsense, it's adding complexity that's not needed. I guess Hossenfelder would puke on my invoking Einstein, but I'd just slap her instrumentalist face, because too many of the great discoveries have been made from considerations of parsimony and elegance, you can't just be an instrumentalist and make paradigm changing types of progress.... I guess you can try I suppose, but tell me when an instrumentalist has ever made a great breakthrough?