"Time is an illusion lunchtime doubly so" - As Douglas Adams once wrote and after undertaking serious research into lunchtimes I can confirm this to be an accurate observation.😀😀😀
Never enough time for lunch, especially on Thursdays. "I never could get the hang of Thursdays." My current hypothesis regarding Thursdays is that people who work Monday through Friday tend to get a bit run down by Thursday and haven't yet mustered the excitement for the upcoming weekend that kicks in on Friday.
I reconcile free will with determinism in the following way: I define myself as the person who will respond to every choice in a particular way. My collective response to all of the infinite possible choices of reality is what differentiates me from every other person. If I ever make a different choice, I've either changed as a person or something external is influencing me. Free will is deterministic.
Time can be explained as a process of energy exchange formed by photon electron interactions. We have photon ∆E=hf electron couplings continuously transforming potential energy into the kinetic Eₖ=½mv² energy of matter, in the form of electrons as an uncertainty ∆×∆pᵪ≥h/4π probabilistic future comes into existence. All it takes for this to be logical is for the spontaneous absorption and emission of light waves to precedes absolutely everything that happens in our three-dimensional world.
I'm a former calibration tech in the Marines and later for Lockheed, and mainly worked in the RF/Microwave labs, often calibrating frequency standards (rubidium, XCO, etc). A fairly used term in that area is "time and frequency", which does make sense for the applications. I often joked about the "time" part. Knowing that the term "time" we use in our normal lives is in our heads, and the universe doesn't care about it..
@@fractalrenko3149 I really wanna join the cult you have joined. Your moral certainty, not at all humble moral purity is simply amazing and astounding. 🤡🌍
@@fractalrenko3149actually he said he calibrated frequency standards. Stuff that allows your phone system, internet, power grid to function. It allows many other things you depend on and are willfully unaware.
I'd hardly call this content > top quality. She promotes an unproven idea that there is no free will as if it is true. All too often she talks about no time, such as particles don't experience time. Yet all time is, is change. Sorry I just see a lot of garbage lately.
@@VicMikesvideodiary she explained her position on free will not being true. Maybe you should pay attention instead of insulting people far more intelligent, aware and observant than you?
@@reelrebellion7486 Ford says it to Arthur in the pub before they leave the Earth to be demolished What I find amusing in that scene is they order 6 pints, give the barman £5 and he's pleased with the tip - that's 1971 for you :)
In my humble opinion, time is simply one of the metrics (others being distance in three dimensions) by which we measure change. It is change that is real not the metrics we use to measure it.
See this is what I always thought. I always thought that "time" was just particles/forces interacting in space. We just measure the change. I asked Chatgpt about this and it went into a ling explanation that I am wrong and that time is completely dependent of all that. I forget exactly what it said, but it was something along the lines of spacetime being it's ownthing. Idk what to believe. I always considered time an illusion because it made sense to me, I figured all time was was me saying, "hey at one moment particle was here, now at another moment particle is there!" That made sense to me as to why time would be "relative" with space/gravity. But I think I am probably totally wrong. At least that's what Chatgpt thinks. It thinks spacetime is it's own thing completely dependent from anything in the universe I think. I have never understood time and probably never will, and that's just something I might have to accept. Because then people talk about freewill, different universes, 4th dimension being time. I get lost. I understand the idea that if there is "randomness" to the universe then it is possible that there are different timelines. Universes where an electron was in one position vs universes where the electron was in a different position causing a cascade of different events. That sounds intuitive to me. I understand not having freewill because I am just an bundle of particles that all followed a long chain reaction from the big bang, therefore I can't have freewill. No more than a wave or a tornado can have freewill. What I struggle with is the passage of time. Like why time is relative, the idea of the fabric of spacetime. Stuff like that begins to cause problems.
@@hhjhj393 Time is relative because the speed of light/causality is absolute. So if you push an object in one direction the particles of that object will increase their velocity in one direction while slowing down in other directions. For example, during one second, the tip of the hand of a clock will move the same distance through space whether it whizzes by you at close to the speed of light or if it was right next to you. But the clock next to you will show 1 second passed, while the close to lightspeed clock will barely move around the clock even though the same distance was covered.
The Frazer Spiral does have spirals in it. There are multiple spirals defined by different apparent lines. There is only one apparent circle which itself is an illusion. The circle, defined by the average centerline of the black objects is as much an illusion as are the spirals.
Nooooope! Take your finger and follow around the rings. It's just your brain unable to process all that concentrated info from your eyes at once babey :) The crossing pattern on the background mixed with what appears to be two different colours twisting around toward the center creates the illusion of a constant spiral. Until you trace it :) If youve ever studied psilocybin and observed the effect of those specific serotonin receptors that tell the brain to process more information but there isnt any additional information its just the command being activated to take it in, that's what causes your vision to "trip" and you would know 100% this is the exact same thing happening inversely.
"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" "If a process took place over a period of 5 seconds and there was no clock to measure it, did it really take 5 seconds?" 3:22 "No one can measure a time coordinate" But this saying means nothing... I can say this about momentum as well for example, "No one can just measure the value of momentum of some object" that's something you must do it in relation to something else. Momentum is relative. And the same thing goes for energy, position, etc... Time is a very simple thing, also at the quantum level. It is just another axis of "spacetime", just as much as left, up and forward are. And these axes really, are merely *degrees of freedom* that a single value has, a value which we call "four-position". And this value, is nothing but something for which every quantum field defines a value. The standard model is based on that fact alone, fields interact between themselves based on the values they define for the same four-position - that's it. If you decide that defining something like "time" is crucial, then go ahead and define "space", "energy", "momentum", and why stop there if you can go as far as defining "existence". We *use* clocks to measure time. It is because they are convenient, they provide a measurable, stable and reliable notion of time, yet, saying that they are necessary for time to exist is like saying that "weights are necessary for gravity to exist". By that, for the same reason we don't need "quantum rulers to have a notion of distance at the quantum level" we don't need "quantum clocks to have a notion of time at the quantum level". If anything the main point in this video belongs to philosophy, not physics. This claim very much feels to me like answering "no" to the question "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" (If a process took place over a period of 5 seconds and there was no clock to measure it, did it really take 5 seconds?)
Mass curves 4-dimentional spacetime -- 3 spacial and 1 time. This curvature causes an acceleration. On Earth this acceleration is 32-feet per second per second. This curvature also causes time dilation (aka gravitational time dilation.)
"What then is time? If no one asks me, I know what it is. If I wish to explain it to him who asks, I do not know." St Augustine. Yes, a very old question
time doesn't exist, only present exist! if you could travel back in time then you should also been able to travel in future too, but that's not possible!
@@Ezekiel903 you can travel into the future with speed or with mass. If you travel close to speed of light or a close orbit to a very massive object, your time will run slower in relation to the rest of us. Time-travel is possible!
@@BenjaminBjornsen yes, but for the crew inside or fot the other nothing changes, the crew travel at that speed doesn't get younger! for both it's always the present, they do not live longer!
As time is an illusion, I should be able to go back and answer the question "do you think my sister is attractive" differently. Yep, no luck there. I'm still in Schrodinger's dog house.
@@armandaneshjoo You don't have to see it, for it to be an illusion. There are auditory illusions, among others. And can you see "air?" If it's an illusion, you would have difficulty in breathing.
There are 5 levels or aspects of time . 1) Mechanical 2) Universal 3) Atomic 4) Biological 5) Pyschological 6) Quantum.... All are effected by gravity and velocity .
I would not call time an illusion but a derived construct. It is based on periodic motion, such as the rotation of Earth, and precisely calibrated. As such, time is useful for the synchronization of events.
Exactly. We live on a planet that rotates on its axis and rotates around our sun, therefore the most useful construct of time for us is based on those two periodic movements. Later, we decided we could be more precise by using an atomic oscillation (or is it regular ejection?), but we're still using the old macro (planetary) movements for scheduling purposes.
The second is a derived construct, which has been created by humanity. Water is a derived construct, created by chemistry from hydrogen and oxygen. The structured time that we experience at one level is a derived construct produced by our brain, and at another level is a fundamental aspect of the macro-scale universe that our brain produced _our experience of time_ in response to. That structured time, and time on the quantum scale, might or might not be constructs, but it's not based on things like periodic rotations of the Earth, as the periodic rotations are _a consequence of_ time rather than a cause of time.
@@kbjerke Adams, Douglas Adams the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy are definite recommended read, I think up to 3 or 4 in the series. The hollywood movie was an abomination.
Of course, time is an illusion, Proper time, as we perceive it, is an emergent property that arises from the underlying interactions of fundamental processes, giving the illusion of a continuous flow resulting from the movement and transformation of information.
@@yeroca Yes, 1: with reanalyzing the Muon g-2 experiment data and 2: Investigating the one-way speed of light could confirm novel predictions that differ from the classical Einsteinian view of time.
You are confusing different concepts of time, there are many. Psychological passage of time is real, non-illusory, but if you think it is the same as absolute time, or clock time, or any of the other concepts of time, then that is the illusion.
@@armandaneshjoo No. There are all sorts of illusions, not all visual. What you probably mean is "perceptual". But then time is non-illusory. We perceive a certain type of time, psychologically, but it is not the same as other notions of time that can be well-defined. If they are well-defined they are also non-illusory. The "illusion of time" is not an illusion, it is a banal confusion of two (or more) different concepts of time. Like, say, the illusion that whales (mammals) are fish (osteichthyes class).
Time is a perception to make sense of the universe some think life is real not so you are not alive its a program just like everything humans don,t want to accept that otherwise their life has no meaning the fact is everything is connected and you are part of story
wondorful talk, Sabine. I remember as a 15 year old asking myself the same question: i was in a plane flying through a thick cloud bank, so there was no feeling of any change . I came the conclusion that time is a relation between different 'things'. Why didnt I become a physicist ( I was quite good at maths)? It was because I never could ( & still cant ) visualize something as basic as 'voltage'.
Sabine is brilliant, indeed. But I also love the way she is so upfront about the facts and doesn't expect her way her viewers to be stupid, such an unique personality.
@@VicMikesvideodiaryI complimented one of the most sincere and intelligent living science communicators for having a straightforward approach to facts and being funny, and, here you are, still watching her and acting like a frustrated dork. But it's all right, since it's probably just the sums of your brain chemistry interactions... like, one couldn't blame another for being stupid.
@@VicMikesvideodiary and just so I don't sound too vague as to give you too much room for debate, she never even once said it was a fact... but if you take all of the argumentation into account and add it up to your OWN scientific conclusions and it makes sense, its nobody else's problem but yours! We're not in a position to choose the most correct theories, it's like the Greek people used to do... you give your opinion, I give mine, and then we think about it and nothing should be labeled as dumb. Except for string theory, gravitons and other kinds of mental diarrhoea.
I went on a date with a young lady once and explained all this to her. She must have had a very different opinion because I never heard from her again.
It's like the Sappir-Whorf hypothesis in Linguistics/Philosophy of the Mind. Every couple of years someone comes out of nowhere saying that EVERYTHING from our thoughts to the very nature of reality is defined by language - the least they say langage gives it structure, the most they say langage creates it. And, of course, they always imagine themselves to be so very original: the first human being to ever have concocted such ideas. Usually is something like: "The Ancient Greeks couldn't see the colour blue cos they didn't have a word for it". Sooo frustrating...
It's when Nature punches you in the face and you don't get the message, because you didn't speak the language? If you only go by what people tell you, you are not Curious enough for life. Go out, and experiment, find FACTS you can verify by repetition, or conscious change of Parameters.
Don't be too frustrated, the symbols of calculus weren't coined in those days and now you can philosophise over their meaning (but probably not whilst you are autonomously driving).
"The Ancient Greeks" no longer exist. What "remains" of them is memories / thoughts wholly contingent on synapses of our mind/s, as expressed in language/s and/or books. As real as we think them to have been, they are now virtual.
I'm very much an armchair physics enthusiast, and my best understanding of time at present is that the passage of time we experience is 100% the interactions. If we assume that all forces or perturbations in fields propagate at the same rate (disregarding for now what "rate" means in a discussion about the nature of time) and we call that the speed of causality or the speed of light, anything traveling at the speed of light can only travel at that rate while it is not interacting with anything else (45deg diagonal on a Penrose diagram) or with all its motion oriented in a spatial direction. This would mean that a wave in a field does not experience any time, including the electromagnetic waves that we call light. No interactions, no subjective time. If we imagined being decomposed into a beam of light sent across space and somehow recomposed into something approximating who we were before the journey, we could reasonably claim that the journey took zero time from our perspective. Anything that appears to have a more vertical direction on a Penrose diagram does so because of a huge number of interactions between its constituent parts. Effectively, all the 45 degree lines on the Penrose diagram are colliding with one another repeatedly, and those interactions are viewed as moving through time. My understanding is probably still quite lacking, and this doesn't say anything meaningful about the direction of the arrow of time, which probably something something entropy. Maybe?
I said a long time ago something along the lines of: time is a concept describing the effect of interactions of higher dimensions with our dimension, ie 4D space with our percieved 3D space or something like that.
Time is a useful interpretation of geometry and Free Will is a useful interpretation of causality. No problem with doing useful instead of fundamental. 😉
True LenSklogW. But also no problem in thinking some useful concepts _are_ fundamental. What is the ultimate source of spacetime "geometry" or "free will/causality"? Science probably can never know, but whatever It is it'd be pretty darn fundamental.
The problem is when we try to overload the same words to talk about the useful interpretations of the world and the fundamental ones. I find the phrase "we have no free will" to be pointless. Normal people have a notion of what "free will" is for a human conversation. The idea that everything is just physics unfolding is probably true but to use that to say "there is no free will" is just a confusing attempt to hijack the already existing understanding of free will to get attention.
Sometimes they'll say time is emergent instead of an illusion. Time passage is only measurable by causal effect. if you have an empty box with absolutely nothing inside of it, there's no way to experimentally prove that time had passed for the space inside.
That is what bothered me about this. All observation is the measurement of relationships between objects. That we can only measure time using relationships does not entail time is equivalent to relationships. It could be the case, or it could be something else.
How do you measure distance? You need a standard ruler. The most appropriate ruler is using a constant like the speed of light in a vacuum to mark distances. But that involves the passage of time: "How far does a photon travel in 1 second?". Spatial distance is no more solid than temporal distance and we know they are not distinct anyway: it is spacetime, not space+time.
@@ianstopher9111 you can choose an arbitrary distance to start with and then make that the benchmark. Take a metronome (or any regularly oscillating device), send a beam of light into a mirror and back, and count the number of ticks. X wavelength in a vacuum will travel Y (distance), which is equivalent to Z clicks (time). And then you can build from there. Then you can label the distance whatever you want, and you can label the time anything you want. But since you know they are equivalent, you now have a new system to measure distance.
Perhaps, without matter, time has no real effect that we can measure. But if you made your box out of uranium, you would still be able to read the decay of the walls with a detector you placed in the box...
Time has to be something physical and fundamental time symmetry can be broken during radioactive decay. Meaning time is real and has a direction. or CPT symmetry wouldn't be real.
The past doesn’t exist, it is just memories in your head. The future doesn’t exist it is just figments of your imagination in your head. The only thing that actually exists is this single moment that is present. This insight has helped me a lot.
@@stephencarlsbad probability versus truth. You can’t prove probability until you’re there and then it becomes the past. So everything reinvents itself every nanosecond until it doesn’t?
@@BuhehtThehub Why do you set probability opposite of truth. That makes no reasonable sense since the two concepts are not mutually exclusive and therefore don't beg an oppositional argumentative analysis.
Time has always been a real mind blower for me, without time nothing can happen and if nothing happens how can you have time. So for me I had to settle with accepting that time is a byproduct of things happening.
That's right. Change is happening and this can be used as reference to other changes. My bank account balance generally increases so you may say time makes this happen. Time has nothing to do with it. It's my employer paying my salary because I do work for them out of my free will.
It is a bit of a catch 22 problem. Humans need a concept of time (past - present - future). The universe may only need the now so the universe may have no fundamental concept of time. But photons carry the information of the past across the now moment, so the universe has a kind of record of the past as information. Such a difficult topic :)
@@AndrewWutke But your generally increasing bank balance (lucky man!) and the work you get paid for do not happen simultaneously. Thus time is involved.
I would say time IS the unfolding of events, that is, motion. More precisely, the measurement of this motion. The ultimate measurement clock is a speed of light comparison within the frame of the event. If you could travel at the speed of light, there would be no difference in the comparison, and there would be no time. Time slows in your frame of motion as your speed, in comparison to that of light, increases.
When I get sentenced for my crimes next week, I'm going to remind the judge that time is just an illusion and I'm quite certain that he'll grant me "time served". To be honest, I've always been an "Eternalism" type of guy, even before I knew what it was. Time is a place, we visit it and then we move on to another place (femtosecond #2 perhaps).
When you remind the judge that free will is also an illusion he will realize the futility of convicting you in the first place, not that he really has a choice in the matter! But slightly more seriously, why do we have the illusion of free will over how we move in space, whilst being completely convinced of determinism regarding time?
Was a bit surprised there was no mention of how the Wheeler-deWitt equation of canonical quantum gravity does not include time. Wd be interested in your views about whether this means we really must view time as an illusion, or whether the WdW equation is not as fundamental as we believe.
I didn't see a good reason to bring this up. It's a consequence of forcing the symmetries of GR onto the quantum formalism. Ie, it's a consequence of exactly the problem I am talking about.
Wheeler-deWitt does include time. The functional ψ in, Hψ=0 is a functional defined over all of *spacetime.* What most low brow folks mean when referring to Wheeler-De Witt is that there is no explicit time evolution, since to solve the equation of constraint you have to know the entire universe configuration past and future. It is not physics, it's metaphysics.
Time can be explained as a process of energy exchange formed by photon electron interactions. We have photon ∆E=hf electron couplings continuously transforming potential energy into the kinetic Eₖ=½mv² energy of matter, in the form of electrons as an uncertainty ∆×∆pᵪ≥h/4π probabilistic future comes into existence. All it takes for this to be logical is for the spontaneous absorption and emission of light waves to precedes absolutely everything that happens in our three-dimensional world.
We use time to measure the separation of events, and distance to measure the separation of locations. As you say, we set time intervals according to some regularly repeating event and we set distances according to some usefully sized pre-existing separation. I don't see the difference between these two things, but nobody says space is an illusion. Or distance. I think part of the problem is terminology. We don't say that we measure space with space. But we do say we measure time with time, and those two instances don't mean quite the same thing.
Said "Only in light-like frames is time an illusion. But all observations and measurements are made in time-like frames, where proper time is inevitable and space is an illusion to be converted into time as a choice of motion state. Conclusion: ontologically, spatiality is an illusion, not time, which is a very real thing." - But what is the difference between time separation or space separation? Is it just that physical process manifesting as a proper time?
Well, the implication at least is that time is more fundamental than space. Which might be the truth, or might indicate that we're leaving out necessary calculations. Personally, I'd bet more on time being more fundamental than space than the other way around, since I can conceive of how to construct space (and space-time) out of not-really-space particles, but I can't conceive of _how_ to get the ability to even just observe what we _think of_ as time without something similar to time _already_ existing.
@@absalomdraconis There are two different physicalities: the 4-dimensional separation continuum (said spacetime) and the proper time of structures. In the separation continuum you can see the time only according to the choice of coordinates.
Time is not a real thing! It is a construct. A very helpful instrument and a measurement. But there is no particle, no line, no flow. What we perceive as passage of time is just the observation of motion in the world. An hour or a day or a year is not a real thing. Its just a repetitive circular motion that we observe. But no time.
Agreed that it's not a thing/phenomenon with substance, and that it's a construct in the same way that height and width etc are, though the qualities and quantities we use them to measure are real; in the case of time the measuring is of the flow/sequence of events/actions we witness/experience from our position on the wave of the present, extendable both backwards and forwards to help us make some kind of (contestable) sense of was, is and will be.
The world really does change from moment to moment. We can have one moment followed by another moment where things have moved. You have one snapshot and then another AFTER the first. After denotes time. It is unreal in that it is noted in the human mind, it is intangible, its name and division is arbitrary; but change can only happen during the passage of time, so it must be real as things change.
@@ochjim "..though the qualities and quantities we use them to measure are real". ooh, that's a great phrasing. I completely agree. Likewise, it's also just easier for me to say "chair" than describing the position of every particle in it to others. I honestly don't know why (not only) physicists sensationalize time or even make it metaphysics. Imagine we would see similar discussion about colour or temperature: "They say temperature isn't real but is just particles bumping into each other. But when I look at my thermometer it obviously says 30°C. So 1 celcius must be fundamental. Ooh, mysterious." 😅
Yes. that is the view of Aristotle and Leibniz: time= the measure of change; space is the order of co-existence..Einstein follows it (Relativity, 1950, Ap.5,not in 1916. Unfortunately, he did not interpret properly the time parameter; hence silly clock twin paradox and (I discovered today in the same book) his... wrong interpretation of MM Michelson_Morely experiment as in almost all textbooks and online Univ.lectures.
time is what we call the dimension of 'travel' a thing experiences to register change. if time is an illusion, how does physics describe this ability for things to change? the only way i would think that time is an illusion is if physics, in some dimensional representation, could be described in a static universe. and our experience of a dynamic universe is an illusion. if you can't show that reality is actually static, i don't see how you can show that time is actually an illusion.
Hi, Sabine, In a causal cosmos, FRWL there is a Geroch function of time. It can be defined as the maximal proper time to an event from a 3D foliation. If this foliation is shrunken to a big bang limit, then it can be unique, however, it is a not a coordinate of time but a scalar field because such upper limit on measurable time to each event can be measured along different curves. A coordinate of time also requires a 4-direction = unit vector in spacetime geometry. The quantization of such a Geroch function is done via a wave function, i.e. Geometric Chronons. Where the Reeb class vector of the gradient is not zero (not the usual Reeb vector) there is what we call, an electric field. A space field with symmetry SU(3) appears as a gauge field but it is not have the same role as gauge fields play in the Yang Mills action. An additional Lagrangian plane becomes a second field and behaves as an electro-weak field. The Geometric Chronon Field Theory yields matter out of spacetime where time is the only independent physical object and space is a gauge field. There is no so called, physical reality, without time. Even formal languages cannot exist without time. Thanks from Eytan and Jessica Suchard. You can contact us through re researchgate.net or through academia.edu or through Skype where the username is eytansuchard@gmail.com
Oh cool, another verse in the epic symphony, "Spacetime breaks down at the Planck scale". Very lovely. There are so many lyrical ways to sing that song! Talk about a superposition states (and at the macro level, too!).
Amazing ! In 4 very comprehensible minutes Sabine does away with myriad science communication pieces about time and free will. Wow. It's sorted. And I have free time now to acquire a hobby... oh, wait.
She's a little too confident that free will is an illusion (might as well say then, consciousness is an illusion, composite objects like people are an illusion...) - what if there is some tricky special wavefunction collapse a la Penrose involved, for example? And here's a classical philosophical rebuttal of the statement that free will is logically excluded. Consider a man that was sitting from past-eternity but then suddenly stood up. This cannot be deterministic because the prior conditions were always the same; but it cannot be probabilistic either because this scenario is just as possible (indeed, indistinguishable) if we shift it back and forth by any amount of time, so if it has a probability distribution it must be uniform in time - but there is no uniform probability distribution on the whole real line, over all possible times! Thus, it could not be deterministic or probabilistic, so it could only be an act of free will.
Hubble expansion means time is slowing to a complete stand still. What happens to time when the last two particles in the universe, fizzle out? This implies time is the product of heat energy.
@@SabineHossenfelder So, in this model, can we theoretically travel in time, in the past? Does the past still exist in this model, or it disappears totally?
@@SabineHossenfelder Our brains having electrical activity or "particles following the laws of nature" is no proof that "free will is an illusion". We are by no means slaves/robots to our brain's activity. We can control it, at least to some degree, and we can direct it, we can learn, make decisions based on our options, etc. that is enough too have free will, or at least enough of it to count. Also, morality exists, moral choices exist, and moral decisions exist. These are NOT illusions.
Sabine's sense of humor always makes me smile and sometimes laugh until there are tears in my eyes. What a delightful, articulate, and erudite educator!
Like the illusion of depth created when we compare the information of each of our eyes, comparing our perception of two locations in timespace creates the illusion of flow.
greenwich meridian mean time is the artificial time meridian…. 12:60 frequency. the piramid in egypt is the natural time meridian. 13:28. first law of time is the center of time is everywhere at once. which make the second law of time that the speed of time is instantly infinite …. time is cyclical not linear. the clock is a 2 dimensional object. true time, the now moment is vertical. space is horizontal….
The analogy highlights the idea that both pairs are deeply interconnected phenomena in their respective theories, but the nature of their relationships is distinct.
Or a cat. Or better yet, stock footage of a dog and a cat. It started slowly, but now RUclips is awash with irrelevant stock footage and images in the background. Even the most reputable science channels frequently have stock images of people in lab coats surrounded by test tubes and flasks filled with colored water. I am so tired of seeing that. Or people are talking about an airplane accident and were shown a picture of an airplane accident that happened years ago. I close my eyes and think of unicorns, sometimes that helps.
@@2ndfloorsongsthat’s a result of Google/RUclips penalizing videos that don’t fit their 5-10-15-20 model for monetizing videos. It’s much more profitable for creators to pay for *and use* stock photo licenses. Instead of making random length, but more concise, videos that don’t fit Google’s time/chapter length wants.
Relative time is based on periodic motion. The unit of time is the interval for the resolution of the measurement. It basically contains a lot of error. Absolute time is a measurement associated with quantum information. In which a unit of time is the interval, in which a chosen quantum event can occur (time-frequency synchronization).
Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so (c) Douglas Adams. Why won't we give a Noble prize to Douglas Adams? To be honest, we can describe every qualia as an illusion of our consciousness.
Serious question. Because of randomness wouldn't you get a different outcome from each iteration of a different big bang, and by extension isn't randomness the basis for what we call "free will?"
And is there really such a thing as true randomness? If the laws of cause and effect always apply (do they?) then where would randomness fit in? Free will, if real, would be about making conscious choices - choices free of non-conscious inputs such as sub-conscious predispositions etc . . . randomness, if it existed would surely be a strange source of conscious choices.
Resetting the game changes nothing as laws of nature reign supreme and therefore the result would remain predictable. Or I might be completely wrong, I don't know the ingredients of this sauce, I'm only an employee here.
@@salted6422 Resetting that far back, the Big Bang itself, might just start a new one with totally different laws of nature. The laws of nature are for this universe. And IIRC scientists did experiment with 3 particles allowing them to interact, resetting them to a previous point, and allowing them to interact again. The simulation never repeated. So it is entirely possible to get totally different outcomes when resetting universes.
Time is probably just conceptual, event A event B, the real thing is the velocity of movement/interaction, witch is affected by velocity and space curvature. Time probably doesn't indeed exists as 'something' because is nothing apart of the extremely useful concept itself. Another thing that could be purely conceptual it's space. Because the real physical thing with curvatures could be the quantum fields, being space just also a relational concept between real existing physical things.
I'm _so_ with you, on this. I think that relativity physics _suggests_ some of correlation - in terms to the how some of the equations look - but that it doesn't actually literally _prove_ anything. About the nature of either.
If there was no motion (and I mean, no motion of any kind, speed = 0 for everything), no time would pass. Only with motion, there is time. Motion takes place at a speed that is not zero, and speed is path length over time. Motion requires at least a path, hence one dimension, i.e., one-dimensional space. Thus, time only exists in connection with space, although it is only a secondary effect of motion.
I have looked closely at this as a thought/concept. (Not a physicist) Everything that is said to exist, exist in an infinite number of 'Now" singularities. Motion only occurs from one single point to the next single point in each now moment. The only pathway (geometric) is along the radius line away from (forward) from its current point location in any infinite number of undefined directions. This radius line for a particle is 1 dimensional. If we had a hypothetical concept (or universal) of time to satisfy the human concept of past it becomes a kind of pseudo 2D, but not 2D as in euclidean 3D, just 2D m/s. So, in a universe without fundamental persistent time I get a default human concept (and maybe universal) of the speed of time equals Zero (default t=0 m/s) when there is no motion. In a universe where time is fundamental and a persistent part of nature I get a default pseudo value of time as t=299792458 m/s when an object has no motion. This is my current thorn in my head over relativity and Minkowski space=time :(
@@axle.student If you take that speed (c) as an electric signal (that also travels at that speed) and make it jump forward and backward like light between two mirrors then you have an oscillation. If you count the oscillations you have a clock. You will find that with any movement of this "Clock" it will take longer for the signal to make a cycle and there fore slow down the clock (Time). If this oscillation is perpendicular to the travel direction (Like Einstein's light clock on a train) it will work. If it is parallel to the travel direction length contraction has to be taken into consideration as well. I have made calculations on it and it appear to be correct at different speeds. My concept of matter is that it is really energy in the form of an electro magnetic pulse trapped as some kind of standing wave oscillation like a light pulse trapped between two mirrors. the pulse keeps on traveling at speed c but is observed outwards as a single spot as it is so small. The feeling of solidness of such a particle (that is really an oscillation of energy at speed c) comes from that it statically and magnetically spreads out over a bigger area than the actual oscillation spot. Its influence is bigger. I have no idea about what electric and magnetic influence (fields) are and I doubt any body have.
@@leonhardtkristensen4093 I have fundamental disagreements with the concept of light mirror clocks. Time dilation alters the time duration which alters the seconds in m/s which alters the speed of light. Is time dilation 'Variable speed of light"? Using the speed of a massless particle ( photon) to test the speed of a photon is an absurd notion to me. It is like using a potentially broken clock to test if another clock is broken lol If perpendicular will work; well you already broke that principle because if you rotate it parallel it fails, and the light wave propagation cannot be perpendicular if originating from a source at velocity. But wait, a source at velocity isn't actually moving, so an object is simultaneously moving near the speed of light and and stationary (inertial frames). I think time dilation due to velocity is an exceptionally flawed and irreconcilable concept. I have only touched upon a very few issues with that concept of SR :)
time doesn't exist, neil tyson laughed at this 10 years ago when i asked him, but susskind entertained it. it's because people are embrassed that we invented it, even tho einstein said himself time doesn't exist.
There`s a song for that! >> ruclips.net/video/16xn2b2dG98/видео.html >" Et moins je dors et plus je pense Et plus je pense et moins j'oublie L'immense impasse, l'espace immense Qui s'étendent au fond de mon lit "
3:20 this is retconning, not so long ago everyone was not saying this, why is this the first time i've heard someone else say there's no way to measure?
Apologies. Its an interpolation of a set of experiences including the idea of a particle as a discrete component that can be isolated, separated and linked and not fitting the description of a point source of energy rotating with angular momentum Z in a false vacuum around a true vacuum.
0:34 its the arrangement. simple. theres patterns to everything and this pattern has a flow that tricks the mind and we follow the flow before closer inspection.
Mind. Blown. Something tells me I really shouldn't meet you in a pub or a bierstube - I think I'd run away screaming within 15 minutes or whatever that is in Quantum Physics. Incredibly interesting subject but massively over my head. Thanks for sharing Sabine! 🙂
I used to use 6 space dimensions without a time axis to run a few of my past simulations. At the very end they are transformed back to the phenomenologicall measurable 4 coordinate-system. Makes some calculations easier...
I think there is a difference between the rate at which things change (call it delta-T), and the point or coordinate in time that contains the "slice" of 3D space from the "fabric" (or aether) of 4D spacetime (ST) that Einstein's General Relativity (GR) equations refer to, and that is where the Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity (SR) fails, because SR considers only flat ST and doesn't take the effect of the object's mass moving through ST as delta-T is measured.
The issue with "Quantum Gravity" is that it assumes relativity and QM are true accounts of the data, whereas what we are more likely to find is that they are both WRONG and there is a third option - a new model which captures both. This may also give a new account for spacetime and motion
A logical extension of this is that time can be synchronized between entangled inertial frames which shows time is absolute and violates the Relativity of simultaneity, proving Relativity is wrong.
My dad and I have now mutually concluded that "it's always now." My rationale is that there is no "physical" past we can go to, like a physical space. The past is recorded in our minds and, nowadays, on digital storage drives. This is also why the future is impossible to predict with absolute 100% certainty, down to the very last detail - it doesn't actually exist. The only reason we conceptualize an abstract "unlikely/possible/probable" future is because we can remember the past and conceptualize it better than any other living organism on the planet. We understand cause and effect to such a degree that we can make a "reasonable guess" as to what _will_ occur in the future - but there are always variables that are not accounted for. My theory is that all of the universe exists as a "spatial block" that can be described mathematically as an incomprehensibly complex equation full of a great enough number of "well-concealed" variables that we will likely never derive the full equation. I'd like to point out, too, that when dealing with things like general relativity and hypergeometry (tesseracts, hypercubes, hyperpyramids, etc.), the former deals with *three* spatial dimensions and *one* "time dimension" (separate from space) that are inextricably linked in physics and thus both considered together in the math, whereas the latter deals with *four* spatial dimensions. Or at least that's how I understand it (I'm not a professional physicist by any means, just an amateur hobbyist who likes to study it 🙂).
Another way of looking at this, is to say that (classically) a particle cannot be in two places simultaneously. However, it can move from one position (coordinate x,y,w,t) to another (x1,y1,z1,t1). Time is then no more than another coordinate for which a particle (classically) cannot be in two places simultaneously, and thus the 'flow' of time is just the sequence of coordinates in t along a particle's path (t1,t2,t3,t4...). Oddly we perceive time differently to the other coordinates {x,y,z}, but that is no more than a perception. Okay, that's the classical world, but of course in the quantum world a particle (or at least its wave function) can be described by a superposition of at least two states until you collapse the wave function (I'm not certain, but I don't see any reason why it could not be more), so not only is position indeterminate, but also time, and hence the uncertainty as to both position and momentum. So not only is classical time quite possibly a perception (illusion if you like), but also quantum 'time' is uncertain until measured, which also suggests a definite 'illusory-ness' for time. But we're no closer to understanding *why* classical positional sequencing or quantum wave function collapse as forms of measurement should have any greater impact on consciousness or perception than any other. It's definitely 'odd'.
Both Classical Physics and Quantum Mechanics specify how things are now. The Newtonian equations predict how they will be later on. The equations of QM specify the probability of how things will be later on. The logical explanation is that we have an uncertain future coming into existence with potential photon ∆E=hf energy, of what might happen, exchanging into the kinetic Eₖ=½mv² energy of electrons of what is actually happening. This forms an irreversible probabilistic process with an uncertain future coming into existence photon by photon with the absorption and emission of light waves.
That makes sense to me. I’ve thought of it in an astronomical sense. Time is measured by objects (Sun, moon, earth, stars) whose relative positions are predictable by simple math. Rotations of the earth vs phase of the moon vs orbit of the earth around the sun. Then mechanical clocks that divided the rotation of the earth. Position vs position. Then vibrating quartz crystals and atomic oscillators. There is relative position and sequence, but not time.
I’ve long assumed this quote meant “time is an emergent feature of space and information.” That spacetime actually exists, but time is just a useful means of measuring changes in spatial states that hold a correlating (causal? Not sure how strict it needs to be) relationship between each other
Part of the problem is that the concept of time confounds different notions. For instance, the classical Greeks distinguished Chronos and Kairós. Even if Chronos (duration) is an illusion in physics, Kairós (situational action) is real in human experience
If you consider everything to be relational then all we are talking about is the perception of a "dimension" relative to some other "dimension". Reality/physics being a projection of a set of dimensions .
A thing that exists must have a frequency, that is, the number of cycles repeated compared to a basic cycle taken as a unit. A thing that does not have a frequency is considered non-existent. Just like we wake up every morning and find ourselves still existing. Anything that has a frequency exists. Comet Harley exists with a period of 76 years. The present is something that exists with the most basic frequency. If you choose a coordinate axis with the division being the distance for a basic cycle, for example c. You will find that everything will weave a space. Each thing that exists has a frequency and a speed in space. C can be called the basic speed. The interaction and transfer of energy is a forced oscillation for each side.
Fascinating video! My Take: The debate on whether time is an illusion is intriguing, yet I firmly believe that time has a tangible, observable presence in our universe. Physics, through General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, presents different views on time. However, the clear progression of change and motion around us-from the decay of materials to the growth of living organisms-underscores that time is a real, essential dimension. Consider everything in our universe, including the cup of coffee on my table: atoms are in constant motion, the coffee gradually cools, and even the cup itself moves through space due to Earth's rotation and orbit. This continuous state of change highlights that time is more than just a background concept; it's a dynamic dimension. I often visualize time as a line along which the XYZ plane of our world travels. Just as a story unfolds across the pages of a book, the events of the universe progress along this temporal line. Without this dimension of time, there would be no context for change, growth, or decay, stripping away the narrative of our existence. It's important to note that humanity's perception of time can vary significantly from the actual, physical reality of time. The standard measures of time-seconds, minutes, hours-were created because each person experiences time differently. For example, someone sitting quietly might feel four minutes pass, while another might perceive it as longer or shorter. Someone asleep might feel that eight hours pass in what seems like moments, yet during those hours, the moon rises and sets, and countless events occur around the world. Stepping outside of science for a moment (since we're delving into philosophy), as a believer in God, I recognize that time is also mentioned in religious scriptures, emphasizing its role in this physical world. For instance, the Quran in Surah Al-Asr discusses the passing of time as a fundamental aspect of human experience. Similarly, the Bible in Ecclesiastes 3 talks about a time for every purpose under heaven. These texts suggest that while the measurement of time might differ in God's realm, time still exists and holds significance in our reality. Moreover, religious texts indicate that perhaps time will stand still in the 'next life,' with eternal realms like 'heaven' and 'hell' existing outside our temporal understanding. This subjective perception is why practices like meditation or prayer are profound; they help align our internal sense of time with the universe's rhythm. Thus, while our measurements and experiences of time may vary, the existence of time as a dimension-evident in the ongoing motion and transformation of everything around us-is undeniable. Time, in my view, is as real as the universe itself, anchoring the very fabric of our reality.
it's rate of decay and gravity effects how "quickly" something decays creating the illusion of slower or faster time. Inside a black hole not even one minutes has passed all throughout its existence due to immense gravity.
I remember reading a book by Albert Finney called Time and Again, this is time travel through hypnosis, the protagonist hypnotizes himself to go from the 1970s to the 1880s, and he is able to do this because time is an illusion.
Isn't rather the passage of time - which means that we subjectively feel ourselves move along our worldlines - the alleged illusion? If so, there must be something more fundamental than time. My guess is that the relation between time and action (or information or something of that kind) must be inverted.
I'm surprised it took this long to come to this idea. All free-running electronic oscillators start up this way (sometimes the initial pulse is intentionally injected, but that has no _important_ difference from a random pulse of equal length and magnitude, because the circuits aren't given a way to distinguish them), the ordered behavior we see from them is purely produced from the structure-inducing effects of the components that the circuit's own "electrical structure" is built out of. The same applies to clock circuits, and clock software inside computers: they apply structure to pulses that "come from nowhere" (come from outside the clock system), in the process "inventing time from scratch"... but only by leveraging a preexisting and less-structured form of time.
Alright, so quantum entanglement with an oscillator establishes time -- but what is responsible to the perceived Rate of Passage of Time? Is this just based on stuff being entangled with our brain matter? Is there some "master oscillator" we're all entangled with? Is there any way to manipulate or exploit the principles being discussed here? ❓
Please consider that if we see space in the 3 dimensions of XYZ that are perpendicular to each other. As all three dimensions approach zero, they represent an infinite number of points in space. Then consider that as the dimensions approach zero, time would be a fourth dimension in an infinite number of directions at each point in space and perpendicular to each point. If this is true, then time exists differently for each observer at each point in space and the time observed is looking toward the future with the past behind the observer. If the observer turns around, the past becomes the future because that is the observation point. This could mean that we can move forward in time but not backwards. I'm don't see how this would change at the quantum level. Please let me know if there are any flaws in my description.
If time was invented by man then your argument disappears in a puff of smoke. Time was invented by man. Your view on XYZ doesn't make sense either, I think you may just simply be saying that space is infinite so there are an infinite number of possible positions - no need to zero anything.
I've heard that time is how we perceive the increase in entropy in the Universe. As the increase in entropy is universal and constant, it would seem to do the job well and not need an appeal to entangled particles.
One can only say that time (or anything else) is an illusion of there is some objective empirical reality that contradicts the conclusions drawn therefrom. That has yet to be demonstrated.
We could consider time an emergent property. Like temperature for example or most physical variables we use in physics. As such time is an illusion. It doesn't have any deep physical meaning, It's just one of those insignificant silly variables we use in statistical physics....
I have a number of questions with this video: 1) Didn't Dirac unify special relativity and quantum mechanics in the equation that bears his name? 2) The Heisenberg uncertainty principle gives an uncertainty in time & energy just as it does with position and momentum. So isn't time really uncertain and not exact here? I would think that the questions raised in this video relate more to interpretation and not the discovery of any new physics. Perhaps this is more an experimental issue - how to measure time in quantum-mechanical interactions.
So... they basically said nothing because macro or "quantum" (below direct measurable) scales, you are still within the same frame of reference. But... paper published so the dept. chair will get off their backs for a while.
There are a number of aspects of time. In one aspect it is the operating system of this existence that can seem to be altered in different ways by an experience. Another is that time is the flavor of experience. If we don't have an experience there is no detection of time and depending on the 'quality' of the experience time can seem to speed up or slow down, can invoke happy, sad, fearful, anxious exhilarating or any one of about 160 emotions that spur us to take action. Time does not exist without an experience to go along with it. Our perception of time can speed up, slow down disappear or appear to stop in conjunction with the experience. As with all flavors it is subjectively dependent on the specific incident at hand. I am sure there are others too however I haven't devoted much time contemplating them.
i mean that also depends what we mean by time is an illusion, because I am willing to accept that time is relational, looks logical, but that does not mean time can be reversed because entropy will prevent that and the probability of getting a large system entangled in a way that allows for a counter-entropy direction (going back in time) seems either statistically unrealistic, or out right impossible
Well said. The fact of the matter is that it is always now. And objects move around in, and in and out of, the now-space, which is the only space; this I define as reality. Quantum mechanics has to invent time by creating an arbitrary variable to make their number-overlay of reality work.
"Time is an illusion lunchtime doubly so" - As Douglas Adams once wrote and after undertaking serious research into lunchtimes I can confirm this to be an accurate observation.😀😀😀
Never enough time for lunch, especially on Thursdays. "I never could get the hang of Thursdays." My current hypothesis regarding Thursdays is that people who work Monday through Friday tend to get a bit run down by Thursday and haven't yet mustered the excitement for the upcoming weekend that kicks in on Friday.
I was wondering how far I would need to scroll down to find this...
I upvoted because you didnt have 42 yet.
@@styleisaweapon Just two more and we maybe able to embark on a sesssion of "Bistro Mathemtics" improbable or what ? 😀😀😀
@@rockets4kids Let us hope that it is not an illusion. 😀😀😀
I for one still believe in free will - not that I have a choice.
I reconcile free will with determinism in the following way: I define myself as the person who will respond to every choice in a particular way. My collective response to all of the infinite possible choices of reality is what differentiates me from every other person. If I ever make a different choice, I've either changed as a person or something external is influencing me. Free will is deterministic.
i will choose for determinism just to show its bullshit
@@SeventhSolar I like this a lot. I’m going to spend the rest of today thinking about this.
I think the universe is doing it's very best to give us free will
I believe I have no choice; I also believe that Sabine should do more magic tricks.
"The desk is mostly empty space" as long as you don't ask too many questions about what "space" is and what it means to be "empty".
"I gotta use words when I talk to you."
Space is the thing with its center everywhere and its circumference nowhere.
@@SpatioTemporalEntity Filled with "virtual" particles popping in and out of the "quantum foam".
@@armandaneshjoo What isn't "everything"?
Time can be explained as a process of energy exchange formed by photon electron interactions. We have photon ∆E=hf electron couplings continuously transforming potential energy into the kinetic Eₖ=½mv² energy of matter, in the form of electrons as an uncertainty ∆×∆pᵪ≥h/4π probabilistic future comes into existence. All it takes for this to be logical is for the spontaneous absorption and emission of light waves to precedes absolutely everything that happens in our three-dimensional world.
I'm a former calibration tech in the Marines and later for Lockheed, and mainly worked in the RF/Microwave labs, often calibrating frequency standards (rubidium, XCO, etc). A fairly used term in that area is "time and frequency", which does make sense for the applications.
I often joked about the "time" part. Knowing that the term "time" we use in our normal lives is in our heads, and the universe doesn't care about it..
So you helped manufacture weapons that killed children? Great way to apply physics!
@@fractalrenko3149 I really wanna join the cult you have joined. Your moral certainty, not at all humble moral purity is simply amazing and astounding. 🤡🌍
@@fractalrenko3149 Big assumption bud. Lawnmowers dont kill people.
Thanks for your service. What did you mean by, " the term "time" we use in our normal lives is in our heads"?
@@fractalrenko3149actually he said he calibrated frequency standards. Stuff that allows your phone system, internet, power grid to function. It allows many other things you depend on and are willfully unaware.
Time just stops everything from happening at once.
No, without time it just wouldn't happen at all.
What's not an illusion is the constant stream of top-quality content from Sabine!
I'd hardly call this content > top quality. She promotes an unproven idea that there is no free will as if it is true. All too often she talks about no time, such as particles don't experience time. Yet all time is, is change. Sorry I just see a lot of garbage lately.
@@VicMikesvideodiary she explained her position on free will not being true.
Maybe you should pay attention instead of insulting people far more intelligent, aware and observant than you?
@@stephencarlsbadNo she didn't and take your own medicine.
I've heard that quantum physicists don't go on dates, they just become entangled... 🤔
I hope this doesn't involve non-Newtonian fluids.
Someone call up the thermodynamics expert, it's getting hot in here.
Nah, they're just all relatives.
It makes sense, they only discussed killing cats on these dates.
@@AB-xy3lf
But cosmologists prefer chucking monkeys into black holes. ⚫
"Lunchtime, doubly so."
-- Ford Prefect
lol I was thumbs up 42😂😂😂
Except if I recall correctly it was the book, not Ford that said that.
Damn, beat me to it!!😂
@@reelrebellion7486 I think it was Ford in chapter 2 of the book version. At the pub while they're having their three pints of muscle relaxant.
@@reelrebellion7486 Ford says it to Arthur in the pub before they leave the Earth to be demolished
What I find amusing in that scene is they order 6 pints, give the barman £5 and he's pleased with the tip - that's 1971 for you :)
In my humble opinion, time is simply one of the metrics (others being distance in three dimensions) by which we measure change. It is change that is real not the metrics we use to measure it.
Found the Newtonian in the comments.
@@Tore_Lund Who cares a fig about Newton?
@@rcnelson This guy does, when he claims coordinates in space are static. That's Newtonian cosmology, not Einstein.
See this is what I always thought. I always thought that "time" was just particles/forces interacting in space. We just measure the change.
I asked Chatgpt about this and it went into a ling explanation that I am wrong and that time is completely dependent of all that.
I forget exactly what it said, but it was something along the lines of spacetime being it's ownthing.
Idk what to believe. I always considered time an illusion because it made sense to me, I figured all time was was me saying, "hey at one moment particle was here, now at another moment particle is there!"
That made sense to me as to why time would be "relative" with space/gravity.
But I think I am probably totally wrong. At least that's what Chatgpt thinks. It thinks spacetime is it's own thing completely dependent from anything in the universe I think.
I have never understood time and probably never will, and that's just something I might have to accept.
Because then people talk about freewill, different universes, 4th dimension being time. I get lost.
I understand the idea that if there is "randomness" to the universe then it is possible that there are different timelines. Universes where an electron was in one position vs universes where the electron was in a different position causing a cascade of different events. That sounds intuitive to me. I understand not having freewill because I am just an bundle of particles that all followed a long chain reaction from the big bang, therefore I can't have freewill. No more than a wave or a tornado can have freewill.
What I struggle with is the passage of time. Like why time is relative, the idea of the fabric of spacetime. Stuff like that begins to cause problems.
@@hhjhj393 Time is relative because the speed of light/causality is absolute. So if you push an object in one direction the particles of that object will increase their velocity in one direction while slowing down in other directions. For example, during one second, the tip of the hand of a clock will move the same distance through space whether it whizzes by you at close to the speed of light or if it was right next to you. But the clock next to you will show 1 second passed, while the close to lightspeed clock will barely move around the clock even though the same distance was covered.
What is time?
Baby don’t hurt me
Don’t hurt me
No more.
What is time?
What time is looooove?
@@Arashmickey Yeah, pass the mic -- What Time Is Love?
😂😂
My brain is a Mush Room
Mosh pit😊
If your brain is mush, then your skull should be a mush room.
I completely agree.
It is a lump of 60% fat. Brings a whole nuther meaning to fathead.
Hmm does kind of fit the description now that I mushed on it for a second
The Frazer Spiral does have spirals in it. There are multiple spirals defined by different apparent lines. There is only one apparent circle which itself is an illusion. The circle, defined by the average centerline of the black objects is as much an illusion as are the spirals.
@johnfitzgerald8879- Do you feel better now ? : )
@@S.L.S-407I certainly do.
Nooooope! Take your finger and follow around the rings. It's just your brain unable to process all that concentrated info from your eyes at once babey :) The crossing pattern on the background mixed with what appears to be two different colours twisting around toward the center creates the illusion of a constant spiral. Until you trace it :)
If youve ever studied psilocybin and observed the effect of those specific serotonin receptors that tell the brain to process more information but there isnt any additional information its just the command being activated to take it in, that's what causes your vision to "trip" and you would know 100% this is the exact same thing happening inversely.
Ooooooooooh. I got your comment now.
Very very well and good! 🤣😂😂😂
Now you've turned my brain into mush 🤕
"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"
"If a process took place over a period of 5 seconds and there was no clock to measure it, did it really take 5 seconds?"
3:22 "No one can measure a time coordinate" But this saying means nothing... I can say this about momentum as well for example, "No one can just measure the value of momentum of some object" that's something you must do it in relation to something else. Momentum is relative. And the same thing goes for energy, position, etc...
Time is a very simple thing, also at the quantum level. It is just another axis of "spacetime", just as much as left, up and forward are. And these axes really, are merely *degrees of freedom* that a single value has, a value which we call "four-position". And this value, is nothing but something for which every quantum field defines a value. The standard model is based on that fact alone, fields interact between themselves based on the values they define for the same four-position - that's it.
If you decide that defining something like "time" is crucial, then go ahead and define "space", "energy", "momentum", and why stop there if you can go as far as defining "existence".
We *use* clocks to measure time. It is because they are convenient, they provide a measurable, stable and reliable notion of time, yet, saying that they are necessary for time to exist is like saying that "weights are necessary for gravity to exist". By that, for the same reason we don't need "quantum rulers to have a notion of distance at the quantum level" we don't need "quantum clocks to have a notion of time at the quantum level".
If anything the main point in this video belongs to philosophy, not physics. This claim very much feels to me like answering "no" to the question "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" (If a process took place over a period of 5 seconds and there was no clock to measure it, did it really take 5 seconds?)
Mass curves 4-dimentional spacetime -- 3 spacial and 1 time. This curvature causes an acceleration. On Earth this acceleration is 32-feet per second per second. This curvature also causes time dilation (aka gravitational time dilation.)
"What then is time? If no one asks me, I know what it is. If I wish to explain it to him who asks, I do not know." St Augustine. Yes, a very old question
time doesn't exist, only present exist! if you could travel back in time then you should also been able to travel in future too, but that's not possible!
@@Ezekiel903 you can travel into the future with speed or with mass. If you travel close to speed of light or a close orbit to a very massive object, your time will run slower in relation to the rest of us. Time-travel is possible!
@@BenjaminBjornsen yes, but for the crew inside or fot the other nothing changes, the crew travel at that speed doesn't get younger! for both it's always the present, they do not live longer!
@@Ezekiel903 you don't get it
@@BenjaminBjornsen maybe it would do well to, I don't know... explain it to them? lol
As time is an illusion, I should be able to go back and answer the question "do you think my sister is attractive" differently. Yep, no luck there. I'm still in Schrodinger's dog house.
Not particularly, but her sister is hot though.
@@armandaneshjoo You don't have to see it, for it to be an illusion. There are auditory illusions, among others. And can you see "air?" If it's an illusion, you would have difficulty in breathing.
@@armandaneshjoo Sight is an illusion.
Arf! 🐶
it is an illusion to believe you can answer that question without landing in the doghouse, just saying
"Like Sands Through The Hourglass, So Are The Days Of Our Lives"
The older we get the more true that statement becomes.
"All we are is dust in the wind, dude!"
Has that show finally run out of sand?
@@Tribecasoothsayerno, they'll use windpower to grind up old concrete to mix with new cement. Green solutions? You've never heard of them yet.
What you explain at the end when asked "if it means that time in an illusion" is exactly what I was sure was happening
There are 5 levels or aspects of time . 1) Mechanical
2) Universal 3) Atomic 4) Biological 5) Pyschological 6) Quantum.... All are effected by gravity and velocity .
I would not call time an illusion but a derived construct. It is based on periodic motion, such as the rotation of Earth, and precisely calibrated. As such, time is useful for the synchronization of events.
Exactly. We live on a planet that rotates on its axis and rotates around our sun, therefore the most useful construct of time for us is based on those two periodic movements. Later, we decided we could be more precise by using an atomic oscillation (or is it regular ejection?), but we're still using the old macro (planetary) movements for scheduling purposes.
Perhaps we can say time is evident from motion, measureable in periods, whilst speed slows the perception of it.
such as the rotation is an illusion
The second is a derived construct, which has been created by humanity. Water is a derived construct, created by chemistry from hydrogen and oxygen. The structured time that we experience at one level is a derived construct produced by our brain, and at another level is a fundamental aspect of the macro-scale universe that our brain produced _our experience of time_ in response to. That structured time, and time on the quantum scale, might or might not be constructs, but it's not based on things like periodic rotations of the Earth, as the periodic rotations are _a consequence of_ time rather than a cause of time.
Time is an illusion, lunchtime doubly so.
Ahhggg! Too slow. Oh well, packet of peanuts and a paper bag please!
Yeah, blink twice and it's gone
@@kbjerke Adams, Douglas Adams the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy are definite recommended read, I think up to 3 or 4 in the series. The hollywood movie was an abomination.
@@kbjerkeDouglas Adams.
@@kbjerke Prefect (through Adams)
Of course, time is an illusion, Proper time, as we perceive it, is an emergent property that arises from the underlying interactions of fundamental processes, giving the illusion of a continuous flow resulting from the movement and transformation of information.
Can you predict anything novel with this kind of definition that would differ from a more classical (Einsteinian) view of time?
@@yeroca Yes, 1: with reanalyzing the Muon g-2 experiment data and 2: Investigating the one-way speed of light could confirm novel predictions that differ from the classical Einsteinian view of time.
You are confusing different concepts of time, there are many. Psychological passage of time is real, non-illusory, but if you think it is the same as absolute time, or clock time, or any of the other concepts of time, then that is the illusion.
@@armandaneshjoo No. There are all sorts of illusions, not all visual. What you probably mean is "perceptual". But then time is non-illusory. We perceive a certain type of time, psychologically, but it is not the same as other notions of time that can be well-defined. If they are well-defined they are also non-illusory. The "illusion of time" is not an illusion, it is a banal confusion of two (or more) different concepts of time.
Like, say, the illusion that whales (mammals) are fish (osteichthyes class).
Time is a perception to make sense of the universe some think life is real not so you are not alive its a program just like everything humans don,t want to accept that otherwise their life has no meaning the fact is everything is connected and you are part of story
wondorful talk, Sabine. I remember as a 15 year old asking myself the same question: i was in a plane flying through a thick cloud bank, so there was no feeling of any change . I came the conclusion that time is a relation between different 'things'. Why didnt I become a physicist ( I was quite good at maths)? It was because I never could ( & still cant ) visualize something as basic as 'voltage'.
Sabine is brilliant, indeed. But I also love the way she is so upfront about the facts and doesn't expect her way her viewers to be stupid, such an unique personality.
Presenting the belief that there is no free will as a fact is neither upfront about a fact, nor brilliant.
@@VicMikesvideodiary why would you say so?
@@Lucas.boninsegna Because it's not a fact it's a belief, and as a scientist she shouldn't be selling beliefs.
@@VicMikesvideodiaryI complimented one of the most sincere and intelligent living science communicators for having a straightforward approach to facts and being funny, and, here you are, still watching her and acting like a frustrated dork. But it's all right, since it's probably just the sums of your brain chemistry interactions... like, one couldn't blame another for being stupid.
@@VicMikesvideodiary and just so I don't sound too vague as to give you too much room for debate, she never even once said it was a fact... but if you take all of the argumentation into account and add it up to your OWN scientific conclusions and it makes sense, its nobody else's problem but yours! We're not in a position to choose the most correct theories, it's like the Greek people used to do... you give your opinion, I give mine, and then we think about it and nothing should be labeled as dumb. Except for string theory, gravitons and other kinds of mental diarrhoea.
I went on a date with a young lady once and explained all this to her. She must have had a very different opinion because I never heard from her again.
Or you taught her that she didn't have time for you.
Or she didn’t want to have things explained to her on a first date
Or she had a wonderful time during the date and you taught her how to stay there & then.
It was meant to be.
She did you a favour by giving you a chance to find a lady who does take an interest in such matters. With any luck, she'll stand her round too.
Lee Smolin thought so too, then changed his mind. In his book "Time Reborn" he explains why.
It's like the Sappir-Whorf hypothesis in Linguistics/Philosophy of the Mind. Every couple of years someone comes out of nowhere saying that EVERYTHING from our thoughts to the very nature of reality is defined by language - the least they say langage gives it structure, the most they say langage creates it. And, of course, they always imagine themselves to be so very original: the first human being to ever have concocted such ideas. Usually is something like: "The Ancient Greeks couldn't see the colour blue cos they didn't have a word for it". Sooo frustrating...
its the "tree falling in the forest with nobody to hear it" nonsense; we just aren't as consequential as we'd like to think.
There is also, regularly, a conflation between the mathematics and the associated narrative.
It's when Nature punches you in the face and you don't get the message, because you didn't speak the language?
If you only go by what people tell you, you are not Curious enough for life. Go out, and experiment, find FACTS you can verify by repetition, or conscious change of Parameters.
Don't be too frustrated, the symbols of calculus weren't coined in those days and now you can philosophise over their meaning (but probably not whilst you are autonomously driving).
"The Ancient Greeks" no longer exist. What "remains" of them is memories / thoughts wholly contingent on synapses of our mind/s, as expressed in language/s and/or books. As real as we think them to have been, they are now virtual.
I'm very much an armchair physics enthusiast, and my best understanding of time at present is that the passage of time we experience is 100% the interactions.
If we assume that all forces or perturbations in fields propagate at the same rate (disregarding for now what "rate" means in a discussion about the nature of time) and we call that the speed of causality or the speed of light, anything traveling at the speed of light can only travel at that rate while it is not interacting with anything else (45deg diagonal on a Penrose diagram) or with all its motion oriented in a spatial direction. This would mean that a wave in a field does not experience any time, including the electromagnetic waves that we call light.
No interactions, no subjective time.
If we imagined being decomposed into a beam of light sent across space and somehow recomposed into something approximating who we were before the journey, we could reasonably claim that the journey took zero time from our perspective.
Anything that appears to have a more vertical direction on a Penrose diagram does so because of a huge number of interactions between its constituent parts. Effectively, all the 45 degree lines on the Penrose diagram are colliding with one another repeatedly, and those interactions are viewed as moving through time.
My understanding is probably still quite lacking, and this doesn't say anything meaningful about the direction of the arrow of time, which probably something something entropy. Maybe?
I said a long time ago something along the lines of: time is a concept describing the effect of interactions of higher dimensions with our dimension, ie 4D space with our percieved 3D space or something like that.
Time is a useful interpretation of geometry and Free Will is a useful interpretation of causality. No problem with doing useful instead of fundamental. 😉
Spoken like a true Egyptian. Akhenaten the last useful organizer of ideas is proud of you
If it weren’t for the useful, nothing would ever get done.
Nice one
True LenSklogW. But also no problem in thinking some useful concepts _are_ fundamental. What is the ultimate source of spacetime "geometry" or "free will/causality"? Science probably can never know, but whatever It is it'd be pretty darn fundamental.
The problem is when we try to overload the same words to talk about the useful interpretations of the world and the fundamental ones. I find the phrase "we have no free will" to be pointless. Normal people have a notion of what "free will" is for a human conversation. The idea that everything is just physics unfolding is probably true but to use that to say "there is no free will" is just a confusing attempt to hijack the already existing understanding of free will to get attention.
Thank you Sabine!🌈
Thanks from the entire team!
@@SabineHossenfelder Thank you so much!
@@markoszouganelis5755Do you paid 20€ for writing"thanks"?
Sometimes they'll say time is emergent instead of an illusion. Time passage is only measurable by causal effect. if you have an empty box with absolutely nothing inside of it, there's no way to experimentally prove that time had passed for the space inside.
That is what bothered me about this. All observation is the measurement of relationships between objects. That we can only measure time using relationships does not entail time is equivalent to relationships. It could be the case, or it could be something else.
How do you measure distance? You need a standard ruler. The most appropriate ruler is using a constant like the speed of light in a vacuum to mark distances. But that involves the passage of time: "How far does a photon travel in 1 second?". Spatial distance is no more solid than temporal distance and we know they are not distinct anyway: it is spacetime, not space+time.
@@ianstopher9111 you can choose an arbitrary distance to start with and then make that the benchmark.
Take a metronome (or any regularly oscillating device), send a beam of light into a mirror and back, and count the number of ticks. X wavelength in a vacuum will travel Y (distance), which is equivalent to Z clicks (time). And then you can build from there.
Then you can label the distance whatever you want, and you can label the time anything you want. But since you know they are equivalent, you now have a new system to measure distance.
Perhaps, without matter, time has no real effect that we can measure. But if you made your box out of uranium, you would still be able to read the decay of the walls with a detector you placed in the box...
Nothing is empty-the spacetime itself is roiling with virtual particles
Time has to be something physical and fundamental time symmetry can be broken during radioactive decay. Meaning time is real and has a direction. or CPT symmetry wouldn't be real.
The past doesn’t exist, it is just memories in your head.
The future doesn’t exist it is just figments of your imagination in your head.
The only thing that actually exists is this single moment that is present.
This insight has helped me a lot.
I think the past, the present and the future exists together. It's just a different place in the Universe.
but if you drill down to Planck time, there is ONLY past or future. There is no "present".
Prove it.
@@stephencarlsbad probability versus truth. You can’t prove probability until you’re there and then it becomes the past. So everything reinvents itself every nanosecond until it doesn’t?
@@BuhehtThehub Why do you set probability opposite of truth. That makes no reasonable sense since the two concepts are not mutually exclusive and therefore don't beg an oppositional argumentative analysis.
Time has always been a real mind blower for me, without time nothing can happen and if nothing happens how can you have time. So for me I had to settle with accepting that time is a byproduct of things happening.
That's right. Change is happening and this can be used as reference to other changes. My bank account balance generally increases so you may say time makes this happen. Time has nothing to do with it. It's my employer paying my salary because I do work for them out of my free will.
It is a bit of a catch 22 problem. Humans need a concept of time (past - present - future). The universe may only need the now so the universe may have no fundamental concept of time. But photons carry the information of the past across the now moment, so the universe has a kind of record of the past as information.
Such a difficult topic :)
@@AndrewWutke But your generally increasing bank balance (lucky man!) and the work you get paid for do not happen simultaneously. Thus time is involved.
@rcnelson
Time also means phenomena of perpetual change, and that is real.
Time does not move things or change them.
I would say time IS the unfolding of events, that is, motion. More precisely, the measurement of this motion. The ultimate measurement clock is a speed of light comparison within the frame of the event. If you could travel at the speed of light, there would be no difference in the comparison, and there would be no time. Time slows in your frame of motion as your speed, in comparison to that of light, increases.
When I get sentenced for my crimes next week, I'm going to remind the judge that time is just an illusion and I'm quite certain that he'll grant me "time served". To be honest, I've always been an "Eternalism" type of guy, even before I knew what it was. Time is a place, we visit it and then we move on to another place (femtosecond #2 perhaps).
Is that you Donald?
And then there’s life insurance.
When you remind the judge that free will is also an illusion he will realize the futility of convicting you in the first place, not that he really has a choice in the matter! But slightly more seriously, why do we have the illusion of free will over how we move in space, whilst being completely convinced of determinism regarding time?
It's too bad that we are also illusions
@@Dr.M.VincentCurley "time is an illusion, so your lifetime sentence will be over in no time anyway. So why should I shorten it?"
Was a bit surprised there was no mention of how the Wheeler-deWitt equation of canonical quantum gravity does not include time. Wd be interested in your views about whether this means we really must view time as an illusion, or whether the WdW equation is not as fundamental as we believe.
I didn't see a good reason to bring this up. It's a consequence of forcing the symmetries of GR onto the quantum formalism. Ie, it's a consequence of exactly the problem I am talking about.
Wheeler-deWitt does include time. The functional ψ in, Hψ=0 is a functional defined over all of *spacetime.* What most low brow folks mean when referring to Wheeler-De Witt is that there is no explicit time evolution, since to solve the equation of constraint you have to know the entire universe configuration past and future. It is not physics, it's metaphysics.
@@AchrononmasterWell said. This is the type of comment that you pretty much only find under a Sabine video.
Time can be explained as a process of energy exchange formed by photon electron interactions. We have photon ∆E=hf electron couplings continuously transforming potential energy into the kinetic Eₖ=½mv² energy of matter, in the form of electrons as an uncertainty ∆×∆pᵪ≥h/4π probabilistic future comes into existence. All it takes for this to be logical is for the spontaneous absorption and emission of light waves to precedes absolutely everything that happens in our three-dimensional world.
@@Dyslexic-Artist-Theory-on-Time Except transforming implies change over time already. Seems circular.
We use time to measure the separation of events, and distance to measure the separation of locations. As you say, we set time intervals according to some regularly repeating event and we set distances according to some usefully sized pre-existing separation. I don't see the difference between these two things, but nobody says space is an illusion. Or distance. I think part of the problem is terminology. We don't say that we measure space with space. But we do say we measure time with time, and those two instances don't mean quite the same thing.
1:22 reply, When "we" start to realize that empty space itself is an illusion (empty space is impossible) then we will start to get somewhere
Said "Only in light-like frames is time an illusion. But all observations and measurements are made in time-like frames, where proper time is inevitable and space is an illusion to be converted into time as a choice of motion state. Conclusion: ontologically, spatiality is an illusion, not time, which is a very real thing." - But what is the difference between time separation or space separation? Is it just that physical process manifesting as a proper time?
Well, the implication at least is that time is more fundamental than space. Which might be the truth, or might indicate that we're leaving out necessary calculations. Personally, I'd bet more on time being more fundamental than space than the other way around, since I can conceive of how to construct space (and space-time) out of not-really-space particles, but I can't conceive of _how_ to get the ability to even just observe what we _think of_ as time without something similar to time _already_ existing.
@@absalomdraconis There are two different physicalities: the 4-dimensional separation continuum (said spacetime) and the proper time of structures. In the separation continuum you can see the time only according to the choice of coordinates.
Time is not a real thing!
It is a construct. A very helpful instrument and a measurement. But there is no particle, no line, no flow. What we perceive as passage of time is just the observation of motion in the world. An hour or a day or a year is not a real thing. Its just a repetitive circular motion that we observe. But no time.
Let's just call it time shall we?
Agreed that it's not a thing/phenomenon with substance, and that it's a construct in the same way that height and width etc are, though the qualities and quantities we use them to measure are real; in the case of time the measuring is of the flow/sequence of events/actions we witness/experience from our position on the wave of the present, extendable both backwards and forwards to help us make some kind of (contestable) sense of was, is and will be.
The world really does change from moment to moment. We can have one moment followed by another moment where things have moved. You have one snapshot and then another AFTER the first. After denotes time. It is unreal in that it is noted in the human mind, it is intangible, its name and division is arbitrary; but change can only happen during the passage of time, so it must be real as things change.
@@ochjim "..though the qualities and quantities we use them to measure are real".
ooh, that's a great phrasing. I completely agree. Likewise, it's also just easier for me to say "chair" than describing the position of every particle in it to others.
I honestly don't know why (not only) physicists sensationalize time or even make it metaphysics.
Imagine we would see similar discussion about colour or temperature:
"They say temperature isn't real but is just particles bumping into each other. But when I look at my thermometer it obviously says 30°C. So 1 celcius must be fundamental. Ooh, mysterious." 😅
“Time” and “Space” are just concepts.
But something forces us to create and use these concepts.
@@armandaneshjoo Liar!
@@armandaneshjoo Something exists. And we try to describe it as space and/or time. If time just “does not exist”, try not to use this concept ;)
@@armandaneshjoo Then you can ask what space is, because yes you can measure it but what are you then measuring?
Yes. that is the view of Aristotle and Leibniz: time= the measure of change; space is the order of co-existence..Einstein follows it (Relativity, 1950, Ap.5,not in 1916. Unfortunately, he did not interpret properly the time parameter; hence silly clock twin paradox and (I discovered today in the same book) his... wrong interpretation of MM Michelson_Morely experiment as in almost all textbooks and online Univ.lectures.
time is what we call the dimension of 'travel' a thing experiences to register change. if time is an illusion, how does physics describe this ability for things to change?
the only way i would think that time is an illusion is if physics, in some dimensional representation, could be described in a static universe. and our experience of a dynamic universe is an illusion. if you can't show that reality is actually static, i don't see how you can show that time is actually an illusion.
Hi, Sabine, In a causal cosmos, FRWL there is a Geroch function of time. It can be defined as the maximal proper time to an event from a 3D foliation. If this foliation is shrunken to a big bang limit, then it can be unique, however, it is a not a coordinate of time but a scalar field because such upper limit on measurable time to each event can be measured along different curves. A coordinate of time also requires a 4-direction = unit vector in spacetime geometry. The quantization of such a Geroch function is done via a wave function, i.e. Geometric Chronons. Where the Reeb class vector of the gradient is not zero (not the usual Reeb vector) there is what we call, an electric field. A space field with symmetry SU(3) appears as a gauge field but it is not have the same role as gauge fields play in the Yang Mills action. An additional Lagrangian plane becomes a second field and behaves as an electro-weak field. The Geometric Chronon Field Theory yields matter out of spacetime where time is the only independent physical object and space is a gauge field. There is no so called, physical reality, without time. Even formal languages cannot exist without time. Thanks from Eytan and Jessica Suchard. You can contact us through re researchgate.net or through academia.edu or through Skype where the username is eytansuchard@gmail.com
Oh cool, another verse in the epic symphony, "Spacetime breaks down at the Planck scale". Very lovely. There are so many lyrical ways to sing that song! Talk about a superposition states (and at the macro level, too!).
I'm inspired to write a song, "Spacetime Breakdown". Of course, it will be funky!
Amazing ! In 4 very comprehensible minutes Sabine does away with myriad science communication pieces about time and free will. Wow. It's sorted. And I have free time now to acquire a hobby... oh, wait.
She's a little too confident that free will is an illusion (might as well say then, consciousness is an illusion, composite objects like people are an illusion...) - what if there is some tricky special wavefunction collapse a la Penrose involved, for example? And here's a classical philosophical rebuttal of the statement that free will is logically excluded. Consider a man that was sitting from past-eternity but then suddenly stood up. This cannot be deterministic because the prior conditions were always the same; but it cannot be probabilistic either because this scenario is just as possible (indeed, indistinguishable) if we shift it back and forth by any amount of time, so if it has a probability distribution it must be uniform in time - but there is no uniform probability distribution on the whole real line, over all possible times! Thus, it could not be deterministic or probabilistic, so it could only be an act of free will.
Hubble expansion means time is slowing to a complete stand still. What happens to time when the last two particles in the universe, fizzle out? This implies time is the product of heat energy.
It just means that you lose the arrow of time, you still have coordinate time (it goes all the way to infinity).
@@SabineHossenfelder So, in this model, can we theoretically travel in time, in the past? Does the past still exist in this model, or it disappears totally?
@@SabineHossenfelder Our brains having electrical activity or "particles following the laws of nature" is no proof that "free will is an illusion".
We are by no means slaves/robots to our brain's activity. We can control it, at least to some degree, and we can direct it, we can learn, make decisions based on our options, etc. that is enough too have free will, or at least enough of it to count.
Also, morality exists, moral choices exist, and moral decisions exist. These are NOT illusions.
@christian78478 the Buddhists say only the present exists.
Our decisions and choices are conditioned by our personal history and our environment. In a strict sense free will is an illusion. @@voxpopuli8132
Sabine's sense of humor always makes me smile and sometimes laugh until there are tears in my eyes. What a delightful, articulate, and erudite educator!
Like the illusion of depth created when we compare the information of each of our eyes, comparing our perception of two locations in timespace creates the illusion of flow.
This is really a great summary getting to the bottom of the problem. No clock no time
Try this on for size: time is to gravity as electricity is to magnetism
time is the atmoshpere of the mind..
greenwich meridian mean time is the artificial time meridian…. 12:60 frequency. the piramid in egypt is the natural time meridian. 13:28. first law of time is the center of time is everywhere at once. which make the second law of time that the speed of time is instantly infinite …. time is cyclical not linear. the clock is a 2 dimensional object. true time, the now moment is vertical. space is horizontal….
The analogy highlights the idea that both pairs are deeply interconnected phenomena in their respective theories, but the nature of their relationships is distinct.
Electricity is a byproduct of magnetism so time is a byproduct of gravity?
@@hhjhj393 space and mind form time ...
I come for the physics, but I stay for Sabine's dry-wit comedy. The writing is great
3:00 I don't know how stock footage of people (staged) interacting help me to understand what phycisists say. Maybe adding a dog would help more.
Or a cat. Or better yet, stock footage of a dog and a cat. It started slowly, but now RUclips is awash with irrelevant stock footage and images in the background. Even the most reputable science channels frequently have stock images of people in lab coats surrounded by test tubes and flasks filled with colored water. I am so tired of seeing that. Or people are talking about an airplane accident and were shown a picture of an airplane accident that happened years ago. I close my eyes and think of unicorns, sometimes that helps.
@@2ndfloorsongsthat’s a result of Google/RUclips penalizing videos that don’t fit their 5-10-15-20 model for monetizing videos. It’s much more profitable for creators to pay for *and use* stock photo licenses. Instead of making random length, but more concise, videos that don’t fit Google’s time/chapter length wants.
Relative time is based on periodic motion. The unit of time is the interval for the resolution of the measurement. It basically contains a lot of error. Absolute time is a measurement associated with quantum information. In which a unit of time is the interval, in which a chosen quantum event can occur (time-frequency synchronization).
Six and a half minutes of exciting woosh/swish/wipe/sweep sound effects with a little physics content in the background to spice it up. Great stuff.
At 2:52, there is a subtitle error where 'General relativity' should be corrected to 'Quantum gravity.'
Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so (c) Douglas Adams. Why won't we give a Noble prize to Douglas Adams? To be honest, we can describe every qualia as an illusion of our consciousness.
Serious question. Because of randomness wouldn't you get a different outcome from each iteration of a different big bang, and by extension isn't randomness the basis for what we call "free will?"
I don't see how randomness gives you free will. There is nothing "willed" about randomness.
This would mean your conscious decisions are essentially random, which is even worse than being deterministic.
And is there really such a thing as true randomness? If the laws of cause and effect always apply (do they?) then where would randomness fit in? Free will, if real, would be about making conscious choices - choices free of non-conscious inputs such as sub-conscious predispositions etc . . . randomness, if it existed would surely be a strange source of conscious choices.
Resetting the game changes nothing as laws of nature reign supreme and therefore the result would remain predictable.
Or I might be completely wrong, I don't know the ingredients of this sauce, I'm only an employee here.
@@salted6422 Resetting that far back, the Big Bang itself, might just start a new one with totally different laws of nature. The laws of nature are for this universe. And IIRC scientists did experiment with 3 particles allowing them to interact, resetting them to a previous point, and allowing them to interact again. The simulation never repeated. So it is entirely possible to get totally different outcomes when resetting universes.
Time is probably just conceptual, event A event B, the real thing is the velocity of movement/interaction, witch is affected by velocity and space curvature. Time probably doesn't indeed exists as 'something' because is nothing apart of the extremely useful concept itself.
Another thing that could be purely conceptual it's space. Because the real physical thing with curvatures could be the quantum fields, being space just also a relational concept between real existing physical things.
I'm _so_ with you, on this.
I think that relativity physics _suggests_ some of correlation - in terms to the how some of the equations look - but that it doesn't actually literally _prove_ anything.
About the nature of either.
Seems to me that time is a way to measure change.
That's what I always thought.
No change = No Time passes.
@@dnomyarnostaw in the Sahara it is hotter than at the North Pole. So there's a change between Sahara and North Pole. No time involved.
Entropy.
Time is movement, or as you say it change...
@@__christopher__ You are speaking of there being a difference, that is completely different from change...
If there was no motion (and I mean, no motion of any kind, speed = 0 for everything), no time would pass.
Only with motion, there is time. Motion takes place at a speed that is not zero, and speed is path length over time. Motion requires at least a path, hence one dimension, i.e., one-dimensional space.
Thus, time only exists in connection with space, although it is only a secondary effect of motion.
I have looked closely at this as a thought/concept. (Not a physicist)
Everything that is said to exist, exist in an infinite number of 'Now" singularities. Motion only occurs from one single point to the next single point in each now moment. The only pathway (geometric) is along the radius line away from (forward) from its current point location in any infinite number of undefined directions.
This radius line for a particle is 1 dimensional. If we had a hypothetical concept (or universal) of time to satisfy the human concept of past it becomes a kind of pseudo 2D, but not 2D as in euclidean 3D, just 2D m/s.
So, in a universe without fundamental persistent time I get a default human concept (and maybe universal) of the speed of time equals Zero (default t=0 m/s) when there is no motion.
In a universe where time is fundamental and a persistent part of nature I get a default pseudo value of time as t=299792458 m/s when an object has no motion.
This is my current thorn in my head over relativity and Minkowski space=time :(
Motion can't exist without time as it is the measure of change of time.
@@fam5451 Motion doesn't need a human concept of time.
But it is a chicken and egg problem of which comes first.
@@axle.student If you take that speed (c) as an electric signal (that also travels at that speed) and make it jump forward and backward like light between two mirrors then you have an oscillation. If you count the oscillations you have a clock. You will find that with any movement of this "Clock" it will take longer for the signal to make a cycle and there fore slow down the clock (Time).
If this oscillation is perpendicular to the travel direction (Like Einstein's light clock on a train) it will work. If it is parallel to the travel direction length contraction has to be taken into consideration as well. I have made calculations on it and it appear to be correct at different speeds.
My concept of matter is that it is really energy in the form of an electro magnetic pulse trapped as some kind of standing wave oscillation like a light pulse trapped between two mirrors. the pulse keeps on traveling at speed c but is observed outwards as a single spot as it is so small. The feeling of solidness of such a particle (that is really an oscillation of energy at speed c) comes from that it statically and magnetically spreads out over a bigger area than the actual oscillation spot. Its influence is bigger.
I have no idea about what electric and magnetic influence (fields) are and I doubt any body have.
@@leonhardtkristensen4093 I have fundamental disagreements with the concept of light mirror clocks. Time dilation alters the time duration which alters the seconds in m/s which alters the speed of light.
Is time dilation 'Variable speed of light"?
Using the speed of a massless particle ( photon) to test the speed of a photon is an absurd notion to me. It is like using a potentially broken clock to test if another clock is broken lol
If perpendicular will work; well you already broke that principle because if you rotate it parallel it fails, and the light wave propagation cannot be perpendicular if originating from a source at velocity. But wait, a source at velocity isn't actually moving, so an object is simultaneously moving near the speed of light and and stationary (inertial frames).
I think time dilation due to velocity is an exceptionally flawed and irreconcilable concept.
I have only touched upon a very few issues with that concept of SR :)
time doesn't exist, neil tyson laughed at this 10 years ago when i asked him, but susskind entertained it. it's because people are embrassed that we invented it, even tho einstein said himself time doesn't exist.
If you could stop still in a single pojnt in space would time still tick? Wouldn't you be removing the relationship to space time?
See? I'm always awake when you post stuff. 2:45 AM and here I am 😛
Also- Yay for another mind bending video! 🙂
Same. And agreed.
Mutch more comfortable here in middle Europe.
Agreed too!
There`s a song for that! >> ruclips.net/video/16xn2b2dG98/видео.html
>" Et moins je dors et plus je pense
Et plus je pense et moins j'oublie
L'immense impasse, l'espace immense
Qui s'étendent au fond de mon lit "
@@joaidane Beautiful, wunderschön
3:20 this is retconning, not so long ago everyone was not saying this, why is this the first time i've heard someone else say there's no way to measure?
Apologies. Its an interpolation of a set of experiences including the idea of a particle as a discrete component that can be isolated, separated and linked and not fitting the description of a point source of energy rotating with angular momentum Z in a false vacuum around a true vacuum.
According to Einstein, ‘Time and space are modes by which we think, and not conditions in which we live.’
0:34 its the arrangement. simple. theres patterns to everything and this pattern has a flow that tricks the mind and we follow the flow before closer inspection.
I just love your geeked out sense of humor. You're hysterical.
A time loop of watcing Sabine's videos is rather a good one to be stuck in.
1:51 "Free will is an illusion." Taking that hypothesis as true we have that illusion. Therefore by syllogism we HAVE free will.
Physicists are not very good with logic. They say that human reality is an illusion, forgetting that they are including their own statement in this.
Yes, like consciousness I have often wondered what it is supposed to be the illusion of.
Mind. Blown.
Something tells me I really shouldn't meet you in a pub or a bierstube - I think I'd run away screaming within 15 minutes or whatever that is in Quantum Physics. Incredibly interesting subject but massively over my head. Thanks for sharing Sabine! 🙂
I used to use 6 space dimensions without a time axis to run a few of my past simulations.
At the very end they are transformed back to the phenomenologicall measurable 4 coordinate-system. Makes some calculations easier...
I think there is a difference between the rate at which things change (call it delta-T), and the point or coordinate in time that contains the "slice" of 3D space from the "fabric" (or aether) of 4D spacetime (ST) that Einstein's General Relativity (GR) equations refer to, and that is where the Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity (SR) fails, because SR considers only flat ST and doesn't take the effect of the object's mass moving through ST as delta-T is measured.
The issue with "Quantum Gravity" is that it assumes relativity and QM are true accounts of the data, whereas what we are more likely to find is that they are both WRONG and there is a third option - a new model which captures both. This may also give a new account for spacetime and motion
A logical extension of this is that time can be synchronized between entangled inertial frames which shows time is absolute and violates the Relativity of simultaneity, proving Relativity is wrong.
My dad and I have now mutually concluded that "it's always now." My rationale is that there is no "physical" past we can go to, like a physical space. The past is recorded in our minds and, nowadays, on digital storage drives. This is also why the future is impossible to predict with absolute 100% certainty, down to the very last detail - it doesn't actually exist. The only reason we conceptualize an abstract "unlikely/possible/probable" future is because we can remember the past and conceptualize it better than any other living organism on the planet. We understand cause and effect to such a degree that we can make a "reasonable guess" as to what _will_ occur in the future - but there are always variables that are not accounted for.
My theory is that all of the universe exists as a "spatial block" that can be described mathematically as an incomprehensibly complex equation full of a great enough number of "well-concealed" variables that we will likely never derive the full equation. I'd like to point out, too, that when dealing with things like general relativity and hypergeometry (tesseracts, hypercubes, hyperpyramids, etc.), the former deals with *three* spatial dimensions and *one* "time dimension" (separate from space) that are inextricably linked in physics and thus both considered together in the math, whereas the latter deals with *four* spatial dimensions. Or at least that's how I understand it (I'm not a professional physicist by any means, just an amateur hobbyist who likes to study it 🙂).
Another way of looking at this, is to say that (classically) a particle cannot be in two places simultaneously. However, it can move from one position (coordinate x,y,w,t) to another (x1,y1,z1,t1). Time is then no more than another coordinate for which a particle (classically) cannot be in two places simultaneously, and thus the 'flow' of time is just the sequence of coordinates in t along a particle's path (t1,t2,t3,t4...). Oddly we perceive time differently to the other coordinates {x,y,z}, but that is no more than a perception.
Okay, that's the classical world, but of course in the quantum world a particle (or at least its wave function) can be described by a superposition of at least two states until you collapse the wave function (I'm not certain, but I don't see any reason why it could not be more), so not only is position indeterminate, but also time, and hence the uncertainty as to both position and momentum.
So not only is classical time quite possibly a perception (illusion if you like), but also quantum 'time' is uncertain until measured, which also suggests a definite 'illusory-ness' for time. But we're no closer to understanding *why* classical positional sequencing or quantum wave function collapse as forms of measurement should have any greater impact on consciousness or perception than any other. It's definitely 'odd'.
Both Classical Physics and Quantum Mechanics specify how things are now. The Newtonian equations predict how they will be later on. The equations of QM specify the probability of how things will be later on. The logical explanation is that we have an uncertain future coming into existence with potential photon ∆E=hf energy, of what might happen, exchanging into the kinetic Eₖ=½mv² energy of electrons of what is actually happening. This forms an irreversible probabilistic process with an uncertain future coming into existence photon by photon with the absorption and emission of light waves.
That makes sense to me. I’ve thought of it in an astronomical sense. Time is measured by objects (Sun, moon, earth, stars) whose relative positions are predictable by simple math. Rotations of the earth vs phase of the moon vs orbit of the earth around the sun. Then mechanical clocks that divided the rotation of the earth. Position vs position. Then vibrating quartz crystals and atomic oscillators. There is relative position and sequence, but not time.
I’ve long assumed this quote meant “time is an emergent feature of space and information.” That spacetime actually exists, but time is just a useful means of measuring changes in spatial states that hold a correlating (causal? Not sure how strict it needs to be) relationship between each other
Part of the problem is that the concept of time confounds different notions. For instance, the classical Greeks distinguished Chronos and Kairós. Even if Chronos (duration) is an illusion in physics, Kairós (situational action) is real in human experience
If you consider everything to be relational then all we are talking about is the perception of a "dimension" relative to some other "dimension". Reality/physics being a projection of a set of dimensions .
Isnt it just the speed of existing? Its humans who have just decided on a frame of reference.
A thing that exists must have a frequency, that is, the number of cycles repeated compared to a basic cycle taken as a unit. A thing that does not have a frequency is considered non-existent. Just like we wake up every morning and find ourselves still existing.
Anything that has a frequency exists. Comet Harley exists with a period of 76 years.
The present is something that exists with the most basic frequency.
If you choose a coordinate axis with the division being the distance for a basic cycle, for example c. You will find that everything will weave a space. Each thing that exists has a frequency and a speed in space.
C can be called the basic speed.
The interaction and transfer of energy is a forced oscillation for each side.
Fascinating video!
My Take: The debate on whether time is an illusion is intriguing, yet I firmly believe that time has a tangible, observable presence in our universe. Physics, through General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, presents different views on time. However, the clear progression of change and motion around us-from the decay of materials to the growth of living organisms-underscores that time is a real, essential dimension.
Consider everything in our universe, including the cup of coffee on my table: atoms are in constant motion, the coffee gradually cools, and even the cup itself moves through space due to Earth's rotation and orbit. This continuous state of change highlights that time is more than just a background concept; it's a dynamic dimension.
I often visualize time as a line along which the XYZ plane of our world travels. Just as a story unfolds across the pages of a book, the events of the universe progress along this temporal line. Without this dimension of time, there would be no context for change, growth, or decay, stripping away the narrative of our existence.
It's important to note that humanity's perception of time can vary significantly from the actual, physical reality of time. The standard measures of time-seconds, minutes, hours-were created because each person experiences time differently. For example, someone sitting quietly might feel four minutes pass, while another might perceive it as longer or shorter. Someone asleep might feel that eight hours pass in what seems like moments, yet during those hours, the moon rises and sets, and countless events occur around the world.
Stepping outside of science for a moment (since we're delving into philosophy), as a believer in God, I recognize that time is also mentioned in religious scriptures, emphasizing its role in this physical world. For instance, the Quran in Surah Al-Asr discusses the passing of time as a fundamental aspect of human experience. Similarly, the Bible in Ecclesiastes 3 talks about a time for every purpose under heaven. These texts suggest that while the measurement of time might differ in God's realm, time still exists and holds significance in our reality. Moreover, religious texts indicate that perhaps time will stand still in the 'next life,' with eternal realms like 'heaven' and 'hell' existing outside our temporal understanding.
This subjective perception is why practices like meditation or prayer are profound; they help align our internal sense of time with the universe's rhythm. Thus, while our measurements and experiences of time may vary, the existence of time as a dimension-evident in the ongoing motion and transformation of everything around us-is undeniable. Time, in my view, is as real as the universe itself, anchoring the very fabric of our reality.
it's rate of decay and gravity effects how "quickly" something decays creating the illusion of slower or faster time. Inside a black hole not even one minutes has passed all throughout its existence due to immense gravity.
I remember reading a book by Albert Finney called Time and Again, this is time travel through hypnosis, the protagonist hypnotizes himself to go from the 1970s to the 1880s, and he is able to do this because time is an illusion.
Isn't rather the passage of time - which means that we subjectively feel ourselves move along our worldlines - the alleged illusion? If so, there must be something more fundamental than time. My guess is that the relation between time and action (or information or something of that kind) must be inverted.
I don’t know how you managed so many zingers in under seven minutes as well as educating us. Thank you so much. Keep up the great work.
I'm surprised it took this long to come to this idea. All free-running electronic oscillators start up this way (sometimes the initial pulse is intentionally injected, but that has no _important_ difference from a random pulse of equal length and magnitude, because the circuits aren't given a way to distinguish them), the ordered behavior we see from them is purely produced from the structure-inducing effects of the components that the circuit's own "electrical structure" is built out of. The same applies to clock circuits, and clock software inside computers: they apply structure to pulses that "come from nowhere" (come from outside the clock system), in the process "inventing time from scratch"... but only by leveraging a preexisting and less-structured form of time.
I get such a warm feeling of approval when you talk about free will so unashamedly correctly. Good day.
Alright, so quantum entanglement with an oscillator establishes time -- but what is responsible to the perceived Rate of Passage of Time?
Is this just based on stuff being entangled with our brain matter?
Is there some "master oscillator" we're all entangled with?
Is there any way to manipulate or exploit the principles being discussed here? ❓
Please consider that if we see space in the 3 dimensions of XYZ that are perpendicular to each other. As all three dimensions approach zero, they represent an infinite number of points in space. Then consider that as the dimensions approach zero, time would be a fourth dimension in an infinite number of directions at each point in space and perpendicular to each point. If this is true, then time exists differently for each observer at each point in space and the time observed is looking toward the future with the past behind the observer. If the observer turns around, the past becomes the future because that is the observation point. This could mean that we can move forward in time but not backwards. I'm don't see how this would change at the quantum level. Please let me know if there are any flaws in my description.
If time was invented by man then your argument disappears in a puff of smoke. Time was invented by man. Your view on XYZ doesn't make sense either, I think you may just simply be saying that space is infinite so there are an infinite number of possible positions - no need to zero anything.
I've heard that time is how we perceive the increase in entropy in the Universe. As the increase in entropy is universal and constant, it would seem to do the job well and not need an appeal to entangled particles.
One can only say that time (or anything else) is an illusion of there is some objective empirical reality that contradicts the conclusions drawn therefrom. That has yet to be demonstrated.
We could consider time an emergent property. Like temperature for example or most physical variables we use in physics. As such time is an illusion. It doesn't have any deep physical meaning, It's just one of those insignificant silly variables we use in statistical physics....
I have a number of questions with this video:
1) Didn't Dirac unify special relativity and quantum mechanics in the equation that bears his name?
2) The Heisenberg uncertainty principle gives an uncertainty in time & energy just as it does with position and momentum. So isn't time really uncertain and not exact here?
I would think that the questions raised in this video relate more to interpretation and not the discovery of any new physics. Perhaps this is more an experimental issue - how to measure time in quantum-mechanical interactions.
So... they basically said nothing because macro or "quantum" (below direct measurable) scales, you are still within the same frame of reference. But... paper published so the dept. chair will get off their backs for a while.
There are a number of aspects of time. In one aspect it is the operating system of this existence that can seem to be altered in different ways by an experience. Another is that time is the flavor of experience. If we don't have an experience there is no detection of time and depending on the 'quality' of the experience time can seem to speed up or slow down, can invoke happy, sad, fearful, anxious exhilarating or any one of about 160 emotions that spur us to take action. Time does not exist without an experience to go along with it. Our perception of time can speed up, slow down disappear or appear to stop in conjunction with the experience. As with all flavors it is subjectively dependent on the specific incident at hand. I am sure there are others too however I haven't devoted much time contemplating them.
i mean that also depends what we mean by time is an illusion, because I am willing to accept that time is relational, looks logical, but that does not mean time can be reversed because entropy will prevent that and the probability of getting a large system entangled in a way that allows for a counter-entropy direction (going back in time) seems either statistically unrealistic, or out right impossible
Well said. The fact of the matter is that it is always now. And objects move around in, and in and out of, the now-space, which is the only space; this I define as reality. Quantum mechanics has to invent time by creating an arbitrary variable to make their number-overlay of reality work.