Is time incompatible with physics? | Avshalom Elitzur and Tim Maudlin take on Michio Kaku
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 3 ноя 2023
- Watch Avshalom Elitzur and Tim Maudlin take on string theorist Michio Kaku over time.
This excerpt was pulled from the debate 'The trouble with time,' filmed at the HowTheLightGetsIn London festival in September 2023.
Watch the full debate at iai.tv/video/the-trouble-with...
In our everyday experience, time is an inescapable backdrop against which events unfold, allowing us to sequence events and measure durations. Yet in the hundred years since Einstein's theory of general relativity, physics has had a radically different account. Time does not flow, there is no before and after. We are not born and we do not die. The entirety of spacetime is given at the outset of the universe. There is no cause and effect. Is this radical discrepancy with our everyday experience a threat to physics or a threat to our understanding of what it is to be alive?
Should we take seriously claims of physicists that everyday experience is an illusion? Or is it their model of the universe that is mistaken? Or are these two profoundly different accounts of time the product of frames of understanding that will always remain incompatible?
#Einstein #TheTroubleWithTime #PhysicsProblems
Avshalom Elitzur is a physicist and philosopher. In 2010, Elitzur won the Noetic Medal of Consciousness and Brain Research for his contributions to cosmology of mind and Quantum Theory.
Tim Maudlin is a philosopher of science who has done influential work on the metaphysical foundations of physics and logic
Michio Kaku is a theoretical physicist, activist, futurologist, and popular-science writer. He is a professor of theoretical physics in the City College of New York and CUNY Graduate Center.
The Institute of Art and Ideas features videos and articles from cutting edge thinkers discussing the ideas that are shaping the world, from metaphysics to string theory, technology to democracy, aesthetics to genetics. Subscribe today! iai.tv/subscribe?Y...
For debates and talks: iai.tv
For articles: iai.tv/articles
For courses: iai.tv/iai-academy/courses
Do you think time exists? Let us know in the comments below!
To watch the full debate, visit iai.tv/video/the-trouble-with-time?RUclips&
Cant join from the US for some reason. The system keeps reporting an error when I try to sign up.
In relation to Occam's Razor, I think time is the effect of atomic decay, without a process of decay there is no point of beginning or end therefor time only applies to that which consists of such matter. Essentially without this process of decay from beginning of life up until death you could not experience life for what it is, a linear timeline of experience, much like how a car cannot travel without the spin of a wheel. I don't believe time to be a dimension, the dimension is merely an illusion limited from an empirical perspective and completely collapses without it. It is however relative but only relative to the physical factors which we consist of as individuals.
It's sad and beautiful at the same time, we live to die and die to live. I think everything in regards to theories of spacetime should stem from that foundation which will help clear up and dismiss a lot of wishful theorising in regards to time travel etc.
Time is like a dart board where radial in time it resets for seasons and through the center that with the arrow like Newton said. Dimensions are not accepted yet. ❄️🌼👀
Idk, light doesn't experience time, which makes me wonder if it matters. Maybe it only matters to us because we do perceive it but can we measure the abscence of time that light doesnt experience?
@@tyronenorth6644 You're in the right area. A photon doesnt experience "relative time". thats one of the key obervations to understanding regarding light and time.
Michio appears over video link so he has the biggest head of everyone on the panel.
Also the most distinguished
Also the most wrong.
😂😂😂
@@seriousmaran9414 says the nobody
@jamesmortashed8455 I agree, but you are nobody too.
I think what Prof. Kaku wants to say is that elapsed time is reference frame dependent. It depends on the relative velocity of the object and the observer. People who are saying that I can measure time by a clock should understand that a clock is powered by the motion of some fundamental particles whose velocity with respect to the observer depends on the reference frame. Thus if you measure time interval by a clock then you are not measuring the absolute time interval. You are just measuring something called "time" which depends on the relative velocity of the particles which power the clock
Is an all-time reference frame dependent?
For everyone not aware: if you press the play button on the short, it brings you to the full video. Shorts have this as a feature.
I enjoy geeking out over this stuff. Great discussion
I just hate people say there is multiverse and other scifi things that no one can give evidence of
Time must exist, or else energy would be immeasurable.
That's the essence of the time/energy uncertainty relationship, I believe.
Maybe time is an illusion, but it's an illusion that's imported into theory simultaneously with energy. Which is to say, it's a really fundamental illusion!
Time exists only in our heads, there is no spacetime, space is 4 dimensions of space. Einstein produced mathematical theory, that doesnt fit reality, its not phydical theory, there are also no singularities in BHs, there is obviosly zero gravity in the centre of BHs luke in the sun, moon or earth. There also was no big bang and universe is not expanding, measurements doesnt fit, also CMB is not the first light.
Anywhere you have top physicist they cannot agree anything, because current physics is a religion with many sects. Shame are top minds are so dumb and produce bullshit and fantasies.
You missed the point.
There are different types of time, absolute time exists, the phrase that time is an illusion, is our human time. We view time differently the way absolute time exists.
@@jaymxu Let's say hypothetically, you had a theory of everything, and you had solved the universe.
Here's what that might look like:
It starts with some event, then consequent to that, each subsequent event is related to the initial event in an entirely deterministic manner.
This is the perfect information solution to everything.
Where's time in this model? It's nowhere, because you don't need it if you've solved the universal ordering problem.
Thus, time is an indexing system that we project onto the universe.
It is an illusion in the sense that a theory is a type of illusion.
On the other hand, the remarkable thing about QM is that the uncertainty this particular illusion has exists in a reciprocal relationship with energy. (According to Heisenberg.)
This particular theory (time) appears to exist in superposition with energy when measured.
What's being challenged with this relationship is a naive interpretation of realism.
The theory and the reality appear to be interdependent, when measured. They were never two different things.
@@jaymxu hi there. Can you explain what u mean by absolute time? I want to know more.
@@heybro345 Look it up.
Sometimes it sounds like they are pulling this stuff out of thin air and justify it using simplistic analogies that sound good because they are familiar to us. (typos)
5:39 The way Kaku giggles when he says “multiverse” makes me doubt he even believes this himself 😅
Time is an illusion created by our minds. The change we see around us, or more specifically motion, gives us this "feeling" of something passing us by. In reality, we never detect or measure something called "time", rather we always measure it against the motion of a given object, or mass. A day, 24 hours, is measured by the rotation of the Earth. A year is measured against the Earth's making one revolution around the Sun. Hours, minutes, seconds...all derived from the Earth's motions, measured by the hands of clocks. Atomic clocks? Determined by the vibrations of a Cesium-133 atom. All of these values we call time are the motions of one "thing" relative to another. What about General Relativity some would say...Spacetime? Spacetime is a mathematical construct, nothing more. Mathematics can describe what we see, but it too is a mental construct, a "language" of numbers, that can describe but cannot explain.
You also don’t know what’s going to happen next, and can remember that there were happenings that cannot be revisited or changed in any way, that’s what’s supposed to be being explained by time. The math used to attempt to frame time is what fails. Something about block-time doesn’t pass muster for me I just don’t buy it. Lol from my armchair
That's exactly right. However, I wouldn't call it an illusion, and instead rather that it's an "invention of human thought." Humans are good at imagining all sorts of things that are not real; we call it the imagination.
But time is not a real thing as in being a tangible commodity; it doesn't have body or substance. As well, everything exists in the present (time) and there is no past or future (time). And the present (time) is apparently eternal, or must be so.
So at least one big problem with trying to assume time has substance, or body, is that you must measure it against infinity. And since the present (time) must be eternal, or infinite, where all things exist simultaneously in the moment, it's not possible to measure against infinity.
Even matter itself would not be measurable in a definitive quantity assuming that the physical universe itself is also infinite, which would have to mean that there is likewise an infinite amount of matter...
@@Jim_Snowman Future is the word for some series of events reasonably determined to be almost certainly inevitable, that it is, the now is predicted to transform into those parameters with enough certainty that you can assume it will happen and be right at a consistent and productive rate. This is directly relevant to us, we want this explained desperately, we use the time schema to try and explain it. If the math is saying it doesn’t exist, the math is not contouring the ontology we mean it to, no? Please point out any assumptions or anything
@@Dora-hi2nwThey are confusing social or subjective time with physical time I think. Although social(where the constructivism actually fits) as well as subjective time are just as real, just in a different sense.
The word 'time' is descriptive of demonstrable existence in the universe, it isn't an "illusion" created by our minds.
Such great and differing views. Adds some different thoughts to something I have been thinking about.
We already interchange time with distance in our speech ( mostly subconsciously.)
For example: Say you’re meeting friends for dinner and they get to the restaurant before you. After waiting some time they text you asking where you’re at? Do you respond in miles? Nope, you would say “I’m five minutes away….” (As opposed to “I am 2.7 miles away.”)
I feel like time is a measurement in change. Because it'd be cool to actually just be places at certain times. That's time traveling I guess
If everyone moved at the same speed we could just use distance. Time is an abstraction over space. It doesn't mean time is actually a thing.
@@ilovetech8341 yeah it's interesting, say you have a piece of pure iron in a vacuum and you are observing that bubble, how would you know how much time has passed?
@@mickfox3262 the only way we can measure how much time has passed is by assuming a repeat cycle that we are viewing (same distance, law of rhythm) is passing like a person dancing and stomping their foot on the ground. There is an innate sense of rythm built into our senses. but even then all of space could just be expanding or contracting relative to itself. So unless we have an external constant outside time space as a reference point, we actually don't know beyond our innate sense of the law of rhythm.
I feel like Michio forgets that despite string theory has found some success in some areas of physics, none of its predictions have been verified in any experiment to date.
Greetings and thank you for the videos.
Yeah, I love to see him in popular science videos when I was younger but now he seems annoying to me by pushing string theory as a proven theory.
String theory is the only mathematical framework that is capable of explaining the entirety of the universe we live in. There is nothing like it. That's the reason Michio gets a lot of jealousy and hate from small minds. Michio is right until he can be proven wrong.
@@fraz But you know that there isn't something like "string theory". There is a landscape and it is like 10^500 possibilities. Furthermore there are several types of string theory E(8), all those type I, type II etc. Yeah I know about second superstring revolution, but those different types are still not unified. Many previous proponents of ST are now backing from it.
And one more thing, it is MIchio who needs to prove ST right, not the other way around, that's not how science works.
@oskarskalski2982 Michio has given a theory that works. It is now up to experimental physicists to verify it. Einstein was ridiculed in the same way for his groundbreaking theories.
@@fraz The Flower of Life proves him wrong. 🎉
Kaku said "it's settled."
Ummm....(?)......
“Space doesn’t have a beginning. Measurable time has a beginning.” This statement will soon be found to be true.
Thank you, Tim Maudlin, for giving Einstein's personal expression of condolence the compassionate dignity it deserves.
Nice summary cut of the full convo
Probabilities of the past and present events that might have happened based on certain conditions, situations, choices, etc. are multi-verses that one’s current primitive individual self could have existed only in one of those. On the other hand, assuming that one individual is enriched with spiritual and/or physical/material connections with or without assisted physical/spiritual technology, that individual might be able to get information to/from the past, present, and future multi-verses.
For someone who isn't a physicist, Maudlin sure seems to think he knows more than physicists. Also, not sure who thought having Avshalom as a moderator was a good idea.
He does know more
Maudlin is an arrogant pr*ck
Maudlin IS absolutely a physicist, one that is at the forefront of Fundamental Physics. He is one of the few people who actually understands the implications of Bell's Theory.
The same thing can not be said of Kaku.
@@brettharris6428 We both agree that Maudlin has the best grasp on the conceptual issues but he is not a physicist by training and he mostly publishes in philosophy journals.
@@brettharris6428 and who are you, if i may ask
It seems to me we have a basic relationship when we describe simple motion which relate three basic quantities velocity = distance/time, which are mathematically related in a cyclic way. If we imagine a ball in motion we see it changing its position in space traversing a distance, relative to some reference point, and we sense the speed involved and the distance displaced. Both the motion and the displacement seem real. We cannot get any physical interpretation of time except in relation to objects being displaced in space. It is not time which causes motion but forces or space curvature. We necessarily introduce the concept of time to get a feel for the “quickness” of motion.
In other words, time needs motion to exist but motion does not need time to exist.
Can you explain motion without referencing the notion of time?@@Alem_Mehari
@@Rogalpoker That’s a good question. I’m not sure about “explaining” it but one may intuit it.
“The world is continuous, but the mind is discrete.” ~ David Mumford
Edit: outside of space and motion everything else that we experience in life, including time, is discrete.
That’s how it feels to me.
Time does not move. We move through time.
For individuals, time "passes" at different speeds (depending on brain function - as for flies). In physics "time" is not "passing" at a specific speed - it is a parameter to describe changes in relation to each other in space. Big quantum systems like galaxies can seem static in very short or very long time intervals (with many / few parameters)
Physicists: Discretize motion in space.
Also physicists: Time flows like a river.
@@kcufhctib204 physicists do disagree
I don’t think galaxies can be described as quantum systems.
A big quantum system is oxymoronic.
@@rocketthedachshund2961 free your mind! unification of all opposites is the only way to have a unified theory of everything. If quantum is the way everything operates, then 'big' is a relative concept that ultimately has no meaning. There is no such thing as big or small, there is just what is. As far as you know, the observable universe is just a a bunch of quantum particles floating in a cup of tea...
I feel this debate is like describing an elephant but one stands in front of the elephant and one behind. Both are correct although their observations are very different from each other. Maybe the goal is now to unite both standpoints into the metaphorical elephant it is. But for that both parties have to see the world through the other persons eyes which is what I often cannot see in the scientific community. Everybody is convinced of their own view and tries to convince the other side of it but never try to really understand the other one. Words after all are way too limiting to describe what we can experience anyway. You have to think beyond words in order to understand the world.
I'm guessing Kaku is the one standing behind the elephant.
@@NondescriptMammal They're all standing inside the elephant.
@@richc848 Interesting viewpoint. And how can you know that you are inside an elephant if you have never been outside of it. You can explore everything on the inside but may never understand that what you're inside of is an elephant.
How exactly does one "think beyond words?"
@@richc848 No worries, everything inside an elephant eventually ends up behind the elephant.
Time is process. The eternal now is a dimensionless point and it is everywhere.
The direction of time's arrow is the breaking of the symmetry of the 'potential' of the boundary condition.
At very fine scales, time may be reversable but once information is created, no process is reversable.
6:15 "Professor Kaku said Einstein said time's like an arrow..." You mean Isaac Newton said.
Would love to watch the whole debate
You will have to pay to access it on their site
You can watch it for free but RUclips keeps auto-censoring my comment how to do it. 🤣
Enlighten us how to do it@@laaaliiiluuu
@@aadarshsingh9854 I tried three times but I guess some words I am using leads RUclips to autocensor my comments.
ok lets try to trick this algorithm. Lets make an encoding where a letter is represented by a number. so for a = 1, b = 2... z = 26. what do you say?@@laaaliiiluuu
Mauldin is right. Special relativity defines time as what is displayed on a clock. It can speed up or slow down like a river. This is at odds with what Einstein said about the illusion of time, which suggests towards the end of his life he didn’t believe his own theories that made him famous.
The way scientist and their brains have gone lately I’m starting to look at the scientist who are typically disagreed with more than agreed with.
Who else is watching this to just passtime even if you don't understand what they are talking about 😂
Me too 😂😭
I have formulated a hypothesis that Michio Kaku is incompatible with physics.
This is a theorem already."Kaku is an idiot".
+1 to your comment. It is their way of making money by twisting minds of people that did not enough.
at 6:23 the speaker says Einstein, but his following sentences suggest he may have meant Newton at that point.
It's fun to watch physicists argue passionately.
The strive for consistency drives a discussion plenty of ‘I believe’ sentences. The science at its best.
Time is all of those. They are all correct because they are probabilities and not absolute. The universe is not absolute. Its always in a state of change. So the reality of conciousness in in a state of change. Change sppeeds up and slows down but its always in a state of change.
Stop complaining the link for the full video is right there !
2:30 Anyone knows the person he is referring? I couldn't find him/ her on google
Michele Besso
After retrying with "philosopher friend" added to the search he popped up
At the most fundamental level, time is existence, almost trivially. If anything exists, then it exists in time. If there is any change, then time can be said to flow. If nothing changes, then time stops flowing. The rate of flow is meaningful only if there is a subpart of the universe that goes thru a cyclic state. If not, then the rate can not be measured. Time flows in only one direction before to after. We use the word forward flowing time, which misleads us to think that backward flowing time is a meaningful concept. it is not. The order of events is the direction of time. Entropy (with high likelyhood) increases in the direction of the flow of time i.e. statistical 2nd law of thermodynamics. But time does not gain its direction because of the entropy increase. In other low entropy in the past - the so-called past hypothesis is not the cause of direction of time. Even when the universe will reach thermal equilibrium, as long as there is change, time will flow. Of course before you protest, there will be nothing to perceive it. Therefore, in all of this discussion, I am talking about physical time. I am not talking about the perception of time by a conscious entity.
Time is related to mass. Without mass there is no time and no space either. If you look at an empty patch of space, you can't see time flowing and you can't tell how deep it is even with radiation present. But the moment radiation condenses to go round in closed loops to create matter, then you can count the number of turns made by radiation and this is your time- the Zitterbewegung. It is a scaler(counts) and it is in one direction and always increasing. If you have a second mass then you send light to that mass to reflect back and count the circulation again for this to happen and this is your distance- since the speed of ight is constant. This is exactly how the International Standard defines time and space- the meter scale.. by vibration and by wavelengths(c/f). regards.
Avshalom Elitzur is right ... intrepreting time, which is not fundamental but emergent if you think of discretized units or quanta of spacetime, is really important and should be considered in future theories.
You unknowingly defeat yourself with this argument. Time MUST be fundamental as 'emergence' of anything requires something to 'emerge', 'move' or 'change'. For something to emerge or change, 'time' must already exist as either a dimension or vector of the change in matter.
@@nudsh centrifugal force is emergent, and it doesn't exist unless things are spinning. Maybe time is similar?
@@battyjr centrifugal force isn't a 'real' force and it is not emergent. It is a matter of a frame of reference and because any pure force tends to want to go in a straight line unless something is acting upon it. Because your point of view is in a reference frame that is being accelerated in a circle, it seems that some external force is pushing you away from the center of the turn. There is no such force.
@@nudsh is it possibly analogous to time?
@@battyjr IMO, no. The problem as I see it is, if time 'emerged', it would have to have some void to emerge into. If that void existed and occupied 'space' at all, time would already have to be a fundamental vector as that 'space' would have to exist. Existence, whether temporal or eternal, is a function of time.
Time is a way to measure Change. Time is digital, Change is analog. Change _unfolds_ in a linear manner but is not restricted to unilinear directionality. Change also leaves an energetic trace, a record of the complex vibrational signatures of "each moment" that has happened.
The concept of simultaneity is a misinterpretation of the recognition that all time is accessible; through occasional time loops, the energetic record, and through the probabilistic vector _potentials_ of the future.
Physicists are mixing contexts when they are trying to model change in terms of measuring time and this leads to many misconceptions, including that there is no time, simultaneous time, or that time doesn't matter (because the math says so).
I can't believe in one stream of time and this moment now being the present.
What the second one said is correct because Time is a process not a dimension nor absolute thing.
Physics would not exist without "time" because all physical motion is measured in duration. Quite simply, without at least an instant of duration, nothing is measurable.
Perhaps "time", or more precisely duration, should be considered the first "dimension" because "time" elapsing facilitates all observation and an elapsing duration is as much an aspect of our reality as length, width, or depth. Therefore "time" is not an illusion, it is just poorly understood.
From my perspective, Michio has become very difficult to listen to.
Now, ask yourself what are the implications of your thoughts if humans don't exist, because physics or the fundamental properties of nature as far as a physical universe goes will still exist without us and our time measurements or is physics like a tree falling in a forest with no one there to observe the results.
@@marcariotto1709 The universe exists without us observing it. Physics is merely the name we give to our study of motion and it(motion) also happens without us observing it.
The duration of the universe elapses whether we observe it or not.
What's far more interesting, to me, than philosophizing about the nature of observation, as you seem to be suggesting, is considering the dynamic mechanism by which relative duration elapses(how "time" is interwoven with motion) and how it applies to the duration of a macro structure despite independent motion within the macro structure itself.
@@snarzetax
I'm very much a novice at both philosophy and physics, so take and treat these comments accordingly.
There is no independent motion on any scale in any system. It is all interconnected, and factors must be accounted for in equations or in experiments or otherwise be isolated from the influential factors.
I am suggesting philosophy a bit because materialism and reductionism seem to be bumping into road blocks these days, while physicists who allow for philosophy seem to be leading to new avenues of persute and progress.
I find it interesting to learn how philosophical many of the older physicists were, and I think precollege education does us a great disservice by not including it in education.
These comments also come with a background reference to the relatively recent knowledge that time breaks down at the quantum level, thus necessitating new avenues to pursue or understand physics.
Regardless of where it all goes, it's cool talking about it, so cheers!
Thank you. I think I may watch the whole thing.
You're misspelling Tim Maudlins name, but at least you're consistent about it; it's d before l.
If you have HERE/THERE you must also have BEFORE/AFTER or THEN/NOW. How can you have place separate from time? You can't be in two places at once, so there has to be time. Well, if there's location(s).
I think Avshalom, with all due respect to him is pulling Deepak Chopra here. Using Einstein condolences as his scientific believe is not honest
Michio Kaku is out of control!
gotta love that quote from Eric 😂
Recommend a recent paper about time contraction interpretation (DOI: 10.21275/SR23918031232). Lorentz´s time dilation is a scale change in time value; not the passage of time! Imagine a proper clock where the values at the dial change following its energetic content (General relativity = energy produces time dilation and length contraction). For length contraction, imagine an engineer ruler, the value depends on the scale selected BUT the ruler occupies the same space. Returning to the time dilation, for photons at speed C, their scale will indicate no change in value; i,e, length = time = zero. Imagine again the proper clock of the photon with the same number all around the dial... The moving handle will give a time difference of zero, meanwhile, its handle is synchronized with the rest of the universe. In the twin paradox, the traveler brother can shake hands with his brother on Earth, both with different time values but both at the same passage of time... very simple... hope you like it, regards
A photon would experience absolute simultaneity. It is at once where it was emitted and where it is absorbed, whether that is from the Sun to Earth, from the Milky Way to Andromeda or from the edge of the visible universe to our telescopes. To light, all journeys are instantaneous, and therefore to a photon all instants are simultaneous.
Time only exists for living things due to the need to replenish energy
Living organism noticed time because we noticed things in our environment decay essentially.
@@lettherebedotsI beg to differ we notice the moment we can't breath or suckle from the womb we seek to fill a depletion the moments are noticeable then decay is much later
So a star is a living thing ,right?
@@georgesosIt consumes Energy correct?, without that process it is not a Star Right? I go even further with the observation without energy depletion we wouldn't have evil/moral issues.
From the Einstein equation it calculates into the resistance of my statement as you direct force/energy against my hypothesis.
" The Depletion/Renewal" Energy Cycle drives all Non-Inert matter therefore Time... Scary thought turn off the flow all things end
This reminds me of when everyone in your foursome has the hole sourrounded and they just can't put the golf ball in the hole.
Of course time would be... time doesn't exist outside of human perception. We perceive past as memory, presence as sensation and emotion, and future as abstract thoughts. Time in physics is relative to gravity waves in the "river of time" as he says. We live in something like a bubble that formed between colliding gravity waves. Creating a quantum foam of bubbles of gravity vacuums.
Spontaneous self assembly and computer systems
Snapping your fingers happening "simultaneously" throughout the universe doesn't mean time is a "dimension." In fact, the impermanence of your snapping your fingers and that it no longer exists and that WE, as humans, remember that you snapped your fingers 20 seconds ago really indicates that time IS NOT A "DIMENSION." Time is a human construct. The "measure" of time is a human construct and NOT a "dimension."
Time is the length between two points of smaller dimensional construct. ❗⭕
Time is a human notion that attempts to measure the location of matter relative to other matter in the universe and is a condition of physical beings in terms of location.
However, the hear Kaku say that two universes collided and produced the so called big bang indicates that he is completely lost in his irrational hypotheses of multiverses, string theory and quantum physics. Kaku is in serious intellectual disarray and has become a “night show astrophysicist” just like DeGrass Tyson.
It seems that they believe that in order to justify their jobs they have to come up with the silliest of ideas.
There is a lot of quantum mechanics that physicists skip. I read books by Greene and Kaku and I think they both have a solid grasp of the underlying principles. It just isn't something you can explain in 30 seconds
If you base your measurement of time on something that vibrates and it turns out to be true that things do vibrate different rates at different locations that only means your measurements differ. It does not mean actual objective synced time across the universe has slowed down.
The universe is a sliding window seems to fit the way it is built is economic and elegant
Why does Hawking s dimensional argument convincingly work? Because if geometry is physical then physical is a so geometry. But think in units and dimensions mapping to a truth/ clarity table
I personally believe that these academic topics should not be discussed like newsroom debates
String theory like the big bang is no longer fashionable.
What about the Chronosynclasticinfindibula??
He died, sadly for him just three a mere years before he was born. But thank you for keeping Grandfather's paradoxications alive, he will be happy for you.
We still arguing over time?
And time is a word that represents dimensions and not the areas but the properties. Space is the area and time is all that within in a superposition because it’s unmeasured or undefined. Once measured you can collapse the differences in relation and see the whole of it all.
These people never heard of Vik Grebennikov, but that's ok. They are all hopelessly lost pushing their own theories but I can nicely shut down this mindset and enjoy how Vik built and used his own anti-gravity platform.
He's right. The lorentz transform is just a trick on perspective. Any good artist would understand that. The real question is does perception of time slow down the faster you travel. Einstein was smart but he needed to take some art classes.
I used to believe that time didn't exist, but that was earlier when it did.
10:00 Einstein was a good physicist but he never understood Time.
When you involve conciousness then time is decernable threw our memory of the past. Does time exist without conciousness? Or can time exist outside of conciousness? It may not exist for a person who is still here. Ok what about conciousness without a body.
Enters Optional Chronology : " ... Dear Professor, We are running not out of Time but of options available ... "
Ya name'em All
Proving time is not a dimension is very easily proved by two women running two separate races. A woman runs a race from start to finish in 12 seconds. A second woman runs the race, stops in the middle, turns around and runs back to the start and out of the stadium. Her time is "infinity."
time is an illusion that helps things make sense,
so we're always living in the present tense.
It seems unforgiving when a good thing ends,
but you and I will always be back then
singing
"Will Happen,
Happening,
Happened"
Just kidding, i love this song
4:00 Maudlin on Einstein's letter of condolence
Wow... first time I hear Maudlin say something that's utterly correct. Maybe he is not totally "outta there", after all. :-)
Between any two points in space, there is but one point in time, between any two points in time, there is but one point in space?
They didn’t even touch upon the fact that quantum mechanics requires an absolute now.
Particles with a pilot wave motion, over time; the waves have a time period. But, our perception of reality is a standing wave, that is modulated to form our reality. How many planes or dimensions are involved, who knows? But the standing pilot wave implies no arrow of time for humans. And a standing pilot wave implies a mismatch, perhaps from a particle asymmetry in the volume of the cosmos.
Time is a relationship among mass events. In a quantum paradigm time disappears when an event disappears. Time recurs with new events
Time can neither have a beginning, nor can the past be infinite.
If time had a beginning, then prior to that would be a state of "no time", which would mean that nothing could be changing. To have "change" ALREADY implies the existence of 'time". Without change, nothing could happen to trigger the start of time.
Infinity is something that you can progress toward, but never reach. You can progress toward an infinite future, because the future is always "in progress". But the past is not "in progress". It represents something completed. To say that the past is infinite to say that we completed a journey through an infinity, which contradicts the definition of "infinity".
Whenever there is a pair of paradoxes that seem like mutually exclusive possibilities, it probably means that you have to think "outside the box".
I think where this is pointing is to a "static" or "block" universe, as special relativity seems to suggest. I.e. that the past is "not gone", and the future has "already happened". Moments of time "coexist", in a single spacetime, spread out infinitely, like a tree, in both directions. The mistake is in assuming a completely serialized "march of time", as opposed to a single, infinitely-sized, permanently existing sort of "object".
There is no time
The thing is you can argue about this is all day but on really well probably never fully an l understand much. I imagine that the universe is a billion times more complicated than we think. With no beginning and no end just changes.
Is time the product of consciousness?
Kaku can't make any statement without introducing the crazy multiverse.
What no one here considers is whether the belief in time, or the disbelief in time, has any meaning absent a coherent concept of why time was ever posited as a real thing to begin with.
I like Tim as a lecturer or during one-on-one interviews, but I find he can appear borderline-belligerent, condescending, and dismissive in conversations with those he disagrees with regarding academic questions. I say, "appear," because I can't read his mind and some people can sound more emotionally invested than they actually are, but I think the content of what he says supports my original statement.
Time is simple. There is only NOW. Then there is the future and past. But nothing can ever escape NOW. All consciousness only now. But cycles of time can reach into the future or past. All human endeavors act off earth time.
there are almost no physical equations where time is involved. It is a useless quantity that only has subjective meaning for human perception
Snapping your fingers no longer exists. We all remember that you snapped your fingers "20 seconds" ago
Kaku forgot the paradox of "string theory is always right bc we just make stuff up"
7:00 Time is a process means automatically that it’s relative, that doesn’t need Einstein to prove that Time is relative!
And Gravity and acceleration affect the tool of measuring Time not Time itself (because Time is a process).
Imagine that time is a singularity, everything that has ever happened is there, consciousness is linear it can move back and forward perceiving time at a biological rate. When a universe is created all events are created. We live in a Time Black Hole.
inertial and gravitational forces are similar in nature and usually indistinguishable!
Very likely Gravity interacts with each particle independently regardless of its location to other particles in the same object and that’s why all objects fall at the same rate.
very likely the happy dream of Einstein is just a simple dream!
By taking what mentioned above it’s much easier to understand why inertial and gravitational forces are similar in nature and usually indistinguishable!
I have noticed the way they deal with small g and big G in physics equations, there were good physicists in the past such as Newton, Maxwell, Planck,….etc but they never had good understanding of the fundamentals of physics such as space and constants.
Is time opened & stuffed in living creations as different illusion for each living creation?😮 And what about elemental transformations?
8:20 paradox means one of two: wrong equations or understanding and interpretations.
Time is a moving smear that leaves no residue except with interaction with a black hole or a phase transition/particle death.
Have a great weekend everyone
Time is the 'shadow' of physics,
all physics is Motion.
Anyone ever heard of Einstein’s friend mentioned named Micaela Bessel?
Only need two dimensions to create the illusion of three. One dimension is time, the other is the physical singularity of the big bang. The rest is projected onto the surface of the singularity. You're welcome.
Tim Maudlin doesn't appear to be listening to Kaku, Tim states 'Actually, Einstein never said time was like an arrow'.
Only, Kaku had said that Newton espoused such a metaphor, with Einstein equating it to more akin to that of a river
I think Tim simply mispoke there. He meant to say Newton.
I believe I already have the show and it's ready to go. EMFS theory. It's all in.
Is time incompatible with physics? Huh??? Time is part of physics! And for quite some time!
Yes sure. But time as the approximation or even the image in a mirror - made constant - is helpful for comprehension. A complete cacophony of “multiverse” is cute random palaver for a lab.
I put a lot of simple research and basic thinking into the problem of 'time' and admit that it has me stumped.
I also tried mixing religion/s, philosophies, and science; again nothing conclusive.
So I worked it as I went along, and concluded in the end that no two physical objects can occupy the same space at the the same time. Simple, and it explains why a bullet kills-the attempt to make two objects occupy the same space at the same time leads to disruption ... no?
In the end I am forced to conclude that the only 'thing' that moves in all of existence/history is perception. Ergo, there's no (as in NO, meaning zero) 'free will'. None at all.
There is (and can only be) predestination. But: NOT predestined by any god, gods, spooks, spirits or other phantoms ... but by existence itself.
If anyone could be bothered you'd find a lot of food for thought in the Fitzgerald translations of Khayyam's "Rubaiyat". But don't blitz 'em, think 'em through.
That Fitzgerald was a clergyman doesn't mean his translations are full of religious proselytising, not at all. My recommendation? Go there, read through the lot and make your own mind up. Good luck.
I also like simultaneity. Even though a star may be (say) four lightyears away, something happening 'now' to me is an event in existence, fixed in Time and Space. Go far enough and fast enough out with a powerful enough 'peekascope' and you'll see ole Noah herding the camels and kiwi-birds onto his ark. So simultaneity is actually unreal, conceptual only. But I like it - planks under my feet in a bog, no?
I don't get your conclusion re free will.
Simply ... if God knows which 'choice' you are going to 'choose' ... what options do you actually have, really?
God is omniscient ... so before you were even born you were going to make THAT choice. Again, what alternatives do/did you ever have? Zero. None at all. Ergo-
God's omniscience blows any notion of 'Free Will' right out of the water.
God's omniscience means that you are doomed to only do that which He knows you are going to do. It's one, or the other; it's either Free Will or Predestination; can't have both.@@miraculixxs
Two approaches; the religious approach and the simple. As a non-religious guy I opt for simple. I stick with the basic notion that if something is in the future and is going to happen, then it will happen - it cannot not happen, or it wouldn't have been in the future.
It is because we don't know what will happen that we have the illusion of Free Will, and believe that we can change stuff.
As for the religious approach I take the line that as God is omniscient then He knows the future. So He knows (knew even before you were born) what 'choice' you would make; which of course means you (eventually) took the only 'course' there ever was - the one you were always going to. No choice at all, just a needle in a groove on an old fashioned record.
I state often that God's omniscience blows Free Will out of the water; it can be one or the other but not both. Simply-
-if God is omniscient then there is and can never be any "Free Will". @@miraculixxs
@@johnhough7738 Your second approach only applies if there's only 1 possible future. (I'm an agnostic but I'll play along), If God is omniscient then there can be free will, is just that he has to be omniscient of every possible future (which might be an infinity if the universe is infinite or it wouldn't if the universe isn't infinite). Once a moment passes, and a choice is made (be it conscious or quantum) the quantity of possible futures diminishes, and it goes like that until the last thing that can happen happens and only then there are no more futures (choices), once all interactions cease.