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.
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
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.
0:17 ''Frozen pictures along Time''. Very interesting. It once happened that in a meditative state it seemed an inner voice said ''you could go now''. I thought of someone I was attached to , and said :''I could go to..X'' The inner voice perceptively said ''Which X??'' And I saw my 'memories' of X as simply an endless series of frames as in a movie. I still try to comprehend the profound 'meaning' in that.
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 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.
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.
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.
I find this fascinating even though I don't understand most of it. I'm in therapy and trying to change the way I think about time (in our human sense of time). This entails not thinking "coulda/woulda/shoulda," but thinking, "ok, this is where I am right now and this is where I want to go." I've also watched a video claiming there is no actual "free will" because the destiny of every particle of matter and energy, and the space they occupy, was determined at the moment of the big bang. I find that odd as I sort of believe in the idea of chaos. Certainly, there seems to be chaos in the behavior and biology of living beings. To me, someone interested in physics but never got past differential equations in college - and that was decades ago - this is all interesting and baffling at the same time (pun intended).
He rambled when he could have made his argument in 10 seconds and let the other guy reply. Tim claimed nothing in Einstein's scientific work backs up the claim literally, Maybe it does. But Tim rambled so long that the other guy didn't get to respond . The other guy.. Avshalom Elitzur actually does reply to it later, near the end of the clip and mentions another reference Einstein makes to the same concept, in a letter to a philosopher.
Yes - the poetry of life is the spirit of a person. It cannot be quantified. Science, physics, is quantifiable. Thanks for telling me who this is!! 🕊️🌷🌱
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.
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 words, low entropy in the past - the so-called past hypothesis is not the cause of the 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. Just to be crystal clear, in all of this discussion, I am talking about physical time. I am not talking about the perception of time by a conscious entity.
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)
@@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.
@@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.
Time is really, really simple. What people don't realise is that they have used the concept of time on multiple occasions during every day for perhaps 16 years before they even start to seriously wonder what it is. This is like asking a devout believer if he has really thought about god. Clearly 'time' started with humans wanting to control their lives with more accuracy that just 'meet you at noon, or 'meet at day break in three days time'. We were greatly pushed down this route because we live in a universal clock with three displays - days, months and years. So, we invent a better clock - one which is synchronised to midday but is graduated so that we can meet at 2:35 reliably. Once that is done we don't actually need the Earth 'day' clock anymore. That process gave us 'time' but there was no actual 'entity' involved - a clock is just a mechanical mechanism that just goes round and round and round and round. It does that at a rate that WE decide and against dial numbers the WE write on. So a more obvious case of something telling us exactly what we built it to tell us would be hard to find. Then when we get to be smarter we start to use time as a way of studying our world - the X-axis being 'time' is the start and clock then just get marked in seconds - great. But we then lose our way and we start to think that we can distort time or that time is distorted by other events. Well, no, time is what we define on that mechanical clock. 12:34 on our clock is 12:34 in the entire universe - it is a definition, as with the clock 12:34 is just us saying that it what the time is. I'm not saying that all of science is wrong - I'm just pointing out that when people state that time is 'dilated' they should have immediately thought - oh hang on it can't be - back to the drawing board....
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.
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)
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.
@@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.
As Robert Frost put it: these theories are nothing more than temporary stays against confusion. Little here is 'settled' and that which is becomes subject to Zeno's paradox.
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
What Tim Maudlin weren’t able to say in this clip but has said elsewhere, is that the very geometry of Einstein’s spacetime actually makes a fundamental distinction between past and future. There’s a past light cone and a future light cone. So the idea that Einsteinian physics doesn’t distinguish between past and future is simply wrong. That’s Maudlin’s point.
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
It's a bit weird when scientists say that a fundamental property of the universe has got to go because it doesn't fit in well with their theories instead of saying 'my theories need adjusting'.
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.
Time has a beginning because it's inextricably tied to perception. Space doesn't have a beginning because it's not dependent on an observer. Without the observer, space simply doesn't matter, but it doesn't cease or begin to exist due to the observer observing or not observing it. A least that's the assumption. Time is energy spent for a specific change to ensue. Time is literally the sum of energy lost from the perspective of the object for which the change is occurring. Beyond man made clocks, time is a perception of qualities altering within a preconceived context. Without anyone to "measure" or "look at the time" there is no time.
This paper proposes a novel perspective on quantum mechanics by introducing scale invariance as a fundamental principle linking the wave function of the universe (Ψuniverse) and sub-wave functions (ψsub). By treating "time" as the scale-invariant momentum, we challenge the current paradigm and suggest a unified framework where the behavior of sub-wave functions is intrinsically connected to the universal wave function. We explore the mathematical foundations of this approach and discuss its implications for understanding the fundamental nature of quantum systems. Using the Feynman path integral formulation, we aim to provide a coherent and comprehensive explanation of this scale-invariant relationship.
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.
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".
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.
@@schmetterling4477 Thanks. Majority of the people don't realize it yet that the quantum fields and so called Quantum Chromodynamics are a type of spiritual energies in a way. Can you visually or scientifically prove those particles aside from writing down with calculations? In Spiritual science, there are calculations based on the stars to predict certain disasters or catastrophic events while there's an ancient theoretical material/scientific calculations methods for weather and disaster forecasting.
@@schmetterling4477 What kind of person is wasting time on a post with boring topics? The wavelength of your ego is too short and weak to touch others’ ego with your unintellectual arguments 😉
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.”)
@@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.
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).
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.
@@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.
@@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.
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.
@@Skunk106 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!
@@snarzetax You don't know if the universe even exists without anyone to observe it. I'm not saying it doesn't or does, just saying there is no way for you to confirm this, hence know it. And time certainly cannot exist without anyone to observe it "passing", "elapsing", "flowing"....whatever you wanna call it. This is why time has a beginning - it's inextricably tied to perception. And what you call "motion" can be reduced to exchange of energy, which from the observer's perspective is always a loss of energy for the object in motion. So time can be said to be the expenditure or giving up of energy for a particular change to ensue. This change you can measure in length, but also in age and other parameters. However, whichever criteria you use, the only constant is energy expenditure.
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).
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
We should regard time as: Life’s earliest adaptation to its environment-and therefore in some sense life’s defining characteristic. Time enabled life’s evolution, which was a novelty on Earth. We realize that traditional thought enshrines time as an inherent part of existence and not an adaptation that life invented. But that view forces us to explain why the passage of coherent time appears to be arbitrary and incidental in the non-living universe (Gödel 1959) while it is fundamental and essential for terrestrial life. For evolution to work, every organism must either reproduce before dying or die before reproducing. In the former case, the organism can contribute whatever success that led to its prolific life to the genome of its species. In the latter case, the species abandons the failed organism and discards its DNA. This process would depend on the species participating in a universal application of the sequence before-and-after, which we may regard as the simplest manifestation of time.
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.
In a singularity there is no past or future, there is only present. When reality becomes less singular, because of the big bang, you get a passage of time. In this fragmented state of reality, there is only past and future, but no sense of present time. I agree with Michio kaku that the way we interpret time is probably through averages of quantum effects like state collapses. But how he believes string theory and multiverses are real is still a mystery to me.
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.
In my opinion, Time does not exist to the contents of the universe. Time is an invention of the consciousness to evaluate change. Let me ask you. How old are you if you travelled in a straight line or in a direction that does not loop in the universe? Or, how old are you if you are in a fixed position in the universe. No time to tell and so how would you break down increments to describe your appearance in the universe. However, I am moving in circles which does not tell me my age, rather I have traveled around the sun on a planet in 45 plus orbits.
Wait, did Tim say Einstein believes in events at different locations all happening simultaneously or NOT? I didn't quite understand after he finished his paragraph
This is an invitation to see a theory where light is both a wave and a particle, with a probabilistic ∆×∆pᵪ≥h/4π, future continuously unfolding in relation to the electron probability cloud of atoms and the wavelength of light. In this theory, the wave-particle duality of light and matter (electrons) creates a blank canvas that we (atoms) can interact with forming a future relative to the energy and momentum of our actions. This interaction is represented by a constant of action in space and time, mathematically denoted as the Planck constant h/2π. This concept is supported by the fact that light photon energy ∆E=hf is continuous exchange into the kinetic energy Eₖ=½mv² of matter, in the form of electrons
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
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.
Without time as a real and measurable quantity, the practice of engineering as we know it wouldn't be possible. Time is real and it is important dimension in engineering, simulation, communication. Engineering is practical.
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."
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.
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
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.
@@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
@@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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Tim Maudlin says it like it is!! String theory just makes no sense. You can’t have an infinity of each microsecond in time. It’s incomprehensible!! 🕊️🌷🌱
Time is just the perception of causality. It’s not a separate thing. Energy and Time = motion. Motion = Causality. Is like the first and second dimension. They only exist within the 3rd dimension. They are not reality. Absolute time is an illusion.
Time is relative to the mass as it moves though the cosmos. Remove all cosmic motion from a system it will no longer exist it collapse out existence. Massless particles are timeless and do not atrophy will continue to exist infinitely unless collision giving it energy to something with mass. Larger the accumulation mass the more the force of time dilation is experienced. The force of time dilation is what is felt as “gravity” all matter attempts to atrophy to the same time at the subatomic level ultimately seeks to collapse into non existence the magnetic forces prevent this. This is that keeps matter together. Magnetic fields when excited attempt to disperse the matter but it’s the time dilation the is the force that holds all matter together, it is the magnetic forces that moves energy through matter. Two fundamental flaws to a physics is comprehension of cosmic motion role in every observable system. A mis appropriation of atomic forces to weak and strong magnetic forces when it matter in motion induction of the of force time dilation. Now you know what gravity and time really is.
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.
When doing the double slit experiment, we wonder why the wave crashed. So, if you look through binoculars at a bird landing on a branch, if you look with the naked eye quickly enough you will see the bird hasn't landed. But if you continue to look through the binoculars the bird has already landed. So you're looking at an outcome prior to the outcome happening. It's real I've done this many times. It's incredible really. So what's happening with the double slit? We're projecting the outcome prior to the outcome happening, and as long as you continue to look, the outcome remains the same but if you look away then all outcomes occur. Our brain can't see the wave, so to our brain, it's not there. Thus, the outcome is predictable super position is achieved and that's why the wave collapse happens. Our brain is wired to always find this position in any scenario. So what crashed the wave function? Super position crashed the wave function. Arguments, please. Let's get the answers right now. Peace ✌️ 😎.
@chickenlover657 incredible really, the brain does this so our chance for success increases. So we can eat. That's incredible stuff. Very cool 😎 indeed. Peace ✌️ 😎.
@@alex79suited But the bird DOES land. So you can catch it and eat it...or just watch it. What does it matter if your brain tells you it landed a few milliseconds before it actually landed? I mean ballistically this is an advantage: you pull the trigger when you THINK the bird has landed, and the bullet reaches the bird when it ACTUALLY lands. In hunting this anticipation is a tool.
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.
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.
I enjoy geeking out over this stuff. Great discussion
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.
@@MilieuGames Thank you
According to Ein-shtein, you were already there 😅
Please pardon my ignorance, but how can get to the Short?
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?
Don’t even bother. He’s spouting nonsense
@@johnsolo123456 which one ? just playin lol
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.
0:17 ''Frozen pictures along Time''. Very interesting. It once happened that in a meditative state it seemed an inner voice said ''you could go now''. I thought of someone I was attached to , and said :''I could go to..X'' The inner voice perceptively said ''Which X??'' And I saw my 'memories' of X as simply an endless series of frames as in a movie. I still try to comprehend the profound 'meaning' in that.
@@belavarplaniie8933 wow can you elaborate it more
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 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.
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. 🎉
I find this fascinating even though I don't understand most of it. I'm in therapy and trying to change the way I think about time (in our human sense of time). This entails not thinking "coulda/woulda/shoulda," but thinking, "ok, this is where I am right now and this is where I want to go."
I've also watched a video claiming there is no actual "free will" because the destiny of every particle of matter and energy, and the space they occupy, was determined at the moment of the big bang. I find that odd as I sort of believe in the idea of chaos. Certainly, there seems to be chaos in the behavior and biology of living beings.
To me, someone interested in physics but never got past differential equations in college - and that was decades ago - this is all interesting and baffling at the same time (pun intended).
Thank you, Tim Maudlin, for giving Einstein's personal expression of condolence the compassionate dignity it deserves.
He rambled when he could have made his argument in 10 seconds and let the other guy reply. Tim claimed nothing in Einstein's scientific work backs up the claim literally, Maybe it does. But Tim rambled so long that the other guy didn't get to respond . The other guy.. Avshalom Elitzur actually does reply to it later, near the end of the clip and mentions another reference Einstein makes to the same concept, in a letter to a philosopher.
Yes - the poetry of life is the spirit of a person. It cannot be quantified. Science, physics, is quantifiable. Thanks for telling me who this is!! 🕊️🌷🌱
I just hate people say there is multiverse and other scifi things that no one can give evidence of
me too
Meanwhile, try remote viewing. Have pampers ready.
It's a valid hypothesis, but not an established theory indeed. I agree it seems unwise to be so certain of it.
@@daanschone1548 I'm not sure if this is a valid hypothesis.
@@lucasrinaldi9909 it's just as valid as determinism for example. You can't really proof it (yet).
at 6:23 the speaker says Einstein, but his following sentences suggest he may have meant Newton at that point.
Who else is watching this to just passtime even if you don't understand what they are talking about 😂
Me too 😂😭
I was hoping to maybe hear something that I might understand at least part of, even though that's extremely unlikely.
It's pretty simple they're just talking about ideas.
If you are watching this to pass time - I guess this debate is settled
Me.
And the physicists on that stage (+Kaku)
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.
Such great and differing views. Adds some different thoughts to something I have been thinking about.
Einstein didn’t want people worshipping his bones , or so I read. Nice kind note he wrote to a friend
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 words, low entropy in the past - the so-called past hypothesis is not the cause of the 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. Just to be crystal clear, in all of this discussion, I am talking about physical time. I am not talking about the perception of time by a conscious entity.
@@SandipChitale fantastic. Explanation
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.
@@Voidapparate 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 think Avshalom, with all due respect to him is pulling Deepak Chopra here. Using Einstein condolences as his scientific believe is not honest
Exactly!
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 really, really simple. What people don't realise is that they have used the concept of time on multiple occasions during every day for perhaps 16 years before they even start to seriously wonder what it is. This is like asking a devout believer if he has really thought about god. Clearly 'time' started with humans wanting to control their lives with more accuracy that just 'meet you at noon, or 'meet at day break in three days time'. We were greatly pushed down this route because we live in a universal clock with three displays - days, months and years. So, we invent a better clock - one which is synchronised to midday but is graduated so that we can meet at 2:35 reliably. Once that is done we don't actually need the Earth 'day' clock anymore. That process gave us 'time' but there was no actual 'entity' involved - a clock is just a mechanical mechanism that just goes round and round and round and round. It does that at a rate that WE decide and against dial numbers the WE write on. So a more obvious case of something telling us exactly what we built it to tell us would be hard to find. Then when we get to be smarter we start to use time as a way of studying our world - the X-axis being 'time' is the start and clock then just get marked in seconds - great. But we then lose our way and we start to think that we can distort time or that time is distorted by other events. Well, no, time is what we define on that mechanical clock. 12:34 on our clock is 12:34 in the entire universe - it is a definition, as with the clock 12:34 is just us saying that it what the time is. I'm not saying that all of science is wrong - I'm just pointing out that when people state that time is 'dilated' they should have immediately thought - oh hang on it can't be - back to the drawing board....
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.
You can't see "empty" space.
String theory is one of the most arrogant theories that ever existed.
Eric weinstein says it's a bogus theory and leads to no useful applications
So is Kaku. No an inch of proof although the theory is pretty interesting
@@philippeberaud358 interesting like a cultish religion
Not really. It just follows the mathematical framework. Nothing special or arrogant about that.
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)
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.
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.
6:15 "Professor Kaku said Einstein said time's like an arrow..." You mean Isaac Newton said.
As Robert Frost put it: these theories are nothing more than temporary stays against confusion. Little here is 'settled' and that which is becomes subject to Zeno's paradox.
Michio Kaku is out of control!
gotta love that quote from Eric 😂
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.
What Tim Maudlin weren’t able to say in this clip but has said elsewhere, is that the very geometry of Einstein’s spacetime actually makes a fundamental distinction between past and future. There’s a past light cone and a future light cone. So the idea that Einsteinian physics doesn’t distinguish between past and future is simply wrong. That’s Maudlin’s point.
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
The strive for consistency drives a discussion plenty of ‘I believe’ sentences. The science at its best.
It's a bit weird when scientists say that a fundamental property of the universe has got to go because it doesn't fit in well with their theories instead of saying 'my theories need adjusting'.
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
Time does not move. We move through time.
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.
“Space doesn’t have a beginning. Measurable time has a beginning.” This statement will soon be found to be true.
Nah
Time has a beginning because it's inextricably tied to perception. Space doesn't have a beginning because it's not dependent on an observer. Without the observer, space simply doesn't matter, but it doesn't cease or begin to exist due to the observer observing or not observing it. A least that's the assumption.
Time is energy spent for a specific change to ensue. Time is literally the sum of energy lost from the perspective of the object for which the change is occurring. Beyond man made clocks, time is a perception of qualities altering within a preconceived context. Without anyone to "measure" or "look at the time" there is no time.
This paper proposes a novel perspective on quantum mechanics by introducing scale invariance as a fundamental principle linking the wave function of the universe (Ψuniverse) and sub-wave functions (ψsub). By treating "time" as the scale-invariant momentum, we challenge the current paradigm and suggest a unified framework where the behavior of sub-wave functions is intrinsically connected to the universal wave function. We explore the mathematical foundations of this approach and discuss its implications for understanding the fundamental nature of quantum systems. Using the Feynman path integral formulation, we aim to provide a coherent and comprehensive explanation of this scale-invariant relationship.
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.
Kaku said "it's settled."
Ummm....(?)......
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
Time doesn't exist without measuring time. So the beginning of time is the beginning of measuring time. Time is inextricably tied to perception.
The spaceship doesn’t actually change length. It’s perceived because of information taking time to travel. 8:28
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.
Cool poetry in motion, zero physical intuition. ;-)
@@schmetterling4477 Thanks.
Majority of the people don't realize it yet that the quantum fields and so called Quantum Chromodynamics are a type of spiritual energies in a way.
Can you visually or scientifically prove those particles aside from writing down with calculations?
In Spiritual science, there are calculations based on the stars to predict certain disasters or catastrophic events while there's an ancient theoretical material/scientific calculations methods for weather and disaster forecasting.
@@Zk_Vist More poetry in motion. Boring. ;-)
@@schmetterling4477 What kind of person is wasting time on a post with boring topics?
The wavelength of your ego is too short and weak to touch others’ ego with your unintellectual arguments 😉
4:20 he has nothing to add to science, he only makes noise and media played a bad role in that.
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.
01 Time still running 010 Timing
If you cannot explain I.T. simply,
"YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND I.T.".
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).
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.
5:39 The way Kaku giggles when he says “multiverse” makes me doubt he even believes this himself 😅
@@magnushelliesen he believes it, he just knows we can’t measure it. Yet.
@@RayPierreWhit607 same, I know I can design the ultimate theory explaining everything we observed in the universe. I just didn't find it...Yet !
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.
@@Skunk106 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!
@@snarzetax You don't know if the universe even exists without anyone to observe it. I'm not saying it doesn't or does, just saying there is no way for you to confirm this, hence know it. And time certainly cannot exist without anyone to observe it "passing", "elapsing", "flowing"....whatever you wanna call it. This is why time has a beginning - it's inextricably tied to perception.
And what you call "motion" can be reduced to exchange of energy, which from the observer's perspective is always a loss of energy for the object in motion. So time can be said to be the expenditure or giving up of energy for a particular change to ensue. This change you can measure in length, but also in age and other parameters. However, whichever criteria you use, the only constant is energy expenditure.
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).
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.
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
We should regard time as:
Life’s earliest adaptation to its environment-and therefore in some sense life’s defining
characteristic. Time enabled life’s evolution, which was a novelty on Earth. We
realize that traditional thought enshrines time as an inherent part of existence and
not an adaptation that life invented. But that view forces us to explain why the
passage of coherent time appears to be arbitrary and incidental in the non-living
universe (Gödel 1959) while it is fundamental and essential for terrestrial life.
For evolution to work, every organism must either reproduce before dying or die
before reproducing. In the former case, the organism can contribute whatever
success that led to its prolific life to the genome of its species. In the latter case, the
species abandons the failed organism and discards its DNA. This process would
depend on the species participating in a universal application of the sequence
before-and-after, which we may regard as the simplest manifestation of time.
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.
In a singularity there is no past or future, there is only present. When reality becomes less singular, because of the big bang, you get a passage of time. In this fragmented state of reality, there is only past and future, but no sense of present time. I agree with Michio kaku that the way we interpret time is probably through averages of quantum effects like state collapses. But how he believes string theory and multiverses are real is still a mystery to me.
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.
It's fun to watch physicists argue passionately.
In my opinion,
Time does not exist to the contents of the universe. Time is an invention of the consciousness to evaluate change.
Let me ask you. How old are you if you travelled in a straight line or in a direction that does not loop in the universe? Or, how old are you if you are in a fixed position in the universe.
No time to tell and so how would you break down increments to describe your appearance in the universe.
However, I am moving in circles which does not tell me my age, rather I have traveled around the sun on a planet in 45 plus orbits.
Technically, you're moving in a spiral traveling on an elliptical orbit within a system orbiting the center of a galaxy at 828K km per hour...
Time is the length between two points of smaller dimensional construct. ❗⭕
Wait, did Tim say Einstein believes in events at different locations all happening simultaneously or NOT? I didn't quite understand after he finished his paragraph
This is an invitation to see a theory where light is both a wave and a particle, with a probabilistic ∆×∆pᵪ≥h/4π, future continuously unfolding in relation to the electron probability cloud of atoms and the wavelength of light. In this theory, the wave-particle duality of light and matter (electrons) creates a blank canvas that we (atoms) can interact with forming a future relative to the energy and momentum of our actions. This interaction is represented by a constant of action in space and time, mathematically denoted as the Planck constant h/2π. This concept is supported by the fact that light photon energy ∆E=hf is continuous exchange into the kinetic energy Eₖ=½mv² of matter, in the form of electrons
Kaku is a clown now 🤡
2:15, Elitzur destroyed entire Super String theory community, lol
Michio is nothing better than a priest telling you Jesus existed because he claims all signs point to yes.
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
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.
I went to the full debate link. So slow the video download UNWATCHABLE
Did Kaku have a stroke? The right side of his face is slack.
Not poking fun, actually being genuine in my question.
Nice summary cut of the full convo
Without time as a real and measurable quantity, the practice of engineering as we know it wouldn't be possible. Time is real and it is important dimension in engineering, simulation, communication. Engineering is practical.
@@hkazzaz It is because time is a sort of real virtuality. Time seems real although the reality of time is a trick.
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."
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.
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
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.
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
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.
10:25 what was then his ideology on space. There are Einstein said. :Space and Time
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.
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
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.
People, please understand that Michio Kaku is the Deepak Chopra of Physics.
@@johnsolo123456 not even close.
@@ChrisAnnasMomyou’re too daft to get it.
8:20 paradox means one of two: wrong equations or understanding and interpretations.
I personally believe that these academic topics should not be discussed like newsroom debates
Time is a figment of it’s own imagination -- Aham Brahmasmi
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.
Tim Maudlin says it like it is!!
String theory just makes no sense. You can’t have an infinity of each microsecond in time. It’s incomprehensible!! 🕊️🌷🌱
there are almost no physical equations where time is involved. It is a useless quantity that only has subjective meaning for human perception
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.
Time is just the perception of causality. It’s not a separate thing. Energy and Time = motion. Motion = Causality. Is like the first and second dimension. They only exist within the 3rd dimension. They are not reality. Absolute time is an illusion.
No time is motion. Absolute time isn’t known. Nor would it make a difference
Time is relative to the mass as it moves though the cosmos. Remove all cosmic motion from a system it will no longer exist it collapse out existence.
Massless particles are timeless and do not atrophy will continue to exist infinitely unless collision giving it energy to something with mass.
Larger the accumulation mass the more the force of time dilation is experienced. The force of time dilation is what is felt as “gravity” all matter attempts to atrophy to the same time at the subatomic level ultimately seeks to collapse into non existence the magnetic forces prevent this. This is that keeps matter together. Magnetic fields when excited attempt to disperse the matter but it’s the time dilation the is the force that holds all matter together, it is the magnetic forces that moves energy through matter.
Two fundamental flaws to a physics is comprehension of cosmic motion role in every observable system. A mis appropriation of atomic forces to weak and strong magnetic forces when it matter in motion induction of the of force time dilation.
Now you know what gravity and time really is.
Kaku talks absolute nonsense. He's like a religious cleric trying to convince himself something is true.
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.
When doing the double slit experiment, we wonder why the wave crashed. So, if you look through binoculars at a bird landing on a branch, if you look with the naked eye quickly enough you will see the bird hasn't landed. But if you continue to look through the binoculars the bird has already landed. So you're looking at an outcome prior to the outcome happening. It's real I've done this many times. It's incredible really. So what's happening with the double slit? We're projecting the outcome prior to the outcome happening, and as long as you continue to look, the outcome remains the same but if you look away then all outcomes occur. Our brain can't see the wave, so to our brain, it's not there. Thus, the outcome is predictable super position is achieved and that's why the wave collapse happens. Our brain is wired to always find this position in any scenario. So what crashed the wave function? Super position crashed the wave function. Arguments, please. Let's get the answers right now. Peace ✌️ 😎.
The bird eventually lands...what is extraordinary there? You knew it will land...what is extraordinary there? I don't get your point.
@chickenlover657 incredible really, the brain does this so our chance for success increases. So we can eat. That's incredible stuff. Very cool 😎 indeed. Peace ✌️ 😎.
@@alex79suited But the bird DOES land. So you can catch it and eat it...or just watch it. What does it matter if your brain tells you it landed a few milliseconds before it actually landed? I mean ballistically this is an advantage: you pull the trigger when you THINK the bird has landed, and the bullet reaches the bird when it ACTUALLY lands. In hunting this anticipation is a tool.
@chickenlover657 the bird never lands. Only to the person using binoculars. Peace ✌️ 😎.
10:00 Einstein was a good physicist but he never understood Time.
And you say because you'd have some clues?
Is time the product of consciousness?
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’m with Kaku on this