Whr is time in your deep sleep? Enquire this observer which you call I. You see the Universe and the observer is one whole at a deeper level we are all interconnected. Our nature from the beginning or before the beginning was empty and aware it's not you that's aware it's that which always has been.
This is an invitation to see a theory where light and electrons (matter) are waves with particle characteristics as a probabilistic ∆×∆pᵪ≥h/4π future unfolds. This process is continuously unfolding in relation to the electron sphere 4πr² of probability that surrounds the nucleus of atoms and the wavelength of light. Wave particle duality creates a blank canvas that we can interact with forming a future relative to the energy and momentum of our actions. The Planck constant h/2π is a constant of action within the process that forms the passage of time ∆E∆t≥h/2π. We have an uncertain future continuously coming into existence quanta by quanta, moment by moment, with light photon energy ∆E=hf exchanging into the kinetic Eₖ=½mv² energy of matter, in the form of electrons.
@@KaiseruSoze Greater than the sum of its parts. For example, a single water atom would never be called wet, but have enough of them, and they gain that trait. Similarly, a single neuron is certainly not what we would consider consciousness, but gather a human brains worth and you gain consciousness.
Why is entropy relativistic then? Why does the entropy of a radioactive lump of material proceed slower in a strong gravitational field than in a weaker one? I don't think the idea that time is due to entropy readily explains that.
Entropy is coherent energy. In another word it is intelligence. Simple equation. Human intelligence becomes artificial intelligence which becomes machine intelligence which becomes biomechanical intelligence which eliminates human intelligence and continues into infinity as biomechanical intelligence. That is your quantum mechanics in a nutshell.
Isn't it just a matter of perspective ? If it is the increase in entropy, and not time, that is slowed down in a strong gravitational field, how would you make the difference ? It's a bit like the chicken and egg problem. We define entropy as increasing other time, but it could be the other way around, time may be defined by the increase in entropy. But how do you describe something increasing without the concept of time ? Does this reflects the fundamental nature of time, or our own limitations ?
When you are young, seconds pass by painfully slow as you watch the clock hands approach 3pm at the end of school. When you are old like me, time is indeed an illusion as it disappears in front of you. All that's left of it when you age is a collection of fragmented memories of it's existence and passing.
i remember being 15, 16 years old... my friends and i would go to the nearby park after school. we'd sit there, joke around, listen to music in our cars, play basketball, smoke, drink, etc, and sometimes we'd get bored just sitting there, almost like the boredom was killing us. we'd plan our futures, talk about getting out of this town, why aren't these girls calling us back today?! etc etc. and how SLOW the time would go by in some of the more boring of the afternoons. Now? I don't have time to go to the park.
The concept of time is a tool we use to measure the rate at which things change to our local perspective and environment. It’s not a part of the environment itself.
@ exactly, no change = no movement no vibration no anything. it would definitely appear as though everything has stopped in time. there is no time though. It’s just that everything would have stopped period(not stopped in time)
@@ryanhestin "To an observer of the frozen universe" 'Universe' means the totality of existents so there couldn't be such an observer. If by universe you mean something like a bubble, attempting to observe it would still not work since the photons that permit observation are not moving.
I love how this guy breaks it down. He doesn’t talk over my head. He takes his time. I’m unable to following well. I’m so glad for it. Thank you by the way I’m on the side of. I think time is a construct who knows I’m just a coal Miner
Here's what I know: 1. Time is relative; there is no one universal clock. 2. Time is ordered: cause always precedes effect. 3. Time is asymmetric: it has only one direction (Arrow of Entropy). 4. Time passes at the speed of light. That's all I know at the moment, which is now in the past.
That's always bothered me when I tried to think about it- we always think of ourselves as living in the "present," but there is no present. As soon as we have nanosecond's worth of neural impulse, it's already over. I wish that there was a way that we could just exist for a discrete moment at a time and experience it without consistently being yanked forward away from it. The only way I get out of my mental spiral about it is realizing that all moments in time technically exist simultaneously, we're the ones moving through the timeline. I don't know why that bothers me, or if that makes any sense- could just be my 'tism.
The speed of light is the universal clock and it's not relative. It's the speed of our observational time frame. It's the speed that we see, observe and infer information. Proper time or relative time is relative to the rate of observation and its rate is defined by its local conditions.
This is an invitation to see a theory where light and electrons (matter) are waves with particle characteristics as a probabilistic ∆×∆pᵪ≥h/4π future unfolds. This process is continuously unfolding in relation to the electron sphere 4πr² of probability that surrounds the nucleus of atoms and the wavelength of light. Wave particle duality creates a blank canvas that we can interact with forming a future relative to the energy and momentum of our actions. The Planck constant h/2π is a constant of action within the process that forms the passage of time ∆E∆t≥h/2π. We have an uncertain future continuously coming into existence quanta by quanta, moment by moment, with light photon energy ∆E=hf exchanging into the kinetic Eₖ=½mv² energy of matter, in the form of electrons.
@Dyslexic-Artist-Theory-on-Time All facilitated by the energy buffer that is the Higgs field. Phase transitions buffered in the higgs field eventually transition into an observable phase state. Time is the interaction between the vertical and the horizontal within a field. The vertical represents the speed of light and the horizontal is defined by the matter within the field, relative to the vertical.
@@Deletirium Yeah, it makes a lot of sense. I've pondered the same observation many times. What is also pondering is the time it takes for light to reach us and for us to process those images, we are observing the past. And the further away it is, the further in the past it is. Even if imperceptible, these delays are measurable .
Isn’t the reason time slows down with speed just because the photons that bind your atoms together move at the speed of light? So traveling close to the speed of light is like a Doppler effect where your binding energy is actually covering longer distance until that distance becomes infinite- and you’re basically in one still/steady state.
A couple of years ago, I wrote on UA-cam that time was a result of entropy, and some dude replied to my comment to say I didn't know what I was talking about. Yet, this video pretty much confirms what I and others have said. I think the problem with some physics equations is they do not account for entropy, and that is why you get equations that say time can go backwards. Perhaps we don't know how to write physics equations that use the change in entropy as the change in time. Or, we find it more convenient to use time, such as seconds, as a surrogate/proxy for entropy. I think spacetime is really just the net effect of electrons, protons, neutrons, etc., attracting and repelling each other.
Arvin, can you do an episode on where we are currently with the Transactional hypothesis from Wheeler & Feynman? Where the electrons must handshake to exchange photons, and one photon must travel to the past to make this happen?
Good idea. I'm a fan of that interpretation actually. The main problem is that it can't really be proven, at least no one that I'm aware of has shown a way to prove it even in principle.
@@ArvinAsh it's not real. first, PHOTONS DO NOT EXIST. second, the interaction (which since 2008 they now pretend is what they meant by photons) is a drain, not a collapse (and there is an experiment i've been working on that might prove this) Time doesn't exist. photons don't exist. EM field is not quantized.
@@ArvinAsh Love that you or your team responds to comments. Interactive channels get my subscribes and likes more than any other :) Yeah would love to know if anyone's come up with some testable experiments on this or if its just to make the equation work this must be the case and its just how we make sense of this phenomenon and not the actual real-world phenomenon.
The trouble with abandoning time is that entropy has a direction. If time is a measure of entropy, and entropy exists, them time exists by default, if nothing more than as the arrow of entropy.
First thing is first, first need to find whether entropy is correct or not before we create hypothesis based on entropy. This is how real science should work. I know it is hard but that is one step closer to the truth.
@Ninja-tj5fd entropy is correct... as in, it's measure of disorder or randomness within a system. So it's like you're saying, make sure a meter correct...
Finally!!! I've been saying this for years: We are conscious entities. For that, we need to be aware. Awareness requires change. To be aware of change requires memory (of what was before the change). Thermodynamics shows us how memory can only be created in one "direction" (we can't have a memory of the future). Therefore, the only way we can exist as conscious entities is by travelling through time in one direction.
Yep, as Orthodox quantum science found everything (Matter/Engery/Space/Time) comes in to the existance out of thin air only when there is a consciounsess. This is the mother of every theory. Like you said past and future are just concepts in our consiousness memory, fairly, we can take "present moment" as the real existence. All the matter/engery break and create at a trillions times per second speed, but ordinary consciousness can't feel that break/make process because it is so fast to feel it. Ordinary consciousness mind see it as a continuous/unbroken process. So. guys, consciousness is the fundamental to everything.
'Space and time are mere forms of intuition that structure our experiences'. That's a quote from Immanuel Kant (1724 - 1804) who 250 years ago postulated that our brain can't escape its own 'a priori cognition' of things and therefore what we call 'experience' is just a reconciliation between reality and our peculiar ability to make sense of it. A great day to everybody (and my compliments to AA for another very good video 😊).
Kant did not persist that we cannot transcend to it, though. In 1786 in his Foundations of the metaphysics of physics he somewhat changed his mind about matter, saying that it might emerge from dimensionless points in space and time reacting to forces.
@@gxfprtorius4815 Dear gxf, that was a Time of great men and great discoveries: I read that the original intuition about the ideality of space wasn't Kant's, however. The surprising Pierre Louis Maupertuis (of whom Kant was a great admirer) asserted it first. I quoted Kant because there is no comparison between Kant and Maupertuis in terms of fame: the former is widely considered the most influential philosopher of the Modern Era while the latter (despite giving birth to the principle of least action, being a pioneer of genetics and demonstrating that Earth is flattened at the poles...) is unknown to most. That was a Time where you could submit your calculations to Euler, to get a second opinion 😊...
@@nicholasharvey1232 There was a girl in my in class back in 7th standard who used to say that Einstein had invented a time machine. Looks like she was right after all.
@@markkaidy8741 the non existence of time does not imply the body cannot age either. I think you’re confusing what Rovelli is proposing. He’s not saying that because time is an illusion that the body can’t age or that you can reverse the order of events, he’s saying that events happen one after the other like dominos falling or like the racing horse illusion and the brain creates the illusion of time for it to make sense.
I think the only reason we place so much emphasis on time is because we evolved on a planet with a steady rising and setting sun that we used to judge the passage of “time.” The rigid nature of time disappears as soon as we are removed from the familiar cycle, e.g. space travel, cave exploration, deep-water exploration.
No sun, no moon, no seasons, no life, no problem... gordion knot cut. But lets suppose something does start existing... the fact that it will die, means there are slices of its life which are "emergent" and quantifiable. The fact that your balls will eventually sag is inevitable.
Wrong statements at 1:42. Nobody "experiences" time running slower or faster. Every frame of reference will experience/feel a normal/usual proper time. If any sense can be made of "experiencing slower time", it implies experiencing a longer life duration for them, which is incorrect.
To me, time is just a measurement tool. Like miles. Humans decided to count miles to measure distance. Distance exists but miles are a human concept. Likewise, humans decided to measure shadows (sundials) to measure intervals between changes (from sunrise to sunset). In one of your earlier videos, you used an example of *stopping time* but I interpreted that as simply stopping CHANGE. No change = no intervals to measure = no TIME. We humans like to be able to predict the future - not only WHAT will happen, but WHEN it will happen. Just my two cents.... But it works for me. However, I *will* watch the video again because I liked the way you explained all the different concepts.
Distance is a measurement of locations you can go to. Time is always stuck in the present.. It's literally never the future or the past, so you have to reconcile the difference. One is between your house and your neighbors, the other is only in our heads because it's always now
@@theydisintegrate...time is a measurement of our aging. To say time doesn't exist is saying we don't age, which is obviously not true. Everything ages. You, me, the op, Arvin, and those same scientists saying time doesn't exist. Of course time exists. Yes, we only have the "now" in the day to day. But we also have our "past" as memory. This video is a waste of time.
A mile is a measurement of distance, but that anctual distance doesn't change if I use kilometers instead. There's a fixed space between me and anything comoving with me that doesn't seem to really care what I call that space.
@@henryzweihander8282 Yup. Same with time if I use seconds or water drops (the old water clocks). The way I explain to myself why time "slows down" as something goes faster is that speed causes an increase in mass (which is resistance to acceleration) so the drops drop slower - ie the change process is slower.
rovelli’s claim that time is non-existent seems to indirectly challenge Einstein’s work, but it overlooks how he approached concepts differently. While most physicists, starting from Newton often chase ideas dictated by mathematical constructs, Einstein relied on imagination and intuition to form the foundation of his theories, using math to refine and validate his vision.
How can you have a "series of events" without time? It seems to me that this is a hypothesized definition for how time works, not a hypothesis that time is an illusion. Regardless of what you want to call it, events have cause and effect, and do not all happen at once or chaotically--this is true with or without the processing of the human brain. This doesn't make time illusory, anymore than pointing out that the mile is a human construct makes length illusory.
What we need is an objective understanding of time! This is an invitation to see a theory where light and electrons (matter) are waves with particle characteristics as a probabilistic ∆×∆pᵪ≥h/4π future unfolds. This process is continuously unfolding in relation to the electron sphere 4πr² of probability that surrounds the nucleus of atoms and the wavelength of light. Wave particle duality creates a blank canvas that we can interact with forming a future relative to the energy and momentum of our actions. The Planck constant h/2π is a constant of action within the process that forms the passage of time ∆E∆t≥h/2π. We have an uncertain future continuously coming into existence quanta by quanta, moment by moment, with light photon energy ∆E=hf exchanging into the kinetic Eₖ=½mv² energy of matter, in the form of electrons.
Space is dual to time -- Einstein. The past (everything) is dual to the future (nothing) -- time duality. We know everything about the past as we have experienced or measured it (empirical, physics) and we know nothing about the future as it has not happened yet. Everything is dual to nothing synthesizes something (the present) -- the Hegelian dialectic. "Physics is what we know, metaphysics is what we do not know" -- Bertrand Russell. Absolute time (Galileo, Newton) is dual to relative time (Einstein) -- time duality. Time is a dual concept. Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant. Syntropy (knowledge, prediction) is dual to increasing entropy (lack of knowledge) -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Cause is dual to effect -- correlation.
It's totally possible to have a sequence without time. A sequence of events is a more basic 'thing' than a timeline of events... In the same way a series of pictures is a more basic thing than a movie. (Ie, A movie is a series of stills, WITH the added requirement that there's a fixed, consistent interval between them)
Time is a measurement system. A clock is like a ruler, but instead of measuring distance with a determinable smaller increment of distance, it measures cycles or processes in terrms of a determinable cycle length.
Time is an illusion that helps things make sense So we are always living in the present tense It seems unforgiving when a good thing ends But you and I will always be back then You and I will always be back then Will happen, happening, happened Will happen, happening, happened And will happen again and again 'Cause you and I will always be back then
Time is a definition invented by man, not an illusion - it exists, but only in the way that Superman exists. Superman is just a story but I bet you can name his girlfriend!
@@rielco8442 Eh, what song? We could go to work at any time, but we wait until a mechanical device has rotated to point to 8am. We then work until the same device rotates to point to 17:00, then we go home. No 'time' has passed, we simply use the clock to regulate what we do. We align our clocks to the clock formed by the sun and the earth - they are also a mechanical system. All of the people around us do the same thing and it is VERY handy. We call the number pointed to by the clock 'the time' or the 'time of day'. That's it - very simple but massively useful. A calendar is also a clock. When we want to analyse our world we compare some object in motion to the rotation of a stopwatch (a clock) - that's it - it is just a comparison - no special 'time' entity is involved. The object moves because of some energy it has and the stopwatch will move as a result of some energy we put into it. We compare those two moving systems together and might declare 'that took 5 seconds' - time doesn't make either system move, it isn't involved, it is a definition, man invented it!
Space is dual to time -- Einstein. The past (everything) is dual to the future (nothing) -- time duality. We know everything about the past as we have experienced or measured it (empirical, physics) and we know nothing about the future as it has not happened yet. Everything is dual to nothing synthesizes something (the present) -- the Hegelian dialectic. "Physics is what we know, metaphysics is what we do not know" -- Bertrand Russell. Absolute time (Galileo, Newton) is dual to relative time (Einstein) -- time duality. Time is a dual concept. Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant. Syntropy (knowledge, prediction) is dual to increasing entropy (lack of knowledge) -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Cause is dual to effect -- correlation.
4:00 - you almost say it right, as I quizzed my PhD students: how can you measure time? they would spend hours trying to come up with a way, always making larger and larger rules and clocks, and then days emailing me, and then weeks later try to come up with some cheat way to measure it, al to defend time. TIME. DOES. NOT. EXIST.
If time does not exist, then it should not be possible to take two atomic clocks and put one on an airplane or at the base of a mountain and the other in a lab on a flat plain in the city and get a difference. This relative measurement of time, is still time, so for there to be an effect, there must be something there to effect. I'm looking forward to you teaching me what is really going on here. Thank you in advance. 🙂 Also, if space had virtual particles, or any other type of foam, then two particles, one high frequency and one low frequency should not be able to arrive from a supernova several billion light years away at the Fermi satellite at the same time when departing the source at the same time. Would you mind explaining both situations to me, on a simple level that I have a chance to understand? Both experiments I mentioned have actually taken place, they are not thought experiments, but actual test results. Thank you.
@@thelastgeneration102 tell me 1 way you can measure time. 1 way. (let's see if you're smarter than 30 PhD candidates). Time. does. not. exist. "but actually". no. you think you're the first to call a vibration a clock? Name one way you can measure time. one way. one way. that's it. one way. you can't.
@@thelastgeneration102 it's not relative measurement of time, it's relative measurement of action. "action is t-" no it's not. S = d1 / (d2/d3). Time doesn't exist. There are much more intuitive ways to explain this, but let's have you admit you don't know first.
@@removechan10298 In my opinion, you cannot measure time because time is an imagined river. It flows, or seems to, but there is no original reference, there is no upstream force. So, what we are seeing is an illusion of falling. We can't be sure that the big bang is real because we cannot see past a certain point, therefore we cannot know if illusion started then or before. Therefore, it's like calling the earth "ground", it is just a relative point; what is "ground" to the earth? Therefore time does not exist as an object that we can call real. This means that we are imagining or hallucinating something that we cannot grab onto or touch or measure that is not actually there. That is just a guess that you trigger in my mind, causing a non-logical question regarding something that I don't understand. We can drop something and measure the force exhibited and call that gravity, but we cannot measure time because there is nothing to measure.
@@removechan10298 I don't know. But, if we cannot measure what is not there, then why are so many physicists drawing space-time graphs and telling me that if I travel along a certain axis, or in a certain direction, I change what my clock says as compared to what another person's clock says? Why is it if I travel to Andromeda near the speed of light, that space shrinks and I'm there in a moment, but then I come back at the same speed and I age a little, but the earth and everyone on it is four million years older?
I think part of the problem is that the word "time" actually describes several different things. We need separate words to describe these different elements. For example, - the "time" in the fabric of space-time needs a distict word that is used to describe the property of space which allows motion. This time has no arrow, or put another way, is just a scaler. - another "time" is the result of entropy of particles. Its the time that we measure and experience. This "time" has a direction. It is the "arrow" to time. There may be other types of "time" that we should have unique words for to prevent confusion.
Relativity blurs (ambiguously) a number of concepts of time. Time is very poorly defined in relativity. Not saying that Relativity was/is a bad idea, only that it is not quite complete in my view.
Space is dual to time -- Einstein. The past (everything) is dual to the future (nothing) -- time duality. We know everything about the past as we have experienced or measured it (empirical, physics) and we know nothing about the future as it has not happened yet. Everything is dual to nothing synthesizes something (the present) -- the Hegelian dialectic. "Physics is what we know, metaphysics is what we do not know" -- Bertrand Russell. Absolute time (Galileo, Newton) is dual to relative time (Einstein) -- time duality. Time is a dual concept. Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant. Syntropy (knowledge, prediction) is dual to increasing entropy (lack of knowledge) -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Cause is dual to effect -- correlation.
@@axle.student I am spamming the 4th law of thermodynamics! My absolute time is your relative and your absolute time is my relative time -- time duality! The master is dual to the apprentice -- the rule of two -- Darth Bane, Sith Lord. Absolute truth is dual to relative truth -- Hume's fork. Truth is dual and time is dual. Duality creates reality!
@@axle.student Two quantum states that differ by a global phase are considered to be equivalent (indistinguishable) or dual. Quantum states are dual. Real is dual to imaginary -- complex numbers are dual -- global phases. Quantum information is dual -- qubits. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Antinomy (duality) is two truths that contradict each other -- Immanuel Kant. "This sentence is false" -- the sentence. If the sentence is true then the sentence is false. If the sentence is false then the sentence is true -- antinomy. The sentence is both true and false both at the same time -- duality or quantum entanglement. You will need duality to understand quantum information. Your comment betrays your ignorance it is asinine, in physics you are made from quantum states or probability waves.
14:21 "We want to know the truth! [...] but physics has nothing to do with the truth. It's job, at best, is to make a reasonable model of the universe that can make predictions." Wow, this just hit different for me. I've always had the mindset that "science = facts = truth" and this just instantly changed me.
When Arvin stated, "we need to fundamentally understand what physics is", I thought he was going to say next, "It is there in ancient Greece our story begins. It is a warm summer evening, you finished your shopping at the local market or agora"
According to Einstein's theory of relativity, gravity and relative velocity reveal that time is intrinsically linked to the fabric of space. If space did not exist, time, as we understand it, would cease to be meaningful. Hence, the notion that time is a construct we use to describe our perceptions holds validity.
Space is dual to time -- Einstein. The past (everything) is dual to the future (nothing) -- time duality. We know everything about the past as we have experienced or measured it (empirical, physics) and we know nothing about the future as it has not happened yet. Everything is dual to nothing synthesizes something (the present) -- the Hegelian dialectic. "Physics is what we know, metaphysics is what we do not know" -- Bertrand Russell. Absolute time (Galileo, Newton) is dual to relative time (Einstein) -- time duality. Time is a dual concept. Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant. Syntropy (knowledge, prediction) is dual to increasing entropy (lack of knowledge) -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Cause is dual to effect -- correlation.
@@mattmiller4917 I am spamming the 4th law of thermodynamics! My absolute time is your relative and your absolute time is my relative time -- time duality! The master is dual to the apprentice -- the rule of two -- Darth Bane, Sith Lord. Absolute truth is dual to relative truth -- Hume's fork. Truth is dual and time is dual. Duality creates reality! I am informing you that there are new laws of physics. If you want to call this spam you have failed to understand what I am saying. Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Two quantum states that differ by a global phase are said to be equivalent (indistinguishable) or dual. Quantum information is dual. Qubits are dual -- on is dual to off. All information is dual -- syntropy is dual to entropy.
@@mattmiller4917 Left is dual to right, up is dual to down, in is dual to out -- space duality. Points are dual to lines -- the principle of duality in geometry. Space, length or distance is defined by two dual points -- vectors. Contravariant is dual to covariant -- vectors, functors. All vectors are dual hence space is dual. If space is dual then time must be dual -- space is dual to time -- Einstein. There is a hidden dual basis in Riemann geometry or curvature. Curvature or gravitation is dual. Potential energy is dual to kinetic energy -- gravitational energy is dual. Gravitation is equivalent or dual (isomorphic) to acceleration -- Einstein's happiest thought, the principle of equivalence or duality. Apples fall to the ground because they are conserving duality. Global entropy (information) always increases because your mind is syntropic. Synchronic points/lines are dual to enchronic points/lines.
Infinity has no limited "space" and no limited "time". But we worry about limited time all the time. I agree with Rovelli (1956), not because I'm born in the same year, rather because he is one of the few who understand what time really is: A construction within our brains. A result of our experience with stellar movements we observe and use to "construct" a world and space we do not really grasp every day, year and up to millennia. And at some point this stream of time flows into "infinity". That's where our "brain capacity" ends.
The tiny magnets were acting as a clock, but were entangled to a harmonic oscillator, and then they claim they did not use time in their predictions? But how do they imagine a harmonic oscillator not oscillating in time? How do you describe its oscillation in space if not over time? You'd have to imagine motion without time, wouldn't you? Have they explained how motion takes place without time?
The function/product or action of "time" exists, but time itself does not exist. Meaning that the reality we perceive is more like a romantic view of it rather than the reality of it. Value and meaning are kind of similar. They exist in an imaginary sense in proxy to the physical reality we perceive. (I'm just guessing I'm not saying that this is facts)
The best sense I could make of this, is that we normally view time as a the back drop of when actions happen. This theory seems to be saying that actions happen independent of time. Or that time is a helpful way for us to make sense that actions happen regardless of time. If there were no actions, there would be no time instead of the other way around.
Seems like a game of semantics to me. That said, if time doesn’t exist then everything is happening right now. The start, growth, and end of the universe. I guess that’s true for something traveling at the speed of light. For everything else, there is time to think about it.
It depends on which frame of reference we choose to view spacetime from. Within spacetime, a location (x) is a function of time (t). However, we can also choose a frame of reference outside spacetime. This is essentially what a minkowski spacetime diagram is. It's a frame of reference outside time and space looking in. Its only from this perspective that Einsteinian Relativity is understood.
Important distinction to make: there's a difference between time and causality. Causality also appears to be bidirectional in some cases, and there doesn't seem to be any reason to assume that certain physical phenomenon don't occur in the reverse of causality. Perhaps we just measure those things in a way that we call "forward" and have the cause and effect mixed up because of our frame of reference
If someone drops an egg, it will crack. But what's the difference between the egg falling to meet the earth, and earth moving towards the egg? After all, the egg was just minding its own business, standing still in space. The "bidirectional" aspect of it is that there are, in some cases (though not all), causes and effects that can be reversed to produce the same end result. Of course, there are no processes that we know of that would cause a cracked egg to reassemble, so the cause-effect relationship is locked in when it comes to entropy and disorder. But there doesn't seem to be a reason to assume that our perspective of time moving forward actually means that, from the perspective of other physical objects that *their* time is moving forward.
Rovelli distinguishes it as a difference between "change" and "the arrow of time." He does not actually disagree that objects can change their state as a fundamental part of the universe. He gives one analogy of a pendulum swinging back and forth. If you are watching this on a film, you can't actually tell if the film if being played forwards or in reverse, because the pendulum swinging looks the same in both ways. It is changing, but there is no clear arrow of time. What he argues is weakly emergent is just the arrow of time, which he says weakly emerges from entropy. When you accumulate these changes together randomly, just due to sheer probability, they have a greater likelihood of moving to a configuration where there are more degrees of freedom.
causality can't be bidirectional because consequence cannot precede cause, point. Brian Greene explains it in the Elegant Universe with the notion of entropy.
Causality can be simply defined by ordering events. Time in a linear representation can perfectly be described as causal as we have just to choose an arbitrary direction to define what is future and what is past(in our real world, this choice is tightly related to the arrow of time of entropy). The only cases where causality cannot exist is with time loops in which ordering the events is impossible.
Correction: Loop Quantum Gravity is not a theory of everything. It is a quantum gravity theory that does not include strong, electromagnetic, and weak forces.
I have been analysing this problem for two years and from an original position of being skeptical about time, I am now coming to the conclusion I have to agree with Lee Smolin: some form of time is fundamental. But it's a (not yet solved) mix of motion and a 'theatre' within where that action takes place, which we both seem to call time. Somehow there is a complexity there which is unsolved but at the core of the problem
I agree, Lee Smolin is on the right track! This is an invitation to see a theory where light and electrons (matter) are waves with particle characteristics as a probabilistic ∆×∆pᵪ≥h/4π future unfolds. This process is continuously unfolding in relation to the electron sphere 4πr² of probability that surrounds the nucleus of atoms and the wavelength of light. Wave particle duality creates a blank canvas that we can interact with forming a future relative to the energy and momentum of our actions. The Planck constant h/2π is a constant of action within the process that forms the passage of time ∆E∆t≥h/2π. We have an uncertain future continuously coming into existence quanta by quanta, moment by moment, with light photon energy ∆E=hf exchanging into the kinetic Eₖ=½mv² energy of matter, in the form of electrons.
Entropy isn’t simply "disorder"; it’s about the tendency of systems to evolve toward their most statistically probable state. This state often looks like disorder because there are usually more ways for things to be randomly distributed than organized. However, the core idea is that systems naturally move toward configurations with the highest number of possible arrangements, given their circumstances.
@ can you please stop using that 2d graphic of gravity, it's incredibly misleading on imagination, also I'm not being a hater, I've been watching your videos since 20k subs and still think you're one of the best on UA-cam!! 🙏
My thoughts on this subject are this: If there were no people, no conscious entities to perceive time, would time sill pass? The universe still moves towards chaos regardless of whether or not there are people to perceive it. Planets revolve around the sun, stars expend their fuel and explode, black holes still decay, etc. In this sense time must exist.
I agree. Our planet exists because particles coalesced into a planet. There must have been a point where it was less organized prior to it becoming solidified. The solidification process has a beginning, middle and end. You can’t get between the beginning and the end without the passage of something. That something might as well be time. What rise could it be? If there was no time then everything would be static and frozen. It’s not just a matter of perception. But our perception kind of proves it.
Time is real, as experiments have proven. The atomic clocks built into GPS satellites run faster than atomic clocks on earth, and they must correct the satellites constantly to keep GPS working. But beyond that time dilation, it solely depends on the viewer. If we are observed from far enough away, we are moving faster than light. But right here on earth, we feel no such consequences of going faster than light. Time is not standing still or going backwards. So time is relative, as Einstein theorized, it all depends on where the observer is located. And while he says time is relative, he also says it’s a real thing and is the same thing as space itself. It sure seems like we’re missing something, some concept of how both are true. Some scientists would have us believe that we, as humans, understand everything, there’s just a few details to be worked out. But nothing could be farther from the truth, what we know, is a tiny fraction of all there is to know.
Time is a measure of motion. You can say you're walking 1 meter per second or you can say you're walking 1 meter as a photon travels 300000 kilometers. Same thing
@@HyperVector Entropy is an emergent property of time.. the concept of time's arrow, or the unidirectional flow of time, arises from the fundamental principle that entropy in an isolated system always increases over time, as described by the Second Law of Thermodynamics; essentially, the increasing disorder in a system is what defines our perception of time moving forward... 'Bro'
Kurt Gödel found a solution for Einstein’s equations of General Relativity in which closed time-like curves can exist. The solution was for a rotating universe, which ours is not, but our universe is also a solution for those same equations. Gödel concluded that, since you obviously can’t actually circle back in time to visit a younger you, time must not exist - for any legitimate solutions to the equations of General Relativity.
depends on exactly what you mean by "time". I personally don't believe in time as a 4th spatial dimension. after all, we can't move through it or see into it like the 3 dimensions of space. You'd even have us believe that we're all "moving" forward though time at about the same rate with no effort on our part at all. Though I do believe in cause and effect, matter and energy interacting with each other at different rates in a certain order, some events before or after others, I don't see why you need to believe time is some conveyor belt or film strip to which everything is attached and somehow controls the rate at which things happen. That can be described/explained with temperature and thermodynamics.
This is an invitation to see a theory where light and electrons (matter) are waves with particle characteristics as a probabilistic ∆×∆pᵪ≥h/4π future unfolds. This process is continuously unfolding in relation to the electron sphere 4πr² of probability that surrounds the nucleus of atoms and the wavelength of light. Wave particle duality creates a blank canvas that we can interact with forming a future relative to the energy and momentum of our actions. The Planck constant h/2π is a constant of action within the process that forms the passage of time ∆E∆t≥h/2π. We have an uncertain future continuously coming into existence quanta by quanta, moment by moment, with light photon energy ∆E=hf exchanging into the kinetic Eₖ=½mv² energy of matter, in the form of electrons.
the experiences with two planes containing atomic clocks running on decaying radioactive isotopes going around the earth in opposite directions proved you wrong, and actually proved A. E. was right.
> we're all "moving" forward though time at about the same rate with no effort on our part at all This isn't a good argument. We also move through space very quickly with no effort on our part. An object will continue to move if no force is acts upon it. If you say time is a dimension you can move through but not one we are capable of (for whatever reason) applying forces to, then it would make sense that we move forward through time without any effort. In such a universe our only ability to change our time movement would to use the fact that the speed of light is the maximum speed - so we could move in a spatial direction very quickly and our time movement would have to slow down to compensate (otherwise we'd be moving through space + time faster than light). Ironically... that is exactly what happens when you speed up very quickly... time slows down to compensate.
Space is dual to time -- Einstein. The past (everything) is dual to the future (nothing) -- time duality. We know everything about the past as we have experienced or measured it (empirical, physics) and we know nothing about the future as it has not happened yet. Everything is dual to nothing synthesizes something (the present) -- the Hegelian dialectic. "Physics is what we know, metaphysics is what we do not know" -- Bertrand Russell. Absolute time (Galileo, Newton) is dual to relative time (Einstein) -- time duality. Time is a dual concept. Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant. Syntropy (knowledge, prediction) is dual to increasing entropy (lack of knowledge) -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Cause is dual to effect -- correlation.
If time is emergent from the universe becoming more disordered, then what are we using to measure the progress of the universe becoming more disordered? The entire idea of entropy increasing relies on time as the scale entropy is increasing against. If entropy in the universe is the y axis, what is the x axis, if not time?
Yeah! This is an invitation to see a theory where light and electrons (matter) are waves with particle characteristics as a probabilistic ∆×∆pᵪ≥h/4π future unfolds. This process is continuously unfolding in relation to the electron sphere 4πr² of probability that surrounds the nucleus of atoms and the wavelength of light. Wave particle duality creates a blank canvas that we can interact with forming a future relative to the energy and momentum of our actions. The Planck constant h/2π is a constant of action within the process that forms the passage of time ∆E∆t≥h/2π. We have an uncertain future continuously coming into existence quanta by quanta, moment by moment, with light photon energy ∆E=hf exchanging into the kinetic Eₖ=½mv² energy of matter, in the form of electrons.
What I see, is that the Universe is not becoming more disordered. It appears to be highly ordered and running like clockwork! " A bomb dropped in a scrapyard, does not produce a jumbo jet," but the Universe does appear to have precisely done that.
As a layman, I hope you'll excuse my simple phrasing, but if time is considered a "real" thing that exists independently and is fundamental to the universe, wouldn’t that make it comparable to distance as a fundamental property? Just because we use time to measure something, does that inherently make it fundamental? By that logic, a meter might be as fundamental as a second. I don’t see a meaningful difference between the two. Everything moves in space relative to something else, covering distance, just as we perceive time as "moving." It feels like time might be a conceptual tool we use to describe phenomena, rather than a standalone entity-perhaps akin to a "god of the gaps" explanation to account for what we observe. The idea that time might not be an independent property but rather an emergent phenomenon is compelling and worth exploring. Lee Smolin's argument that time is necessary to further understand the universe seems counterintuitive. It’s the removal of our reliance on time-based assumptions-treating it as a nonessential part of the framework-that could open doors to new insights, possibly even resolving the general relativity vs quantum mechanics dilemma.
The big bang hasn't stopped and each moment we perceive is that moment happening both simultaneously and for the first time. So time is the same as a strobe light staggering your movements shown from the dark. A giant flip book of the one moment in "time" replayed but show the series of events that have transpired within that moment.
Space is dual to time -- Einstein. The past (everything) is dual to the future (nothing) -- time duality. We know everything about the past as we have experienced or measured it (empirical, physics) and we know nothing about the future as it has not happened yet. Everything is dual to nothing synthesizes something (the present) -- the Hegelian dialectic. "Physics is what we know, metaphysics is what we do not know" -- Bertrand Russell. Absolute time (Galileo, Newton) is dual to relative time (Einstein) -- time duality. Time is a dual concept. Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant. Syntropy (knowledge, prediction) is dual to increasing entropy (lack of knowledge) -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Cause is dual to effect -- correlation.
The simplest explanation I've heard for time was from the book The Dispossessed. The character talked about time like a book, and we are turning the pages and reading them one after the other. You have the illusion of progressing through the story, but the reality is the book is always in a complete, unchanging state.
This is one helluva analogy and makes alot of sense! To me, time is a perception and a creation via our brains but as in the whole book analogy, the universe (book) will exist regardless .....good stuff
Time is most certainly an illusion. The only reason we must relate to a time cycle is because of the nature of the planet we live on. Early man has to use time for survival of the seasons of weather patterns and a unit of time was the perfect answer to being able to utilize the seasons for food security and living habitats. I could go on and on for the reason mankind had to use time for daily life.
The Bible pretty much confirms that Time is an illusion in so many words. And we can see that the only point Time and Space become intertwined is when something moves through space. If nothing moves in space, time cannot be calculated.
The fact you and i can sit in the same event, in te same room and one says, "it flew by" and the other says, "it dragged on" is evidence that ime is only an agreed upon convention so we can HAVE a spacetime experience. We collectively believe it exists and it does.
Yes, the term "illusion" is a bit misleading. It's better to say that time is an "abstraction." An abstraction is not necessarily _false._ It is just not the full story.
11:25 "It is not that time actually flows, but It's the universe that is becoming disorderly more and more." Isn't this statement an admission of the time actually existing? The premise that the universe gets more disorderly since the big bang occurred, it is based on the premise that time actually exists.
I agree. I think they are just talking about time without using that word. They talk about things changing; but are the changing all at once? Then how are they changing. Change implies time passing. They are mistaking the map for the territory as well; just because there can be a quantum theory without time does mean time does not exist. And calling it an illusion makes this argument sound like there is some ideas of what consciousness means. Rocks don't experience illusions, but minds do.
Gotta agree with you guys, time is an implicit assumption in the description of any event. Also to describe something as emergent does nothing to deny its reality.
Rovelli is repeating exactly what philosopher Alfred North Whitehead was saying decades ago. The fundamental building blocks of the universe are events, not objects.
A Process!!! This is an invitation to see a theory where light and electrons (matter) are waves with particle characteristics as a probabilistic ∆×∆pᵪ≥h/4π future unfolds. This process is continuously unfolding in relation to the electron sphere 4πr² of probability that surrounds the nucleus of atoms and the wavelength of light. Wave particle duality creates a blank canvas that we can interact with forming a future relative to the energy and momentum of our actions. The Planck constant h/2π is a constant of action within the process that forms the passage of time ∆E∆t≥h/2π. We have an uncertain future continuously coming into existence quanta by quanta, moment by moment, with light photon energy ∆E=hf exchanging into the kinetic Eₖ=½mv² energy of matter, in the form of electrons.
My only issue with Rovelli's worldview is that he tries to reduce the universe down into "interactions," but an interaction implies three systems, not two. In order to describe two systems as interacting, you have to describe it from the reference frame of a third system. That is because the universe is relational, so you have to describe it in relation to another system, i.e. from a chosen reference frame, which is used as the origin of your coordinate system. If the universe only contained two objects, you would only have two options for the basis of your reference frame, and so you would need to pick one of the two to describe the "rest" of the universe. But, in this case, the "rest" of the universe would only contain one other object. Hence, if we take relationalism seriously, then you could not actually even say such a universe contains two objects. Rather, it contains two possible reference frames, where in each reference there only exists one object, but that one object differs between the two reference frames. If there is just one system, then there can be no "interaction" at all. For example, if I look at a tree, you might say the reason I "see" a tree is because the light from the tree is interacting with my eyes. Yet, from my perspective, I cannot see my own eyeball, I instead just see the light itself. If you have two systems interacting, and you pick one as the coordinate system to describe the other, then you just have one object in that description. Having two objects interacting inherently requires introducing a perspective from a third system. This distinction matters because in Rovelli's view, the simplest "unit" of reality is an "interaction," but an interaction implicitly involves three systems. It is not the simplest unit of reality. The simplest unit of reality would be to conceive of reality relative to the reference frame of one of those two systems partaking in the interaction, and when you do this, your description then only contains one object. You thus end up with the simplest unit of reality again being single objects, but the behavior of those objects are not autonomous in a classical sense but would be contextual. Relationalism is replaced with contextuality, which is different. Consider a person who sees a train traveling really fast while he is sitting on the ground, so he hops in a car and drives alongside it and now sees it traveling slower. The reason the speed changes for him is because velocity is relational, if he changes his speed relative to the train then it will change the perceived velocity. However, this is again a third-person perspective. We are talking about the train and the person from an "outside" point of view. If we take the point of view of the person themselves, their velocity cannot change at all, because velocity relative to yourself is always zero. So what causes the train to appear to move slower? What causes the change to appear to move slower is the behavior of everything else: when they accelerate in their car, they can see objects move towards the back of the car, as if a force is pushing them backwards. From the behavior of other objects surrounding them, they could predict then the train would slow down, i.e. what is changing is not themselves in relation to the train, which requires a third-person perspective, but the train in relation to everything else, which makes up the "context" in which they find themselves in. That's the contextual realist interpretation of quantum mechanics, which one of its main proponents is the physicist Francois-Igor Pris, but the philosophy of contextual realism was originated by the philosopher Jocelyn Benoist who has also written a little bit on quantum mechanics but not as much as Pris. Benoist's _contextual realism,_ unlike Rovelli's _weak realism_ as he calls it, does maintain the existence of objects, although, they are not objects that behave in a way that is inseparable from everything else, from the context in which they exist within. Rovelli's weak realism would be a layer of abstraction on top of contextual realism, it is something you arrive at when there are ultimately three possible reference frames under consideration rather than two.
@@blist14ant Rovelli's views are literally the polar opposite of Kant. Kant argued reality was composed of discrete objects he called things-in-themselves. Kant was also an indirect realist. He separated the world into the "phenomenon" and the "noumenon," where the "noumenon" is true reality that is independent of the "phenomenon" which is our perception. Rovelli is a direct realist and criticizes such a distinction.
@@robertmusil1107 time must pass for entropy to increase. without the passage of time, entropy cannot increase or decrease as such things are measured as a function over time. Therefore time is not an illusion because entropy is always increasing.
Space is dual to time -- Einstein. The past (everything) is dual to the future (nothing) -- time duality. We know everything about the past as we have experienced or measured it (empirical, physics) and we know nothing about the future as it has not happened yet. Everything is dual to nothing synthesizes something (the present) -- the Hegelian dialectic. "Physics is what we know, metaphysics is what we do not know" -- Bertrand Russell. Absolute time (Galileo, Newton) is dual to relative time (Einstein) -- time duality. Time is a dual concept. Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant. Syntropy (knowledge, prediction) is dual to increasing entropy (lack of knowledge) -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Cause is dual to effect -- correlation.
I think that is correct. That is what all clocks measure, anyway. However, I think you maybe then have to explain what it is about motion which makes it behave according to relativity - for instance, why is there less motion in strong gravitational fields? And why is it coordinated universally - that is, why is relativity valid everywhere in space as if motion was coordinated universally?
@@gxfprtorius4815”Why is there less motion in a strong gravitational field.” A great question that I also would like an intuitive answer to as well. I get the light clock thing in a fast moving spaceship as the light has further to travel for the distant observer, but for gravitational fields could it be something to do with space stretching or length elongation?
Maybe we are back to the difference in coding between micro and macro. Time certainly exists at the macro level, where we are actualized. But maybe not at the quantum level, where fluidity is king.
I think the best way to understand our predicament in identifying or defining the concept of "time" is what happens at minute @11:00 in the video: like anyone else, Arvin cannot escape his language. We cannot express any form of a universe without uttering words that involve time: "march towards more and more disorder" -- "the universe began" -- "the universe has been moving towards higher entropy", etc. As well, comments here have the same conundrum, most commonly relating time to the word "change". All these words and expressions already embed the time as we know it. Our form of intelligence forces us to create order in our expressions and interactions, thereby preventing us from (imagining ? .. experiencing? .. "being" ) a universe without time.
In my opinion, the idea that time is just a side-effect of the universe becoming more disordered is absurd for reasons highlighted by one very important word: *"becoming".* That implies a fixed sequence of events. A chain of causality. A "before" and an "after" that are not interchangeable. Time must exist in order for the second law of thermodynamics to make any kind of sense.
Because light has a finite speed we can only observe the past. We can make predictions with information collected from the past only (GR). We cannot observe the future because it is made up of particles that have not had an interaction yet and would only exist as probability waves (QM).
We must be unburdened by what has been, while realizing the Venn diagram is just so intersectional, and that is simply wonderful. We exist in the context of all in which you live and what you came before you. We did not just fall out of the coconut tree after all. Time is - it is a reflection of our moment in our time, right? And in present time is the way we express how we’re feeling about the moment, I just love yellow school buses, the school bus will take us there. *wise and knowing smile... Words to live by, indeed. 🤗
Arvin, that must mean that particles are doing stuff that is instantaneous, because if it's not instantaneous than time must be more fundamental than the particles because I think that time may be only formed by something that experiences no time but rather give the effect of time itself.
It amazes me that physicists seem to swap time and entropy. They say entropy causes time. I believe it is the other way around. Time causes entropy. Or at least, makes entropy possible.
I agree! This is an invitation to see a theory where light and electrons (matter) are waves with particle characteristics as a probabilistic ∆×∆pᵪ≥h/4π future unfolds. This process is continuously unfolding in relation to the electron sphere 4πr² of probability that surrounds the nucleus of atoms and the wavelength of light. Wave particle duality creates a blank canvas that we can interact with forming a future relative to the energy and momentum of our actions. The Planck constant h/2π is a constant of action within the process that forms the passage of time ∆E∆t≥h/2π. We have an uncertain future continuously coming into existence quanta by quanta, moment by moment, with light photon energy ∆E=hf exchanging into the kinetic Eₖ=½mv² energy of matter, in the form of electrons.
I don't agree. We came up with time because we have memories and the ability of foresight . It make sense to us to have a past and present and future because we can remember a past and imagine a future. But what is time to a decaying particle for example? It's nothing, it's decaying in a continuous moment of the present, there is no time for it, just "now" or as we saw in the video, just entropy.
Entropy is intricately linked to information and those are also directional like time. Perhaps we need to figure out the relationship between the three.
Like me LOL. This is an invitation to see a theory where light and electrons (matter) are waves with particle characteristics as a probabilistic ∆×∆pᵪ≥h/4π future unfolds. This process is continuously unfolding in relation to the electron sphere 4πr² of probability that surrounds the nucleus of atoms and the wavelength of light. Wave particle duality creates a blank canvas that we can interact with forming a future relative to the energy and momentum of our actions. The Planck constant h/2π is a constant of action within the process that forms the passage of time ∆E∆t≥h/2π. We have an uncertain future continuously coming into existence quanta by quanta, moment by moment, with light photon energy ∆E=hf exchanging into the kinetic Eₖ=½mv² energy of matter, in the form of electrons.
And are those persons (who make this game) also puppets in someone's game? And are those "someones" also only puppets? And might this series go on forever? No, it would be nonsense. My conclusion is that there might be only one "author" who might not be only the product of someone else's imagination - thus he must be absolute and final. That leads to the notion of one final Creator God.
@@akostarkanyi825 Your conclusion that there must be one absolute Creator is an interesting philosophical stance, but I’m not sure how that deity would come into existence. The idea that a final Creator is necessary to explain everything doesn't seem to follow logically without further exploration of the 'why' and 'how' of that creator's origin. As for the simulation theory, I don't think we're in one either. While the idea of an endless, ongoing simulation is an interesting concept, it's a presumption without solid evidence to back it up. We have evidence for the Big Bang and the observable expansion of the universe, but we don’t have concrete evidence for God or the existence of a simulation. Who's to say that the 'someone's' have to be part of a simulation themselves? In my view, both the idea of an all-powerful being and the simulation hypothesis are speculative without proof.
Yes and both are absurdly human centric thinking. The universe is under no obligation to fit neatly into an explanation that's consistent with our experience.
@@niclasv8407 " Who's to say that the 'someone's' have to be part of a simulation themselves?" But why would they not be? "both the idea of an all-powerful being and the simulation hypothesis are speculative without proof" Yes, that is true. But there are further arguments for a Creator God - not like for the simulation hypothesis.
When I was 15 I got this intuition: no time, only events, all existing simultaneously. When I was 16 I got this intuition: no different people, you're everyone's events. Then I got this intuition: only conscious events, you're everything. No structure in the universe, just you.
My friend, if you think time is an illusion then look at yourself in the mirror in 20 years. Or look right now and explain why you don't look like a 5-year old any more. See if you're still alive in 100 years. Taking all those things into account -- you'll see time is real. Semantics and mathematics cannot change that reality.
Time is the measure of motion. That's why it is relative. No motion, no time. Motion in different reference frames, different rates of time. Its also why there is no "Quantum time" because time is a measurement (looking at the clock) rather than an inherent property other than that everything has motion. To change the direction of time in math is as simple as changing the sign. However the universe is not ruled by math but by physics. There is no negative time because its not a property of motion you have motion or no motion. Motion has vectors and an object can go back on the path it originally followed but it is not reversing, its vector has simply changed by 180 degrees.
We die once per quantum event as our consciousness keeps shifting to a reality where we still exist. But other observers may watch us physically die as their own consciousness may shift to a reality where we are no longer viable or present. That's how our essence is immortal and change is the only constant.
I have the feeling this concept could then also explain why the passage of time is different at different speeds and why the speed of light is constant.
Space is dual to time -- Einstein. The past (everything) is dual to the future (nothing) -- time duality. We know everything about the past as we have experienced or measured it (empirical, physics) and we know nothing about the future as it has not happened yet. Everything is dual to nothing synthesizes something (the present) -- the Hegelian dialectic. "Physics is what we know, metaphysics is what we do not know" -- Bertrand Russell. Absolute time (Galileo, Newton) is dual to relative time (Einstein) -- time duality. Time is a dual concept. Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant. Syntropy (knowledge, prediction) is dual to increasing entropy (lack of knowledge) -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Cause is dual to effect -- correlation.
I think it's important for people to remember that there's a fundamental difference between a theory or an idea not being falsifiable and not being falsifiable *yet*. It borders on human arrogance and exceptionalism to presume the inability lies with the universe and not our own limitations.
So whether we'll see you next time is already hard-coded into the fabric of this Universe. We just have to travel through the illusion of space-time to that event, then pretend we made a choice to take part in it only to find out we already knew what the next topic would be all along. Thanks in advance for playing along.
A subatomic particle won't experience time in it's wave state according to quantum mechanics until it is collapsed but that's i think only the subatomic particle perspective because in the double slit experiment when the particle is not observed and is in it's wave form would still take time to pass the slits and reach the screen(i think you will have got my point).
If you cease to exist, a measure of time that is put on you stops. So, this cannot be time, because time does not stop. It is duration. What we call time is the sensation that derives automatically from duration. When you add various durations together, you get what we call ticks. Each (small) duration is a tick, especially when each duration is of same length, like the duration we call 'second'.
You aren't experiencing time, you are experiencing life, and then measuring what happens in the life we are experiencing with a unit of measurement you created...not discovered.
Use code ARVINASH at the link below to get an exclusive 60% off an annual Incogni plan:
incogni.com/arvinash
Whr is time in your deep sleep? Enquire this observer which you call I.
You see the Universe and the observer is one whole at a deeper level we are all interconnected.
Our nature from the beginning or before the beginning was empty and aware it's not you that's aware it's that which always has been.
The relative time and absolute time (Kshana) are two different processes. The mind-moment contains 3 Kshana.
This is an invitation to see a theory where light and electrons (matter) are waves with particle characteristics as a probabilistic ∆×∆pᵪ≥h/4π future unfolds. This process is continuously unfolding in relation to the electron sphere 4πr² of probability that surrounds the nucleus of atoms and the wavelength of light. Wave particle duality creates a blank canvas that we can interact with forming a future relative to the energy and momentum of our actions. The Planck constant h/2π is a constant of action within the process that forms the passage of time ∆E∆t≥h/2π. We have an uncertain future continuously coming into existence quanta by quanta, moment by moment, with light photon energy ∆E=hf exchanging into the kinetic Eₖ=½mv² energy of matter, in the form of electrons.
Ask a telescope.
@@typerightseesight you are seeing yourself as you were in the past thru telescope lmao just like a mirror.
The last guy I expected to not believe in time was someone named Calendar
They somehow convinced me that October wasn't the 8th month of the year, but was in fact the 11th.
The Gregorian was right though. It was the division of time that is wrong. Just as all division in anything worthy is wrong.
Doh
You're forgetting Bobby O'Clock.
To be fair, the calendar is a specific ordering and subdivision of time, and the ordering itself doesn't change. 😂
The theory is that time is not fundamental but an emergent property of entropy, I find that one appealing for some reason.
Emergent .... meaning what?
@@KaiseruSoze Greater than the sum of its parts. For example, a single water atom would never be called wet, but have enough of them, and they gain that trait. Similarly, a single neuron is certainly not what we would consider consciousness, but gather a human brains worth and you gain consciousness.
Why is entropy relativistic then? Why does the entropy of a radioactive lump of material proceed slower in a strong gravitational field than in a weaker one? I don't think the idea that time is due to entropy readily explains that.
Entropy is coherent energy. In another word it is intelligence. Simple equation. Human intelligence becomes artificial intelligence which becomes machine intelligence which becomes biomechanical intelligence which eliminates human intelligence and continues into infinity as biomechanical intelligence. That is your quantum mechanics in a nutshell.
Isn't it just a matter of perspective ? If it is the increase in entropy, and not time, that is slowed down in a strong gravitational field, how would you make the difference ?
It's a bit like the chicken and egg problem. We define entropy as increasing other time, but it could be the other way around, time may be defined by the increase in entropy. But how do you describe something increasing without the concept of time ? Does this reflects the fundamental nature of time, or our own limitations ?
When you are young, seconds pass by painfully slow as you watch the clock hands approach 3pm at the end of school. When you are old like me, time is indeed an illusion as it disappears in front of you. All that's left of it when you age is a collection of fragmented memories of it's existence and passing.
i remember being 15, 16 years old... my friends and i would go to the nearby park after school. we'd sit there, joke around, listen to music in our cars, play basketball, smoke, drink, etc, and sometimes we'd get bored just sitting there, almost like the boredom was killing us. we'd plan our futures, talk about getting out of this town, why aren't these girls calling us back today?! etc etc. and how SLOW the time would go by in some of the more boring of the afternoons.
Now? I don't have time to go to the park.
@@tirkentube I wish I took more pictures of those days.
Time is never an illusion when Im late for work.
@@infinitesimotel Touché 🙂
The concept of time is a tool we use to measure the rate at which things change to our local perspective and environment. It’s not a part of the environment itself.
if there is no change there is no time
@ exactly, no change = no movement no vibration no anything. it would definitely appear as though everything has stopped in time. there is no time though. It’s just that everything would have stopped period(not stopped in time)
@@ryanhestin
"To an observer of the frozen universe"
'Universe' means the totality of existents so there couldn't be such an observer.
If by universe you mean something like a bubble,
attempting to observe it would still not work since
the photons that permit observation are not moving.
Time is a part of Nature. It's a quality and attribute of the Universe. All objects exist inside time and can't escape it.
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL assuming a extra-universal being would observe via photons
"Time is an illusion. Lunchtime, doubly so." - Ford Prefect.
I knew somebody had to say it.
Time is always an illusion when it comes to being away from the cog of death.
I love how this guy breaks it down. He doesn’t talk over my head. He takes his time. I’m unable to following well. I’m so glad for it. Thank you by the way I’m on the side of. I think time is a construct who knows I’m just a coal Miner
Here's what I know:
1. Time is relative; there is no one universal clock.
2. Time is ordered: cause always precedes effect.
3. Time is asymmetric: it has only one direction (Arrow of Entropy).
4. Time passes at the speed of light.
That's all I know at the moment, which is now in the past.
That's always bothered me when I tried to think about it- we always think of ourselves as living in the "present," but there is no present. As soon as we have nanosecond's worth of neural impulse, it's already over. I wish that there was a way that we could just exist for a discrete moment at a time and experience it without consistently being yanked forward away from it. The only way I get out of my mental spiral about it is realizing that all moments in time technically exist simultaneously, we're the ones moving through the timeline.
I don't know why that bothers me, or if that makes any sense- could just be my 'tism.
The speed of light is the universal clock and it's not relative. It's the speed of our observational time frame. It's the speed that we see, observe and infer information.
Proper time or relative time is relative to the rate of observation and its rate is defined by its local conditions.
This is an invitation to see a theory where light and electrons (matter) are waves with particle characteristics as a probabilistic ∆×∆pᵪ≥h/4π future unfolds. This process is continuously unfolding in relation to the electron sphere 4πr² of probability that surrounds the nucleus of atoms and the wavelength of light. Wave particle duality creates a blank canvas that we can interact with forming a future relative to the energy and momentum of our actions. The Planck constant h/2π is a constant of action within the process that forms the passage of time ∆E∆t≥h/2π. We have an uncertain future continuously coming into existence quanta by quanta, moment by moment, with light photon energy ∆E=hf exchanging into the kinetic Eₖ=½mv² energy of matter, in the form of electrons.
@Dyslexic-Artist-Theory-on-Time All facilitated by the energy buffer that is the Higgs field. Phase transitions buffered in the higgs field eventually transition into an observable phase state. Time is the interaction between the vertical and the horizontal within a field. The vertical represents the speed of light and the horizontal is defined by the matter within the field, relative to the vertical.
@@Deletirium Yeah, it makes a lot of sense. I've pondered the same observation many times. What is also pondering is the time it takes for light to reach us and for us to process those images, we are observing the past. And the further away it is, the further in the past it is. Even if imperceptible, these delays are measurable .
Isn’t the reason time slows down with speed just because the photons that bind your atoms together move at the speed of light? So traveling close to the speed of light is like a Doppler effect where your binding energy is actually covering longer distance until that distance becomes infinite- and you’re basically in one still/steady state.
My man, you're everywhere in the most unexpected places lol. Didn't you first appear on Anton's channel from years back?
A couple of years ago, I wrote on UA-cam that time was a result of entropy, and some dude replied to my comment to say I didn't know what I was talking about. Yet, this video pretty much confirms what I and others have said. I think the problem with some physics equations is they do not account for entropy, and that is why you get equations that say time can go backwards. Perhaps we don't know how to write physics equations that use the change in entropy as the change in time. Or, we find it more convenient to use time, such as seconds, as a surrogate/proxy for entropy. I think spacetime is really just the net effect of electrons, protons, neutrons, etc., attracting and repelling each other.
I mean you probably know more than the guy you were speaking with, but I have to believe physicists take entropy into account when thinking about time
Thanks!
Arvin, can you do an episode on where we are currently with the Transactional hypothesis from Wheeler & Feynman? Where the electrons must handshake to exchange photons, and one photon must travel to the past to make this happen?
Good idea. I'm a fan of that interpretation actually. The main problem is that it can't really be proven, at least no one that I'm aware of has shown a way to prove it even in principle.
@@ArvinAsh it's not real. first, PHOTONS DO NOT EXIST. second, the interaction (which since 2008 they now pretend is what they meant by photons) is a drain, not a collapse (and there is an experiment i've been working on that might prove this)
Time doesn't exist. photons don't exist. EM field is not quantized.
@@ArvinAsh Love that you or your team responds to comments. Interactive channels get my subscribes and likes more than any other :) Yeah would love to know if anyone's come up with some testable experiments on this or if its just to make the equation work this must be the case and its just how we make sense of this phenomenon and not the actual real-world phenomenon.
I've really been enjoying your videos Arvin 😀
The trouble with abandoning time is that entropy has a direction. If time is a measure of entropy, and entropy exists, them time exists by default, if nothing more than as the arrow of entropy.
Entropy doesn't create time, it establishes order. The two are not the same in GR. Time is relative but the order of events is not.
@drbuckley1 have you ever thought that gravity is to time as cold is to entropy?
@@benjaminwelborn8104 Can you elaborate?
First thing is first, first need to find whether entropy is correct or not before we create hypothesis based on entropy.
This is how real science should work.
I know it is hard but that is one step closer to the truth.
@Ninja-tj5fd entropy is correct... as in, it's measure of disorder or randomness within a system. So it's like you're saying, make sure a meter correct...
Finally!!!
I've been saying this for years:
We are conscious entities.
For that, we need to be aware.
Awareness requires change.
To be aware of change requires memory (of what was before the change).
Thermodynamics shows us how memory can only be created in one "direction" (we can't have a memory of the future).
Therefore, the only way we can exist as conscious entities is by travelling through time in one direction.
exactly what I was thinking
Yep, as Orthodox quantum science found everything (Matter/Engery/Space/Time) comes in to the existance out of thin air only when there is a consciounsess.
This is the mother of every theory.
Like you said past and future are just concepts in our consiousness memory, fairly, we can take "present moment" as the real existence.
All the matter/engery break and create at a trillions times per second speed, but ordinary consciousness can't feel that break/make process because it is so fast to feel it. Ordinary consciousness mind see it as a continuous/unbroken process.
So. guys, consciousness is the fundamental to everything.
'Space and time are mere forms of intuition that structure our experiences'. That's a quote from Immanuel Kant (1724 - 1804) who 250 years ago postulated that our brain can't escape its own 'a priori cognition' of things and therefore what we call 'experience' is just a reconciliation between reality and our peculiar ability to make sense of it. A great day to everybody (and my compliments to AA for another very good video 😊).
Kant did not persist that we cannot transcend to it, though. In 1786 in his Foundations of the metaphysics of physics he somewhat changed his mind about matter, saying that it might emerge from dimensionless points in space and time reacting to forces.
@@gxfprtorius4815 Dear gxf, that was a Time of great men and great discoveries: I read that the original intuition about the ideality of space wasn't Kant's, however. The surprising Pierre Louis Maupertuis (of whom Kant was a great admirer) asserted it first. I quoted Kant because there is no comparison between Kant and Maupertuis in terms of fame: the former is widely considered the most influential philosopher of the Modern Era while the latter (despite giving birth to the principle of least action, being a pioneer of genetics and demonstrating that Earth is flattened at the poles...) is unknown to most. That was a Time where you could submit your calculations to Euler, to get a second opinion 😊...
At 3:38 you have Einstein's birth year written as 1979- time really must be a human construct!!!😂
Time and again I have heard people state that Einstein was ahead of his time.
Also, at 13:43.
The 24-hour timetable is a human construct. Einstein's only way to make relativity work.
Einstein was such a master of time, that he knew how to go back to the early 20th century from 1979 and then die before he was born.
@@nicholasharvey1232 There was a girl in my in class back in 7th standard who used to say that Einstein had invented a time machine. Looks like she was right after all.
When Rovelli dies please ask him to come back and argue that time does not exist.
The non-existence of time not imply you can reverse the order of events.
@mihir777 ok .....Ask Rovelli 5, 10, 20, 40, 60yrs from now if he feels any older....
@@markkaidy8741 the non existence of time does not imply the body cannot age either. I think you’re confusing what Rovelli is proposing.
He’s not saying that because time is an illusion that the body can’t age or that you can reverse the order of events, he’s saying that events happen one after the other like dominos falling or like the racing horse illusion and the brain creates the illusion of time for it to make sense.
@@markkaidy8741 yes he will feel older and that does not contradict what he’s proposing.
I mean I don’t fully understand what this video is saying, but it sounds like you didn’t even bother listening
I think the only reason we place so much emphasis on time is because we evolved on a planet with a steady rising and setting sun that we used to judge the passage of “time.” The rigid nature of time disappears as soon as we are removed from the familiar cycle, e.g. space travel, cave exploration, deep-water exploration.
No sun, no moon, no seasons, no life, no problem... gordion knot cut.
But lets suppose something does start existing... the fact that it will die, means there are slices of its life which are "emergent" and quantifiable.
The fact that your balls will eventually sag is inevitable.
Wrong statements at 1:42. Nobody "experiences" time running slower or faster. Every frame of reference will experience/feel a normal/usual proper time. If any sense can be made of "experiencing slower time", it implies experiencing a longer life duration for them, which is incorrect.
To me, time is just a measurement tool. Like miles. Humans decided to count miles to measure distance. Distance exists but miles are a human concept. Likewise, humans decided to measure shadows (sundials) to measure intervals between changes (from sunrise to sunset). In one of your earlier videos, you used an example of *stopping time* but I interpreted that as simply stopping CHANGE. No change = no intervals to measure = no TIME. We humans like to be able to predict the future - not only WHAT will happen, but WHEN it will happen. Just my two cents.... But it works for me. However, I *will* watch the video again because I liked the way you explained all the different concepts.
Distance is a measurement of locations you can go to. Time is always stuck in the present.. It's literally never the future or the past, so you have to reconcile the difference. One is between your house and your neighbors, the other is only in our heads because it's always now
@@theydisintegrate...time is a measurement of our aging. To say time doesn't exist is saying we don't age, which is obviously not true. Everything ages. You, me, the op, Arvin, and those same scientists saying time doesn't exist.
Of course time exists. Yes, we only have the "now" in the day to day. But we also have our "past" as memory.
This video is a waste of time.
A mile is a measurement of distance, but that anctual distance doesn't change if I use kilometers instead. There's a fixed space between me and anything comoving with me that doesn't seem to really care what I call that space.
@@henryzweihander8282 Yup. Same with time if I use seconds or water drops (the old water clocks). The way I explain to myself why time "slows down" as something goes faster is that speed causes an increase in mass (which is resistance to acceleration) so the drops drop slower - ie the change process is slower.
@@theydisintegrate I'd suggest distance is similar. We can only be *here."
rovelli’s claim that time is non-existent seems to indirectly challenge Einstein’s work, but it overlooks how he approached concepts differently. While most physicists, starting from Newton often chase ideas dictated by mathematical constructs, Einstein relied on imagination and intuition to form the foundation of his theories, using math to refine and validate his vision.
How can you have a "series of events" without time? It seems to me that this is a hypothesized definition for how time works, not a hypothesis that time is an illusion. Regardless of what you want to call it, events have cause and effect, and do not all happen at once or chaotically--this is true with or without the processing of the human brain. This doesn't make time illusory, anymore than pointing out that the mile is a human construct makes length illusory.
What we need is an objective understanding of time! This is an invitation to see a theory where light and electrons (matter) are waves with particle characteristics as a probabilistic ∆×∆pᵪ≥h/4π future unfolds. This process is continuously unfolding in relation to the electron sphere 4πr² of probability that surrounds the nucleus of atoms and the wavelength of light. Wave particle duality creates a blank canvas that we can interact with forming a future relative to the energy and momentum of our actions. The Planck constant h/2π is a constant of action within the process that forms the passage of time ∆E∆t≥h/2π. We have an uncertain future continuously coming into existence quanta by quanta, moment by moment, with light photon energy ∆E=hf exchanging into the kinetic Eₖ=½mv² energy of matter, in the form of electrons.
@@Dyslexic-Artist-Theory-on-Time Ffs. If you keep copypasting this gibberish on every comment, I'm going to start reporting it as spam.
This is why I view time as a mix of movement and infirmation, you need movement, but the information of past movements also need to be there
Space is dual to time -- Einstein.
The past (everything) is dual to the future (nothing) -- time duality.
We know everything about the past as we have experienced or measured it (empirical, physics) and we know nothing about the future as it has not happened yet.
Everything is dual to nothing synthesizes something (the present) -- the Hegelian dialectic.
"Physics is what we know, metaphysics is what we do not know" -- Bertrand Russell.
Absolute time (Galileo, Newton) is dual to relative time (Einstein) -- time duality.
Time is a dual concept.
Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant.
Syntropy (knowledge, prediction) is dual to increasing entropy (lack of knowledge) -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Cause is dual to effect -- correlation.
It's totally possible to have a sequence without time. A sequence of events is a more basic 'thing' than a timeline of events... In the same way a series of pictures is a more basic thing than a movie. (Ie, A movie is a series of stills, WITH the added requirement that there's a fixed, consistent interval between them)
Time is a measurement system. A clock is like a ruler, but instead of measuring distance with a determinable smaller increment of distance, it measures cycles or processes in terrms of a determinable cycle length.
Time is an illusion that helps things make sense
So we are always living in the present tense
It seems unforgiving when a good thing ends
But you and I will always be back then
You and I will always be back then
Will happen, happening, happened
Will happen, happening, happened
And will happen again and again
'Cause you and I will always be back then
I didn't expected this here but I love it!
Time is a definition invented by man, not an illusion - it exists, but only in the way that Superman exists. Superman is just a story but I bet you can name his girlfriend!
@@chickenduckquack
1) Those are the lyrics of a song
2) What is time is still an open question
@@rielco8442 Eh, what song? We could go to work at any time, but we wait until a mechanical device has rotated to point to 8am. We then work until the same device rotates to point to 17:00, then we go home. No 'time' has passed, we simply use the clock to regulate what we do. We align our clocks to the clock formed by the sun and the earth - they are also a mechanical system. All of the people around us do the same thing and it is VERY handy. We call the number pointed to by the clock 'the time' or the 'time of day'. That's it - very simple but massively useful. A calendar is also a clock. When we want to analyse our world we compare some object in motion to the rotation of a stopwatch (a clock) - that's it - it is just a comparison - no special 'time' entity is involved. The object moves because of some energy it has and the stopwatch will move as a result of some energy we put into it. We compare those two moving systems together and might declare 'that took 5 seconds' - time doesn't make either system move, it isn't involved, it is a definition, man invented it!
If the perception of time moving forward is a consequence of the entropy increasing with time, then we have a cyclic definition.
Try telling your boss that time is an illusion when you're late for work.
"In this moment, you are employed. ... And now, in this moment, you're not."
Space is dual to time -- Einstein.
The past (everything) is dual to the future (nothing) -- time duality.
We know everything about the past as we have experienced or measured it (empirical, physics) and we know nothing about the future as it has not happened yet.
Everything is dual to nothing synthesizes something (the present) -- the Hegelian dialectic.
"Physics is what we know, metaphysics is what we do not know" -- Bertrand Russell.
Absolute time (Galileo, Newton) is dual to relative time (Einstein) -- time duality.
Time is a dual concept.
Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant.
Syntropy (knowledge, prediction) is dual to increasing entropy (lack of knowledge) -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Cause is dual to effect -- correlation.
Yeah but the correlation between time and ethics, man. What's that all about?
In the sponsor bit: "it wastes time I don't have" I see what you did there.
4:00 - you almost say it right, as I quizzed my PhD students: how can you measure time? they would spend hours trying to come up with a way, always making larger and larger rules and clocks, and then days emailing me, and then weeks later try to come up with some cheat way to measure it, al to defend time. TIME. DOES. NOT. EXIST.
If time does not exist, then it should not be possible to take two atomic clocks and put one on an airplane or at the base of a mountain and the other in a lab on a flat plain in the city and get a difference. This relative measurement of time, is still time, so for there to be an effect, there must be something there to effect. I'm looking forward to you teaching me what is really going on here. Thank you in advance. 🙂 Also, if space had virtual particles, or any other type of foam, then two particles, one high frequency and one low frequency should not be able to arrive from a supernova several billion light years away at the Fermi satellite at the same time when departing the source at the same time. Would you mind explaining both situations to me, on a simple level that I have a chance to understand? Both experiments I mentioned have actually taken place, they are not thought experiments, but actual test results. Thank you.
@@thelastgeneration102 tell me 1 way you can measure time. 1 way. (let's see if you're smarter than 30 PhD candidates). Time. does. not. exist. "but actually". no. you think you're the first to call a vibration a clock? Name one way you can measure time. one way. one way. that's it. one way. you can't.
@@thelastgeneration102 it's not relative measurement of time, it's relative measurement of action. "action is t-" no it's not. S = d1 / (d2/d3). Time doesn't exist. There are much more intuitive ways to explain this, but let's have you admit you don't know first.
@@removechan10298 In my opinion, you cannot measure time because time is an imagined river. It flows, or seems to, but there is no original reference, there is no upstream force. So, what we are seeing is an illusion of falling. We can't be sure that the big bang is real because we cannot see past a certain point, therefore we cannot know if illusion started then or before. Therefore, it's like calling the earth "ground", it is just a relative point; what is "ground" to the earth? Therefore time does not exist as an object that we can call real. This means that we are imagining or hallucinating something that we cannot grab onto or touch or measure that is not actually there. That is just a guess that you trigger in my mind, causing a non-logical question regarding something that I don't understand. We can drop something and measure the force exhibited and call that gravity, but we cannot measure time because there is nothing to measure.
@@removechan10298 I don't know. But, if we cannot measure what is not there, then why are so many physicists drawing space-time graphs and telling me that if I travel along a certain axis, or in a certain direction, I change what my clock says as compared to what another person's clock says? Why is it if I travel to Andromeda near the speed of light, that space shrinks and I'm there in a moment, but then I come back at the same speed and I age a little, but the earth and everyone on it is four million years older?
“Time is an illusion; lunchtime doubly so.” - Ford Prefect, “Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy”
Based on this video I just upped my notifications from Personalised to All. Thank you Arvin for such a great channel.
Awesome! Thank you!
I think part of the problem is that the word "time" actually describes several different things. We need separate words to describe these different elements. For example,
- the "time" in the fabric of space-time needs a distict word that is used to describe the property of space which allows motion. This time has no arrow, or put another way, is just a scaler.
- another "time" is the result of entropy of particles. Its the time that we measure and experience. This "time" has a direction. It is the "arrow" to time.
There may be other types of "time" that we should have unique words for to prevent confusion.
Relativity blurs (ambiguously) a number of concepts of time. Time is very poorly defined in relativity.
Not saying that Relativity was/is a bad idea, only that it is not quite complete in my view.
Space is dual to time -- Einstein.
The past (everything) is dual to the future (nothing) -- time duality.
We know everything about the past as we have experienced or measured it (empirical, physics) and we know nothing about the future as it has not happened yet.
Everything is dual to nothing synthesizes something (the present) -- the Hegelian dialectic.
"Physics is what we know, metaphysics is what we do not know" -- Bertrand Russell.
Absolute time (Galileo, Newton) is dual to relative time (Einstein) -- time duality.
Time is a dual concept.
Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant.
Syntropy (knowledge, prediction) is dual to increasing entropy (lack of knowledge) -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Cause is dual to effect -- correlation.
@@hyperduality2838 Still spamming text book quotes :)
@@axle.student I am spamming the 4th law of thermodynamics!
My absolute time is your relative and your absolute time is my relative time -- time duality!
The master is dual to the apprentice -- the rule of two -- Darth Bane, Sith Lord.
Absolute truth is dual to relative truth -- Hume's fork.
Truth is dual and time is dual.
Duality creates reality!
@@axle.student Two quantum states that differ by a global phase are considered to be equivalent (indistinguishable) or dual.
Quantum states are dual.
Real is dual to imaginary -- complex numbers are dual -- global phases.
Quantum information is dual -- qubits.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Antinomy (duality) is two truths that contradict each other -- Immanuel Kant.
"This sentence is false" -- the sentence.
If the sentence is true then the sentence is false.
If the sentence is false then the sentence is true -- antinomy.
The sentence is both true and false both at the same time -- duality or quantum entanglement.
You will need duality to understand quantum information.
Your comment betrays your ignorance it is asinine, in physics you are made from quantum states or probability waves.
14:21 "We want to know the truth! [...] but physics has nothing to do with the truth. It's job, at best, is to make a reasonable model of the universe that can make predictions." Wow, this just hit different for me. I've always had the mindset that "science = facts = truth" and this just instantly changed me.
If there is no time,why am I rapidly falling apart as I grow older.
There is no time only deterioration.
At 03:33 you can see exactly why time is an illusion and how Einstein (1979 - 1955) came up with Theory of relativity.
When Arvin stated, "we need to fundamentally understand what physics is", I thought he was going to say next, "It is there in ancient Greece our story begins. It is a warm summer evening, you finished your shopping at the local market or agora"
According to Einstein's theory of relativity, gravity and relative velocity reveal that time is intrinsically linked to the fabric of space. If space did not exist, time, as we understand it, would cease to be meaningful. Hence, the notion that time is a construct we use to describe our perceptions holds validity.
Space is dual to time -- Einstein.
The past (everything) is dual to the future (nothing) -- time duality.
We know everything about the past as we have experienced or measured it (empirical, physics) and we know nothing about the future as it has not happened yet.
Everything is dual to nothing synthesizes something (the present) -- the Hegelian dialectic.
"Physics is what we know, metaphysics is what we do not know" -- Bertrand Russell.
Absolute time (Galileo, Newton) is dual to relative time (Einstein) -- time duality.
Time is a dual concept.
Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant.
Syntropy (knowledge, prediction) is dual to increasing entropy (lack of knowledge) -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Cause is dual to effect -- correlation.
@@hyperduality2838 You keep spamming everyone with this same comment.
@@mattmiller4917 I am spamming the 4th law of thermodynamics!
My absolute time is your relative and your absolute time is my relative time -- time duality!
The master is dual to the apprentice -- the rule of two -- Darth Bane, Sith Lord.
Absolute truth is dual to relative truth -- Hume's fork.
Truth is dual and time is dual.
Duality creates reality!
I am informing you that there are new laws of physics.
If you want to call this spam you have failed to understand what I am saying.
Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein.
Two quantum states that differ by a global phase are said to be equivalent (indistinguishable) or dual.
Quantum information is dual.
Qubits are dual -- on is dual to off.
All information is dual -- syntropy is dual to entropy.
@@mattmiller4917 Left is dual to right, up is dual to down, in is dual to out -- space duality.
Points are dual to lines -- the principle of duality in geometry.
Space, length or distance is defined by two dual points -- vectors.
Contravariant is dual to covariant -- vectors, functors.
All vectors are dual hence space is dual.
If space is dual then time must be dual -- space is dual to time -- Einstein.
There is a hidden dual basis in Riemann geometry or curvature.
Curvature or gravitation is dual.
Potential energy is dual to kinetic energy -- gravitational energy is dual.
Gravitation is equivalent or dual (isomorphic) to acceleration -- Einstein's happiest thought, the principle of equivalence or duality.
Apples fall to the ground because they are conserving duality.
Global entropy (information) always increases because your mind is syntropic.
Synchronic points/lines are dual to enchronic points/lines.
@@hyperduality2838 Sure, but spam is spam
Time is actually the effect we feel of a fourth spacial dimension that for an unknown reason is invisible to our 3D senses.
Time keeps on slipping, slipping. slipping into the future
Fly like an Eagle , to the sea!
@@markkaidy8741 Let me sprit carry me.
Infinity has no limited "space" and no limited "time". But we worry about limited time all the time. I agree with Rovelli (1956), not because I'm born in the same year, rather because he is one of the few who understand what time really is: A construction within our brains. A result of our experience with stellar movements we observe and use to "construct" a world and space we do not really grasp every day, year and up to millennia. And at some point this stream of time flows into "infinity". That's where our "brain capacity" ends.
Nicely put. I like this.
The tiny magnets were acting as a clock, but were entangled to a harmonic oscillator, and then they claim they did not use time in their predictions? But how do they imagine a harmonic oscillator not oscillating in time? How do you describe its oscillation in space if not over time? You'd have to imagine motion without time, wouldn't you? Have they explained how motion takes place without time?
The function/product or action of "time" exists, but time itself does not exist. Meaning that the reality we perceive is more like a romantic view of it rather than the reality of it. Value and meaning are kind of similar. They exist in an imaginary sense in proxy to the physical reality we perceive. (I'm just guessing I'm not saying that this is facts)
And how would one go about comparing clocks to each other?
The best sense I could make of this, is that we normally view time as a the back drop of when actions happen. This theory seems to be saying that actions happen independent of time. Or that time is a helpful way for us to make sense that actions happen regardless of time. If there were no actions, there would be no time instead of the other way around.
Seems like a game of semantics to me.
That said, if time doesn’t exist then everything is happening right now. The start, growth, and end of the universe. I guess that’s true for something traveling at the speed of light. For everything else, there is time to think about it.
It depends on which frame of reference we choose to view spacetime from. Within spacetime, a location (x) is a function of time (t).
However, we can also choose a frame of reference outside spacetime. This is essentially what a minkowski spacetime diagram is. It's a frame of reference outside time and space looking in.
Its only from this perspective that Einsteinian Relativity is understood.
Important distinction to make: there's a difference between time and causality. Causality also appears to be bidirectional in some cases, and there doesn't seem to be any reason to assume that certain physical phenomenon don't occur in the reverse of causality. Perhaps we just measure those things in a way that we call "forward" and have the cause and effect mixed up because of our frame of reference
How is causality bidirectional?
If someone drops an egg, it will crack. But what's the difference between the egg falling to meet the earth, and earth moving towards the egg? After all, the egg was just minding its own business, standing still in space. The "bidirectional" aspect of it is that there are, in some cases (though not all), causes and effects that can be reversed to produce the same end result.
Of course, there are no processes that we know of that would cause a cracked egg to reassemble, so the cause-effect relationship is locked in when it comes to entropy and disorder. But there doesn't seem to be a reason to assume that our perspective of time moving forward actually means that, from the perspective of other physical objects that *their* time is moving forward.
Rovelli distinguishes it as a difference between "change" and "the arrow of time." He does not actually disagree that objects can change their state as a fundamental part of the universe. He gives one analogy of a pendulum swinging back and forth. If you are watching this on a film, you can't actually tell if the film if being played forwards or in reverse, because the pendulum swinging looks the same in both ways. It is changing, but there is no clear arrow of time. What he argues is weakly emergent is just the arrow of time, which he says weakly emerges from entropy. When you accumulate these changes together randomly, just due to sheer probability, they have a greater likelihood of moving to a configuration where there are more degrees of freedom.
causality can't be bidirectional because consequence cannot precede cause, point. Brian Greene explains it in the Elegant Universe with the notion of entropy.
Causality can be simply defined by ordering events. Time in a linear representation can perfectly be described as causal as we have just to choose an arbitrary direction to define what is future and what is past(in our real world, this choice is tightly related to the arrow of time of entropy). The only cases where causality cannot exist is with time loops in which ordering the events is impossible.
Correction: Loop Quantum Gravity is not a theory of everything. It is a quantum gravity theory that does not include strong, electromagnetic, and weak forces.
yet
Correction: there can and will never be a theory of everything if it doesn’t fully solve for consciousness.
I have been analysing this problem for two years and from an original position of being skeptical about time, I am now coming to the conclusion I have to agree with Lee Smolin: some form of time is fundamental. But it's a (not yet solved) mix of motion and a 'theatre' within where that action takes place, which we both seem to call time. Somehow there is a complexity there which is unsolved but at the core of the problem
I agree, Lee Smolin is on the right track! This is an invitation to see a theory where light and electrons (matter) are waves with particle characteristics as a probabilistic ∆×∆pᵪ≥h/4π future unfolds. This process is continuously unfolding in relation to the electron sphere 4πr² of probability that surrounds the nucleus of atoms and the wavelength of light. Wave particle duality creates a blank canvas that we can interact with forming a future relative to the energy and momentum of our actions. The Planck constant h/2π is a constant of action within the process that forms the passage of time ∆E∆t≥h/2π. We have an uncertain future continuously coming into existence quanta by quanta, moment by moment, with light photon energy ∆E=hf exchanging into the kinetic Eₖ=½mv² energy of matter, in the form of electrons.
Entropy isn’t simply "disorder"; it’s about the tendency of systems to evolve toward their most statistically probable state. This state often looks like disorder because there are usually more ways for things to be randomly distributed than organized. However, the core idea is that systems naturally move toward configurations with the highest number of possible arrangements, given their circumstances.
Yep. That's why I said, "simplistically speaking" when describing it as disorder.
@ can you please stop using that 2d graphic of gravity, it's incredibly misleading on imagination, also I'm not being a hater, I've been watching your videos since 20k subs and still think you're one of the best on UA-cam!! 🙏
A play, performed by a troup of actors in costumes, using props and painted backgrounds, is a real thing, it exists.
Yes. But their play is a fiction.
@gxfprtorius4815 Unless it's based on a true story, then it's nonfiction. Boom!
@@MarkAhlquist Still not the real thing, 🙂
@gxfprtorius4815 The characters are all played by the real people who were in the events portrayed. But they wear different hats.
@@MarkAhlquist The hats do it!
My thoughts on this subject are this: If there were no people, no conscious entities to perceive time, would time sill pass? The universe still moves towards chaos regardless of whether or not there are people to perceive it. Planets revolve around the sun, stars expend their fuel and explode, black holes still decay, etc. In this sense time must exist.
I agree. Our planet exists because particles coalesced into a planet. There must have been a point where it was less organized prior to it becoming solidified. The solidification process has a beginning, middle and end. You can’t get between the beginning and the end without the passage of something. That something might as well be time. What rise could it be? If there was no time then everything would be static and frozen. It’s not just a matter of perception. But our perception kind of proves it.
Time is real, as experiments have proven. The atomic clocks built into GPS satellites run faster than atomic clocks on earth, and they must correct the satellites constantly to keep GPS working. But beyond that time dilation, it solely depends on the viewer. If we are observed from far enough away, we are moving faster than light. But right here on earth, we feel no such consequences of going faster than light. Time is not standing still or going backwards. So time is relative, as Einstein theorized, it all depends on where the observer is located. And while he says time is relative, he also says it’s a real thing and is the same thing as space itself. It sure seems like we’re missing something, some concept of how both are true. Some scientists would have us believe that we, as humans, understand everything, there’s just a few details to be worked out. But nothing could be farther from the truth, what we know, is a tiny fraction of all there is to know.
Time is a measure of motion. You can say you're walking 1 meter per second or you can say you're walking 1 meter as a photon travels 300000 kilometers. Same thing
Bro that's entropy, not time
@@HyperVector Entropy is an emergent property of time.. the concept of time's arrow, or the unidirectional flow of time, arises from the fundamental principle that entropy in an isolated system always increases over time, as described by the Second Law of Thermodynamics; essentially, the increasing disorder in a system is what defines our perception of time moving forward... 'Bro'
Kurt Gödel found a solution for Einstein’s equations of General Relativity in which closed time-like curves can exist. The solution was for a rotating universe, which ours is not, but our universe is also a solution for those same equations. Gödel concluded that, since you obviously can’t actually circle back in time to visit a younger you, time must not exist - for any legitimate solutions to the equations of General Relativity.
depends on exactly what you mean by "time". I personally don't believe in time as a 4th spatial dimension. after all, we can't move through it or see into it like the 3 dimensions of space. You'd even have us believe that we're all "moving" forward though time at about the same rate with no effort on our part at all. Though I do believe in cause and effect, matter and energy interacting with each other at different rates in a certain order, some events before or after others, I don't see why you need to believe time is some conveyor belt or film strip to which everything is attached and somehow controls the rate at which things happen. That can be described/explained with temperature and thermodynamics.
This is an invitation to see a theory where light and electrons (matter) are waves with particle characteristics as a probabilistic ∆×∆pᵪ≥h/4π future unfolds. This process is continuously unfolding in relation to the electron sphere 4πr² of probability that surrounds the nucleus of atoms and the wavelength of light. Wave particle duality creates a blank canvas that we can interact with forming a future relative to the energy and momentum of our actions. The Planck constant h/2π is a constant of action within the process that forms the passage of time ∆E∆t≥h/2π. We have an uncertain future continuously coming into existence quanta by quanta, moment by moment, with light photon energy ∆E=hf exchanging into the kinetic Eₖ=½mv² energy of matter, in the form of electrons.
the experiences with two planes containing atomic clocks running on decaying radioactive isotopes going around the earth in opposite directions proved you wrong, and actually proved A. E. was right.
> we're all "moving" forward though time at about the same rate with no effort on our part at all
This isn't a good argument. We also move through space very quickly with no effort on our part. An object will continue to move if no force is acts upon it.
If you say time is a dimension you can move through but not one we are capable of (for whatever reason) applying forces to, then it would make sense that we move forward through time without any effort. In such a universe our only ability to change our time movement would to use the fact that the speed of light is the maximum speed - so we could move in a spatial direction very quickly and our time movement would have to slow down to compensate (otherwise we'd be moving through space + time faster than light).
Ironically... that is exactly what happens when you speed up very quickly... time slows down to compensate.
@@瑠ちゃん No effort, the process must be spontaneous, like the absorption and emission of light.
Space is dual to time -- Einstein.
The past (everything) is dual to the future (nothing) -- time duality.
We know everything about the past as we have experienced or measured it (empirical, physics) and we know nothing about the future as it has not happened yet.
Everything is dual to nothing synthesizes something (the present) -- the Hegelian dialectic.
"Physics is what we know, metaphysics is what we do not know" -- Bertrand Russell.
Absolute time (Galileo, Newton) is dual to relative time (Einstein) -- time duality.
Time is a dual concept.
Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant.
Syntropy (knowledge, prediction) is dual to increasing entropy (lack of knowledge) -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Cause is dual to effect -- correlation.
I have a blind spot in the center of my right eye, yet when I don't think about it, my brain fills in the blanks and I am then not blind
If time is emergent from the universe becoming more disordered, then what are we using to measure the progress of the universe becoming more disordered?
The entire idea of entropy increasing relies on time as the scale entropy is increasing against.
If entropy in the universe is the y axis, what is the x axis, if not time?
Yeah! This is an invitation to see a theory where light and electrons (matter) are waves with particle characteristics as a probabilistic ∆×∆pᵪ≥h/4π future unfolds. This process is continuously unfolding in relation to the electron sphere 4πr² of probability that surrounds the nucleus of atoms and the wavelength of light. Wave particle duality creates a blank canvas that we can interact with forming a future relative to the energy and momentum of our actions. The Planck constant h/2π is a constant of action within the process that forms the passage of time ∆E∆t≥h/2π. We have an uncertain future continuously coming into existence quanta by quanta, moment by moment, with light photon energy ∆E=hf exchanging into the kinetic Eₖ=½mv² energy of matter, in the form of electrons.
What I see, is that the Universe is not becoming more disordered. It appears to be highly ordered and running like clockwork!
" A bomb dropped in a scrapyard, does not produce a jumbo jet," but the Universe does appear to have precisely done that.
As a layman, I hope you'll excuse my simple phrasing, but if time is considered a "real" thing that exists independently and is fundamental to the universe, wouldn’t that make it comparable to distance as a fundamental property? Just because we use time to measure something, does that inherently make it fundamental? By that logic, a meter might be as fundamental as a second. I don’t see a meaningful difference between the two.
Everything moves in space relative to something else, covering distance, just as we perceive time as "moving." It feels like time might be a conceptual tool we use to describe phenomena, rather than a standalone entity-perhaps akin to a "god of the gaps" explanation to account for what we observe.
The idea that time might not be an independent property but rather an emergent phenomenon is compelling and worth exploring. Lee Smolin's argument that time is necessary to further understand the universe seems counterintuitive. It’s the removal of our reliance on time-based assumptions-treating it as a nonessential part of the framework-that could open doors to new insights, possibly even resolving the general relativity vs quantum mechanics dilemma.
@@vincentlevalois Yes time points towards an emergent process with the Universe being a continuum.
@@user-k229 Very true! The Universe has the potential to form complexity, not just entropy!
The big bang hasn't stopped and each moment we perceive is that moment happening both simultaneously and for the first time. So time is the same as a strobe light staggering your movements shown from the dark. A giant flip book of the one moment in "time" replayed but show the series of events that have transpired within that moment.
we do not yet know the ultimate nature of reality
Space is dual to time -- Einstein.
The past (everything) is dual to the future (nothing) -- time duality.
We know everything about the past as we have experienced or measured it (empirical, physics) and we know nothing about the future as it has not happened yet.
Everything is dual to nothing synthesizes something (the present) -- the Hegelian dialectic.
"Physics is what we know, metaphysics is what we do not know" -- Bertrand Russell.
Absolute time (Galileo, Newton) is dual to relative time (Einstein) -- time duality.
Time is a dual concept.
Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant.
Syntropy (knowledge, prediction) is dual to increasing entropy (lack of knowledge) -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Cause is dual to effect -- correlation.
The simplest explanation I've heard for time was from the book The Dispossessed. The character talked about time like a book, and we are turning the pages and reading them one after the other. You have the illusion of progressing through the story, but the reality is the book is always in a complete, unchanging state.
This is one helluva analogy and makes alot of sense! To me, time is a perception and a creation via our brains but as in the whole book analogy, the universe (book) will exist regardless .....good stuff
Very good analogy here! This makes alot of sense...
so basically, we still have no idea how time works
I'm pretty sure I'm not sure about about that.
We're not even sure it exists!
Yeah but it works, just like the great mystery of lurve, man.
Time is most certainly an illusion.
The only reason we must relate to a time cycle is because of the nature of the planet we live on. Early man has to use time for survival of the seasons of weather patterns and a unit of time was the perfect answer to being able to utilize the seasons for food security and living habitats.
I could go on and on for the reason mankind had to use time for daily life.
Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so.
The Bible pretty much confirms that Time is an illusion in so many words. And we can see that the only point Time and Space become intertwined is when something moves through space. If nothing moves in space, time cannot be calculated.
"...an attack on the existence of time..."
hold on a minute...I'm just here to watch a YT video.
The fact you and i can sit in the same event, in te same room and one says, "it flew by" and the other says, "it dragged on" is evidence that ime is only an agreed upon convention so we can HAVE a spacetime experience. We collectively believe it exists and it does.
Maybe,but getting old is not am illusion and that's what matters
Anthropocentrism.
Yes, the term "illusion" is a bit misleading. It's better to say that time is an "abstraction." An abstraction is not necessarily _false._ It is just not the full story.
imagine two characters on a film strip, talking about how time is an illusion
11:25 "It is not that time actually flows, but It's the universe that is becoming disorderly more and more." Isn't this statement an admission of the time actually existing? The premise that the universe gets more disorderly since the big bang occurred, it is based on the premise that time actually exists.
I agree. I think they are just talking about time without using that word. They talk about things changing; but are the changing all at once? Then how are they changing. Change implies time passing. They are mistaking the map for the territory as well; just because there can be a quantum theory without time does mean time does not exist. And calling it an illusion makes this argument sound like there is some ideas of what consciousness means. Rocks don't experience illusions, but minds do.
@@kebilfree There is no such thing as a quantum theory without time. No theory can exist if time does not exist.
Gotta agree with you guys, time is an implicit assumption in the description of any event. Also to describe something as emergent does nothing to deny its reality.
5.391247(60)×10−44 s ____ and then what?
That is a common interpretation, but no the video is attempting to paint a concept of time that does not exist in any form in the natural universe.
We can see a clock working. But we cannot see any "Time" that the clock seems to measure ! 🙂
Rovelli is repeating exactly what philosopher Alfred North Whitehead was saying decades ago. The fundamental building blocks of the universe are events, not objects.
A Process!!! This is an invitation to see a theory where light and electrons (matter) are waves with particle characteristics as a probabilistic ∆×∆pᵪ≥h/4π future unfolds. This process is continuously unfolding in relation to the electron sphere 4πr² of probability that surrounds the nucleus of atoms and the wavelength of light. Wave particle duality creates a blank canvas that we can interact with forming a future relative to the energy and momentum of our actions. The Planck constant h/2π is a constant of action within the process that forms the passage of time ∆E∆t≥h/2π. We have an uncertain future continuously coming into existence quanta by quanta, moment by moment, with light photon energy ∆E=hf exchanging into the kinetic Eₖ=½mv² energy of matter, in the form of electrons.
This can be argued to be a many centuries old concept, dating back to Leibniz.
My only issue with Rovelli's worldview is that he tries to reduce the universe down into "interactions," but an interaction implies three systems, not two. In order to describe two systems as interacting, you have to describe it from the reference frame of a third system. That is because the universe is relational, so you have to describe it in relation to another system, i.e. from a chosen reference frame, which is used as the origin of your coordinate system.
If the universe only contained two objects, you would only have two options for the basis of your reference frame, and so you would need to pick one of the two to describe the "rest" of the universe. But, in this case, the "rest" of the universe would only contain one other object. Hence, if we take relationalism seriously, then you could not actually even say such a universe contains two objects. Rather, it contains two possible reference frames, where in each reference there only exists one object, but that one object differs between the two reference frames.
If there is just one system, then there can be no "interaction" at all. For example, if I look at a tree, you might say the reason I "see" a tree is because the light from the tree is interacting with my eyes. Yet, from my perspective, I cannot see my own eyeball, I instead just see the light itself. If you have two systems interacting, and you pick one as the coordinate system to describe the other, then you just have one object in that description. Having two objects interacting inherently requires introducing a perspective from a third system.
This distinction matters because in Rovelli's view, the simplest "unit" of reality is an "interaction," but an interaction implicitly involves three systems. It is not the simplest unit of reality. The simplest unit of reality would be to conceive of reality relative to the reference frame of one of those two systems partaking in the interaction, and when you do this, your description then only contains one object. You thus end up with the simplest unit of reality again being single objects, but the behavior of those objects are not autonomous in a classical sense but would be contextual.
Relationalism is replaced with contextuality, which is different. Consider a person who sees a train traveling really fast while he is sitting on the ground, so he hops in a car and drives alongside it and now sees it traveling slower. The reason the speed changes for him is because velocity is relational, if he changes his speed relative to the train then it will change the perceived velocity. However, this is again a third-person perspective. We are talking about the train and the person from an "outside" point of view. If we take the point of view of the person themselves, their velocity cannot change at all, because velocity relative to yourself is always zero.
So what causes the train to appear to move slower? What causes the change to appear to move slower is the behavior of everything else: when they accelerate in their car, they can see objects move towards the back of the car, as if a force is pushing them backwards. From the behavior of other objects surrounding them, they could predict then the train would slow down, i.e. what is changing is not themselves in relation to the train, which requires a third-person perspective, but the train in relation to everything else, which makes up the "context" in which they find themselves in.
That's the contextual realist interpretation of quantum mechanics, which one of its main proponents is the physicist Francois-Igor Pris, but the philosophy of contextual realism was originated by the philosopher Jocelyn Benoist who has also written a little bit on quantum mechanics but not as much as Pris. Benoist's _contextual realism,_ unlike Rovelli's _weak realism_ as he calls it, does maintain the existence of objects, although, they are not objects that behave in a way that is inseparable from everything else, from the context in which they exist within. Rovelli's weak realism would be a layer of abstraction on top of contextual realism, it is something you arrive at when there are ultimately three possible reference frames under consideration rather than two.
Kantian nonsense
@@blist14ant Rovelli's views are literally the polar opposite of Kant. Kant argued reality was composed of discrete objects he called things-in-themselves. Kant was also an indirect realist. He separated the world into the "phenomenon" and the "noumenon," where the "noumenon" is true reality that is independent of the "phenomenon" which is our perception. Rovelli is a direct realist and criticizes such a distinction.
Finally this video gave me the perfect answer about the time.
If time is an illusion then so is entropy. If entropy is real, then so is time.
What you're doing is equating entropy with time? What's the point of time then? Describing the same change of things again?
What if motion (or rather change) itself IS time instead of NEEDING time?
@@robertmusil1107 time must pass for entropy to increase. without the passage of time, entropy cannot increase or decrease as such things are measured as a function over time. Therefore time is not an illusion because entropy is always increasing.
Space is dual to time -- Einstein.
The past (everything) is dual to the future (nothing) -- time duality.
We know everything about the past as we have experienced or measured it (empirical, physics) and we know nothing about the future as it has not happened yet.
Everything is dual to nothing synthesizes something (the present) -- the Hegelian dialectic.
"Physics is what we know, metaphysics is what we do not know" -- Bertrand Russell.
Absolute time (Galileo, Newton) is dual to relative time (Einstein) -- time duality.
Time is a dual concept.
Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant.
Syntropy (knowledge, prediction) is dual to increasing entropy (lack of knowledge) -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Cause is dual to effect -- correlation.
0:19 sometimes the things we physically measure aren't the same as the thing we think we're measuring.
Isn't time really just relative motion?
In classical physics, yes, it can be defined something like that.
@ArvinAsh Is there any measure of time that doesn't depend on the motion of one object relative to another?
That's it, in a nutshell. There's no time without stuff, and stuff (meaning energy and matter) is always in relative motion. It's a dynamic continuum.
I think that is correct. That is what all clocks measure, anyway. However, I think you maybe then have to explain what it is about motion which makes it behave according to relativity - for instance, why is there less motion in strong gravitational fields? And why is it coordinated universally - that is, why is relativity valid everywhere in space as if motion was coordinated universally?
@@gxfprtorius4815”Why is there less motion in a strong gravitational field.” A great question that I also would like an intuitive answer to as well. I get the light clock thing in a fast moving spaceship as the light has further to travel for the distant observer, but for gravitational fields could it be something to do with space stretching or length elongation?
The delicious irony of Callender (calendar) suggesting there is no time 😂
Maybe we are back to the difference in coding between micro and macro. Time certainly exists at the macro level, where we are actualized. But maybe not at the quantum level, where fluidity is king.
I think the best way to understand our predicament in identifying or defining the concept of "time" is what happens at minute @11:00 in the video: like anyone else, Arvin cannot escape his language. We cannot express any form of a universe without uttering words that involve time: "march towards more and more disorder" -- "the universe began" -- "the universe has been moving towards higher entropy", etc. As well, comments here have the same conundrum, most commonly relating time to the word "change". All these words and expressions already embed the time as we know it. Our form of intelligence forces us to create order in our expressions and interactions, thereby preventing us from (imagining ? .. experiencing? .. "being" ) a universe without time.
In my opinion, the idea that time is just a side-effect of the universe becoming more disordered is absurd for reasons highlighted by one very important word: *"becoming".* That implies a fixed sequence of events. A chain of causality. A "before" and an "after" that are not interchangeable. Time must exist in order for the second law of thermodynamics to make any kind of sense.
Exactly!
But everything is "becoming" all the time at all times. Otherwise nothing would exist.
explained so well for us - thx doc 🎉
Because light has a finite speed we can only observe the past. We can make predictions with information collected from the past only (GR). We cannot observe the future because it is made up of particles that have not had an interaction yet and would only exist as probability waves (QM).
Congrats on 1.000.000+ subscribers :)
Time is the basis of Time.. We need time, to tell the Time.
K. Harris
We must be unburdened by what has been, while realizing the Venn diagram is just so intersectional, and that is simply wonderful. We exist in the context of all in which you live and what you came before you. We did not just fall out of the coconut tree after all. Time is - it is a reflection of our moment in our time, right? And in present time is the way we express how we’re feeling about the moment,
I just love yellow school buses, the school bus will take us there.
*wise and knowing smile...
Words to live by, indeed. 🤗
@@Deletirium ⛑📞🎯
Arvin, that must mean that particles are doing stuff that is instantaneous, because if it's not instantaneous than time must be more fundamental than the particles because I think that time may be only formed by something that experiences no time but rather give the effect of time itself.
"Time is a illision and it bends" - Villagers of Ioannina City
It amazes me that physicists seem to swap time and entropy. They say entropy causes time. I believe it is the other way around. Time causes entropy. Or at least, makes entropy possible.
I agree! This is an invitation to see a theory where light and electrons (matter) are waves with particle characteristics as a probabilistic ∆×∆pᵪ≥h/4π future unfolds. This process is continuously unfolding in relation to the electron sphere 4πr² of probability that surrounds the nucleus of atoms and the wavelength of light. Wave particle duality creates a blank canvas that we can interact with forming a future relative to the energy and momentum of our actions. The Planck constant h/2π is a constant of action within the process that forms the passage of time ∆E∆t≥h/2π. We have an uncertain future continuously coming into existence quanta by quanta, moment by moment, with light photon energy ∆E=hf exchanging into the kinetic Eₖ=½mv² energy of matter, in the form of electrons.
I don't agree. We came up with time because we have memories and the ability of foresight . It make sense to us to have a past and present and future because we can remember a past and imagine a future. But what is time to a decaying particle for example? It's nothing, it's decaying in a continuous moment of the present, there is no time for it, just "now" or as we saw in the video, just entropy.
Entropy is intricately linked to information and those are also directional like time. Perhaps we need to figure out the relationship between the three.
Love it, way to go Arvin!
Anyone aged 60 or more knows time is not an illusion!!
Like me LOL. This is an invitation to see a theory where light and electrons (matter) are waves with particle characteristics as a probabilistic ∆×∆pᵪ≥h/4π future unfolds. This process is continuously unfolding in relation to the electron sphere 4πr² of probability that surrounds the nucleus of atoms and the wavelength of light. Wave particle duality creates a blank canvas that we can interact with forming a future relative to the energy and momentum of our actions. The Planck constant h/2π is a constant of action within the process that forms the passage of time ∆E∆t≥h/2π. We have an uncertain future continuously coming into existence quanta by quanta, moment by moment, with light photon energy ∆E=hf exchanging into the kinetic Eₖ=½mv² energy of matter, in the form of electrons.
I'm 63 and time does fly. 60 is a perfect age to see that it is truly real. 😕
OK grandpa
Great video as always
Who cares, we are just muppets in a computer game anyway.
And are those persons (who make this game) also puppets in someone's game? And are those "someones" also only puppets? And might this series go on forever? No, it would be nonsense. My conclusion is that there might be only one "author" who might not be only the product of someone else's imagination - thus he must be absolute and final. That leads to the notion of one final Creator God.
@@akostarkanyi825 Your conclusion that there must be one absolute Creator is an interesting philosophical stance, but I’m not sure how that deity would come into existence. The idea that a final Creator is necessary to explain everything doesn't seem to follow logically without further exploration of the 'why' and 'how' of that creator's origin. As for the simulation theory, I don't think we're in one either. While the idea of an endless, ongoing simulation is an interesting concept, it's a presumption without solid evidence to back it up. We have evidence for the Big Bang and the observable expansion of the universe, but we don’t have concrete evidence for God or the existence of a simulation. Who's to say that the 'someone's' have to be part of a simulation themselves? In my view, both the idea of an all-powerful being and the simulation hypothesis are speculative without proof.
Yes and both are absurdly human centric thinking. The universe is under no obligation to fit neatly into an explanation that's consistent with our experience.
@@ed8018 Amen
@@niclasv8407 " Who's to say that the 'someone's' have to be part of a simulation themselves?" But why would they not be? "both the idea of an all-powerful being and the simulation hypothesis are speculative without proof" Yes, that is true. But there are further arguments for a Creator God - not like for the simulation hypothesis.
When I was 15 I got this intuition: no time, only events, all existing simultaneously.
When I was 16 I got this intuition: no different people, you're everyone's events.
Then I got this intuition: only conscious events, you're everything. No structure in the universe, just you.
please, put it in practice! Study physics, became a researcher, you might be right :D
That got real close to solipsism :)
I have had 1000nds of those epiphanies lol
My friend, if you think time is an illusion then look at yourself in the mirror in 20 years. Or look right now and explain why you don't look like a 5-year old any more. See if you're still alive in 100 years. Taking all those things into account -- you'll see time is real. Semantics and mathematics cannot change that reality.
You didn't understand the video. Just because things change it doesn't mean that there needs to be time as a concept. Things can just change.
Look here Bob Cereal, if that is your real name, speed of causality says change equals time. That is all.
Time is the measure of motion. That's why it is relative. No motion, no time. Motion in different reference frames, different rates of time.
Its also why there is no "Quantum time" because time is a measurement (looking at the clock) rather than an inherent property other than that everything has motion.
To change the direction of time in math is as simple as changing the sign. However the universe is not ruled by math but by physics. There is no negative time because its not a property of motion you have motion or no motion. Motion has vectors and an object can go back on the path it originally followed but it is not reversing, its vector has simply changed by 180 degrees.
We die once per quantum event as our consciousness keeps shifting to a reality where we still exist. But other observers may watch us physically die as their own consciousness may shift to a reality where we are no longer viable or present. That's how our essence is immortal and change is the only constant.
It's about time you made this video
I have the feeling this concept could then also explain why the passage of time is different at different speeds and why the speed of light is constant.
Space is dual to time -- Einstein.
The past (everything) is dual to the future (nothing) -- time duality.
We know everything about the past as we have experienced or measured it (empirical, physics) and we know nothing about the future as it has not happened yet.
Everything is dual to nothing synthesizes something (the present) -- the Hegelian dialectic.
"Physics is what we know, metaphysics is what we do not know" -- Bertrand Russell.
Absolute time (Galileo, Newton) is dual to relative time (Einstein) -- time duality.
Time is a dual concept.
Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant.
Syntropy (knowledge, prediction) is dual to increasing entropy (lack of knowledge) -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Cause is dual to effect -- correlation.
At 70 years old, I'm reminded that time is real whenever I look in a mirror. Or is that just Mr. Entropy who's looking back at me? 😃
It makes me believe in entropy when I look at myself on videos!
I think it's important for people to remember that there's a fundamental difference between a theory or an idea not being falsifiable and not being falsifiable *yet*. It borders on human arrogance and exceptionalism to presume the inability lies with the universe and not our own limitations.
Amazing analyzing !
So whether we'll see you next time is already hard-coded into the fabric of this Universe. We just have to travel through the illusion of space-time to that event, then pretend we made a choice to take part in it only to find out we already knew what the next topic would be all along. Thanks in advance for playing along.
Sent this video to my mother in law when she asked what time Thanksgiving dinner will be ready
First time viewer, you've earned a sub. Good video and I like your speaking style, finding it reminiscent of Michio Kaku.
A subatomic particle won't experience time in it's wave state according to quantum mechanics until it is collapsed but that's i think only the subatomic particle perspective because in the double slit experiment when the particle is not observed and is in it's wave form would still take time to pass the slits and reach the screen(i think you will have got my point).
Rovelli is right. Time is like "The Soul". It is a construct so ubiquitous that we struggle to think without it.
If you cease to exist, a measure of time that is put on you stops. So, this cannot be time, because time does not stop. It is duration. What we call time is the sensation that derives automatically from duration. When you add various durations together, you get what we call ticks. Each (small) duration is a tick, especially when each duration is of same length, like the duration we call 'second'.
You aren't experiencing time, you
are experiencing life, and then measuring what happens in the life we are experiencing with a unit of measurement you created...not discovered.