Carlo Rovelli - Events and the Nature of Time

Komentar

  1. Mateo

    Mateo10 hari yang lalu

    And this is why time travel is impossible, because as simply a measurement of 'change', we can never return to a previous quantum state (which BTW, wouldn't be just 'local', but would also include the quantum state of everything else in the universe).

  2. Padawan Atodon

    Padawan AtodonBulan Yang lalu

    Gods fingerprints everywhere

  3. Carl Christian Jonsson

    Carl Christian Jonsson3 bulan yang lalu

    STOP! HAMMERTIME!

  4. WESTPRINGLE

    WESTPRINGLE3 bulan yang lalu

    very well explained imo

  5. Kurtis Labelle

    Kurtis Labelle4 bulan yang lalu

    So, here is the way i look at it. Lets say there was one particle in the entire universe, only one. How would that particle measure time? Well if the particle is moving, because its in an inertial frame, ie the rest of the universe is empty so it wouldnt know it was moving. If it was spinning, again it wouldnt know it was spinning because there is nothing to compare its spin to. So how can you measure time? At this point, time doesn't exist. Introduce a second particle, now maybe you could say these two particles are moving away from each other, but without another paticle or measuring stick, you could measure distance but not distance over time. If one of the particles were spinning, then all of a sudden you can say the distance between the particles increases by so many particle lengths per particle rotation and voila finally you have time. Time, is nothing but a measure of movement vs another measure of movement. Here is where my ideas gets a little complicated. I believe we experience three dimensional objects in 4 dimensional space all the time. From our perspective, there is no difference between two particles at two different depths in 4D save that one of the particles may appear smaller in one dimension. So, just like on tv we experience a three dimensional world through a two dimensional lense, we view a 4 dimensional world through a three dimensional lense. Though we can only see in 3d, there are ways we a can interpret the distances along the 4th d. (bare in mind that the 4d is polarized because as 3 dimensional objects move out of our 3d into 4d, it only shifts one of its 3 planes that are at 90 degree angles to the existing xyz that we have currently because the 3d object still only has 3 dimensions.) So lets talk about time dilation in a gravity well. Its the best way, that i can think of to try and explain what i mean. I think particles always move at the same speed regardless of where they are, what changes is the distance through a 4th dimension this particle has to travel in order for it to interact with the particles around it. As example, we take two people, one in space and one close to a black hole. Both people are in some form of a gravity well. the person in space is in one created by the mass of his body, the one near the black hole is in one created by the mass of the black hole and the mass of his body. Imagine both people as being on the side of a cliff that slopes slightly away from them, as in on the side of this gravity well. you are looking at them from above, and for our sake, through a 2 dimensional lense. From what you see, the two appear to be only 2m apart, but if you flip the lense to the side, you can see they are separated in height by a 1km. In order for anything from the person deeper in the gravity well to interact with the person outside the well, he has to climb 1km to cross the 2m that from above we can only see visible. All particles in a gravity well do interact with other particles in the well but because of the distributional changes in gravity, the distances these particles have to travel via the invisible dimensions different distances in order to interact. The deeper the well, the sheerer the cliff and the more they have to travel along that unseen dimension to effect change. Lets look at it from the perspective of a radioactive particle near a gravity well that is decaying. Lets say that a proton is going to escape the particle. I would say that the proton is always moving away from the nucleus, but because of the deep well, that proton, though from our lensing looks close to the nucleus, is consistantly traveling further and further away via the unseen dimension. Compared to a same radioactive decaying particle in free space, which decays faster because there is less of a cliff, either up or down, that the proton has to overcome before being able to be visibly away from the nucleus. So far, i think all this makes sense. And in this way, time dilation would just be a matter of figuring out how steep the cliff is. If we look at time dilation due to speed, we get sort of the same outcome. If one were to go the speed of light, the energy constraints would be astronomical, your mass would increase infinitely, you would be moved, via the unseen dimension to a position where you could see the universe unfold before your eyes. Because every aspect of the universe would have a less steep cliff than you are at the bottom of, all movements in the universe would happen quicker than any movements you, or any particles of your body would make, thus you would see everything move at ultra fast speeds and you would witness the end of the universe. As for length contraction, this occurs as one of the physical three dimensions shifts towards one of the unseen plaines. as the object turns towards this plain, the distance between the particles look smaller and from what we can tell the object seems to shrink. its important to note the same thing happens in a gravity well. A black hole isnt really a singularity, its that matter has move out of our 3 plaines along the planes of the 4th d. so imagine a 3 dimensional object in 4 dimensions barely touching our 3 dimensional space. As an object moves down a gravity well it seems to get compacted because its further away. someone let me know if any of this makes sense.

  6. ERIC SUMARNKANT

    ERIC SUMARNKANT5 bulan yang lalu

    Time is a constant - divided by the second, relative to the speed of light, and can be measured. 299,792,458 meters is a measurement of length AND a measurement time.

  7. Tullius Agrippa

    Tullius Agrippa5 bulan yang lalu

    What is time? Ask rather what is distance. The answers are very similar.

  8. Henry Powers

    Henry Powers9 bulan yang lalu

    Time is manmade. The universe gets along quite well without it.

  9. Bill

    Bill6 bulan yang lalu

    Nothing gets along without it, actions require duration. Without time you just have a static, frozen block, nothingness.

  10. parsoumash

    parsoumash9 bulan yang lalu

    My question is: if our interpretation of time is what we can account for (at ground level)... why would it be important to account for time that exists higher up in the atmosphere? What "exists" is what we encounter daily in our existence. This is also the same thing that gives us the "sense of time" and the feeling of necessity to measure it according to our daily lives at ground level. What we cannot use becomes useless. Thus, the fact that time is different higher up in the atmosphere doesn't matter because it is of little utility. Time DOES exist here at ground level because it is of utility and can be measured for the purposes needed at ground level. Therefore, just because there are many different ways of measuring time does not eliminate the notion or perception and most importantly the utility of time.

  11. willie flores

    willie flores10 bulan yang lalu

    Damn! Why is it that with every mention of 'time' we muddle it even more? Events have something to do with time, but it was not made clear. Have we forgotten the history of navigation? Here are some comments on the issue: If we want to be able to communicate with each other about the 'size' of things, first we need to invent a tool, such as the 'meter'. And, if we want to be able to communicate with each other about the 'motion' of things; then we need to invent a tool that will measure motion, and that tool is the clock. We did not invent clocks to measure so-called time, but to measure motion. The word 'time' is simply the term we use to refer to the measure of motion. Tick-tock.

  12. J Merlo

    J Merlo10 bulan yang lalu

    Hm!... That was 9 minutes just to say that when quantum came along, all previous physic's believes went to the trash.

  13. dennis mohaaa

    dennis mohaaa11 bulan yang lalu

    &this time is gone.the time you read this is the future.. you read something at present time and understand it in the future

  14. Md. Fazlul Karim

    Md. Fazlul Karim11 bulan yang lalu

    What is Time? 1. Assume the three dimensional Universe is inside a three dimensional photo Frame. Everything in this universe is dynamic and changing in relative to other things and itself. Entropy is changing also. 2. The whole Universe inside the frame marked as Now Moment is separated from previous Now Moment by shortest possible separator Planck-time. 3. Last Now Moments are Record, History, Memory or Information. Next Now Moments are next changed states of the Universe inside Frame. 4. Only Now Moment Exist. Past and Future do not exist. Flow of Time forward or backward does not exist. No arrow of time. It is arrow of Change with elapse of Time. Moment is ticking repeatedly at Planck-Time interval with a new 3D-Photo of the Universe. 5. Conscious Mind can make predictions of next Moments from experience and can plan events for next Moments. 6. Every Planck-Volume’s “Now” of the Universe including space and stuffs in it is always in the same Now Moment Frame of the Universe. Relative Clock ticking, fast or slow, at different planck-volume for different conditions does not shift anything to previous or next Moment Frames of the Universe. Because clocks ticking slow or fast does not mean Time elapsing slow or fast. It is error of the clock for certain condition which need to be adjusted. All points Now remain in the Now Moment Frame of the Universe. That is why twins of paradox can meet at any ones Now though relatively they are backward or forward in respect of amount of time elapsed. Time travel is not possible. Our invented Clocks and Calendars are misleading us about time in the repetition of day & night and seasons. 7. The Unit by Clock is three dimensional at any point of the Universe. X axis: Universal Period of Time, Y axis: Passage or Elapse of Time and Z axis: Local Present or Now. Our Clocks only show one dimension: passage of Time. Clocks are good measuring device with a Unit but that is not Time.

  15. Naveed Hussain

    Naveed HussainTahun Yang lalu

    Divergence of 4 dimensional coordinate is equal to negative of rate of change of time coordinate. In simple words, space is extension of time coordinate

  16. Naveed Hussain

    Naveed HussainTahun Yang lalu

    Time is the sequel of all events

  17. Durk Kush

    Durk KushTahun Yang lalu

    I have always wondered if animals sense time? I think we have time because we know we are going to die. Animals don't know that they will die someday, so I don't think they think about time passing.

  18. xjohnny1000

    xjohnny100011 bulan yang lalu

    I believe “things” (animals, people, planets) experience time at a rate based on their mass. A fly leads a full life in only a few days, a dog experiences a full life in 1/7 our time. A planet, if it was sentient, would experience a full life in 10 billion of our years.

  19. redglazedeyez

    redglazedeyezTahun Yang lalu

    so.... he wants to diss einstien and newton and his theory. and shroedingers equation..so.. where is your theory and equations...hmmmmm yes.......i dont see your theory and equations anywhere son....

  20. lowlize

    lowlizeTahun Yang lalu

    Loop quantum gravity is the theory.

  21. redglazedeyez

    redglazedeyezTahun Yang lalu

    but... after all this..... time still exists

  22. lowlize

    lowlizeTahun Yang lalu

    Look up the thermal time hypothesis.

  23. Verdi

    VerdiTahun Yang lalu

    Sorry, mate, you're 200% wrong, Sean Carrol is right, time is fundamental.

  24. redglazedeyez

    redglazedeyezTahun Yang lalu

    sean carrol sucks bigtime. but this guy sucks more

  25. Günter Sostaric

    Günter SostaricTahun Yang lalu

    Considerations of the time When I In 2013, I dream to have a conversation with a Mr. Ruiz from Argentina and in 2017 I was treated by a Dr. Treated Ruiz from Argentina, When I in 2013 I dream that I go to a Sabine and she lives near the Rappenwaldstraße and a year later I meet "by chance" on the internet a woman named Sabine, who lives near the bus stop Rappenwaldstraße, When I in the year 2009 dreams that in the center of Dornbirn a barn burns brightly and publish this dream in the Seth forum on 10.9.09 and 7 months later a barn in the middle of the center burns brightly, When I Exactly 5 years after this dream (when I woke up I had the number 54119 in my head) to house no. 4, apartment no. 119 (all this I wrote down and hundreds more similar dreams), then something is fundamentally wrong with the concept about the time of today's science. I've learned all this from Seth, realizing HOW time works, it's ONLY in our heads. All this can be found in Seth / Jane Roberts ... When you stand in front of a house, you are not aware of what's going on behind it. But when you hover over the house 50 meters in a helicopter, you can see what's going on behind it. It is the time wall. In dreams, we can take that elevated position and overcome that wall of time. In our daily lives the ego sparks in between, it does not allow this. Studying the Seth books helps us to recognize timelessness.

  26. Marcus Deringer

    Marcus DeringerTahun Yang lalu

    Matter is illusion only electricity is reality

  27. Andrew Shortt

    Andrew ShorttTahun Yang lalu

    The real fun starts when we also realize not only is there no fundamental time but no fundamental change.

  28. lcdvasrm

    lcdvasrmTahun Yang lalu

    Why not question the question first ? How come have events without objects ? The word causality would have been useful.

  29. ahmed selim jouhar

    ahmed selim jouharTahun Yang lalu

    And we might be able to make nothing happens in laboratory we can pause time and yet we can make things go faster time go faster ???!

  30. wolf Larsen

    wolf LarsenTahun Yang lalu

    There is winter time, summer time, fall time, spring time, day time night time etc, Yes we humans have created a system to measure time of course, what's his point ?, time is an abstract idea? well no shit, but it's a damn useful idea isn't it. A bird doesn't need to check the time to know when to go to sleep it uses nature for that, so time exists in nature regardless of our concept of it. He harps on and on, Hey Carlo how about you use some of this "time" to learn English properly.

  31. wolf Larsen

    wolf LarsenTahun Yang lalu

    Heard Carlo on abc radio going on about the perception of "time", he couldn't even string a coherent English sentence together, just another new age space fantasist. Time is basically arbitrary, ok well I won't pay you on time if you work for me Carlo, I bet time suddenly becomes very real for him. What a moron. The moronic sheeple eat up his fantasies.

  32. Matthew Bain

    Matthew Bain8 bulan yang lalu

    Jesus, you've clearly never read one of his papers or books. I'm not sure he's the moron here.

  33. NEWKNOWLEDGE

    NEWKNOWLEDGETahun Yang lalu

    Physicists still have not got it right. We exist within a 4D environment called Space-Time. However, we are confined to real-time, thus we do not extend across time, thus we perceive a 3D environment. All matter within this space-time environment is constantly in motion and does so with there being just one specific magnitude of motion. That magnitude of motion is identical to the magnitude of motion of which light has as it moves across space. As I have said, we are confined to real-time. This is the inside of reality. The outside of reality, is all time of the space-time 4D environment, other than real-time. An event can be governed by circumstances set in real-time. These are inside events. A 4D event is governed by circumstances set across a measure of time. These are 4D outside events. Depending on which side is in control of an event, is what determines what the outcome of the event will be, since the laws of physics are different on these two sides.

  34. Natural Man

    Natural ManTahun Yang lalu

    If anybody ever cracks the question of what time really is--they will have solved the mystery of this place by it.

  35. Rick D.

    Rick D.Tahun Yang lalu

    Everything in the universe is vibrating and emitting light, if it's not, it's not in this universe. Everything is fields, these fields don't suddenly end.

  36. JoeDoe_ Outdoors

    JoeDoe_ OutdoorsTahun Yang lalu

    Hii sweet page ☺ Keep it up!

  37. Talents, young artists, music charts

    Talents, young artists, music chartsTahun Yang lalu

    So reasoning like this then becomes basically BS: - "in the Big Bang process space and time was created" (space/distances does not mean that time fundamentally exists, only that now-events are delayed because of the limitation, the speed of light, in the information transferring between objects) or - "time did not exist before Big Bang" (change must have existed, and if time is just a human label on change, defined into existence, time must have existed also before BB) This is beautiful, because now science and deep philosophy can come in sync much more (below). Next step will likely be evolutionary pandeism (humanity is not ready yet to throw both theism and atheism overboard). Namely, did a thought evolve in an immaterial cosmic soup proceeding BB, which transformed itself to another form of energy (physical) with built in vision (life) ? Which would explain the physical laws/constants, why the evolution process as such exists as a process (stars -> planets - > life -> thoughts/intelligence), and why there seems to be a vision in the physical universe (which is to keep it aware of itself and experience itself with concious life, to avoid ultimate meaninglessness). More and more people realize that time has never fundamentally existed in the universe (only changes/movements, also in pure energy states). Time is an illusion in brains (the memory creates the illusion basically) and has been defined into existence, because we need it to function in a local part of the universe. This will probably get even clearer as we approach level 1 on the Kardashev scale in maybe 200-300 years. It will probably become the greatest paradigm shift in science, since modern science started to evolve. . Only a "now" exists, "all the time" and everywhere. Also in a physical universe with space/distances. The light is just an information carrier between objects, with a delay for the "nows". Therefore characteristics like "begin" "always" etc can not be used when describing the universe, a phenomenon which doesn't exist can not have any properties ofc. Philosophical reasoning starts to make sense, for example:"why hasn''t everything that can happen already happened, if something always has existed ?". The error is here "always", it's like asking "can a sploink dream ?" (a non-existing object). So the process seems to be just: exist - > change -> exist -> change... (and change must have taken place in a pure energy state preceeding the BB). Something (immaterial or/and material) must exist, because a state of absolutely nothing isn't even a state (a contradiction is created). So the reasoning is, a state as such must exist, therefore something "in it" (immaterial and/or physical) which makes it a state. . Infinities do not exist more than as abstract/mathematical terms/concepts. "Something" (whatever it is) can not be infinite (only move towards it), only a state of absolutely nothing can be infinite (which can not exist as the only part of a reality), because it can not have any boundaries. If it had, something would have to exist outside, and it wouldn't then be absolutely nothing.

  38. J Merlo

    J Merlo10 bulan yang lalu

    Talents, young artists,….. - A good resume, congrats!. I would skip the Kardashev's scale prediction, because who knows what AI will come up with. Also, may I add that time only came to "be" long after the BB, when matter was formed, since "time" is one of the 3 components that make our "material" existence possible in the "space" we occupy.

  39. Andrew Shortt

    Andrew ShorttTahun Yang lalu

    Talents, young artists, music charts pretty decent detailing, thank you for taking the time.

  40. Rick D.

    Rick D.Tahun Yang lalu

    When we say that a photon is a particle and a wave, what is waving is probability, it might be no better than saying that what is waving is the relationship between space and time and that dimensions emerge in both space and time relative to the observer.

  41. Armando7654

    Armando7654Tahun Yang lalu

    Nature of time or nature of the word "time"? Philosophers took objects of language (words, definitions) for objects of reality & now are asking for the "nature" or category for word/truth

  42. The Harmonagon Project

    The Harmonagon Project2 tahun yang lalu

    Our "sense of time" is the product of memory. No memory, nonsense of time.

  43. Pollen Applebee

    Pollen ApplebeeTahun Yang lalu

    The experience of the passage of time is indeed phenomenological. It doesn't follow that time itself doesn't exist. Einsteins spacetime geometry suggests a block universe, and it's unclear what the right answer is.

  44. Satonya Thomas

    Satonya ThomasTahun Yang lalu

    suprman1020 That itself is a highly contentious view called presentism. Most physicists believe in the 4d Universe that's all there.

  45. suprman1020

    suprman1020Tahun Yang lalu

    What Harmonagon Projext Is saying is that time is phenomenological. Change happens. Time measures change but the “past” ceases to exists, it remains in our mind. It’s gone. There is no going “back” to anything. The future has not happened, it also does not exist except in what we think or predict will happen (often with preciseness often not). All that exists is the now.

  46. Pollen Applebee

    Pollen ApplebeeTahun Yang lalu

    That's not particularly insightful or useful to this discussion - it's just a truism. Even without memory there would still be "time" (things would still have happened "before" the current state of your brain), and that is the thing they are discussing.

  47. Antonio Sánchez

    Antonio Sánchez2 tahun yang lalu

    What Carlo tries to explain is that Time is an emergent property of each quantum event. Humans can´t discern and account for all those micro events so our brain creates an approximation called Time. Example of an air ballon. Our brain can´t process all the position and velocity of the air particles. Instead, our mind takes a probabilistic account and extracts variables like volume, temperature or pressure. Carlo affirms that same happens with time.

  48. zodiacfml

    zodiacfmlTahun Yang lalu

    I'm commenting on the video not the post above: Carlo has a point. Space and time are one. More specifically, there is only space. The time we know changes with space/curvature/spacetime/gravitational waves. 7:43 the sense of time comes from our senses. Without our senses, we perceive no change or time. However, his point is not entirely useful. if something is local (general relativity), events are comparable and the yardstick to use is the speed of light/causality. GR also made it possible to compare objects in spacetime.

  49. Andrew Shortt

    Andrew ShorttTahun Yang lalu

    I wish more of the right people understood this basic fact, thank you.

  50. turgid fungus

    turgid fungusTahun Yang lalu

    lol

  51. Dan Jacob

    Dan Jacob2 tahun yang lalu

    If there is no time, but only change, then change could be reversible.

  52. نادر الی راحمان

    نادر الی راحمان11 bulan yang lalu

    Change is a fundamental principle of time

  53. bricology

    bricologyTahun Yang lalu

    "If there is no time, but only change, then change could be reversible." OK, I'll actually agree with that. Here's a thought experiment: Is it possible to change space? We know that it is, on a small scale. You can take a deflated balloon, inject some gas in it, and significantly change the space (volume) it contains, the volume it displaces, its surface area, etc. I don't know if space can change on its own, but it can be manipulated, given the necessary technology. Is it possible to change waves? Of course it is; we do that all the time. We can produce waves all over the electromagnetic spectrum, we can combine waves to heterodyne them, we can filter or modify existing waves, etc. I don't know if waves can change on their own, but they can certainly be manipulated, given the necessary technology. Is it possible to change gravity? Yep; happens all the time. Space debris accumulates, its combined gravity draws in more and more of it, and soon it becomes a satellite, a planet or even a star. And humans could certainly do this themselves, given the necessary technology. So, if we can change space and waves and gravity, then perhaps believing that we can't also change time demonstrates more of a lack of imagination than it accurately reflects reality.

  54. polarisworks

    polarisworks2 tahun yang lalu

    There comes in the second law of thermodynamics.

  55. Reckless Abandon

    Reckless Abandon2 tahun yang lalu

    Dan Jacob The missing piece is that the Big Bang came from a tiny volume, and quantum theory says that there was only very few pieces of information, possibly only a few hundred bits. When this expands exponentially, any new information comes from quantum interactions,, which means that the beginning is very, very smooth, and gradually new bits accumulate in larger and larger structures, while energy is transformed and disorder is produced. That's the second law of thermodynamics. It becomes impossible to wind it back, it would take more energy than was already released, and we lose the information needed to put things back. The universe can only evolve, there is no going back. The past doesn't exist, the future is fundamentally unpredictable. However the increase in complexity is not random, life is not random, as disorder accumulates in stars, to be finally trapped in black holes, while their "order" or high energy, low entropy photons are radiated onto solid planets, allowing information to select itself by fitness to reproducing the data, in a slowly changing environment.

  56. MrTornadillo

    MrTornadillo2 tahun yang lalu

    I think that is right.

  57. bbbl67

    bbbl672 tahun yang lalu

    Rovelli is one of the main proponents of Loop Quantum Gravity. I wonder if LQG has a notion of time?

  58. Reckless Abandon

    Reckless Abandon2 tahun yang lalu

    bbbl67 See my answer above? Or maybe below, you can't miss it.

  59. Jack Pullen

    Jack Pullen2 tahun yang lalu

    I theorize that time and information are fluid like within the Quantum Gravity Field,past,present and future and all the information that will exist in our universe is intrinsic to the field!

  60. freeri87

    freeri872 tahun yang lalu

    New Closer To Truth videos? Wow.

  61. jacquelineandron

    jacquelineandronTahun Yang lalu

    Yes, excellent In the fields of Science and Philosophy Robert Lawrence Kuhn is incomparable as an interviewer.

  62. Dyslexic Artist Theory on the Physics of 'Time'

    Dyslexic Artist Theory on the Physics of 'Time'2 tahun yang lalu

    Could we have an emergent future unfolding photon by photon with the movement of positive and negative charge? In such a process the future would unfold at high temperature in the form of stars (plasma) above us and also it would be relative to each living cell within us! We have the distribution of charge relative to each living cell of our body so such a theory would be totally logical.

  63. Charles Brightman

    Charles Brightman2 tahun yang lalu

    For me personally, I currently believe that what we call "gravity" is a part of what we call the "photon" and the pulsating photon is the energy unit of this universe. There are only two forces of nature, Gravity and EM, (GEM). And possibly there is only a single force with three different modalities. I have a test to test my latest Theory Of Everything idea, just not the resources to do so. But basically the test is as follows: a. Imagine a 12 hour clock. b. Put a magnetic field across from the 3 to 9 o'clock positions. c. Put an electric field across from the 6 to 12 o'clock positions. (The magnetic field and electric field would be 90 degrees to each other and should be polarized so as to complement each other.) d. Shoot a high powered laser through the center of the clock at 90 degrees to the EM fields. e. Do this with the EM fields on and off. (Possibly even trying it with different strengths and depths of the EM field.) f. Look for any gravitational / anti-gravitational effects. (Including the use of ferro-cells to be able to see the energy fields.) If effects are noted, then further research could be done. If effects are not noted, well then, my latest TOE idea is probably wrong. But still, we would know what gravity is not, which is still something in the scientific world. I would copy and paste my latest TOE idea here as I used to be able to, but IDreporter recently changed their policy to not allow at least me to not be able to copy and paste into comments, don't know about anybody else. But if you are interested in it, feel free to email me at "001charlieb@gmail.com".

  64. Dyslexic Artist Theory on the Physics of 'Time'

    Dyslexic Artist Theory on the Physics of 'Time'2 tahun yang lalu

    We have an uncertain ∆×∆pᵪ≥h/4π future unfolding photon by photon relative to the wavelength of the light and the structure of the atoms with the spontaneous absorption and emission of light forming an Arrow of Time for each reference frame. We are all in the centre of our own reference frame with our own individual view of the Universe with a future relative to the energy and momentum of our actions!

  65. Charles Brightman

    Charles Brightman2 tahun yang lalu

    If "time" is the flow of energy, and as there are different rates of flow of energy in this universe, there might not be just one single dimension of "time", but many, many dimensions of "time". Each rate of flow of energy being in it's own "time" dimension. It's just that all those "time" dimensions intermingle in what we experience as one single dimension of "time". But hence "relativity" as "time" varies and warps.

  66. Charles Brightman

    Charles Brightman2 tahun yang lalu

    "IF" time does not exist, then there could be no speed of light, "speed" being distance divided by "time". Also possibly: "Yes officer? I wasn't speeding because speed does not exist because time does not exist, (speed being distance divided by time)." See how far that gets a person in court to see if time and speed actually exist or not.

  67. Cosmic Landscape

    Cosmic Landscape11 bulan yang lalu

    Charles Brightman he sees time about something emergent

  68. Charles Brightman

    Charles Brightman2 tahun yang lalu

    mebe84 What I 'see' on my side of my brain is at times not always what others 'see' with their brain. It has to do with in part people having different 'brain wiring' so to speak. Plus: Unknown concept -> Given a name (could be a language, sound, symbol, etc.) -> With an attached meaning -> And maybe even other meanings depending upon context -> And maybe even other names for the same meaning. In other words, we might not be on the "same page" so to speak. But, I will attempt to convey my thoughts: 1. For me at this 'time', ( ;-) ), the actual energy unit of this universe is the pulsating, swirling photon that contains what is called gravity and em. All three forces of the photon interact with the others in basically a 90 degree fashion. (But, the above test has to be done to prove or disprove this idea.) 2. "Space" is energy itself. Wherever space is, energy is. Wherever energy is, space is. And here again, for me, the pulsating, swirling photon constitutes 'space' itself. They are one and the same thing. 3. "Time" is the flow of that energy, both inside of the photon itself as well as the interaction of energy forces with other photons. As long as energy exists, (of which science claims that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, hence eternally existent), 'time' exists. The only way for 'time' to ever cease to exist would be if 'space' itself ceased to exist. 4. With the above said, then to try to answer your latest query: a. 'is time an ontological reality in itself'; or b. 'does it reduce to matter/energy in motion'. It is an ontological reality in itself as far as it still exists even if there is no motion. As long as "space" exists, "time" exists. "Time" is dependent upon "space" existing. "Time" cannot exist if "space" does not exist. Once "space" is existent, "time" is existent, whether energy is flowing or not. "Time" is not 'just' the flowing of energy per se, it still exists even if energy does not flow. But, it is dependent upon "space" existing. 5. Since science claims that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, hence eternally existent, AND 'if' my latest TOE idea is proven to be true, then the pulsating, swirling photon which contains gravity and em, (and might possibly be just a singular force with three different modalities), would constitute space and time itself of which would also be eternally existent. There was never a 'time' when 'space' and 'time' did not exist nor most probably will there ever be a 'time' when 'space' and 'time' do not exist. 6. And taking this further, based upon the discussion above with 'Reckless Abandon', 'temperature' if defined as the 'interaction of energy', both inside of the photon as well as the interaction with other photons, then 'temperature' itself would be eternally existent also with no beginning nor probably ever an end. 7. Hope this helps in trying to clarify my thoughts for you.

  69. Charles Brightman

    Charles Brightman2 tahun yang lalu

    Reckless Abandon I just checked out that playlist. I have previously watched at least some of them due to I had left comments for some of them. But thank you anyway. I still stand by my current definition for 'time'.

  70. Charles Brightman

    Charles Brightman2 tahun yang lalu

    Reckless Abandon 1. In school concerning magnetism we are taught that opposite polarities attract and like polarities repel. BUT: Take a large horseshoe magnet and two smaller bars magnets and put the smaller bar magnets between the outer end of the arc of the horseshoe magnet. LIKE poles ATTRACT and UNLIKE poles REPEL, opposite to what is normally taught. Hypothesizing, I question that as moving electrons generate a moving magnetic field, the portion of the inner magnetic field of the electron along with the close proximity to the nucleus, might have the same effect and hence, LIKE charged protons, ATTRACT other protons. The positively charged protons would still be attracted to the negatively charged electrons across this inner magnetic field area of the moving electron. So, both the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force might just be derivatives of the interactions of the magnetic fields between electrons and protons. 2. I would copy and paste my latest TOE idea for you to see, but this past year for some reason I can no longer copy and paste into IDreporter comments. I can everywhere else, just not concerning IDreporter comments. Hmmmm....... Anyway, if you want a copy of my latest TOE idea, feel free to email me at "001charlieb@gmail.com" to get a copy. 3. But now, we would be down to only two forces of nature, gravity and em. At first I even had reduced everything down to only em, but it just didn't seem right. I had to have gravity involved for it to work. Thinking about it all, as em waves are normally depicted as a sine wave, (in part due to how you described them above), some force or energy has to make the sine wave do what it does, (expand and contract). This I believe is what 'gravity' is. 'Gravity' is also the force that gives photons direction, and a stationary photon would pulse. Gravity and EM all interact with each other in basically a 90 degree fashion with the other two. But, when the net 3 in 1 force interactions are taken together with other photons, hence we have a magnetic field around the Earth which is basically 90 degrees from the telluric Earth currents, which are both basically 90 degrees from the direction of gravity which is towards the center of the Earth. In addition, our spiral galaxy would most probably have a magnetic field on each side of the plane of matter, which would be 90 degrees from the electrical plane of matter, which would both be 90 degrees to the direction of gravity which would be towards the center of the galaxy and come together in a gravitational black hole in the center of the galaxy. Continuing on, I could see where it's even possible that the gravitational force would be 90 degrees to the electrical force forming the inner shell of the spherical universe, and the magnetic force would be 90 degrees to those forces both inside of and outside of the inner shell, and together would form the entire shell of this spherical universe. All of the remaining photons staying eternally active within this spherical universal shell. And since no photons get absorbed by nor emitted from the universal shell, hence we perceive the blackness beyond the farthest galaxies. But from the smallest photon being the energy unit of this universe, to the Earth itself, to the galaxy itself, to even the shell of the universe itself, all are photons interacting with other photons. Everything in existence is "light" (photons) and interacting "light" (photons). BUT, my test above concerning the gravity portion of the TOE idea has to be performed to prove or disprove that part of my TOE idea. Otherwise, it just might all be a nice theory that is wrong in actual reality. But if correct, then we might have discerned the very nature of reality itself. The TOE that science is looking for.

  71. Reckless Abandon

    Reckless Abandon2 tahun yang lalu

    +Charles Brightman The types of quantum 'modes' are generally vibrations in abstract mathematical spaces, but electromagnetism is the simplest, and can be thought of as a circle, where each point on the circle is the same radius, but has a different angle. Both x and y can be specified using trigonometric functions, so x= cos𝜃, and y=sin𝜃 , and if you know about complex numbers it can be written as z =cos𝜃 + i sin𝜃. The basic idea is that at each point in space, there is an imaginary circle, and an angle 𝜃 which can be between 0 and 360 degrees. By allowing the electromagnetic potential A to 'rotate' in a specific way, by any 𝜃 at each point, the electric E and magnetic fields B, which generate the forces, do not change. This is called local gauge symmetry, and leads to the conservation of electric charge. Mathematically it is amazing how simple it is. But the other two forces are more complicated. The Weak force, which can be merged with EM, has a space which is more like the points on a sphere, requiring two angles like latitude and longitude. So instead of a point on a circle, each point in space has a point on a sphere, and as we know from 3-d rotations, the order of the two rotations makes a difference. This leads to complications as anyone who has tried to solve the Rubik cube well knows. The Strong force, is even more complicated, it is a particular set of rotations in 3 complex number dimensions, or a 6 dimensional space. While your idea was a good guess, nobody knows the best way to combine all three forces, to get the right real world results. The simplest way was tried in the 1980's, using a 5-d complex, or 10d rotation space, but it predicted proton decay not seen in reality. String theory originally promised a better way, but it ended up in 10 dimensions of real space, and no way of calculating how to project this back to our 3d + time reality. There is no other way to say it, many thousands of highly trained mathematical physicists have been working on this for over 50 years and have failed to produce a realistic unification. It may be that the three forces are simply separate, we don't know. But we do know how to now quantise gravity, one (of the many) mistake the String people made was to assume unification and quantum gravity were the same thing, but LQG is quite happy with all four forces quantised separately, unified in a sense, by General Relativity's connection between matter and energy (force fields and particle fields) and the gravitational field. Gravity generally cares only about energy, not which forces and fields make up that energy. Think about it, all the different electromagnetic and nuclear forces, quarks and electrons that make up matter, if all these responded differently to gravity, matter would be ripped apart. That idea, called the equivalence principle, is the amazing idea came up with over 100 years ago. I'll leave it for now, but I put together a few of the better 'Closer to Truth' clips about time into this playlist, you might like to check it out idreporter.net/id-PLd4Mlks-hYL8pR8UIEHlFoDqJZYhv9EuF

  72. Rick D.

    Rick D.2 tahun yang lalu

    The core is harmonic regularity, the outer darkness is random noise, we are in the space between them. Every engine takes advantage of a difference. These two extremes are woven into each other. The eternal now is the processing of meaning. drive.google.com/file/d/0B1t3dP66nJluckxPcUVteEs3MnM/view?usp=sharing

  73. Charles Brightman

    Charles Brightman2 tahun yang lalu

    Modern science claims that "time" can vary. Modern science claims that "space" can expand. Now, is the universe expanding, (space expanding) and/or is time slowing down? Wouldn't we still see a red shift of energy either way? And if both were true, space expanding and time slowing down, couldn't we possibly even perceive a universe expanding faster and faster which defies all currently known physics? Or here again, maybe our solar system is being pulled toward our galactic center's black hole? As matter and energy get pulled into the black hole, it's mass and gravitational pull would grow pulling in more matter and energy if it could. Our solar system might be getting pulled toward our galactic center's black hole faster and faster. Wouldn't we still perceive a relative expansion of this universe? But it wouldn't be the universe that was expanding, but our solar system being pulled toward the galactic center's black hole, utilizing known physics too. No "dark energy", etc. needed. Why possibly our galaxy is even in a spiral shape? Going down the galactic's central "drain"? Has anybody checked the actual distances between our solar system and adjacent solar systems along our spiral arm of this galaxy? And over what time period would they have to be checked to notice a change? Is the "big bang" theory wrong if the universe is not expanding? Does the "Big Bang Theory" show on TV have to be renamed or cancelled? Inquiring minds want to know.

  74. xiao99 xiao99

    xiao99 xiao996 bulan yang lalu

    Charles, you are 100% correct to doubt modern theoretical Physics and Cosmology. "Truth is nothing but INTEPRETATIONS". (someone said that). SO NO, we have NOT seen the universe expanding, Hubble saw SOMETHING, and guessed or interpreted the observations to mean that the universe is expanding, and indeed accelerating. But as the logical repercussions of this are that classical Physics, (which we know actually works!) says that to continue to accelerate, one needs forever increasing supply of force. (force = mass x Acceleration.) So instead of applying the sane scientific principal of "if the evidence does not fot the theory", then the theory is WRONG, what do they do? They INVENT with absolutely NO evidence, Dark Matter and Dark Energy, to fudge the numbers so that they get to keep Hubble’s mistake. Everyone knows that LIGO results are the biggest fraud result of so called physics since Piltdown Man. (Or the should be able to figure it out for themselves) Likewise, that new "photo" of a Black Hole, is not a "photo" but the result of a computer program filtering and manipulating lots of data, (numbers) so that they can come up with practically anything they want. Even if it’s a good likeness of that region in space, they GUESS or interpret the image to being that of the mythical Black Hole! Once again, everyone who has really studied Black Holes KNOWS that they are purely a Mathematical construct, and have nothing to do with reality. And the Math equations used are also not representing the real universe, only someone’s beliefs about the universe. Wikipedia is the most one eyed source of information on the internet! Only the "approved" information appears there, and none of the serious critical reviews of concepts such as Black Holes or LIGO or CMB or Special Relativity or General Relativity are published. (unless they are grouped automatically into the QUACKS basket!) Modern Physics and Cosmology has gone downhill ever since Maxwell popularized the use of Mathematics as the primary tool to explain Physical processes. This is a big mistake. We owe the moon landings, computers, GPS, and X ray machines to CLASICAL PHYSICS! Not to Einstein's rubbish ideas, or the stupid Quantum theories. (despite them trying to steal computers etc. away into the Quantum Mechanics camp!) So to summarize, here is a condensed list of quack science: Everything Einstein said. SR, GR, and E=mc squared concept. (mass is just energy) Quantum Physics. (spooky stuff) Much of Cosmology, including Black holes, Dark Matter and Energy, CMB, Gravity Waves, Light being bent by mass, Spacetime, Spacetime fabric able to bend and effect objects, Schrodingers cat, Planck anything, Minkowski diagrams, Parallel Universes, Worm Holes, Time Travel, and the claims that Time and Distances and Mass are variables depending on where you are or how fast you are going. Keep this list handy, its a good way to help you spot new garbage from the current bunch of idiots they call Theoretical Scientists. These guys should just write science fiction movie scripts. Its all pure fantasy.

  75. bricology

    bricologyTahun Yang lalu

    "...open your mind and utilize more critical type thinking skills." Seriously? The guy gives you concise, well-informed answers to the questions you asked, and that's your response? -- to accuse him of having a closed mind and lacking critical thinking skills? /SMDH

  76. Charles Brightman

    Charles Brightman2 tahun yang lalu

    1. Again, you cite wikipedia. But tell me then, what exactly is "gravity" and how does it come about in this universe? 2. But yet it was science that claimed at first that they do exist. 3. So tell me then, what exactly is "gravity"? 4. For me: "Space" is energy itself. Wherever space is, energy is. Wherever energy is, space is. They are one and the same thing. "Time" is the flow of that energy. "Time" (flow of energy) cannot exist unless "space" (energy itself) exists. "Space" (energy itself) that does not flow (no flow of time / energy) is basically useless. An entity can't even think a thought without a flow of energy. If "space" (energy itself) did not flow, "time" (flow of energy) would still exist, but it's flow would be zero. If no energy flowed in the entire universe, wouldn't we say that "time stood still"? But "space" (energy itself) and "time" (flow of energy) are linked in what is called "space time" (energy and it's flow). Now also for me: What we call "gravity" is a part of what we call the "photon" and the pulsating photon is the energy unit of this universe. Everything in existence is "light" (photons) in a universe entirely filled with and made up of "light" (photons). I have a test to test my latest theory of everything idea, just not the resources to do so. 5. One of the most important questions everyone should ask themselves is: "What exactly is being done to try to save any species from eternal conscious extinction?" For without at least one truly eternally consciously existent entity that truly lasts throughout all of future eternity, even if only by a succession of ever evolving conscious species, then one day there won't be a conscious entity left to care about anything or anyone at all. All of life itself would be ultimately meaningless in the grandest scheme of things. Life itself would all just be an illusion, an illusion that would all end one day and be forgotten. (Or so it currently appears). If modern science cannot find a way to have species from this Earth survive beyond this Earth and solar system, and possibly this galaxy and universe as well, then life itself is ultimately meaningless in the grand scheme of things. We all failed to consciously survive throughout all of future eternity. It wouldn't matter who was right or wrong or how correct modern science might or might not have been. Nothing at all would matter because there wouldn't be a conscious entity left for anything or anyone to matter to. a. Many people believe we are entering into the sixth mass extinction event here on this Earth. b. Modern science claims that this Earth and our Sun will not last for literally all of future eternity. c. Personally, I believe our solar system might be getting pulled toward our galactic center's black hole. d. Main stream modern science claims this universe will end in a "big freeze", "big crunch" or by some other means. e. Now some in modern science even claim things like parallel universes and things like that might exist, but no actual evidence that I am aware of has ever been discovered to support those claims. And still, we would possibly have to find a way out of this universe and into the other universe's. Highly unlikely, certainly at this time. Not trying to be rude to you, but open your mind and utilize more critical type thinking skills.

  77. Andrea Russo

    Andrea Russo2 tahun yang lalu

    Wait wait, I think there is a bit of confusion here. I'll try to explain it as clear as I can, and if anything is not clear feel free to ask, but please let's keep this debate polite. I'll address all your points in a way so that everything should be simple. 1) we know pretty well what gravity is, General Relativity is the framework of laws explaining it. It is a very difficult theory but you can find simple explanations online. General Relativity is extremely accurate, and allows us to explain a big plethora of phenomena, from the planets orbiting the Sun to the structure of the Universe, to Black holes and a bunch of other really cool stuff. It has been tested experimentally over and over and you can read all the experiments that have been made here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity 2) No one claims that gravitons exist. Their existence is just an hypothesis that must be first confirmed experimentally, but no real physicist will tell you that they exist 100% 3) Gravitational waves, on the other hand, were predicted by general relativity and we know perfectly well what they are, how they move and how to describe them. We only needed to find them but we finally managed to do it last year. Another confirmation that General Relativity works, isn't that great? 4) you are right to say that we still don't know EXACTLY what time and space are, but this does not mean that we don't know anything about them, nor that we cannot describe them in a physical theory capable of making amazing predictions. We know that space and time are two aspects of an object called Spacetime (I know, physicists are amazing at choosing original names) and we can describe and predict its behaviour really well! 5) Last, but not least, you are absolutely right that we should not believe everything that is on the internet, it is indeed a place full of people claiming to know and trying to explain stuff they don't know anything about. But I spent years studying physics every day, and I can assure you that nothing is given to us just to believe, but there is an extremely strong logic behind it (supported by God knows how much math). So much that you really have to choose to not believe it to not be convinced by it. This is why I allow myself to humbly explain this things to you. Modern science is surely not 100% of times correct, but the amazing thing is that we know when we are correct and when we are talking about things we are not sure about, and this is thanks to centuries of extremely hard work and dedications which is allowing us to discuss even if we are thousands of kilometres apart. The beauty of science is that it is free for everyone, if this kind of things interest you, and you look like a curious mind so I think they do, then why don't you try to study them on your own? This will solve all of your doubts and maybe you'll find the answers you are looking for. P.S. I link Wikipedia because it is usually accessible to everyone and because it is one of the most reliable sources online.

  78. Charles Brightman

    Charles Brightman2 tahun yang lalu

    +Andrea Russo Hubble actually observed space expanding? Really? What exactly is "space" that it can expand? What exactly is "time" that it can slow down? It's also like modern science claims they have discovered "gravitational waves" and yet don't even know what "gravity" itself even is, nor have they ever found a single "graviton" that they claim exists. It would be like a person claiming that "water waves" exist without proving that "water" itself even exists. It's just crazy. Don't just believe anything you read here on the internet, even from wikipedia, and don't even believe everything modern science claims either. But with modern science, it's the best that we have for now. But they are certainly not always 100% correct.

  79. Morphing Reality

    Morphing Reality2 tahun yang lalu

    More Andrei Linde please!

  80. Hamid

    Hamid2 tahun yang lalu

    this channel is so underrated, I wonder why people keep watching cat videos!

  81. eye bee-sea

    eye bee-sea10 bulan yang lalu

    You are only allowed to watch Schrödinger cat videos.

  82. Chris W

    Chris WTahun Yang lalu

    Because cat videos make you more human

  83. Alessandro do Carmo Silva

    Alessandro do Carmo SilvaTahun Yang lalu

    There's nothing wrong with cats.

  84. dumpsky

    dumpskyTahun Yang lalu

    Josh Adams: this was by far the most hamfisted attempt to make anything about liberals or some other spook in your head... truly pathetic. you act like a cartoon character.

  85. Dan Jacob

    Dan Jacob2 tahun yang lalu

    I'm coming out of the closet and admitting that I like cat videos. Sad.