Brings me to read 'biocentrism' again. Understanding 'us' and the 'limits and nature of our perceptions' in order to understand reality better. I happen to be a Buddhist, which also helps me relate to both biocentrism and these great ideas that Carlo speaks of.
We are living in a time where many concepts of the past are transforming to new paradigms and thanks to scientists like Carlo , we can understand these concepts, that otherwise , would seem very complicated. Thanks Carlo for your effort to explain to us this beautiful concept of time.
People think the perspective in a Renaissance painting is a "gimmick" but this is what it's about, the realization of the application of individual perspective--learned this in art school (even with regard to physics) 45 years ago! Science and art are not really that far apart (well, not apart at all).
This is so inspiring and understandable! As a philologist myself I was able to follow all the way through these complex thoughts and for the first time in my life I begin to realize the BEAUTY of physics. Thank you so much, Mr. Rovelli! That's a whole new universe, opening up here to me!
@@jamesbarlow6423 ...excuse me, but the biggest bullshit in my eyes is disqualifying something in an unqualified way, just by labelling it as bullshit.
An extremely deep and surprisingly well organized, thus easy to understand, commentary on the nature of time, which is probably THE most fascinating notion in the human experience. Grazie Carlo, sempre un piacere sentirti.
@@snaprockandpop E=mc2 is F=ma. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy, AS E=MC2 IS F=MA. The Earth (A PLANET) is a MIDDLE DISTANCE form that is in BALANCED relation to the Sun AND the speed of light (c), AS the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky; AS E=MC2 IS F=MA; AS TIME DILATION ultimately proves ON BALANCE that ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Indeed, TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE; AS E=MC2 IS F=MA; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=mc2 is F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=MA ON BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Accordingly, the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution. MOREOVER, a given PLANET (INCLUDING WHAT IS THE EARTH) sweeps out EQUAL AREAS in equal times consistent WITH/AS F=ma, E=mc2, AND what is perpetual motion; AS E=MC2 IS F=MA ON BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. By Frank DiMeglio
The most enlightening presentation, not only of time, not only of Buddhism, not only of physics, not only of our mind etc., but of the entire life of the cosmos, that took me all the way to cosmic consciousness and divine purpose. Presented so simply, with time t=0 for quantum gravity (photon, another Boson, also had mass m=0 and t=0 at the beginning and at the end of the eternal cyclic existence). The divine design to create me, blessed me with the knowledge that I am entangled with the intelligent cosmic consciousness. This is the real Nirvana. No wonder Buddha, when asked of god, said 'I don't know'. But I know. Time made this happen.
Very good exposition. Maybe Carlo is one of the few professional physicists I could talk about these topics without him/her thinking I’m talking non-sense or pure metaphysics. It would be so enriching to discuss some ideas with him (I´m from Montevideo, dreams are free). Space-time governs the general structure of causality. Classical physics and QM (evolution of systems while they are still quantum, or “unitary evolution”), use a space-time structure of causality. But, when there are phenomena for which a system well approximated by QM (quantum system) causes a change in a system well approximated by CP (classical system), we have phenomena that are not well approximated by either QM or CP, but belong to a domain of reality (realm) broader than QM or CP, and that would have QM and CP as limit cases. Measurements are always phenomena of this kind (a very narrow subset of these phenomena), and are absolutely necessary to have a QM testable (scientific) theory. Quantum measurements has given us a “glimpse” of this broader realm, and seem to show that the structure of causality does not follows a space-time structure in this broader realm. This realm would ideally have QM and CP as limit cases. Our next logical step in fundamental physics should be to construct a valid model (valid predictive theory) for this broader realm, this no space-time realm that would have QM and CP as limit cases (and from which space-time would “emerge” as useful concepts in certain restricted circumstances). We have many clues about this realm (because of what we know about the measurement of quantum systems). It will be very difficult (if possible, at all) to construct a model for this broader realm, because to test it, we will have to always evaluate the predictions of a no-space-time causality theory, “indirectly”, thru the effects in space-time phenomena, because our “experience” will continue to “live” in space-time. To complicate this including gravity from the beginning can be so much, I would try to first have a model for the simplest situations (Einstein first created SR, and not directly GR), and of course, experiments/observations should be “designed” to “ask” the correct questions (not asking how to make compatible QM with GR in a space-time framework, but asking how QM and CP can be different “partial views” (realms) of the same reality). There is a psychological, (intuitive, “ingrained” in our mind) space-time, and a “modeled” “real” space-time (that depends on the physical “model”, and approximate some “real” structures in our most immediate domain of reality). Relativity has shown that we can create a useful, validated (within its domain) “model” that uses a space-time different from our most immediate intuition. String theory, (even if I do not find it very promising), at least shows that we could deal with a physical theory with a much different space-time structure. That we can create a useful, validated, no space-time physical theory is still not proved; it would also change our basic concepts of phenomena, objects and causality and would need “translation” to our space-time “experience”; but we have to try, and I hope it will be possible. I understand that this is not the place for this, but I wanted to see if I could summarize a few ideas I have (since much time ago) that seem so easy to think but so difficult to communicate.
What an excellent lecture. In my here and now in Barcelona October 2, 2021, this lecture exists a few months in my past. In the lunar module back in July 24, 1969, this lecture exists in Neil Armstrong's future. The point is that this lecture has always existed, still exists and will always exist, be it in the future, in the now or in the past. Everything exists in space-time: everything has always existed, still exists and will always exist.
Great talk professor, Excellent explanation with rich and comprehensible language. Time emerges from thermodynamics events knitting the fabric of the universe. 'The Serenissima Project" Thank you for sharing.
I've watched quite a few of these lectures now by Italian physicists. All very good. And at some stage during their gripping and wonderfully enlightening explanations, they each divert to mocking their English speaking audience over Brexit 😂😂. Quite the penchant. As a theme, it's very amusing.
Interesting lecture! One question that is glaring for me is if time is a way for our brains to organize information (past-present), why do we see things that tend towards disorder? Clearly there seems to be an arrow to time (ordered beginning with increasing disorder (degrees of freedom). Is it our "emotional" time that determines our perception of increasing entropy in the universe? This loss of information (energy) as heat is measurable and we can calculate it in the lab. Even our memories are subject to decay, so energy is lost in the form of "heat" so there is clearly a different state between the past and the present. I believe Lee Smolin stated that the past is classical and the future is quantum, so there must be difference between the aggregate of events in the past that interact locally and events that are yet to happen.
Time isn't actually familiar ti any of our 5 senses and as reality can be defined as the world as we experience it through our senses, this renders time as unreal.
Carlo's talk on the same subject and in the same sequence at the Royal Institution (also on RU-vid) ascribes observations on the relation of memory and anticipation in listening to music to Edmund Husserl. I think that's correct. I don't think that is part of St Augustine. I may be wrong, but I think it's Husserl.
the same thing that carlo describes for time is also valid for distance, wnat ever we sence as distance and time is just a matter of sences in our human scale but for nature is a physical phenomena of energy and particuls
Adding to the "now" between one person and another in the "present," not only does light take time to travel back and forth between each person, but sensation and perception adds time because light striking your eyes (sensation) has to be conducted by the retinal nerve to the brain which interprets and organizes what you "see" (perception). The eyes works like a lens, meaning the actual sensation transmitted to the brain is upside down. Your brain turns it right side up, among other things. Most neural transmission is roughly comparable to the speed of sound. You don't "see" sensation, you "see" perception. Granted all these are extremely short intervals, but this adds to the fact we always see each other in the past. If you were on Mars and I were on Earth, the increased time intervals would be very noticeable for both sight and sound.
The methodology of a speculative temporal philosophy With the scientific development pointing into a certain direction across various disciplines, that time could only be an illusion, accompanied by a societal consensus vis-a-vis this conception, i decided to try and concept a new view on the philosphy of timelessness. Asking yourself anything, being the main tool of all of philosphy, the questions that are being stated by a philosophy of timelessness are going to represent the core of this treatment. For some of them, first approaches are going to be delivered, which are to be executed at another point. This way, a first conception of this philosophy is to be proposed, and the foundation of the methodological framework for further considerations to be layed down. The first obstacle to be overcome is the language. Besides others, the first ones to encounter some difficulties are the ones who try to define the nature of timelessness using a language which fundamental structure depends on the temporal order of being things. Considering this, all expressions that are to be viewed on the background of timelessness, will be accompanied by a corresponding reference or a new term will be introduced. The understanding of those terms, demands a high level of cognitive devotion to the following premise: Time does only exist as a mental construct. Regarding the previously stated warning, it is the language that creates a mental contradiction by speaking these words. But since time cant be eliminated on a cognitive level, it is not yet necessary to predict an attack on the day to day semiotics. But since we just eliminated time from a physical level, some of the rather intuitiv answers to simple questions seem not to be applicable anymore and other previously not even thought of questions seem to be pressing for an elegant solution. Imagine a physical world without time, a consortium of from one another least possibly different nows, only connected through the laws of nature. Every one of those nows would be equal in the face of timelessness and all of them would be happening simultaneously. But there are nows, that include time, and it are those ones which include intelligent life itself. Since intelligent life has to be made possible by selfawareness, and it itself needs a concept of a past and future self, u cant speak of single nows but rather a now complex. Since there is no temporal Order of things, common physical equations have to be translated into the language of temporal philosophy as seen below: A system moving at the speed v changes its state at a rate lower by a facotr of (1 − v2/c2)−1/2 than the system in the rest frame, meaning that every human life( if and as long as it has a concept of time )represents such a now complex, in which time is to be found, but only within the boundaries of the associated mind. If the human consciousness moves in time, but the corresponding body itself does not, the conclusion is to be drawn, that at smaller mergers of nows within the human now complex, there are separate consciousnesses feeling the journey through time. Therefore it has to be calculable how many of those conscious states a human now complex includes and therefore how often one appears in his own life. The respective subject is then limited by time, constructed of almost innurable states of consciousness, all regarding themselves as the real present one, for eternity. To put it in simpler terms: Your life is like a book, with the pages torn out and distributed on the floor. Every single page does exist equally next to the other, for ever. Death can be defined as the first now of human now complex, from which on all following nows of that complex are not able to simulate the associated consciousness in relation to all other systems of the universe. This topic will be further discussed in the chapter devoted to the language analytics of the temporal Philosophy. Going further into the book metaphor, you have a Universe consisting of several books, one them you, and the rate at which you read one book in relation to another is only determined by gravity and speed, the direction in which it is read by the laws of thermodynamics, the physical foundation will be specified at a given time. You should have a clearer pictures now, about the fundamental laws that determine this philosophy and to not stretch this introduction unnecessary i am now going to state the various forms of life that will be at the center of this philosophy. It is defined by its relation to time and its perception and the practical part of this philosophy will be devoted to finding a series of demands u can set for interactions with the different kinds of life. It will take some effort and will be discussed in different parts of this treatment but we will be able to split life into 4 categories: unaware life Aware life Selfaware life Selfaware life aware of timelessnes Intuitivly less accessible and harder to visualize is going the be the approach to put a moral value on certain action, since the calculation will be determined by variable views on time, simply because life of every categories includes certain aspects of the previous categories and you will have to consider all possible angles on time before even trying on depicting a normative ethics of timelessness. For the introduction into the temporal philosophy it will be enough to have a basic understanding of classical physics, thermodynamics and relativity. Quantummechanics will be introduced at a later stage to help us save the problem of the eternal return and derive the free will. The speculative nature of this philosophy lays within the fact, that there is no scientific prove of its premise at the time this is being written and it therefore does not claim any sort of legitimation or applicability in the present moment. I do think however, that a willing reader will have to accept the fact that a lot of things would have to change in human interaction if this premise is proven at a certain point and in the cultural evolution of every temporal philosophy it will be stated why a civilization is only able to conduct this thought process at a certain point of its development and even later will be able to accept its conclusions . Aim of the methodology of the speculative temporal philosophy shall be: to present a perhaps purely biological distinction between the various layers of life made possible through a metaphysical framework in concurrence with and through current physical theories, along with the existing parameters respective to the aforementioned metaphysics study, as a basis for my chief work.
Indeed the phenomenon of cosmic expansion distinguishes the past from the future at the most fundamental level. The time-reversal-symmetric laws of physics therefore must be approximations to the more fundamental laws that also take to account the cosmic expansion and its enormous consequences as more and more space is generated in the free space between the galaxies away from massive objects.
Some interesting facts on language. The Dutch say werkwoorden (labourwords) for verbs, the Frisian say tiidwurden (timewords) for the same, this including both aspects of the subject at hand. Also the Dutch have two words that sound equally for the suffering of man and for the creation of future, lijden and leiden respectivel. A thought. Up to what level is entropy primarily something we necessarily experience because we can only think based on ordering things, while everything is impermanent, including the time that is an essential part of the idea of entropy. Could that imply that entropy is not a thing, but just a thought?
Exactly! There is no such thing as time. There is only: things... moving. Thus entropy is just like time, only a pure mental synthetic entity, not more than an idea.
Hang on a sec, what I writ is not exactly clear. Entropy is a way of thinking about things moving and has no direct dependence on time for its being (even if folk sometimes invoke time to make explanation more convenient). It's only the fact that its a way of thinking that permits us to put entropy in the same category as time, not more than an idea. (Someone might say something more elevated here about the very complex patterned movement of a multitude of things in our brains which we understand to be ideas. A somewhat satisfyingly self referential thought with the vague flavour of, D. Hofstadter, my favorite and the source, I suspect, of many of my ideas).
Brilliant and vibrant. WoW. My question: if I live on a exoplanet orbiting a standard star in the Andromeda galaxy, is the universe 13.8 billion years old (even adapted to local « timezone ») ? Or is the time a factor of my place in flow of events that eventually created my local reality ? Just asking…
I've always felt like time was just a measure of change, and that change in some cases had patterns (like seasons for instance) I never got the whole a minute younger idea in space. Entropy still affects your body no matter where you are. You aren't younger or older based on where you are in reality, only by the way we measure time. If anything, we should have a separate age measurement based on body condition in the future when medical advancements can get a general idea of inner age based on oxidation, entropy, function, etc. For instance, smoking probably ages the body more and other things can stall or even reverse certain types of damage and entropic factors. If you were put in stasis where you are still alive, but the entropy of your cells was severely slowed or stalled, you would be "frozen in time". It's funny how Clock Stoppers coming up with the problem of rapid aging due to acceleration of molecules in order for time to seem slowed down is probably closer to any available time manipulation and more realistic side effects than any other movie or media on the matter. And it's just a silly comedy film.
29:00 Ok. I understand time is local to our experience. But what is the impact of this understanding of time on the phenomenon of "Cause And Effect"? Which one is the cause and which one is the effect ? Are they both interchangeable ?
Question, heat, energy, molecules moving fast,... aren't these dependent on the definition of time ? Or maybe entropy or disorderness, (instaed of heat) does not depend on time?
I wish Mr. Rovelli could read this comment. By the way, my comment is more related to his theories of time as expounded upon in the article, “This Physicist's Ideas of Time Will Blow Your Mind” by Ephrat Livni, in the e-magazine "Pocket". It's a good article and Rovelli's descriptions are wonderfully insightful. But that's just it ... they are only descriptions of what time is like. Admittedly, I have only watched half of this talk so I hope I don't embarrass myself. First, I agree with Rovelli that our "perception" of time can be illusory, but I disagree in that time itself is most definitely not! For example, if time itself is an illusion then that would render the speed of light "c" as a non-constant ... even a non-entity. For speed itself is just distance divided by time. This rendering would be tantamount to "dividing by zero". Now, I know there is quite a fantastic proof that zero can be an actual divisor ... and I am in NO way able to completely understand it, let alone comment on Mr. Rovelli's acumen and erudition (and certainly not qualified to disregard them). But I AM saying that his whole concept revolves around objective truth, which he does not admit. I certainly won't here argue intelligent design, except to use an example from C.S. Lewis. Paraphrasing Lewis, let's say John Smith is writing a novel and his main character, "Mary", gets up from her chair to answer her telephone. Now one moment later, before Smith can continue the plot, HIS doorbell rings and in answering it he greets his friend Ben whom he hasn't seen in years. They talk all afternoon and Smith does not get back (until well into the evening) to writing what "Mary" did next after the ring of her phone. John's so called perception of time was many hours while his character's was only a moment. It seems like I've painted myself into a corner and really am only agreeing with Rovelli ... but here's why I'm not. The "flow of time" (we first must agree) is ALWAYS ... and for the whole of the universe ... occurring only in the forward direction. Something of a corollary is the belief that the universe is "running down". Here, I must share my theory that we will someday (possibly) travel forward in time but NOT backward. We just need to figure out how to travel faster than the speed of light! Since we already travel slower than "c", we would not be able to travel even a "very small" distance back in time, otherwise wouldn't we have done so? Okay, let's proceed while agreeing on these concepts - especially on the concept of two different "time passages" existing simultaneously, such as the one that occurs in John Smith's and "Mary's" day. Time is real for John as well as for Mary, albeit in a derivative sense for her. The most important point to the analogy is that John, as creator, stands above time while Mary is completely subject to it. I'm not so sure both things could be accomplished simultaneously upon just an illusion. The river "flows" and we basically only see the result of that flow, but it does not make it any less real. Two plus two equals four is best shown with four oranges on the table but that doesn’t mean the pure mathematical thought is any less real or even less tangible. Now, one could argue that the example of the author and his story is contrived and so not a "reality" but remember it is only an analogy and sometimes good analogies ARE contrivances. Now, here's the rub: Mr. Rovelli's explanations and analogies (at least some of them) are contrivances TOO! Two other examples I think shall suffice. You and I both see "the rose" but I describe it and relate the experience by comparing it to "rosy cheeks" while you relate it by comparing it to "red with passion". Our "experiences" are only different (yet no less important) in "description" but NOT objectively, because that rose's color results from its absorption of all the waves of the spectrum EXCEPT red - waves that OBJECTIVELY travel at fixed speeds. The flower throws off red and our eyes physiologically perceive it whilst we compose poetry to describe it to the world. Two experiences (color waves and poetical descriptions) for one objective truth; that is the fixed speed and properties of light. Metaphysically (and certainly psychoanalytically) one could say that if an ILLUSION can also be "fixed", then the situation begins to approach pathology, and not physics. As a second example, the fabric of time is a compounding dimension in the same way that a cube is made up of evolving dimensions as compared to the 2-D geometric figure of a square or the 1-D of a straight line. Space-time IS a compositional REALITY while our experiences are derivative and, in some ways, just a dissolution. So, having said ALL this, I am agreeing that our perception of time can be illusory. But it's rather a sort of "spirit" while the REALITY of time is the "body" it's clothed in ... AND in some corners of our universe ... it's even touchable. Just go out on a sunny day and spend the whole of it receiving the physical contribution that our "beautifully objective" star imparts as it surfs atop its own waves; thus "moving" the shadow of the gnomon on the sundial, one moment at a time. While we may be warmed to exhaustion at the end of the day, we REALIZE (and must realize) it's only OUR bedtime - not ever the sun’s. At least not yet.
If both increase in velocity and gravity slows down time, then is it possible that they are one and the same? And their differences that we perceive is simply due to how our brain works?
The fact that anything in the universe can move at sufficient speed that it is impossible to define its rest frame in general relativity is very strong evidence to me that time is an emergent property.
Reflexão - Aprendendo com o Pai Criador - YHWH - 26 O tempo - o sexto sentido. Sentindo o tempo pela visão. Dizemos: "olhamos" para o passado para "vermos" o que passou. "Olhamos" para o futuro para "vermos" o que passará. Dos cinco sentidos, a visão é o elo de ligação entre nós e o meio externo. É a primeira porta por onde saímos em busca do conhecimento. Através dela, buscamos respostas para tudo aquilo que enxergamos. Daí a afirmação da ciência de que a visão é o sentido da cognição por está diretamente ligada ao saber. Por sua vez, o saber demanda "tempo" para ser "achado". Dependendo do que precisamos saber, a "duração" é maior. Quando "batemos" os olhos num objeto e imediatamente o identificamos, o tempo praticamente inexiste. Já quando nos é desconhecido, "demoramos" mais pra identificar. Por isso, a individualidade e a relatividade, pois depende exclusivamente de quem o demanda. No momento em que tomamos posse do conhecimento, o tempo se torna irrelevante, pois saciamos a nossa curiosidade e não precisamos de mais "tempo" para encontrá-lo. O tempo é o evento duradouro que vai do instante que a Luz nos toca até o momento que deciframos a informação chegada. A Luz, o tempo e a visão são partes do mesmo todo. É o delay criado pelo Pai Criador para possibilitar a formação de nossa realidade. É através do tempo que firmamos o conceito de nossa existência e da força Criadora do Pai. Assim como a sombra é parte integrante do objeto bloqueado de luz, o tempo é a sombra da nossa visão enquanto bloqueada de saber. O que quero dizer é que o tempo só "existe" enquanto inexistir o conhecimento para nós. Enquanto não decifrarmos a informação trazida pela Luz, maior o tempo para apossarmos do conhecimento e, Dele. A física relativística e a mecânica quântica estão certas enquanto definições matemáticas sensoriais. Apenas mudanas e dentro de cada contextualização estudada. A ciência ao afirmar a inexistência do tempo já apossou-se do conhecimento de que precisava. Entretanto, o que parece, é que lhe falta tempo para aceitar Quem a municiou de conhecimento.
I am listening to the part where (24 min.) there is a topic about order movement going into disorder motion (energy) - here its friction and heat. my question is: on a molecular level, the movement stays ordered ,its just we cannot measure, and determine it but theoretically there is NO such thing as disorder. am i wrong? how is this explained? to put it another way, how ever small the probability, but there is such thing as order from disorder . so theoretically there is a chance of a water drop forming out of nowhere just by "randomly colliding molecules" ...
so actually disorder is just relative or is it really disorder ...? i maen does it go down to the level of unmeasurability (quantum) , and THIS is why its called disorder motion ?
so the thermodynamics thing and the fact of it being the only physical phenomenon indicating time is just an effect of our not-in-depth ability to observe and theoretically heat dissipation and heat involved physical happenings are also reversible, just so difficult that it looks irrevesible. i guess im wrong. :) this gives me goose bumps
Not so strange. To make a clock we need energy, a pendulum ( or equivalent) and the hands. So where do we have that? The empty space has fluctuating fields , that is energy and pendulum ( the spectrum) . The result is also virtual particles popping up and disapear again, the hands are actually the particles that are moved around in a manner so there are less order. The entropy increase and give the direction of the time. At very short time intervals this process is very noisy since the field fluctuations are random. QED
Is there not a difference between relative time and absolute time? When at 3:40 min into the talk he says that at one point (or the position of the pen on the cable)we all share the the same present moment, he includes the universe. So my question is what is the role of information in interpreting time, since when I look at the sky NOW, in this present, I am looking at the past and have no information about the present out in space, in fact that present is based on information ( the light that arrives here and now) originating in the past.
That second one is just an extrapolation of Einsteins time dilation.regardless of how fast the image is received due to light it’s still Now as they would have the same time shift looking at us.
7:50 "If you're high you have more time to think". I don't know if that's true. I'm high and the clock seems to be going faster. Every time I look it's later than I think. lol
L'ipotesi di "inesistenza del tempo", avanzata da alcuni, è una bugia insostenibile, di dimensioni colossali. Anzitutto noi misuriamo il tempo, tramite numerosi congegni che genericamente chiamiamo "orologi", e non è possibile misurare qualcosa che non c'è, perché la misura, che è una operazione di confronto, richiede necessariamente due campioni della cosa da misurare, senza i quali non è possibile alcuna misura (qualunque confronto richiede due enti da comparare). Se però assumiamo il punto di vista della relatività einsteniana, teoria che trova conferma in innumerevoli osservazioni sperimentali, la situazione peggiora. Infatti in relatività la distinzione tra spazio e tempo dipende dall'osservatore, sicché la linea temporale degli eventi di uno (la cosiddetta "linea di universo"", o "tempo proprio") differisce da quella di un altro, entrambe costituite da una serie di eventi disposti su un reticolo quadridimensionale spaziotemporale, ovvero privo di un tempo a priori che non dipenda dallo specifico soggetto. Dunque, essendo lo spaziotempo un tutt'uno in sé indifferenziato, nel quale diverse linee possono essere tempo per un osservatore, spazio per un altro, e miscela delle due cose per un altro ancora, eliminare il tempo (più propriamente: i tempi) significherebbe eliminare simultaneamente anche lo spazio (gli spazi), cancellando l'esistenza di qualunque fenomeno: scomparirebbe il mondo, e non vi sarebbe più fisica che osservi ed analizzi il mondo, ma non vi sarebbe nemmeno più alcuna esperienza dell'esistenza di un mondo fenomenico. Invece l'esperienza dei fenomeni esiste, compresa la scrittura e lettura di questo commento. Alcuni cercano di cavarsela retoricamente, sostenendo che "il tempo è un fenomeno emergente", ma nemmeno questa è una soluzione: un "fenomeno emergente" è pur sempre un "fenomeno", ovvero un esistente, qualcosa che c'è.
It doesn't matter how fast light travels If you are 2 nano seconds away or 2 light years away doesn't mean now didn't happen You can say that something is happening over in the Andromeda galaxy now. Just because it takes 4 years to find out what happened doesn't mean it didn't happen Now is infinite and eternal all at the same time
If I have a twin brother on Mars and there is a negligible difference in gravitational field and speed relative to him and I, then there is a now occurring for both of us: I just don't know his now until after that signal reaches me. It's more a matter of epistemology than ontology (at everyday speeds and masses anyway).
Great talk professor Rovelli, I m writing here with the hope you will be able to read this message. I've been working on my own hypothesis called QEKD, the hypothesis explains how the arrow of time emerges. i sent you a copy on your email: rovelli@cpt.univ-mrs.fr from info@blue-controls.com (30/08/20). Essentially the universe is a spacetime knitting machine, the hypothesis describes the features of QM including the observer effect, the impossibility to quantize space, and how entropy temporarily appears to increase for the observer. I apologize for writing in this comment section, I believed you receive too many emails to be able to open all of them. All the best Carlo, keep posting videos like this..
Time is a compact dimension one single Planck second in size. Via Kuramoto synchrony we can evolve a hyperplane of the present, a membrane of now which every point shares. Matter is on one side of this membrane and antimatter on the other. An inflow here is an outflow from there. Clockwise here is counterclockwise there. The membrane itself is the vacuum flux.
Rather than just attributing the arrow of time to entropy, wouldn't the principle of least action also apply? All things use the least amount of energy required and all things head towards rest. Though perhaps it's the same thing.
4 of 4. Agree with your understanding of memory, the retaining of past events, being our perception of time, but I cannot agree this is the reality of time. Time is a process, the process of evolution of any system. We know this process was happening before we even existed, since the big bang, the evolution of the stars, planets, geological evolution, the evolution of life and eventually us humans. It is Nothing to do with our perception. Time is a real process independent of us "observers". We are merely one more set of events immersed in an ocean of time, of energy, carried along with the current. Put a clock in empty space, anywhere in the universe, and it will tick. Not because you just put it there, time is not a property of objects or of any conglomerate of a series of events, but time is happening independently of objects. Time was passing in empty space BEFORE you put the clock there. i.e. space time is actually the passing of time and the resulting emergence of space. Thank you for your lecture Carlo. I hope you will consider my input.
What came before the beginning of time and what comes after the end of time? The concept of time in a metaphysical sense has no meaning except as a register on interpretation. Last Saturday I had a very strange experience, I had fallen asleep with the radio playing in the background, just before I had done so I specifically remember the BBC radio 3 presenter saying that John Dowland was being played. I then fell asleep for which I am certain was a very considerable length of time, so certain that when I awakened the radio presenter repeated that she was about to repeat the very same words I had heard before I fell asleep and that she was about to play the very same John Dowland song. I know my mind and I am absolutely certain that there had been a sleep phase and a lengthy duration of time. I am at odds to explain this 'time slip' and it would be interesting to know if anyone else has had this type of experience.
Am I right - simplistically speaking? That, therefore, a quantum leap illustrates that there is no such thing as time as we know it because the electon can appear and disappear in different 'spaces' inside an atom without travelling the distance between them - which of course we are used to measuring in time. I.e. the distance it takes to travel from 'A' to 'B'. Tony Costa.
I'm not a physicist but as I understand it, the electron's is more like a cloud of probability. There probability at any location in the cloud refers to the likelihood that the electron would appear to be in that particular location if we were to check for it's presence there. By approximation you could kind of think of the atom as being 'smeared out' across space according to it's wave function. It is only once we measure it's position that the wave function collapses and reveals the electron to be at a particular location. So, in this sense the entire concept of it making a 'leap' is pretty much dependent on the act of measuring it's location. If we didn't measure it's location it wouldn't so much be a 'leap' of a point particle, but a shift of the cloud of probability. Also, if you were to check for a single electron's to be present at points A and B at specific intervals of time it could only ever be measured to be located at those points if the distance between those points does not exceed the distance the electron could have traveled during the time interval between the two measurements if it were moving at the speed of light. That is to say, the electron can only 'leap' as far as the 'time' between the pre-leap and post-leap measurements allows, given the universal speed limit of the speed of light. The unreality of time that Carlo Rovelli is referring to here deals with the fact that the apparent passage of time is a matter of perspective. Different reference frames will not experience the exact same flow of time (see general relativity). Therefore, there isn't any distinguished physical time with respect to which everything evolves. There simply isn't one single absolute timeline consistent with the state of the universe as a whole. During this talk he referenced the fact that every time something happens, there is a bit of heat. This refers to his Thermal time hypothesis, where the general idea appears to be that the increase of entropy in a closed system is what drives the perceived passage of time. That is, you can distinguish future and past by measuring the entropy of the closed system. You cannot, however, accurately measure time by measuring entropy. If this hypothesis is true, it is the increase in entropy that is real and universal, while the arrow of time is an illusion. If you're interested to learn more, you could read Carlo s book "The Order of Time" (not sponsored). It's relatively easy to follow and quite good. If you decide to go for the audio version, you get 4 hours of Benedict Cumberbatch's voice as a pleasant bonus.
Thank you so much for taking the trouble to write such an informative and knowledgeable reply. Some of the ideas that you express so well are difficult concepts for me to grasp. But I will read and re-read what you say in the hope that some of it becomes more comprehensible. Once again thanks for the trouble you have taken. Much appreciated. Tony Costa
@@Rayrayrazraz that's the latest from the theory of the month club. Truth is this d-b*g won't mention that for all his life's toil he's not one step closer to penetrating the nature of his own reality. What a legacy. Chasing a fart in the wind for 67 years. lmao!
subtitle: the final undoing of human subjectivity and its replacement with algorithms as psychological processes.... I just predicted the future.... bet on it...
In his conclusion, Carlo basically states that the basic fundamentals of physics including all that happens on the quantum mechanical level can be analyzed without the Time dimension (OK, consistent with most classical theories), which he then explains that Time emerges from how the mind perceives reality through interaction with the environment & does so based on the nature of how the brain works (which i suppose Carlo also believes to be the actual reality of the universe unique to the observer's mind)? Seems like contradiction with what he said earlier about speeding objects (or gravitation effects) & time dilation. Time must exist independent of the observer's mind because the effects of time dilation on a clock sent through time & space can be measured by an instrument as an outcome (and becomes reality) even without any knowledge of what actually happened on the clock's journey. The missing link between the arrow of time & entropy is still the problem yet to be understood.
Read the answers to whether time is an illusion or real in the book, "Infinity, Time, Death and thought". Time is a product or result of thought but includes 4 distinct aspects of time and their relation to both consciousness and their place in the physical universe. Discover why the universe can never reverse time, however that time is reversible in a non physical realm.
Honestly, a small group of educated and curious acid-trippers together could come up with the same result in 10 hours and it would be as obvous to them as day and night. it has been done by many thousands of non-academic acid users since the sixties. Of course, they are "crazy" but academics are "clever".
"Fundamental Level" by which i assume you mean the very small, is a "Bottom-Up" model of reality, there are "Top-Down" or holistic models . The idea that "Modern Physics" is the sole exponent of Process Philosophy is disingenuous, as Heraclitus, Buddhism, Goethe, Whitehead were there first, but I suppose what you're suggesting is that modern physics has confirmed that view. And if you like AnaximanderI recommend looking into Hua-Yen Buddhism, which also deals with infinity & mutual interactions.
Time Dilation is not time, time dilation is compressed space. In fact the words time dilation and compressed space are synonymous and can be replaced in any sentence or description with each other. B-)
There's a few misconceptions here... 1st of all - "here and now" is an individual experience - and ANY "distance" takes "time" to cover - even for "light" travelling 1 inch... So neither "here" nor "now" can be shared directly - but we share a point of common reference (the Northpole), which we can align our "here and nows" against... "Now" through "noon at Greenwich" - and "here" through "longitude and lattitude"... Since sharing the "Northpole" also makes us "rotate" in the same direction, relative to eachother - we automatically share the same "down" ("quantum gravity") and experience a shared "globe"... "The Earth is not flat" is a claim not entirely true - watch my profile picture (showing "Path of Least Resistance") to see why - however only from an individual perspective... ;-) But since "time" is meassured through the rotation of Earth (1 "day" equals 86.400 "seconds"), "time" isn't flat either - but spheric as well (and "atomic clocks" are also adjusted to fit the Earth's rotation and the "date-line", so forget the Caesium-133 defintion)... And "time-dialation" comes from being farther apart from the center of rotation, so it has to travel a longer "distance" at the same rate of "rotation" - in the video "time" is referred to as "flat", making a mystery out of it... Think back to your childhood, spinning yourself to dizzyness... Which "direction" (CW/CCW) was experienced "fastest"...? I bet it was the CW (to the right) if you live on the northern hemisphere, which by far, the most of us do... Because of the Northpole spinning in the CCW direction, "distance" catches a bit up with you, if rotating CCW... Fly 2 planes around the Earth (East and West) - and one will travel a much longer distance to catch up with the rotation of Earth during the flight... Or understand why writing, invented on the southern hemisphere, goes from right to left - which ofcourse is because of the experience of "time" evolving from right to left - because that's how they experience the Sun travel across the sky "down under"... Stand in a pond - and every move will make circular ripples in the water... Place a flat screen with two slits to block them, and the pattern will change from "circular and analog" to "flat and digital" - from 3D to 2D... Or vice versa... Like a (c-)square with 4 corners (Cardinalpoints), but connecting the dots as a "tetrahedron" instead of a "square"... Changing a "time-map" into "volume/space"... "space" = "time" / "perspective" or "mass" = "Energy" / "c squared" Same thing - different perspective... Don't go "flat-time" - a heart-monitor on a hospital will show you why... ;-)
Our individual axis of rotation is a one-dimesional "black hole"... Center of the Earth is a 2-dimensional "black hole"... Center of the Sun is a 3-dimensional "black hole"... Each having their own dimension of "time"... "Life" is "con-struction" (increased complexity) - "entropy" is "de-struction" (decreased complexity)... The "future" is where we'd "move" towards, if not obstructed by anything... We're all kept from joining the same "space" in the "future", by the crust of the Earth - being the resistance, preventing us all from "falling" towards the same point in "time"... We agree about a shared "future" - but we have to prevent ourselves from reaching it, because there's not enough room for more than 1 at a "time"... And our interactive resistance towards eachothers perspectives, creates the "friction-energy" we use to resist our own "fall" in "time"... The "future" is where we'd "move" towards, if not obstructed by anything... We're all kept from joining the same "space" in the "future", by the crust of the Earth - being the resistance, preventing us all from "falling" towards the same point in "time"... We agree about a shared "future" - but we have to prevent ourselves from reaching it, because there's not enough room for more than 1 at a "time"... And our interactive resistance towards eachothers perspectives, creates the "friction-energy" we use to resist our own "fall"... The fabric of "spacetime" requires a shared "up/down"... By changing "contrast" (on the scale from "bright/white" to "dark/black"), we experience different "polarizations" in the "cosmic background radiation"... The "Axis of Evil" defines our shared "up/down" by sharing the same levels of "contrast"... Our individual 2D-"here and now" has to be analog (like a sinewave), so we can experience it in 3D... Our shared, digital interpretation (common point of reference) is digital, because ANY "observation" is fixed in "time" (and "space")... The quantum wave needs an observation-point "from" to define the perspective, before it can collapse into a "particle"... Our problems comes from trying to define stuff out of context - but everything exists ("rotates") relative to somethibng else - and THAT has to be defined as well, to make an "observation" possible... We use our "senses" to "observe" - but théy prduce their own data, for our brains to interpret - ie "sound" is the consequence of 2 bones in our ears hitting eachother... But is the source external or internal...? No matter which, our brains are the tools we use, to interpret those sensory data - and we have to align those interpretations, to be able to interact - or noone will know, what is "up" and what is "down"... So we agree to share the geographic Northpole for alignment - and the magnetic Nortpole shows, how loyal we are towards that definiton... We can have all the individuality we like - if we agree on a common point of reference to align against... If we don't agree, our options for interaction fall apart... We use the "past" for "proof" - and the "future" for possible interaction through shared interpretations - defined by our loyalty towards our shared interpretations... If we need "proof" to interact, we'll be too late for "here and now"... And that's a shame... Because a tennisball can travel faster, than our brains can process the sensory data, so if we're able to hit a tennisball, we'll have to "see" it, where it hasn't even reached yet... So we "see", what we expect to see, in a "moment"... Our individual "here and now" is a prediction of what's to come - and the better you are at predicting events - the faster you adjust to the situation, giving you a lead, others will have to react to (if they don't want to be left behind)... We use our emotional skills to sense the outer limits for possible outcomes - and hold our rational gun ready, to fire between those outer limits... If we forget to use our emotions, before we turn to rationality, we'll never find ourselves within the outer limits of "reality" - and then we'll miss the ball... And a "harmonic 3rd" is perfect for a dance... ;-)
Since effect always follows it's cause a wait is experienced as a system changes from one state to the next. Without memory, one wouldn't realize they are waiting.
