Lee Smolin - How Can Space and Time be the Same Thing?

What does it mean for space and time to be the same thing? Not related to each other, but literally two descriptions of precisely the same entity: "spacetime"? One cannot understand existence without understanding spacetime.
Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Lee Smolin is an American theoretical physicist, a researcher at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, and an adjunct professor of physics at the University of Waterloo.
Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer to Truth presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.

[@thomasdombroski1982]

Time and space are relative. The more time I spend with my relatives the more space I need

[@ifstatementifstatement2704]

That is so fucking brilliant!

[@haitirocks90]

Amazing 🙌

[@ELPlop]

And vice versa

[@itinerantpatriot1196]

Isn't what you describe at the core of Einstein's Fear of Relatives?

[@johnlotaj3515]

Space is the ambient within where the whole universe exists. Space in and of itself can exist as being totally empty of any matter or material thing and still be as vast or perhaps infinite as the existing universe. Time however does not exist in empty space even as time does not exist in and of itself. Time is but a measure relative to the actions and interaction of all the matter in the universe.. so in a sense time is a measuring device and is unlike the reality of space.

[@argentum001]

What's even more puzzling is that Mr. Smolin's tilt angle is the same as the Earth's

[@ruatsangawhite7261]

😂

[@jeffrey6067]

This is such gold considering the gravity of the conversation.

[@IosuamacaMhadaidh]

😂 ahhhhhhgggghhh c'mon! That's a good one! 🥁

[@jasonmunley4295]

You must have a very precise? accurate? protractor!

[@mitsuracer87]

He was probably early into his Parkinsons at the time...

[@brianboyle2681]

Smolin is such a wonderfully clear speaker. I assume he is a fantastic mentor/professor.

[@davidcahan]

My favorite part is when the host says "so you are teasing apart space and time" and the guest says "yes" and the host comes back with "wow, well that's quite radical". Einstein's view, his theory, has become so well entrenched that it's now radical to think of space and time as being separate from each other. Amazing!

[@skwalka6372]

You are right, it is fascinating that it took less than a century. At the same time, you cant become president of the US if you dont believe humans descend from Adam and Eve!

[@wesbaumguardner8829]

The radicals have taken over and now empirical science is considered radical.

[@MonteCarlo-rx4hu]

If time didn't change nothing could change therefore there could be no space. Without time it is impossible to perceive the existence of anything making time and space codependent.

[@wesbaumguardner8829]

@@MonteCarlo-rx4hu Time itself is change. How could time be dependent upon itself? It is a circular fallacy. It is like having a man lift himself up by his own bootstraps.

[@olarenwajufalusi4979]

The one thing I would radically say is that space doesn't exist and time is not a measurement for observation... Hope Einstein would happy with my no cause & effect for things we can't see...spiritual... Hide & Seek.

[@kens2328]

It’s interesting to hear words in English, spoken in a clear voice, and in a familiar pattern, and yet not being able to understand them at all when put into a certain sequence.

[@ErrkNjerk]

"Hmm. Hmmmm.... I know some of these words"

[@Joshua-dc1bs]

LoL 🤣

[@Automotib]

Certain words formed in a certain sequence can form specific ideas

[@pauldirac808]

Go back to school

[@firstnamelastname2552]

@@pauldirac808 There should be a period at the end of your sentence. See me after class.

[@9Ballr]

I took the time to watch this, and then I spaced out.

[@11indigo]

Delivery was bad, nonetheless funny

[@xxCrimsonSpiritxx]

@@11indigo this isn't comedy central kid wtf is wrong wid u

[@KibyNykraft]

Where he is sort of correct is around 4 minutes, in that we can only define any motion or existence of something measureable by subjective reference points. However I really don't see how that should advance a classical general relativity or "linear tidal mysterious space" over special relativity. And I don't see how the possible inherent flux of space should make a study of particle dynamics and respective force fields less important.

[@junkerjorg6310]

Because he has no idea how it all started

[@KibyNykraft]

@@junkerjorg6310 That is for sure, but who does?

[@tedl7538]

I love the way Lee explains these ideas in such a clear, fascinating and patient way. Obviously he knows that most viewers won't understand the math and conceptual details of the topics, but he still formulates his answers in a deliberate and thoughtful manner. Bravo!

[@mydogskips2]

Really, I didn't understand a single word. Well, I understood the words, just not a single idea they represent.

[@shathaway13]

@@mydogskips2I didn’t either, and I am betting most people who are not cosmologists, unified field theorists , etc., do either!

[@joeyvigil]

A very difficult subject to truly understand even when explained clearly and concisely.

[@obiwanduglobi6359]

Glad to see Lee Smolin in perfect shape. His smile really made my day. All the best to you, sir!

[@macysondheim]

In perfect shape? Lol the little shrimp looks like he doesn’t even lift weights.

[@obiwanduglobi6359]

@@macysondheim He has recovered recently from a serious illness...

[@Sean-pm3wn]

A while ago I was super high in the shower and realized that time is the result of everything interacting with everything. I’m glad someone else figured it out to this extent so I don’t have to dedicate my life to a PHD so that humanity has this knowledge. Based science man.

[@anieudo5359]

Lmao

[@gabrielbotsford791]

Noice

[@gabrielbotsford791]

Also, this may be the most appropriate definition of time. I. E. time=the interval between events.

[@antoniorenteria2896]

Your time is dependent on your relationship with space, not your relationship with other matter. It is your interaction with space, or space’s interaction with you that dictates your clock.

[@derekboyt3383]

Time is a measurement of movement across a given distance. It is a measurement, not something that can be measured. Space is an area, not a thing. There can be things within an area but space is different from those things. We try to claim that space-time is a thing yet we can’t even claim that space nor time is a thing. 🤷🏻‍♂️

[@moychelitchtenstein7146]

When I was five years old, I looked up at the sky and wondered, how can it go on and on forever and ever? My next thought was: But how could it stop? 70 years later, I still haven't figured this out. Has anyone? Space is infinitely large, you could keep going in one direction forever. But is space also infinitely small?

[@WilliamBrownGuitar]

I had the same experience at 5 years old, just as you say: looking out my bedroom window at the stars. Maybe this is more common than I thought. For me the idea of infinity and my inability to grasp it created sort of an existential crisis.

[@alvindiaz8774]

Me too now that I think about it space is infinity big but then is it small

[@aforementioned7177]

The thought of being outside or beyond the edge of the Universe is preposterous. To even question it IMO is lunacy. Nothing can not exist. Nothing is still something if you have the idea of it. The Universe is literally everything that can exist.

[@davidmudry5622]

From my research on gravity it seems to me that there are TWO kinds of acceleration. One kind is real, meaning if there is a force on an object then it will be considered to be accelerating, and it will have weight. The other kind is an illusion, or an apparent acceleration. If you have weight, but feel as though you're standing still, then objects that are actually standing still will seem as if they are accelerating instead of you. Anytime an object has weight there will be a force on it, whether or not the object is observed to be accelerating, traveling at a constant speed, or standing still. Anytime an object does not have weight then there will not be a force on it, whether or not the object is observed to be accelerating, travelling at a constant speed, or standing still. Apparent acceleration can also mean an object has real acceleration but is actually standing more still than you. Or in other words it will have less force on it than you. My research also seems to indicate that the idea of apparent acceleration is not taught in schools. According to Einstein, to stand still with a static weight, you are accelerating up from a force at 9.8 meters/sec/sec. Less force upward less acceleration, and you will be falling with apparent acceleration, with a lighter than static weight. Free fall, would be no upward force, you are then weightless with an apparent downward acceleration at 9.8 meters/sec/sec. Brian Greene tells Alan Alda there is no gravity in free fall. NIST WTC FAQ 31 "the upper section came down essentially in free fall." Shyam Sunder John Gross "gravity was the driving force." kzbin.info/www/bejne/e2WWXnacqtB4ndU kzbin.info/www/bejne/joPVYp6XjbB1qbc kzbin.info/www/bejne/g6moaYFrfqZ5jck kzbin.info/www/bejne/faavfZKrpapnsM0 kzbin.info/www/bejne/lXjNepqAhdNnbac

[@LionKimbro]

It could be limited, but also "go on forever," if it looped around on itself. However, by best measurements today, we cannot tell if it will loop around on itself, or if it just goes on forever. It's definitely much, much larger than the furthest out that we can look -- scientists have figured out that much.

[@scottfranco1962]

Guy must be a genius. I have no idea what he is talking about.

[@countdowntomidnight692]

Lol, feels that way a lot. Do not let advanced nomenclature confuse you, it is the science that makes such verbally confusing results to many. All he was stating was a unfalsifiable theory, a theory that is also paradoxical. When you deal with theorhetical physics you are basically dealing with leading theories and field experts start tossing their lots in one of those theories, or create another. To prove any of these claims you would need a time-machine, and since we do not have those available at our current level of advancement, it becomes an unfalsifiable theory. We cannot prove or disprove many theories but especially ones that took place Billions of years ago. This is why many competing theories exist, from a big bang to creation, neither are falsifiable, the existence of one theory does not disprove the other although only one may be true. If we knew the answer then that would be all that existed, the other hypothesis would disappear.

[@Chicken_Little_Syndrome]

Nonsense is always unfalsifiable. Paradoxes point at fundamental problems all the theoretical experts ignore.

[@countdowntomidnight692]

@@Chicken_Little_Syndrome Everything is unfalsifiable till it isn't. Paradoxicality in the nuances of our origin is almost a given. There must be some sort of uncaused causation, rather it be the paradoxical nature of an infinite intellect as this uncaused cause, or matter, time, space and energy being derived from nothing. With humans we are limited to finite reasoning, paradoxes exist within this finite. Nonsensical is the expected outcome from trying to understanding concepts not limited to our own rationale. If you are a Christian then the pathway for falsifiability will eventually be met with the creators inevitable arrival, I am sure the burden of evidence will be met when that occurs. From a Big Bang devoutee, we would still need to invent time-travel. I digress of course lol, but the main response is there.

[@robertkoascorpio]

Lol.

[@christopherrubicam4474]

I am in awe of Kuhn's questions to help me to understand a little of Smolin's answers. My brain hurts in a good way.

[@jamescarew8136]

When I Heard the Learn'd Astronomer By Walt Whitman When I heard the learn’d astronomer, When the proofs, the figures, were ranged in columns before me, When I was shown the charts and diagrams, to add, divide, and measure them, When I sitting heard the astronomer where he lectured with much applause in the lecture-room, How soon unaccountable I became tired and sick, Till rising and gliding out I wander’d off by myself, In the mystical moist night-air, and from time to time, Look’d up in perfect silence at the stars.

[@la8523]

@@jamescarew8136 to W.W.

[@hittitecharioteer]

Well done. I wish I could understand. I have 2 degrees and one of them a masters. I can accept something I don't understand. Eg. a black hole. It is assumed it is a singularity. But perhaps it is not. Perhaps it has a surface immediately beyond the event horizon. Assumptions are made that are only theoretical and seem never to be provable.

[@josephfreetimer1736]

Yes, brain hurt...I think it's about time to stop this philo-madness. It doesn't sound "profound" anymore, it nearly sounds ridiculous. Help my brain connect with my mind here: Where is all this "expanding space" expanding into? Anti-space? Conversation like this, even if they have more than 400 years of philosophy, (because let's get grounded here, it's all mental-matters, not our actual experience), it all sounds like a black hole for our common sense, interpreted as "profound deep inquiry". Do people actually get paid to sit on their couches and drool in their own thoughts. Strange occupation.

[@harrymills2770]

@@hittitecharioteer It is treated as a singularity because that's how it behaves. A pole in space where the supremacy of the speed of light is overcome by gravity. Physics is a lot different in its neighborhood, especially at the event horizon, beyond which not even light can escape.

[@guidedmeditation2396]

Think of space/time as a frame rate. Like when you look at old celluloid movie reels. Where there is one frame then another and when you experience them in sequence it brings them to life and you experience an animated image and TIME. Just like how they make cartoons frame by frame by frame. The frame rate of the universe is a staggering 12 sextillion times per second and that is a real number. A 12 with 21 zeros behind it. This also happens to be the speed of light and maybe contemplating the speed of light will help you comprehend this deeper as well. LIGHT does not move. It bumps into its adjacent space 1/17,0000th of an inch of ether causing it to move and send waves. If you have ever watched a huge long freight train start or stop you hear on car bang as it grabs the one next to it and then the one after that bangs and on down the line like dragging a stick across a chain link fence or putting playing cards in the spokes of your bike with a clothes pin. Time and space are one because it is really our consciousness that is moving from one frame of space to another at a determined frame rate. Everything is consciousness. Matter is just a shadow of all else that makes its perceived existence possible.

[@bobafeet1234]

I have to read it a few more times, but your explanation sounds brilliant to me!

[@namedjasonc]

I don't know enough to say whether or not this interview brought me Closer To Truth. I can definitely say that it brought my Closer To Faces though!

[@jakecarlo9950]

I love Lee Smolin so much. He is so philosophical and *humane*. I'm just really grateful he's out there, and I 🙏 for his good health and long life.

[@jamesbarlow6423]

You two should have a baby together🤣

[@paulteller8383]

not pretentious like so many other theoretical physicists.

[@pineapplesoda]

I know, right? "Causation is time." (5:22) Love that!

[@KibyNykraft]

@@paulteller8383 ...well..... All theoretical physicists (today) tend to be very pretencious,unlike those who work at/with for example advanced engineering, geology, biochemistry,who are real scientists.

[@KibyNykraft]

@Roberto These people are like clergies ,but of postmodernist/alternative /pseudoscience forms or branches.

[@tycox8704]

I have experienced that time and space are one in the same. The space I live in has taken all my time to maintain.

[@waynesmallwood6027]

I've always had difficulty reading Lee SMOLIN's works. Many others communicate better. He's keeping it simple, here.

[@verslalchimie5824]

I found the easiest way to understand this, the nature of space, is to think of it like your computer screen, made up of pixels in array. These pixels are refreshed at a specific rate - 60 times per second. Assuming in this case that pixels can transmit causality to their neighbors, That means action can only move across the screen 60 pixels/sec no more no less. That is your “speed of light” Now consider a circle made up of pixels with many colors. If that circle where to move across the screen slowly, it could still change color, but if it moved left across the screen at a rate of 60 pixels/sec, Every action would have to be dedicated to translation to the left, and would not have the opportunity to use an action to change color. Its color pattern is fixed, it is no longer moving forward in time. All of its updates are dedicated to translational motion. If that were a person moving at the speed of light, they would appear to be frozen in position to an outside observer, not a heartbeat, not a molecule moving in their body, except in one direction at the speed of light. To the outside observer, time for that person has stopped. Now back to the circle: slow down a little bit from the screen version of the speed of light, say down to 58 pixels/sec. The circle can now use two pixels per second to change its color state, but that would be very slow compared to the circle that is standing still. Time for the "sub-lightspeed" circle is moving very slowly, but it has not stopped This is what is meant by space and time being intimately connected. In fact, there is no time without space, as time is simply the updating of the components of space (the quantum fields) Now in quantum physics, there is the concept of the Planck length, which may very well be the absolute minimum "pixel" resolution of space and the units which are transmitting causality

[@nunyabusiness9013]

Ba ba bouey

[@SubhanAIS]

Wow....that long.

[@streamdr1499]

Whether you find yourself agreeing or disagreeing - intuitively, or through some sort of personal bias that might be close to you for whatever reason - with any of his interviewees and their theories...you have to admire the brilliance of Robert Kuhn and how well he actually contributes to these discussions! Always a pleasure.

[@DrDeuteron]

He did alright here. Of course, his most relevant question was ignored. ("can we measure anything or is this philosophy?").

[@Kevin_Street]

Agreed. His ability to ask the right questions is crucial to the value of these interviews.

[@eatower2]

I feel like I could converse with Smolin for years about the universe and we'd never have a boring second. Groundshaking perspective and insight are the one things we all can have, but only few truly pursue it.

[@helbitkelbit1790]

"we" may not get board...... however , he quite possibly would

[@ramaraksha01]

Maybe not boring but I will get a headache trying to figure out what he is saying :-)

[@danieljeftic6181]

It is one thing to postulate about time and space being co related or even being one thing. From the scientific and the philosophical perspective we can conceptualise the possibility of being so. However as beings that are captured in matter, relative to space and time, our experience is somewhat different to what the Physics and the Philosophy might suggest. And the interesting point is exactly that even those who are elaborating from the standpoint of science or philosophy about time and space, are never the less captured , just like anyone else in our human experience of time and space..... In my opinion this fact tells us more about our mental capacities of conceptualisation, which goes beyond our experience, than what it actually tells about the relationship of time and space.......

[@DivineMisterAdVentures]

1-2:00m He's nailed it in a common language explanation of Time and Space being in the nature of relationships between elements of the Universe. Exactly! Now take it to the next level with a discussion of Quantum Dimensionality.

[@zaydeshaddox7015]

OMG! I read Smolin's book "The Trouble with Physics" some 14 years ago but never heard of him since until NOW. I'd actually forgotten about him. This is so cool that he's still around!

[@edwardjam9832]

I read that same book a few years back too.

[@dodekaedius]

I've read this book forth in 2042. Amazing!

[@jayr.7209]

@@dodekaedius whats a book?

[@sisu4134]

@@jayr.7209 - I heard they use to read books LONG ago. It's so weird how people use to read letters on paper bound together. Our ancestors were such simpletons 😁

[@TheDeepThinker-sq3iy]

@@sisu4134 its a lost art. . . LMAO 🤣🤣🤣

[@goduniverse1024]

Best KZbin channel rn

[@b.g.5869]

It's not a KZbin channel. "Closer To Truth: Chats" is a KZbin channel. These are old (in many cases decades old) clips from Kuhn's TV show.

[@downhillphilm.6682]

@@b.g.5869 if old to one observer is new to a fresh observer, then old is new....

[@acemanNL]

Not with those stupid ads!

[@b.g.5869]

@@downhillphilm.6682 My main point is simply that this is a clip from a 20-something year old interview from a television show, not a personal KZbin video by Robert Kuhn. Also, it old is still old whether it's "new to you" or not, particularly when discussing physics, where 20 years changes a lot. A lot of these episodes are very dated.

[@tri28]

@@b.g.5869 This is not a 20 year old interview, it's from 2013/2014. Anyway, our understanding of Space and Time has not been changed in the last 20 years.

[@triplec8375]

The Block Universe becomes much more attractive if we consider time to be a 4th spatial dimension. But, as is so clearly pointed out, we don't understand the most fundamental characteristics of our universe. And because we don't, every avenue of exploration is based on some fundamental assumptions that may or may not be correct. What the heck is a dimension aside from its simple mathematical construct? Are there 3 or 4 or 10 or 11 or an infinite number of dimensions? Are they causal (emergent) or infinite and in place forever before and after? What is space and time? Is space and/or time discrete (quantized) or continuous? Can time, in any instance, run opposite to what we experience? Doesn't the idea that a particle can be in more than 1 place at any given time negate the idea of causality? Or is causality the absolute bedrock of reality? Are space and time fields and if so, are they static or dynamic? We can't even agree as to what Nothing is. There are so many unknowns at the fundamental level that any extended model of the universe such as the so-called Standard Model with Inflation is built on unproven assumptions, beliefs, and biases. It may be a house of cards, but most will stick to it despite it's shortcomings. But we need to be aware that it is philosophy (little "p" philosophy as in beliefs and assumptions, not big "P" Philosophy as in Jeremy Bentham or David Hume or Socrates) at the heart of our description of the Universe. We need to keep reflecting on the fundamentals to be assured that we are on the right track and keep investigating those base ideas which are unspoken but extant in our models and shape our investigations.

[@AndreyKuzin]

Amazing! Briliant idea! It seems that Temperazture of the object will directly influence on local object time. As when temperature is higher the more often causaliity (events of interaction) will follow. So when you want to stop object local time you shall cool it down.

[@Fos3tex]

Apparently the more profound you are, the more you tilt your head until it's almost sideways.

[@stephenscharf6293]

I’ve been watching this series for a couple of years now, and, I don’t feel that we’ve gotten any “closer to truth” than when we started.

[@DrDeuteron]

there have been no non-predicted breakthroughs (Higgs, LIGO, or any quantum entanglement experiment confirming our ideas, as opposed to challenging them). Maybe LHCb or mu-g-2 can make a little GUT truth come to light?

[@stephenscharf6293]

@@DrDeuteron Personally, I'm with Sabine that we don't need to build yet another LHC....the money would be better used elsewhere. LHC has only discovered 1 particle since it's inception. Re: LIGO, also see Sabine's video on that. As for GUTs, my thought is that if we've spent the better part of a century trying to unifiy Quantum Mechanics with GR, well...we might think about other theories. And, I'm not convinced Everett's relative state formulation, Weinstein's Geometric Unity or Garret's E8 Quasicrystal are the answer, either. As for something that's really interesting in this area, check out the videos on The Primer Fields. kzbin.info/www/bejne/qZqwd5mEndNpms0 Cheers.

[@cchang2771]

Excellent remark! Watching so many episodes for at least 5 years, I think Robert Kuhn purposely to not to be closer to truth. He tried his best to find arguments to counter each other. There are examples when a more definitive conclusion could emerge, he tried to suppress it.

[@stephenscharf6293]

@@cchang2771 Yeah, to me, it's starting to feel like an extended vanity project. This could go on as long as physicists have been trying to unify quantum mechanics with general relativity, and I'll wager, with as much success.

[@cchang2771]

@@stephenscharf6293 I don't have any problem for the program itself. It is interesting and educational, I learned a lot from it. I just don't think he should call it Closer to Truth. I especially found his concluding statement at the end of every episode, that he is closer to truth, disingenuous..

[@DanRad44]

Time is an experience of a continuum - a continuum of differentiated ‘spaces’, which in themselves are properties of a vibratory field - energy-conscious field, in the most fundamental sense of these terms. So each ‘space’ is like a vibratory signature slate, in and of itself, and their succession is what generates the experience of ‘time’. This of course happens automatically and by default, by ‘consciosness’, which is the greatest mystery of all. There will come a day when physicists will start studying consciousness as such, for answers about reality - physical and non-physical alike.

[@EmsaMun]

Actually I am proud of myself I think I understood the part about separating time and space because they can't make the physics work so he is trying a different approach which is to separate time and space.

[@NothingMaster]

One of your best presentations, ever. Smolin’s critical thinking, conceptual investigations, clarity of thought, and analytical honesty are head and shoulders above the majority of the characters who consider themselves as theoretical physicists.

[@motherbrain2000]

or at least those who consider themselves physics communicators.

[@DrDeuteron]

all he did was pump the brakes on the extra dimension/multiverse/hologram wow factor.

[@proto-geek248]

Here here

[@motherbrain2000]

@@DrDeuteron which needed doing

[@jeffforsythe9514]

Creation has to do with spirituality. Con(with) science.........conscience.

[@ned1621]

Imagine talking to this guy with a few drinks in 🤪. Much respect to him I must say and to the interviewer.

[@jamieharmer5654]

Imagine Him High....

[@mikemcknight1295]

lol x infinity there :), cause wtf is he on about!!

[@jarrodbenchek]

There’s a fun channel on KZbin called something like drunk history ... the host gets the guest close to tipsy before starting the show

[@unpolishedpearl3769]

Oh man… I’d love to talk to him after a couple of drinks 🍻 he’s so clear and obviously intelligent, but his viewpoint and mine are exactly opposite in terms of what time is ✨🌌✨

[@sivaprasadkodukula7999]

There are two ways of thinking- 1. The journey from classical,special relativity,general relativity, quantum etc., 2.Reverse way- origin of time , conversion in to space,matter, quantum,relativity and in to classical Newtonian concept. He is thinking in the direction of 1. So he can not explain the thing that how space and time are related. If we say mass and energy are same,we must say space and time are also similar. I have proposed it and published lot of papers based on it. With an experimental conclusion I emphasized that dark energy is a phenomenal effect of space time conversion in one paper. In another paper I concluded that the dark matter is a fundamental force as consequence of difference in synchronising quantum mechanics with general relativity.

[@RedSiegfried]

Time is just what keeps everything from happening all together.

[@lTheBallsl]

Best part of this is the cameraman trying to keep the physicist in frame. He looks like he's constantly about to lean out of his chair haha.

[@johnsmith100]

He leans because of gravity 🤣

[@danstar455]

Whenever Lee starts to think hard he starts moving his upper body.

[@solapowsj25]

Keeping within the tme frames and Event horizon.

[@Andrew-vt2wq]

He's bending space and time

[@abramlittle7102]

Heavy brained

[@hammyhamsters9210]

A 10min Lee Smolin interview video cured my 10yrs suffering of neck's bulging discs

[@mikem3779]

They finally hit on some truth at the end. The problem is that time is not a real thing, time itself is a concept. It’s a measurement of change. It’s no more or less real than a centimeter.

[@adamrobbins4683]

Most people will say this is wrong, but most people aren't nearly as smart as they think they are

[@djripsmusic]

He makes a good point, often things are considered too 'radical' when the mainstream ideas are already super radical and unproven.

[@ericfarina9609]

Gravity is the Singularity. Spacetime is the Singularity. It is all tied together: wave-particle duality, the thermodynamic arrow of time, redshift, blueshift, dark energy, dark matter, and black holes, are actually all manifestations of relative infinity. Gravity can be described as the path of matter through spacetime relative to the speed of light in relation to the Singularity (i.e. the speed of light in a vacuum. The Singularity is infinitely dense and infinitely vast, encompassing all observable spacetime and beyond). All matter in an infinite universe warps spacetime and concurrently alters the path of all other things. Since on a fundamental level all matter and energy resides within the Singularity, all matter and energy is its own cause and effect as well as the cause and effect of everything else. E=MC^2. Matter and energy can't be created or destroyed because they are fundamentally infinite. Observational physics is relative. Infinite physics is fundamental. If you can't think on scales of infinity you will literally never understand. An apple in your hand warps spacetime as demonstrated by Einstein, but what scientists can't seem to wrap their brain around, is that any object that warps spacetime alters the path of every other object in an infinite universe, instantly. Everything is connected. You all want an explanation of how GR and quantum mechanics are compatible, you got it. The Singularity is the unifying factor. Wave particle duality is a reflection of the effect of observation on the particle level. Perpetual observation of the interactions of light with our environment persistently impacts the trajectory of all particles and sets the parameters of relativistic physics. Quantum entanglement is a reflection of the interconnected nature of reality. The reason one particle can persistently affect another across indefinite distances, is because of the fundamental nature of gravity. All cause exists relative to infinite effect. All effect exists relative to infinite cause. Observational reality is always infinitely far away from a "singular point" of infinitely high energy/information density (the relative past), and infinitely far away from a "singular point" of infinitely low energy/information density (the relative future). This is what establishes a frame of reference for relative observation. You can never reach either "point" through the passage of time relative to observation. No matter WHAT you do, each is infinitely far away. Light is essentially stretched from infinitely high energy to infinitely low energy. This is why light redshifts in accordance with the thermodynamic arrow of time. In other words, Dark Energy is the tension between the "point" of infinitely high energy density and the "point" of infinitely low energy density. If you were to approach a black hole, you would never reach the event horizon from your relative perspective. The event horizon would recede into the distance relative to your position and motion through spacetime. From the perspective of an Earth observer, you would freeze at the event horizon, which is the Earth observer's relative moment in time. From your perspective, you would proceed into the relative future. Nothing is truly improbable or probable, and every relative calculation is always infinitely inaccurate. Every proof ever written, every word ever spoken, is infinitely inaccurate due to the relative nature of math and language as tools for conceptualization, computation, and communication of information. We know the Universe is infinite because our language and mathematical symbols are arbitrary and relative to our experience. I can make a 2 character language such as binary code, a 37 character language, or a 998,000 character language... All the way on to infinity. This is because all language exists as a tool for describing relative infinity. I can use our standard, base ten mathematics... Or I can create base 100 mathematics, or base trillion mathematics, using completely unique symbols that I can make up, all the way to infinity. This is because all math exists to describe relative infinity. The Mandatory Asymmetry Principle: Before we get to the Mandatory Asymmetry Principle, let's start with the Infinite Precision Principle. Both can be explained quite simply, using the basic geometric analogy of a square. The Infinite Precision Principle dictates this: take a square. You measure it with a ruler, you get exactly one inch per side. Great. Moving on, right? Not so fast. You decide to amp it up a bit and measure that square to the nearest 10,000th of an inch. You measure again, and this time you get 1.0001 inches. Your initial measurement appeared accurate, but a higher degree of precision found this to be untrue. The Infinite Precision Principle states this: no matter how accurate you think your measurement of the dimensions of an object are, there is always infinite room to improve upon your measurement. No matter how many times or to what degree of precision you magnify your measurements, a higher degree of precision will eventually prove your initial measurement inaccurate. The Mandatory Asymmetry Principle, when understood as it proceeds from the initially described principle, is as follows: take two sides of the square from the previous example. Let's say each side measured in initially at exactly 1 inch, then 1.0001 inches with the higher precision measurement. You amp it up again- this time the nearest billionth of an inch. This time, the measurements are as follows: A) 1.000100002 inches, B)1.000100003 inches. So at a higher level of precision, you realize you never had a perfect square to begin with, at all. The Mandatory Asymmetry Principle states this: if any given measurement of the dimensions of an object relative to observation, appears to be symmetrical, a higher degree of precision will eventually prove it is not. Key insight: there is no such thing as a perfect square, or a perfect hexagon, a perfect pyramid or a perfect sphere. Implications: every single object existing in our Infinite Universe is unique, and nothing can be measured perfectly in relative terms, ever, by anyone. For every object in the universe to be unique, the universe must be infinite. You can't measure the speed of light any more than you can measure the sides of a square. Because the only thing that is real, is infinity. Imagine the entire observable Universe is a basket with 2 apples and 4 oranges. We live in an orange, and we can't see what lies beyond the basket. Now, imagine the entire Universe is an infinite number of baskets, each with 2 apples and 4 oranges. There are infinite baskets, infinite apples, and infinite oranges. Basic logic dictates there are half as many baskets as apples, and twice as many oranges as apples. The basket is like our observational bubble. Every phenomenon we observe happens inside the basket. The ratio of apples to oranges is like our physics. We can define the physics within our basket in relative terms and convince ourselves the description is accurate. Or, we can define the physics of the infinite Universe in terms of the frequency of apples and oranges relative to infinity.

[@ericfarina9609]

That's my take on it all! I have literally been called delusional and an arrogant narcissist just for putting this idea out there, to your point. I think it makes perfect sense.

[@PedroFinGuitar]

@@ericfarina9609 very good!

[@ericfarina9609]

@@PedroFinGuitar I hope it makes some sense. I know I am not an expert. But I believe the Mandatory Asymmetry Principle is logically unassailable and that the implications are extraordinary. Language and math as tools for conceptualization, communication, and computation always leave infinite room for improvement no matter how you construct them. As language and math are the conceptual tools on which physics is based, the implications extend directly to our understanding of physics. A true understanding of the Singularity unites Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity with ease.

[@frankdimeglio8216]

@@ericfarina9609 THE ULTIMATE, BALANCED, AND CLEAR MATHEMATICAL UNDERSTANDING OF PLANETARY ORBITS IN RELATION TO THE SUN, AS E=MC2 IS F=MA: A PHOTON may be placed at the center of WHAT IS THE SUN (as A POINT, of course), AS the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the speed of light (c); AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY; AS E=MC2 IS F=MA. Time DILATION ultimately proves that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY, as C4 is a POINT that is ELECTROMAGNETIC/GRAVITATIONAL (ON BALANCE) as SPACE; AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Time DILATION clearly proves that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY, AS E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma. E=mc2 IS F=ma. A planet AND a star thus constitute what is A POINT in the night sky. 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 ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY; AS E=MC2 IS F=MA. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Time DILATION proves that E=mc2 IS F=ma. The rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy ON BALANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma. By Frank DiMeglio

[@jimstoner6884]

That caused me to create the time to watch it again. I think I will move ten feet to the left before I do to see if it changes anything.

[@Biglight127]

Actually, you will move ten meters.

[@1234helloworld1234]

Your on a rock being dragged along by a gas giant at roughly 200km a second your movement is relative

[@davez4285]

We use differential equations to describe the state changes. Time t is only a parameter is the equation, it can be replaced with at, a is any constant. We can use Fourier transformation to replace t with w, as time domain to frequency domain. The real meaning of t in differential equations is to describe the state changes of equations. The reason or driving factor of state changes is not time but energy or force.

[@mathman1475]

Seems to me if you the flow of causality events at a quantum level as being the definition of time it seems emergent. It is like the definition ticking of a clock. We think of it as a measurement of time but from the opposite perspective it is a series of mechanical events that are occurring based on physical causation that was designed to repeat and we use this emergent property to represent time as it can be related to the sequence of other events. Since events happen in a causal sequence then time emerges.

[@grahamswinerd]

This is the first time I have seen Lee Smolin, but I have read several of his books, the content of which I find very refreshing. Thank you Lee for your pursuit of the trouble with physics!

[@HArryvajonas]

Lex Fridman had a great conversation with him about a year ago on his podcast.

[@jojox1733]

This is the first space I have seen him as well.

[@grahamswinerd]

Refreshing in the sense of at least some recognition that progress in physics has stalled. Maybe recent events may spark a new revelation... ?

[@jojox1733]

@@grahamswinerd idk maybe dude

[@HArryvajonas]

@Edward Williams I assume he means that by acknowledging that physics has been running into a wall as of late, it might open the way for new ideas. I have heard an increasing amount of respected physicists questioning String Theory and the idea of a Theory of everything as being dead ends or not leading to answerable questions.

[@ZeroOskul]

Smolin rocks! Briliant thinker and explainer!

[@emmanuelpil]

Yes, but when Robert asked (who by the way is really getting better and better at asking the right follow-up questions) about the difference between the block universe and his( Lee's) concept I felt him getting a little uncomfortable when he had to admit he had to rip apart spacetime.

[@ZeroOskul]

@@emmanuelpil His feelings about the facts do not diminish and are not the actual facts, and he admits those fact.

[@emmanuelpil]

@@ZeroOskul Yes but the quantum theory of space-time in loop quantum gravity is really just a quantum theory of space. The spin network described by the theory cannot yet incorporate time. That's where the discomfort comes from.

[@PrivateSi]

If Sci-woo and waffle is your thing... How has he advanced engineering, I ask, as an engineer? More of a mathematical philosopher.. If anything, this type of mindset is the main cause of the fundamental physics rut... Too wishy-washy and abstract, not concrete enough... Here's the opposite approach from a good engineering standpoint, premised on do more with less.. Nature is conservative. The main conjecture is that either almost all or at least 50% of Positrons do not annihilate, but instead explain and simplify the Standard Model.. No way nature would waste the positron in my book... It's a self balancing system and the continuous attempt to re-balance permanent imbalances emerges the material universe we measure. -- Bottom-up Thought Experiment... Constraints: As few base forces and particles as possible to form a coherent, integrated 4D multi/universe model -- Subspace Field: Positive cells (fuzz ball, quanta, +1) held together by negative gas. Matter-energy field conserves momentum -- Matter-Energy: Matter is focused energy.. Energy is mobile matter.. Momentum conserves velocity.. Force changes velocity and/or direction -- Positron/Up Quark/Graviton (p+): Free, mobile out of place cell warps the field, radiating AC field cell vibration 'blip' spheres at C + 6 DC spin loops -- Electron/Down Quark (e-): Hole left behind warps the field, radiating AC field cell vibration 'blip' spheres of opposite phase at C + 6 DC spin loops -- Noton/Dark Matter (n+-): Exactly opposite phase close p+ and e- annihilate (ie. entangled pair created together (e_p) ), else a noton forms -- Nucleons: Proton: P=pep.. Neutron: N=P_e=pep_e.. Beta-: N-e>>P+e.. Beta+: P+e_p>>N+p.. Alpha: A=PNPN=PeP_PeP=(pep_e_pep)_(pep_e_pep) -- Heavier Fermions: Larger holes and chunks of subspace field rapidly disintegrate to p+s, e-s, n+-s and/or annihilate to regular = empty field -- Electrostatic Force: Recoiling blip spheres propagate. Opposite direction + and - blips form a vibrating AC bond, same sign = phase repel -- Instant-Off Long Force: AC (longitudinally blipping) subspace 'flux tube' as thin as 1 cell wide. Each cell and its -ve gas move in contrary motion -- Spin: e-s and p+s pull in the 12 surrounding cells, or -ve gas that pulls cells, that then bounce out, stabilising as a torus of 6 in/out (N/S) DC loops -- Strong Force: Spin loops merge and form flowing DC circuits between e-s and p+s -- Mass: Sum of the lengths of all strong force bonds + near electric field. Notons have compact strong force bonds, Protons' are long as 2 p+s repel -- Magnetism: Some spin-aligned atoms' p+s and e-s' strong bonds join in a shorter straight path. Energy conservation results in external force circuits -- Left Hand Rule: Magnetic circuit cells squeeze between field cells causing short range, lateral, perpendicular electrostatic blips -- Weak Force: Geometric structural charge balance instability. Possibly noton hits statistically tipping the balance -- Photon: Charged particles moving up and down (transmitter, atomic electron) form a radiating transverse wave blip pattern -- Double Slit: Laser light / particle centre's preceding, extended subspace distortion diffracts, interferes, forming wave guides observation destroys -- Dark Gravity: p+ traps 1 quantum of -ve gas so void cell size/gap grows (and matter's shrinks?) forming a macro -ve gas density gradient -- Bang Expansion: Loss of -ve gas to the multiverse?.. Bang ejector velocity petered out, magnified in time by outward momentum conservation -- Gravity Wave: Longitudinal wave where the entire field in a large region is effected in unison for a duration -- Big Ping: A dark crystal universe collisions' intense gravity wave forms e- & p+ pairs inwardly at C that annihilate or form notons, Protons, Neutrons -- Big Bang: Ping wave collides centrally? Field blast forms matter + a large hole (then Big/Dark Refill)? Fast -ve gas loss? Noton crystal exploded? -- Black Hole: Absorbs matter and energy. Noton crystal (with a core returning to empty field)? Large hole in the field traps anything entering? -- Frame Dragging: Entire sphere of subspace cells rotating around a point in unison -- Time: Cell to cell blips take a constant time. Gravity shrinks cells so light slows but locally measures C as circuits lengthen in space & time, adding mass -- This is not an aether theory, it's a matter-energy field, a quantised, relativisitic subspace medium. Forces and matter emerge from and are part of the field -- Makes more sense than making up bosons to carry force and mass, quarks that don't solve the anti-matter and dark matter problem, (anti) neutrinos, loads of fundamental fields, extra spatial and temporal dimensions etc, that ultimately don't tie relativity and quantum mechanics together properly or well... They should at least be honest and call their 'spatial dimensions' geometric/field dimensions or something.. Magic Space is not my cup of tea.

[@ZeroOskul]

@@PrivateSi I don't think he's an engineer... but he HAS done at least one thing: Critical editing was invented around 400BC at the Great Library at Alexandria. This was around the time of Socrates and the invention of Socratic Argumentation. Critical editing lies in looking at a work and rewording it to make it better express the meaning it is intended to deliver. I reviewed, edited and revised this before posting. Critical editing can replace whole paragraphs of vagary with one sentence of solid description or remove a nonsense sentence and replace it with an informative paragraph... it can even omit whole chapters. Socratic Argumentation involves honest evaluation of one's own argument and a willingness to compare it to their opponent's argument and to be willing to accept parts of the opponent's argument and to reject parts of one's own if those parts show to better or worse describe the idea being argued over. In a normal argument, one generally makes a bold statement and defends it to the end even if it is shown to be inherently false. Two hundred years later, also at Alexandria, the scientific method was invented and this was done using the same essential rules of Critical Editing and Socratic Argumentation but based on claims about facts, and so leading to the invention of expermentation. 2,222 years later, give-or-take a week or a decade, Lee Smolin said: "What is good for scientists to do? "We have to be honest, we have to argue in good faith, we have to work from shared public evidence. "Because it is so easy to fool ourselves, we develop crafts. "Crafts of experiment, checking our experiments, checking our calculations over and over again to detect error. "And, indeed, the training of a scientist is primarily a training in the detection and elimination of errors. "It's not about ideas--lots of people have ideas and every once in a while there's a good idea--it's about showing that your ideas and other people's ideas are BAD ideas by finding errors. "And a scientist is somebody who has a degree that basically consists in demonstrating that they have control over... mastery over a craft for detecting errors."~LS Please do an image earch on your preferred search engine for: "For a civil engineer, there's no such thing as a little mistake." What Lee Smolin did for engineers is inspire and inform me to inform you and show you this picture. Your first mistake is assuming Lee Smolin was an engineer. Now go find ALL the mistakes in ALL of your drafts. That's what Lee Smolin did for engineers, and it was just for you.

[@ChuckWatson]

Good subject, I've always like Dewey Larson's Reciprocal Theory as an interesting take on the subject of space and time

[@ceatea112]

Yy , 😂 up t6j in

[@marty7442]

It never ceases to amaze me what efforts people will go to delude themselves into fantasy, just to make sure that their assumptions seem plausible. This argumentation against Newtonian physics is the exact same thing as taking the 'tree in the forest' argument literally and missing the point entirely.

[@SolidAir54321]

I'm in no way a physicist or even close, but it always seemed to me intuitive that time doesn't exist, only change. The faster you move the slower things change. So it seems odd to me that everyone keeps referring to time as if it's a thing. It would make more sense to me that things are based on causality as was said in the video. But what do I know?

[@w9gfo759]

That's what I've been thinking and debating for a few years now:) Time doesn't exist. There is only space. Since the beginning of the universe till now there is a constant movement. To measure the gaps between for example some past and present events people invented a descriptor "time", but it has no value itself, it's just a measurement. There is no time per se, there is only space and change.

[@jakesmith6337]

I don’t disagree but if you call it a measurement what are you measuring?

[@SolidAir54321]

@@jakesmith6337 What do you mean by "measure"? You are just comparing two things that change.

[@jakesmith6337]

@@SolidAir54321 It seems to me your measuring time, but if it, time, doesn’t exist, ( which I wonder about also) what are we measuring, we have to call it something 🤔

[@oggyoggy1299]

How does something change without time?

[@letsbegin4584]

Just create a particle call it "timey" and feel relieved.

[@adastra.]

"Oh it's just Timey wimey stuff" -DrWho when trying to explain how it works to a companion hah,

[@dirtyrotter]

@@adastra. you missed out the wibbley wobbley theory

[@Debilitator47]

@@dirtyrotter I deeply hope that scientists discover some new quantum field/particles, and call them timey and wimey, and they have characteristics wibbley and wobbley.

[@akashaggarwal3041]

😂

[@pauldionne2884]

Great idea! We could bottle the time particles and save it for those busy days!

[@bubbagump2747]

Time is a construct of human observation. It’s relevant due to our mortality. A measurement tied to celestial and seasonal changes for which we also put to use in other observational gymnastics of thought. Think of time as another sensory input to our mind without some physical input from the fleshy side of sensory input. It’s such a strong influence to our cognitive process we had to define it sometimes beyond its simple existence of awareness.

[@Mumugen]

isn't it just a specific container that holds a linear sequence of atoms and the length of atoms in sequence from point A to point B determine the space and the time simultaneously since we measure time through materiality and all material things are made from atoms? The velocity constant is the speed of light, all below this is relative.

[@stevedv629]

I really appreciate what this show does, thanks CTT team

[@syriouskash537]

Ehhhhh..... I dont really like the show. I think he is asking the wrong people the right questions. Seems like he asks scientists .... "spiritual" questions. Which they respond with material answers. Like asking a dog what its like to be a cat. I think he is looking for people with academic credentials rather than people with experiences. I think he should interview these people with PROFOUND strange experiences that are unexplained....... yet documented and witnessed by others. I think the show will be better at that point.

[@stevedv629]

@@syriouskash537 the whole purpose is to find the deeper truths of existence. Of course he is going to stay scientific. If your looking at this as a spiritual thing you’ve got it all wrong, it’s a philosophical thing

[@syriouskash537]

@@stevedv629 You cant find truth if you only stick to one truth teller. You should ask the Sun Moon and the Stars if you want to find the truth about the cosmos. Not just the moon. Cause I'm sure the sun will have a different spin on things. And will ALSO be telling the truth. See my point?

[@stevedv629]

@@syriouskash537 no

[@syriouskash537]

@@stevedv629 Too bad

[@ukspizzaman]

I cannot stop thinking about time as just a sequence of different configurations of space and mass. Every new configuration has something in between it and something before it, so the order of events is clear.

[@slingshotchicken4695]

No, you can't, that's how a human experiences time. You may use your imagination to try to get past the sequence but experientially you will be dealing with time in the way you describe as long as you're human. We experience it directly through the aging process. "The order of events is clear", agreed and nothing could be more obvious.

[@dennisgalvin2521]

You're right it's just the logical order of causality. "Time passing" is an illusion that was created by the harnessing of our planet's rotations for tracking the day and year's passage".

[@dennisgalvin2521]

@@slingshotchicken4695 He's actually right, it's your imagination that's compromised.

[@richarddeese1087]

1) I'd tend to agree with Leibniz. 2) Doesn't entanglement undo light the cone / causality model? 3) If the interactions between 2 particles gave rise to space / time, then wouldn't enanglement also negate the concept of distance thus defined? Many questions! tavi.

[@LucasGonze]

My best understanding is that time, sequence, and causality are the same, while space is a passive stage. Each moment creates the next moment. We don't travel through time, we proceed from event to event, cause to effect, endlessly. So, yeah, tell me how I'm wrong.

[@adamboots1]

Surely one of the best interviewers in all space

[@creativesource3514]

.....and time.

[@adamboots1]

@@creativesource3514 Spime?

[@SAGARBODKHE]

And the 'space' is derived from the causality of the interview.

[@unitedspacepirates9075]

See interview with sapien's evolutionary descendant. kzbin.info/www/bejne/hJqnqZypiNushpY

[@grahamlyons8522]

Try thinking about time as a measurement of things that have a physical presence and affect other things. Events always include (almost by definition) movement, the movement, from one place to another of something tangible, such as matter or radiation. Time measures the changing movement of objects but has no power, energy, or effect on anything. An accurate analogy is Temperature, which doesn't make a thing hotter or colder, it only measures one particular state of an object. Time is no more a "thing in itself" than is length. Both are measurements. If nothing moved there would be no time.

[@thomassoliton1482]

Yes actually you are correct. As a child I looked at a clock and wondered if I could stop time, or by concentrating on the second hand, slow it down. Obviously one cannot, becauuse it is the movement of the hand from one point to another that we take to represent time. That is how space and time are related. But to go further, don’’t think in terms of material things - ultimately there are only patterns of energy. The clock is a mechanical pattern, the solar system is a gravitational pattern, and so on. Ultimately all “material” objects are just patterns of energy (as far as physicists can determine at this “time”). Then Smollin’s point of view makes sense, that causality is just patterns of energy interacting. Whether one billiard ball striking another, or running into a friend and talking about the football game - in which case the patterns are the stored memories in your brain interacting.

[@tpjmadrigal12]

Not a measurement as it will change depending on the effects of entropy on different types of mass. Its just the process of mass moving toward entropy.

[@ivanmenezes640]

If nothing moved, there would be still time, place a clock in vacuum, time still ticks

[@Alex-vf5yw]

@@ivanmenezes640 but if nothing moves,then clock also doesnt move and doesnt show passage of time... So,if nothing moves (including clock) how would you know the passing of time? Thats the question

[@HaniZaccarelli]

Wrong while it's not possible for all things to stop moving.

[@ceneezer]

I know it sounds egotistical, but right always does to wrong - I find it amazing how complex scientists make the simple. The first dimension is time, circle forward and back, because all things have duration. The second dimension is energy, vibrations along the loop. The third dimension is space, toroidal where each vibration passes through the middle. The fourth dimension is mater, closed-looping branches, along the wavy toroid. ... but the zeroth dimension is soul, an all encompassing point and creator of every perspective. mater requires consciousness, not the other way around.

[@KipIngram]

Something I find interesting is that there are two entirely different ways to regard time in physics. First, we include a time coordinate when we "coordinate map" spacetime. How we do this, exactly, is somewhat arbitrary (I don't have to use the same coordinate system you use), but whatever map you choose you're basically associating four coordinate values with each event in spacetime. That's "time as a coordinate." But then you also EXPERIENCE time. So long as you're considering time-like separated events, you can choose a pair of events in spacetime and be present at both of them. Question - how much time do you experience passing in between your experience of those two events? This is not a fixed number - in particular it's not the difference in the time coordinates. The exactly value of time you experience depends on your path through spacetime between the two events. So this is an entirely independent number. This is "time as experienced." We capture this to some degree by introducing the idea of "proper time" into the theory. So, coordinate time and proper time. Two flavors of things. Also, people make great hay out of the idea that "time didn't exist before the Big Bang." That's sloppy language from the start, because "before" ceases to have any meaning when you leave the coordinate map. It's like trying to ask what the terrestrial latitude and longitude of Tycho crater on the moon are. Or asking what's at latitude 95 degrees north. They're... "not" - Tycho crater is not in the space mapped by the latitude and longitude system. But... it still exists. We are unaware of any "greater frame" that spacetime is embedded in. If we ever discover such a domain, we will need a new coordinate system for it, and we'll have a way to map spacetime coordinates onto it. We've chosen a coordinate system that, by its nature, describes only events in spacetime. That in no way means that's "all there is." It may be, but it also may not be. Think about all the "out there" stuff that has come in in connection with string theory - branes and all that stuff. A lot of those domains are outside of spacetime. I actually think space isn't fundamental anyway - that space is just something we perceive that's telling us about the relationship real things have with one another. This may also be true for time, but I've not gotten to the bottom of that rabbit hole. But the notion of "space with nothing in it" - I don't think that makes any sense.

[@XKS99]

Almost 10 minutes of conversation without clearly saying a single thing. 10/10

[@jigartalaviya2340]

And then few seconds of typing in comment section trying to be a smartass.

[@RyanMiddleton_the_Rhino]

It is clear to those of us who are a little more enlightened.

[@tensevo]

Physicists know everything when they start, then they start to study the Universe, and it breaks them, every last one.

[@rerawho]

Last night I looked up at 8:07 and watched the space station pass overhead. I thought about the humans working, sleeping, living in that small ship with ultra thin walls separating them from the cold vacuum of space. I thought about how I can see their temporary home and that they are actually aging slightly slower than me. That is all.

[@kfossa344]

Wow. I looked up just a little bit ago and saw it at 8:26 and thought to myself, “boy, I sure am stupid for writing this and going to that website to make sure I write down the actual time I’d see it.”

[@garyrolen8764]

Time dilation is a myth based on assumptions made while viewing some rather sophisticated yet flawed math. No experiment has shown that time passes more slowly while traveling faster or further away from a large source of gravity. All we have as a proof of time dilation is the the atomic clock. While the time difference that occurs in earth based clocks vs space station clocks appear to prove time dilation, that is a mistake. It could be a property of the cecium atom. It could be some other phenomenon yet to be explained. It is circular reasoning to use the math, thought experiments based on the math, and a single observable fact to confirm that which is known to be in error. Yes, Albert was brilliant, but his relativity theories are flawed. Like Newton before him, his theories are good enough for our purposes, but not totally accurate.

[@rerawho]

@@garyrolen8764 it’s funny how the flat earth you live on and the orb that I live on is the same planet.

[@garyrolen8764]

@@rerawho so...., You've never heard of dark matter?

[@rerawho]

@@garyrolen8764 of course I have and I recognize a flat earther when I see their whacked opinions.

[@davemmar]

To describe where we are to meet requires height, width and depth plus a time. This makes time a fourth dimension of space no more than a brush, a canvas and paint makes each of these the same when describing a painting.

[@jmocko]

The question I have is how can time be relative while also being a derivative of causality? For example, it's been proven that the gravity applied to an object influences the time that object experiences; an atomic clock on a plane traveling around the world and an atomic clock sitting on earth will read differently. If that's the case, then how can time not be it's own manipulatable vector through which we all flow?

[@san-chil]

An object with a mass sinks into time a little, bending space and causing gravity. Gravity is essentially a tendency of objects with mass to go back in time.

[@moil6384]

this man looks like he's just about to be crushed by the weight of his insights

[@beza0220]

😅nice!

[@docsalas1203]

Lol!

[@rufusdavies379]

goal mood

[@RamirArcega24]

Hahaha

[@antonjoseph3307]

Being crushed by the weight of simplifying it for a less sophisticated mentality. He is in pain.

[@davidluna8372]

Profound , excellent video presentation . Well done and easy to follow .

[@andrewfarmet4243]

Mm P pop Pollo 8o0 00PM pl 0opm ml poor pop p ppl 0

[@charleswilson9559]

@@andrewfarmet4243 gorp snippet ring morphs

[@NextLevel-kv5kn]

The question is what is more fundamental space or position. Postulating space doesn't explain matter but particles with positions do exist in space. So we just need to explain position. In relativity position is just a vector, an ordered triplet of numbers. This doesn't sound as esoteric as space being the arena of existance. In quantum mechanic it's a bit more complicated because positions are no longer points in space but more extended. Positions are connected by forces and forces are caused by time. I made a video explaining everything.

[@BaritoneUkeBeast4Life]

What would really blow these two speakers minds is if they discovered the truth that not only are space and time the same thing, (illusions, since the only time is Now and the only space is Here), but that WE are the Here and Now.

[@EyeLean5280]

Some good animation illustrating these ideas would be very helpful here.

[@WindHashira]

Indeed. Even the scholar was giving a good amount of hand gesture. Very intellectual individual.

[@robrobski]

good luck briefing the animator :)

[@udaychavan2783]

Good suggestion, but they had neither the time nor the space . . . .

[@lemongavine]

@@robrobski exactly

[@switchlaserflip9243]

Use brain

[@WilliamDye-willdye]

I agree. Spacetime is not a stage in which stuff happens, it's our perception of the stuff happening.

[@patrickwithee7625]

But, assuming physical causal closure and consistency *what* is our perception *of*, if not *that* of what-happens/events in spacetime?

[@kratomseeker5258]

i tend to think its alittle of both, things may only move because of a medium that lets it move.

[@karlhungus5436]

@@patrickwithee7625 That's why you don't assume physical causal closure. We're given metaphysical closure by principle. Anything causally operative can only be described, interpreted, measured, experienced within reality itself. That's the starting point. Physical causal closure is D.O.A. hence, quantum uncertainty.

[@yoocabo]

I’ve always “felt” that the two where distinctive of the other. Space to me is distance between point A & B. Time is, what it takes you to get from A to B. Speed of light is not faster than the speed of space.

[@coreymiller6717]

It doesn't matter. You are talking about mutually exclusive ideas. Causality is what defines spacetime.

[@petermartin5030]

Is there a sense in which the ruler and the clock are replaced by light (electromagnetic waves) as the measure of what interactions are possible?.

[@phealy02]

Superb!! Really want to rewind and ask for clarification on a couple of points (as a drop-out Astrophysicist)... but still, superbly done! Thank you.

[@slasher1563]

A drop out astrophysicist is a title almost as cool as astrophysicist

[@civilizedvisualpresence7843]

Dear Dr. Kuhn. Thank you for such a great contribution. Dr. Smolin clearly explained theoretically the causal link between space and time in close relation to events in space and time, because time is not an illusion, particularly when it is applied the Physics, Chemistry, etc in scale. The science in scale together with the utilization of cosmological laws, it explains the differentiation of organizing systems in a certain space and a certain time in the causal link space-time. Doctor Smolin only is using as well known in the scientific circles an effort for experimental agreement of "one single worldedness", to pacify the scientists arguing for the one universe, and those scientists arguing for the multiverse. But "one single worldedness", Dr. Smolin knows as well it is the same attempt that Newton or Leibniz tried at their time in order for their scientific theory to win. Dr. Smolin has done a great job, but he should continue it further in theory with the help of practical experiments of different scales.

[@jaredf6205]

You’re not very good at pretending to look intelligent or knowledgeable lol. Stop embarrassing yourself.

[@civilizedvisualpresence7843]

​@@jaredf6205 Thank you Jared for your opinion, which is a human right. But if you really are knowledgeable in science, particularly in astrophysics, then you should have understood the meaning of the interview of Dr. Smolin with Dr. Kuhn. In that context you should have understood my argument, which was directed to Dr. Kuhn, although it is a public discussion about scientific problems, and not about your profession in hospitality. So, about you accusing another fellow human about pretension of being intelligent and knowledgeable, and even you issue the threat with sweetness to stop self-embarrassment of discussing scientifically about scientific problems with scientific arguments, which you do not understand. So, I cannot accuse you for "lol" ignorance, because ignorance is not a fault, but it is simple that if I do not know something, others can know it better. So, in your case if you do not know something you have the right to express your opinion, which is not scientific. You do not know that the great Newton, meanwhile became famous for his laws of motion in his main work, "Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica", it is not publicized or it is spoken very little, that Newton was conducting experiments and he was a proponent of Alchemy, which was based on utopic delusions of discovering the Philosopher's Stone. In that context, the scientific contribution of Newton is well accepted in our planet Earth, but also it is understood the restrictions of his scientific steps in his thinking that our planet Earth is the "lucky one", as Leibniz was stating in his "Philosophical Essays", that God created our planet Earth as the best world. So, my arguments in scientific view of such restrictions in scientific knowledge of Newton and Leibniz, were in the European religions endorsed, stating that "we are the center of the Universe". The idea that we are the center of the Universe is not true, and it is proved by the existence of other extraterrestrial civilizations, which for I do not need to go in further discussions. If your opinion would have been associated with a question, I would have understood better your point of view, but with your accusations I do not know what kind of point of view you come from. Wish you a long and happy life.

[@timhallas4275]

@@civilizedvisualpresence7843 Doubling down on foolishness is pathetic. You should have taken that man's advice.

[@civilizedvisualpresence7843]

@@timhallas4275 I agree with the man's advice if they are a scientist, but not like that specific man that you speak about, who's profession is in hospitality and not in science. Have a long and happy life, and forget about your frequent foolishness in friendship of your circle. I play the piano for pleasure and not as my profession, so if you are jealous of my piano, you can discuss about music, but not about science.

[@GamingBlake2002]

@@civilizedvisualpresence7843 “…and it is proved by the existence of other extraterrestrial civilizations, which for I do not need to go in further discussions.” Seems legit.

[@axle.student]

7:01 I know this is an old video. But I am often mocked as a nutter for asking or considering the possibility of time being fundamental. It is possible and even plausible that in the space-time relationship by giving primacy to time with space (Empty expanse) as an unavoidable emergent property of time (time-space), that many questions in physics seam to fall into place including a universe from nothing, and what "appears" to be an infinite universe. I don't think this perspective would have any dramatic negative influence on our current math in physics.

[@richardberger9021]

space is simply the time distance (time it takes light) to communicate from point A to B, so spacial co-ordinates can be re-written as time co-ordinates. The idea that time = causality does then unify the picture at least philosophically (the math is beyond me).

[@jfyre1ify]

There's 10 minutes through the space-time Continuum that I will never get back!⌚

[@herbertwells8757]

And how long did you take to type this trite drivel?

[@michaelellis6437]

really want to hear the next 3 or 4 hours of this conversation where is smolin going with this? how in the world could time be ... fundamental? it took years to get comfortable with it being emergent.

[@scienceisall2632]

It’s intuitive to me that it’s just emergent, or an accounting parameter. It’s almost like the Einstein accelerating frame of reference. Without something to reference yourself to (arrangement to measure), then there’s no way of telling time exists

[@ivocanevo]

Me too. Continue!

[@booJay]

If general relativity predicts a block universe, but quantum mechanics doesn't (necessarily), and quantum mechanics is apparently the more accurate theory, what kind of universe does QM create? A growing block universe? Does it side more with presentism? Something else altogether?

[@donthurtmyfeelingsplz]

Read his books

[@nlabanok]

This conversation illustrates how profound and universally-relevant is the question "which came first, the chicken....or the egg?".

[@J-CBertrand-tp6bg]

Because to go from any point A to any point B, you need both Space and Time. Like electricity and magnetism, both Space and Time are inextricably and eternally bound together. 😊

[@damienhansen7553]

As for how space became you got me, time is just a metric of measurement relative to the viewer of said space. Why things move forward, build then decay, begin & end I also have no answer.

[@philharmer198]

Space just is . And its three dimensional . On Earth as well . Time zones . To your last statement , because something will always exist . And this something recycles its self for infinity .

[@davilated]

I love the content this channel is putting out. Fascinating discussion.

[@josephfreetimer1736]

Mostly fascinating....I think it's about time to stop this philo-madness. It doesn't sound "profound" anymore, it nearly sounds ridiculous. Help my brain connect with my mind here: Where is all this "expanding space" expanding into? Anti-space? Conversation like this, even if they have more than 400 years of philosophy, (because let's get grounded here, it's all mental-matters, not our actual experience), it all sounds like a black hole for our common sense, interpreted as "profound deep inquiry". Do people actually get paid to sit on their couches and drool in their own thoughts. Strange occupation.

[@mattongbp]

Stupid riddle that waste resources cannot be proven like chicken and egg. Chicken is the only logical answer. Egg needs fertilization and incubation to become chicken. OLDEST SCAM of "RnD" for getting paid.

[@johngrono]

joseph Freetimer look deeper my friend….free inquiry has brought about all your/our conveniences…

[@davilated]

@@johngrono what do you mean by this?

[@davilated]

@@josephfreetimer1736 it’s not the most straightforward concept to explain, but I’ll do my best: Imagine a graph, or perhaps better, a map, drawn on a grid fixed so that every location (point on the graph) has a location defined in reference to coordinates on that grid. Now, imagine lengthening all the edges of the grid’s squares, so that the graph/map/whatever you’re imagining drawn on it stretches along every axis. That’s what expansion of space in the universe is like, except that the matter within the space (everything physical) is ‘confined’ by the attractive forces (electromagnetic, gravitational, strong, weak) it feels and imposes on all the rest of the matter local to it - such as, for example, the attractive force the sun and the earth have on each other as they orbit - keeps the material within the universe “locked” into relative positions with respect to other matter, so that although the fabric of space within which it is contextualised expands, the matter experiences only the slightest of affects, which are dwarfed by the much stronger affects of the forces, due to fields such as the gravitational field which drives change in their relative positions. This is general. Actually you are (at all times) being pulled outwards in all directions simultaneously by the expansion of space, however the attractive forces (predominantly electromagnetic and strong) between your constituent atoms, and the subatomic particles within them keeps you whole. Without these, you would spread out into a diffuse cloud (albeit imperceptibly slowly) as the universe you are imbedded within gradually expands. Note that this gradual expansion is radically slower and less impactful than the rapid expansion the universe likely underwent in its inflationary phase (according to our most likely theories). Source: studied physics/maths. Hope that clarifies. Feel free to ask me any other q’s you have.

[@neochris2]

The intuition I follow is that both notions (space and time) relate to "distance" between things. Something that is farther away takes more time to reach. Something takes more time because it is farther away. Both measure how difficult it is (as in how much energy is required) to go from point A to B. It's a degree of separation.The Big Bang separated the singularity into infinity of pieces. But what does separation mean? It means adding space, or time, between the pieces. And we can observe both space and time keep going and expanding. The chain of causality they mention in the video is all these parts, energy, traveling through the spacetime.

[@lunam7249]

Good

[@AndyCutright]

Doesn't that violate special relativity? Depending on the speed at which your traveling the amount of time you experience to travel the same distance is different right? And as you approach a large mass or travel away from it, time either slows down or speeds up. This is why our GPS satellites have to account for quantum effects.

[@jderoma4382]

So at a quantum level the farther you are away the more events have to occur before you arrive. Could it be that time emerges from these events? I believe Carlo Rovelli wrote about this in Quantum Gravity.

[@robertmack4351]

Check out the inverse square law ... Then check out the red shift. What comes out of both is the interchangeability shifts between the two. It's more about our perceptions than the effects that we call physics. The same is true for numbers .. Numbers are a numerical makeup for the chronological whereabouts of 'static footprints'. Once the footprints themselves have been dialed up, a replay is then experienced. We can apply this reasoning to De Ja Vu'. The dialing up footprints is done using prime numbers. Each prime is a static parking spot. If we just pull into the parking spot, then the memory replays as the effect of that cause. However though, if we pull forward, then back into the same parking spot we 'overshot that static prime and came to rest on the following static prime ... before the backing up began. If we see this overshooting in the form of amplitudes, then backing into that target parking spot caused a repeat of itself ... or, the De Ja Ju' episode.

[@noelwass4738]

We have the four-dimensional Lorentzian distance between two events where there is a signature of +1, -1, -1, -1 with +1 used for the time coordinate and -1 used for the three spatial coordinates. The fact that it is almost like the Pythagorean formula except here is a sign change shows the connection. Einstein showed this distance formula is invariant under a change of inertial reference frame and more with his special theory of relativity. This to me shows the close connection between time and space. This was not mentioned but to me this is the most important connection.

[@luisluiscunha]

And then, almost when I was turning KZbin off to sleep, I see this video and my mind is blown up... This seems like an episode from the Twilight Zone when person discovered the answer to what reality was.

[@patrickregan3302]

Reality is what already happened! Or did it!?!? 0=;,”????????

[@charlesbrightman4237]

Modern science claims that all matter is made up of quarks, electrons and interacting energy. BUT, do all things even actually exist, OR do ONLY quarks, electrons and interacting energy exist as all things???????? "I" exist and yet "I" do not exist, depending upon perspective. And how could "I" ever die if "I" never ever existed at all in the first place????????

[@KibyNykraft]

@@charlesbrightman4237 Regarding black "holes" that he walks into around 4'30 , I suggest one reads through this article to see some of the problems with the contradictions in the rather postmodernistic or neo-esoteric version of speculation. milesmathis.com/black2.html It is kind of comical that one f ex claims that black holes are black because they do not emit anything ,and then say they emit x-rays (which is a form of photonic waves)..

[@charlesbrightman4237]

@@KibyNykraft Without reading the article, I agree with you as far as stuff being emitted from a black hole. Either absolutely nothing gets emitted from a black hole, or an absolute something gets emitted from a black hole. Electromagnetism is something and not nothing. It's also like people claiming that outer space is empty. Nope. It is filled with electromagnetism in various electromagnetic energy frequencies at an absolute minimum. "The best way to deal with absolute truth reality is to deal with absolute truth reality. And if one is not dealing with absolute truth reality, then one is not dealing with absolute truth reality. Find and deal with absolute truth reality." (OSICA)

[@KibyNykraft]

@@charlesbrightman4237 Personally I don't think it is "empty". Some of the things you mentioned is more or less suggested clarified in the article

[@noname_whatever]

This is so fascinating to me, but I wonder how to really understand it.

[@bobjohnson2154]

One way is mathematically via the models of quantum mechanics (complex vector spaces) and general relativity (differential geometry).

[@liamlieblein6375]

An intuitive approach would be to think about walking. I walk from my bed to the door. These are two distinct points in space and time, i.e. where I am is a distance away from where I'll be, and when I am is a distance away from when I'll be. Now add in a magical observer a light year away, who watches me walk to the door by analyzing the light that bounced off me. It takes a year for the light to get to the observer, adding another distance in both space and time. Relative to the observer, that event (which caused the information on the light that informed the observer to exist) is happening right now (since they are seeing it right now). Relative to me, it happened a year ago, likely in a very different place from where I am then. What relativity says is that both people (or frames of reference) are correct; time and space are relative to the observer. Now what can we say about the relations of these two people? If I wanted to tell the observer something, causing a thought process in them, light would have to travel to them. The relative amount of time it would take IS the amount of space between us, and so the two are isomorphic (can be mapped onto one another 1 to 1). This is how space and time are combined into spacetime, and their relation is entirely constituted by causality, specifically its sequencing (how long it takes for information to travel). Hope that helps a little.

[@andrewcarr2431]

space and time are simply dimensions. If you want to meet me at a place (space) you need to know the time, conversely if I say meet at 12 noon, you say where (which location or space). one cannot exist without the other, hence the definition space-time. If the sun were to suddenly be switched off or cease to exist, it would take 8 minutes until we realise it. at which point it is too late. 8 minutes of unaware bliss... cause and effect, with space-time.

[@liamlieblein6375]

@Gourav Gupta In order for information to inform, it needs a time and place to inform. If this were not so, who is going to receive the information? Eliminate space first, and just propagate information through time. Is the entire universe now aware of this information for the rest of time? Where did it come from? Where does it apply? You dont get a lot of info without the spatial coordinate. Now eliminate time. Does my entire timeline now have the information? If that's so, could I use that info to change my future, creating paradoxes? When is this info applicable? Without the time coordinate, information will either be paradoxical or unusable.

[@alexpearson8481]

I could be wrong, but I think he’s just simply saying that time preceded the Big Bang. Where as space did not. Extrapolating; could really lead towards other dimensions / Universes.

[@williambunting803]

You have to think of this as time, space, and energy. Time is emergent when energy moves through a static loop energy field at a non infinite speed terminal speed. Where energy moves in one direction only there is time but no space, however for there to be a field there must be space. Where energy moves in two non planar directions space is emergent. Matter energy moving through a static energy loop field exponentially and elastically increases the field energy level of the field.

[@malk6277]

Terrific interview. Thank you. I am not in any way qualified to draw conclusions on the subject matter, but my gut screams that time is in fact emergent. I understand that lack of technical progress with a theory necessarily colors our judgement of it, but we should step back and consider the quality of this particular juncture. Perhaps more than any other obstacle we've faced, understanding this aspect of reality may be the most challenging. In this type of situation, it seems to me that partial progress with easier postulates should be suspected to be caused only by the relative ease of the postulates, and not them being rooted deeper in truth. It is inherently easier to consider that something (ANYTHING) is primary, while all else is emergent. The frame of reference that provides is inherently psychologically reassuring, as well as mathematically grounding. And time is of course the most likely candidate for us to WANT it to be primary and non-emergent. It seems to rule our lives so completely: to be a phenomenon we cannot harness or manipulate (yet) the way science has habituated us to expecting it will allow for us to do. But that does not make it fundamentally or universally true that time is primary, anymore than Newtonian physics was fundamentally and universally true. Newtonian physics just worked really well for us until we discovered areas of reality in which it didn't. From my limited perspective, this is what comes to mind when I hear the bias against time being emergent.

[@waedjradi]

The abstract of what was said near the end; makes you want to cry.

[@olh_hlo]

That we aren't ultimately connected? We are all made of existence.

[@abeautifuldayful]

@@olh_hlo What do you mean? They ended with a question, but you with an answer that makes no sense to me unless you mean we are only made of matter, maybe? Do you think a thought is made of matter, then too, and our thoughts are not really part of us but emerge and submerge back into our brains without existence? Is that what we mean by spirits? Your attempt at philosophy seems poetic, though, unless you mean something else.

[@williamesselman3102]

We hate your New Age religion of scientism.

[@williamesselman3102]

Or like China.

[@williamesselman3102]

I know you are China.

[@jennieohk6911]

As nerdy as it is to have a favorite theoretical physicist.... I absolutely have one.... several actually. Julian Barbour has been my fav a long time now. This video makes me so happy. I've heard snippets here and there over this past year that smacked heavily of his work and have been listening for his name. Of course it would be the impeccable Lee Smolin who gave the nod! (Another fav) Apparently the theory has been helpful in fluid dynamics .. idk how I have no clue what fluid dynamics even is. I heard it mentioned briefly in another lecture like 6 or more yrs ago. 😁😁😁😁😁😁😁

[@mrknesiah]

“Causality is the fundamental aspect of time.” Exactly. Time exists only in our imagination. “There is no time.”

[@RodMartinJr]

Very interesting. Paradigm-induced blindness. Sedentary certainty on certain mindsets or worldviews can block us from seeing solutions which could prove more obvious to less lofty intellects which enjoy greater humility. *_Consider this:_* There are two sets of frameworks -- one is dichotomous and the other is not. 1) The non-dichotomous framework contains only perfections -- states which remain at 100% or 0% and thus this framework might be considered "digital" in nature. 2) The dichotomous framework contains states which look like the perfections by they are attached to their opposites through an infinite array of possible states and thus this framework might be considered "analog" in nature. The dichotomous framework is based on continuity of states (like locations in space; not "friendly" to discontinuities). This condition of "continuity" forces the dichotomous realm to become entirely deterministic; no free will. Everything is a cog in the machine of deterministic reality. The four fundamental elements of this framework are space, time, energy and mass. With these elements you can combine them to describe virtually every state possible -- space and time to describe velocity and acceleration; space and mass to describe density; etc. The non-dichotomous framework is based on discontinuity of states and thus allows for free will. This framework is pure cause but no effect, and is thus the superior framework. The four elements of the non-dichotomous framework are more relational -- love, responsibility, humility and confidence. These can be combined to form other derivative states like compassion, competence, gratitude, generosity, faith, etc. It is interesting to note comparisons between the four dichotomous elements and the four non-dichotomous elements: * Space and Love are, in a sense, opposites; space allows separation while love brings us together. * Time and Responsibility are opposites; time allows persistence while responsibility eliminates persistence. And we find this effect in trauma versus therapy. * Energy and Humility are opposites; energy allows physical control while humility gives up any need for control. * Mass and Confidence are opposites; mass allows attachment or entrapment (think: black hole) while confidence allows freedom from such things. REFERENCES: *_The Logical Christian_* (hardcover) *_Trinity Treason: How the church betrayed its flock with the only unforgivable sin_* (hardcover, paperback, ebook) *_The Bible's Hidden Wisdom: God's Reason for Noah's Flood_* (hardcover, paperback, ebook) *_Meaning and Context: Creation_* (hardcover, paperback, ebook) *_Enemies of Christ_* (hardcover, paperback, ebook) *_The Science of Miracles_* (hardcover, paperback, ebook) *_Four Elements of God_* (hardcover, paperback, ebook) *_Proof of God_* (hardcover, paperback, ebook) *_The Art of Forgiveness_* (hardcover, paperback, ebook) *_Dumb Genius: How intelligence is sometimes its own worst enemy_* (hardcover, paperback, ebook)

[@VinciGlassArt]

I've wondered if quantum entanglement itself describes time as being a flat object or characteristic of reality, rather than our perceived river of cause and effect. This stuff is so good. Although rather abstract, these notions give more of a feeling of deep wonder toward creation than any books or stories ever did.

[@DJWESG1]

Diogenes had it right from the start. "All things that come into being are a conflict of opposites, the sum of those opposites, flow like a river"

[@sammencia7945]

I view it as the flipside of statistical nature of QM. Entanglement keeps particles in check across the universe.

[@axle.australian.patriot]

Nice talk :) Although not a physicist in recent decades I have come to think of space and progression/time as the being the polar opposite of one and the same thing. A bit like the concept of photon polar orientation or quantum states. Space and time can flip states under certain conditions where time becomes space and space becomes time such as the even horizon of a black hole. But then I do sometime feel to subscribe to my thinking that everything we perceive is nothing more than an elaborate holographic universe stored on a massive advanced static computer like data system.

[@christineliang4670]

The fundamental question is whether space is a framework, and absolute background, or space is an aspect of reality that grows out of a network of relationships of causality of change. @1:37

[@paulstuart551]

The rotation of masses is "spacetime". Time is a construct of the orbits of the Earth & Sun which we use, other objects in rotation create a different "time" according to their mass & rotation speed. Matter & electromagnetism interact as happens in galaxies & even the charge of particles changing; greater combinations create new atoms - elements. Black holes have no core, they are just massive amounts of super hot plasma circling after a large star has imploded due to the collapse of an unstable core unable to hold. In collapsed neutron stars the atomic reaction is more complex & they spin so rapidly that jets are expelled from a hollow centre. Space does not distort but rather the many waves meeting that pass through it. Plasma is often emitted & the electromagnetic force affects the particles it carries, this either collects to form new stars or is attracted by another. An endless cyclical relationship within the massive & quantum.

[@Knapweed]

It sounds like he's explaining time as a movie with an infinitely fast frame rate, each frame being a 'moment' in time.

[@contessa.adella]

Well..kind of…but not infinitely fast. Time has a minimum interval. Plank time. This is the time it takes for light to cross the plank length…Which in practice means the minimum wavelength of a photon that can exist. It is incredibly short…billions of times more brief than our best clocks can register. Something like 10e-48 seconds.

[@Knapweed]

@@contessa.adella That's a conundrum, how do they know how how short it is if they can't measure it or is it just a calculation?

[@joblo497]

I'm gonna need a much faster connection ⚡

[@user-gd7mf1ow3l]

We are living in a digital universe

[@VBshredder]

The deeper these conversations get, the more it sounds like we are discovering how the simulation we are in is produced. That casuality creates what we call space, certainly.

[@wfp9378]

It fills me with awe. My son programmers computer simulations and the fractal of this, at least to me, is that there is a designer behind this phenomenal complex simulation. For others I realise it doesn’t point to that. But I sure hope they are wrong as I want to ask so many questions. Only time will tell.

[@slingshotchicken4695]

You would be wise to deal with what you are calling a "simulation" as reality. If I viewed life on planet Earth as merely a simulation I would definitely be requesting tech support for some major adjustments. Maybe you aren't in a simulation at all, maybe you are "in" what is real and you are the simulation. That is just as viable for me in your case, just some simulation for me to deal with as I please. When you shed the layers maybe you are really just a simulation of a simulation of a guy who doesn't want to admit the table is real until someone smashes your head into the table. You are merely the speculation of a simulation, like a photo of a fake Gucci bag. The real Gucci bag is beyond your grasp, and the real Universe is actually the real Gucci bag in Caitlyn Jenners closet as she/he is is just a simulation of a man/woman. Even your thoughts are a simulation. I think you get the idea of what I think about you calling reality a simulation, it's like believing the election was rigged. This is as real as it gets, if you want to pretend life is a computer game I think the pain and suffering may teach you ohterwise.

[@coryseegmiller30]

@@slingshotchicken4695, or, the reality of the situation could be that, while our experiences in this reality are real, we are all pilgrims in this place. This is not our end destination, but is a place for us to check into, learn from, and then check out of. Once on the other side of the pilgrimage, we, as changed individuals, get to look back at our life in the simulation and determine how well we did with what we were given. We move from an existence in eternity, to an existence in time, back to an existence in eternity so that we can experience the change that we can only receive when we exist in time. Without time, there would be no way for us to measure our change, so the time element of the simulation allows us to see where we've been and take stock of our progress.

[@Aguijon1982]

Who is simulating the simulators then?

[@danieltaillefer3604]

I think because each of us are "embodied", we are experiencing the prison of time, where we come, live and die (or go), for a very short period of time. While in this short moment, we are already biased because we cannot observe the "whole thing" from outside the prison. Maybe the energy composing each of us knows (or used to know) what the global scheme is made of, before we ended up existing in our material body. Maybe the general scheme isn't concevable for us, creatures, because we keep thinking the world (time, space, things, ideas) as having borders. If everything is infinite (hard to conceive when see a bird smashing a glass window or a relative die/stop breathing), not knowing if our dull senses are just unable to perceive what may just be a transformation. Further, faster, other, elsewhere, all those concepts that we have invented (to the best of our experience), is the best effort we come up with to be able to find comfort, so that we can d9mehow be able to wrap our heads around...something. If there is something. Even "everything" may not be enough of a concept to explain what we are made of and what this all about. Understanding time and space, or better space-time, may make us fell that are getting closer a greater undestandind but we have to first be really sure that buildings blocks we are playing with are the right ones.

[@rolandsahlander2239]

Really interesting down to earth person that I could listen to all day. I've been thinking the same thing but I definitely lean towards time being an emergent property of more fundamental things interacting, such that it does not exist. The same thing goes for space. Space is "is" that thing interacting i.e. space is just energy fields and configurations providing certain interactions and dynamics. This is of course very complicated as energy exists in many different ways: fundamental forces, solid masses, vacuum with particles blinking in and out of existence and certain quantum environments (think about cmb, dark matter, vacum decay etc). From that perspective I'd like to visualize it such that space, or energy, flows through objects. In certain cases it's very obvious, like with the fundamental forces. In other cases it's only noticeable when you travel at large speeds or hang out with massive objects. This flow slows internal speed, but not external speed. Which then is a way to view time dilation. Of course, these are all very complicated relationships (hyperbolic for instance) but at its core, at the end of the day, it's "just" a swim through a surprisingly complex but structured soup.