Nima Arkani-Hamed - 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 called 'spacetime'? One cannot understand existence without understanding spacetime.
Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Watch more interviews on space-time: bit.ly/3us2Hxh
Nima Arkani-Hamed (born 5 April 1972) is a Canadian/American theoretical physicist with interests in high-energy physics, string theory and cosmology. Formerly a professor at Harvard, Arkani-Hamed is now on the faculty at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton.
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.

[@NP1066]

Closer to Truth is literally the best channel on youtube. Robert Kuhn PLEASE do not stop reaching out to people and bringing out these wonderful discussions!

[@geoden]

Yes I agree, Mr. Kuhn seeks and talks truth.

[@alikeyvanfar282]

Cool Worlds is just as great as this channel. Give it a try if you haven’t yet.

[@dot73]

This is one genuine human. Saying "We don't know" is the peak.

[@peaceonearth351]

Who's says religion and science can't co-exist, though? Isn't science just learning God? It's good to ask questions but every time we answer one, multiple other questions pop up.

[@trollobite1629]

@@peaceonearth351 They can't exist because science says we don't know anything about the prevailing conditions or the cause of the expansion of the universe whilst religious types are much bolder and will tell you they do know the cause and that cause was God.

[@diegovalencia5405]

​@@trollobite1629 But what if god was inferred to be the unknowable ontological primitive? In other words, what if science describes and predicts the "movements" within god, but god itself cannot be known, since to know something we have to necessarily reduce it to an abstraction? Leaving the term "religion" behind (due to my dislike in the institutionalization of spirituality), I believe spirituality explores the realm of "being" or consciousness, whilst science explores the realm of "existence" or matter, understanding "existance" as the abstraction of "being", and "being" as the abstraction of god (which I naively attempt to understand as that which experiences but is not limited to any experience in particular). In this sense I believe both spirituality and science can co-exist as valid inquiry practices as they both assume that we don't know how or why the ontological primitive is, but explore different aspects of its abstractions.

[@westnblu]

@@peaceonearth351 Well... b4 the secular word scientist was introduced to the vocabulary a scientist was called a natural philosopher and science was natural philosophy. The idea being if u can better understand how nature works u can get a better understanding of God. A rather romanticized and quaint vision of science they had back then compared to how we understand science today but thats ok. Some ppl would prefer we revert back to calling it natural philosophy haha. Copernicus and Isaac Newton being examples of natural philosophers.

[@ericlind6581]

@@peaceonearth351 What is your definition of God though?

[@KpxUrz5745]

It seems that the conclusion of every video on these topics is that we really don't understand anything.

[@wills7817]

This is why we need more. Just to be sure... That we aren't sure.

[@noldyrallatep1946]

Exactly we don't understand anything that we don't exist.

[@louisdigitaldad]

But you hear many factual statements being made so we do know a lot. We also don’t know a lot and it’s why we should always search for a higher understanding.

[@PhilthCollinz]

This is the folly of corporate thinking, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW EVERYTHING, if u did u would be GOD

[@axumitedessalegn3549]

@@PhilthCollinz that's a very human centric way of thinking about it. which is i gues impossible to not do.

[@djvelocity]

Nima is one of my favorite theoretical physicists! Have you seen him in the documentary about CERN entitled “Particle Fever”? Unbelievable, how his mind works. Truly genius personified! 😊🙌📚

[@evilwayz1464]

No i haven't but I'm about too

[@soulwaves20000]

They’re insane trying to make black holes 🖕🏼🖕🏼🔪🔪👿👺

[@djvelocity]

@@soulwaves20000 it sounds like you don’t fully understand the work that is being done. A lot of black hole research is theoretical, as we cannot really test such things definitively. Any black holes (or more likely, wormholes) created in the physical world would be so unstable and small that they would instantly collapse in upon themselves almost instantaneously. I encourage you to read more about the subject. You’ll find it to be infinitely fascinating

[@geoden]

Yes, there is no doubt that Nima is a gem.

[@soulwaves20000]

@@djvelocity a black hole is literally that which has collapsed on itself. You have no idea about any of this, and l would return your advice back onto you but lm afraid you’re just not built to understand any of it.

[@amirtambe2957]

TBH. I am just glad there are thinking & clever people who are researching the other sides. Being right or wrong comes later, sincere dedication to one's own subject and putting forth a scientifically logical idea is much needed in today's scientific society. It will get us closer to the truth. I wish these guys all the best & hope they stay on their course.

[@djvelocity]

Well put. I enjoyed reading your thoughts 😊🙌

[@Issac117]

I agree. I often wonder how much closer we'd be to understanding reality if so many brilliant people didn't have to spend so much time just making sure they keep their job.

[@djvelocity]

@@Issac117 your dream will come to fruition as universal basic income becomes a reality or the course of the next few decades with the introduction of artificial intelligence 😊🙌

[@John-tc9gp]

i like lamp

[@natmol1595]

Do you have any scientific proof of 'gravity'?...using the scientific method? Can you really manipulate so called 'gravity'?...errr....no !. NOT SCIENCE THEN 😀😁😂

[@if6was929]

I try to follow these videos but usually get lost in less than a minute. I'm really going to try to follow this one... Oh, look, something shiny! o.0

[@juddotto3660]

That's exactly what they're talking about, shiny space time. You've got it

[@MJ-ix7wm]

Yea. Me too.

[@andradas9688]

@Jupiter rules "If you dont understand what they say . It means they lie"...wow...that's a new one to me! Please, don't use Jupiter as part of your nickname. Use things like "idiot rules".

[@catherinemoore9534]

To see and hear a human being able to think and understand such mysteries is beyond impressive: it's astounding!

[@billbixby557]

If schools / societies were restructured to emphasize these Concepts at a young age, this conversation would be commonplace not mind blowing. I'd bet this guy isn't off the charts intelligent, that's not a dig - stay with me here, rather a moderate to fairly intelligent individual with a true interest in this subject and just as importantly not diluted by archaic cultural / religious beliefs that often fiercely oppose each and every word he speaks.

[@chriscatron6774]

Lo

[@sammieschouten8701]

It is. However we made those things up which is still impressive but we of course don't understand the whole thing

[@AamirKhan-hc7vo]

If he can explain it then it's not mysterious

[@theliamofella]

@@billbixby557 true, I have got a reputation as being an intelligent person because I know some things about physics and philosophy and epistemology and history and cosmology etc but anyone who knows me well knows that I am far from being highly intelligent, I probably am struggling to be average intelligence but I just have a deep interest in these subjects

[@thefish5861]

I now have a splitting headache.

[@jcharles8838]

Lol 😀

[@Ro-12-21]

Truth... it is surprisingly difficult to wander into the areas of KZbin which are not complete idiocy...

[@nw82534]

Glad my old D&D dungeon master is doing well.

[@philipnewland1433]

I preferred this dude when he was in Creed

[@tobytoxic]

bruh....

[@nick24mobi]

Lmao 🤣

[@Rasta426]

KZbin really should have LMAO button....fr....

[@luckyday6356]

One, oh one, space and time are one.

[@streetmagik3105]

I think that's genuinely the first time Creed has ever been "preferred" over anything. 🤔

[@TheDoomWizard]

This channel makes my brain melt

[@StallionFernando]

Hold up, let me slow down the video too 0.25x and nod my head pretending I understood what he was saying.... "ah yes!! Now I see!"

[@ANGEL-eh6pd]

Try speeding it up. My ENFP, ADHD brain can t even keep up! Imagine and visualize him teaching a class pacing back and forth, I'd get sea sick. Lol

[@gr33nDestiny]

One if the best episodes I have seen and I watch heaps here! Fantastic, I want to see more episodes like this!

[@existncdotcom5277]

.Woman: “Two questions please Mr. Einstein… What is Space and what is Time.? Einstein: “Ok. What is your second question”

[@saswatagupta5288]

Good one 😂

[@paulwolf3302]

Blame it on Einstein if you want, but Minkowski was responsible for that.

[@andradas9688]

@@paulwolf3302 good point, but then you have to go back to Lorentz and Poincaré, among others. I am not suggesting that Einstein is not a unique genius, but hadn't he gone to the US, I don't think he'd have achieved such popularity. He did not pursue that popularity, but that's how societies work. It is important to have a household name.

[@soubhikmukherjee6871]

Congrats on 300K!

[@Jonnygurudesigns]

!!!!!!!!!!

[@sourcecode6467]

It's great, but I'm not sure why a channel of this calibre hasn't got tens of millions of subs.

[@user-qc4kg1gz6b]

@@sourcecode6467 The Big Bang Theory and Theoretical Physics

[@user-qc4kg1gz6b]

@@Jonnygurudesigns We ask mathematicians and physicists to develop a M- theory through by completing and formulating the theory , such a formulation should describe two- and five-dimensional objects called branes and should be approximated by eleven-dimensional supergravity at low energies. Modern attempts to formulate M- theory are typically based on matrix theory or the AdS/CFT correspondence Therefore, there are three M-theory questions for strings and membranes The first question about the description of supergravity in the theory of Matrix theory and AdS/CFT correspondence Does completing M- theory require Matrix theory or AdS/CFT correspondence? The second question about the creation of four-dimensional universes of space-time in M- theory Do the AdS/CFT correspondence and the theory of Matrix need the theory of F in order to create four- dimensional universes with different physical laws? The third question about supergravity and the three theories What is the best theory to describe supergravity in M- theory? Is it F-theory or Matrix theory or AdS/CFT correspondence??? Please send these requests mentioned above as well as the three questions to mathematicians and physicists .

[@Jonnygurudesigns]

@@user-qc4kg1gz6b OK, where do I send their responses?

[@martingruebler443]

His mouth trying to keep up with his mind

[@gammakeraulophon]

Yeah .. I noticed the drivel also.

[@copakabana6837]

I totally see it 😃

[@LyricalOutlaw]

When language fails

[@peaceonearth351]

His mind trying to keep up with his mouth. Forgive them for they know not what they do. "Jesus Christ"

[@gammakeraulophon]

@@peaceonearth351 My feel for things exactly. 👍

[@stevefaure415]

I get this one. "It's simply impossible to make sense of space and time separations." I stopped it right there, I finally won.

[@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.

[@thedudegrowsfood284]

@@ericfarina9609 I am the walrus

[@stevefaure415]

@@ericfarina9609 Obviously

[@canyadigit6274]

@@thedudegrowsfood284 loved that reference 😂

[@franzhaas5597]

@@ericfarina9609 All is CONSCIOUSNESS.

[@51elephantchang]

You don't need to understand every detail of what a brilliant man says to intuitively grasp his brilliance.

[@TheMemesofDestruction]

Congratulations on 300k! ^.^

[@KokoRicky]

I've been a bit confused for some time about Planck time and space and with few words, this guy really broke it down for me. I didn't realize that the energy requirement for probing those distances caused collapse! It explains quite well why there's a sudden brick wall at those scales.

[@marxxthespot]

We have lived in a paradigm where time, space & matter seemed to exist in a material Universe like a complex, vast and dynamic mechanism. This coincided with the emergence of incredible mechanical technology. Now we are entering a paradigm shift into a non-material, information based holographic/ virtual Universe that, I suspect, will coincide with equally (or even more incredible) technology that links directly to the neural network of consciousness that we are just starting to understand (from a scientific perspective) as THE fundamental building block of our universe (and NOT time, space & matter… which are actually not “real”). These technologies may also be able to modify/influence the rules that govern this network (which we already know surpass the laws of physics as we used to understand them!)

[@OdiVonDobi22]

This is so cool, thank you.

[@osip7315]

nima has an unusual ability to tailor the level of abstraction to the audience without confabulating which makes him a good communicator interestingly, robert kuhn has become a much better interviewer, a subtle progressive development, a targeted, more spare style that brings out the best in the interviewee

[@Williamb612]

Space and time comprise the same thing…this is different than being the same thing You cannot have one without the other…like the molecule H2O… Space is the plane upon which time (movement) ocurrs…without space there can be no movement, and without movement there can be no time.

[@jimmurphy6095]

But that headline won't get the clicks...

[@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.

[@Williamb612]

@@ericfarina9609 EF…the only precise measurement is infinity which is immeasurable …. best to play in our basket of oranges and apples

[@ericfarina9609]

@@Williamb612 Infinity is not immeasurable, as I just demonstrated. It is incalcuable, which is something else entirely. Measuring infinity in relative terms is actually the only way to unify Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity. I hear that is something scientists want to do... However their actions tell me a different story.

[@geoden]

@@ericfarina9609 Your post was very good. But I know from writing longish posts myself, around 99% of YT viewers don't read them. A great shame but a true reflection of most people who simply want instant gratification. If it's not what they believe or want, they don't like it. A perfect example of how not to learn.

[@Takeitinnblood]

In order for a thing to be different from another, this requires that there be some difference(s) in form or quality. For example, fire & water are distinguished from each other because of differences in form or quality; inasmuch as, for one, the former can incinerate while the latter can hydrate but not vice versa. So that where there's no difference(s) in form or quality, there's no differentiation; whereby there can't be two different things, but one & the same thing. Yet, space & time have a difference in form or quality; of which one example is that spatial relations are reversible, while temporal relations aren't. In other words, spatial forms can have a certain order among themselves that's reversible; for example, a circle can be placed before a triangle & this triangle can be placed before a square, & then, in turn, the contrary order is possible, as the aforementioned square can be placed before the aforementioned triangle & this triangle can be placed before the aforementioned circle. Although temporal relations aren't reversible as such; for example, the conception of a zygote comes before the birth of the child, but the birth of this child can't, in turn, come before its conception as a zygote; thus making the contrary order impossible. So that space & time can't possibly be one & the same thing, precisely because of their difference in form or quality (of which reversibility is one example).

[@projectmalus]

If there is something we call entropy, wouldn't this imply that spatial relations are not reversible but it might seem that way locally?

[@AndroidMinutes]

You can tell he likes Physics a lot! He talks about the universe like I talk about marvel movies.

[@mintakan003]

The idea of holography, of limiting bits of information, projected into a higher dimension (3D), can help explain the limits of resolution in spacetime. Can it also be a basis for explaining both locality, and non-locality?

[@positive120]

How can you define limits? It is impossible.

[@mintakan003]

@@positive120 E.g. Planck length ...

[@temporallabsol9531]

@@mintakan003 ousted by sub GOs

[@lickenchicken143]

no, no, and no: Lima states we cannot generalize holography into spacetime in the video. The other two are reframed by the idea of holography whereby locality and non locality are not the important features of three dimensional space...

[@verily360]

Our telescopes can see stuff we did not evolve to see or understand. Gonna take a long time to get this. Even with genius.

[@Maheep_Infinity]

From few thousands to now 300 thousands... I have been here 💟

[@ytube1286]

I believe the time is a human expression so that's our brains can understand the continuous changes around us, but in reality, it's just the continuous changes in states and interactions between everything in the existence from the start point, before and beyond.

[@bluelotus542]

According to Einstein the distinction between past, present and future is an illusion, but the fact is that we do experience the sequence of various points in time. For example, we perceive as real our present bodily form, while our previous child form exists only in our memory.

[@orbifold4387]

At the macroscopic level, there is a distinction between future and past given by causality, which we know it is not violated by any physics law. At the quantum level, there is no distinction between future and past, but time arises as an emergent phenomenom described by entropy growth. Like when you observe water waves. Water molecules don't care about time, but they evolve from a very ordered system (the wave) to a very unordereed system (flat water) by moving in random directions. Time flows because entrophy (disorder) grows, it is just a statistical thing. Why the Universe or the water wave were initially created in a very ordered state is the big fundamental question. As is the consciousness issue of how the brain perceives the physical flow of time.

[@EarlofSedgewick]

That is a philosophical view called "b-time" where time is predetermined and we move through it. This is opposed to "a-time" where we are stationary and time flows past us. It was developed prior to Einstein, but adding Einstein's theories of relativity enabled more rigorous study of it. Kurt Gödel was a prominent determine name audited with that developments, and frankly I i can't explain them

[@bigfletch8]

It is the intellect itself which is the bottleneck. Reason being, time and space are actually componants of the mind/intellect. It is very rewarding to see these great gifted intellectuals validat basic Zen principles, such as " the eye cannot see itself" The paradigm shift is all about the end of the road of the observation/empirical road, and the emergent one of the observer, and why the overlap causes such con-fusion (I dont use the syllable con here in a derogatory sense... but as an observation of the limitations of the mind)., such as the quantum mechanics denying that the observer effect at the particle level is a metaphysical phenomenon.

[@zwolfe05]

could not agree more. to me, consciousness in the form we understand it seems to be the bottleneck here. it seems like unpacking consciousness and their relative experiences/spectrums of reality (ie. varying degrees of consciousness) would allow us to unpack what space and time actually are.

[@werquantum]

“Counterintuitive.” I think I know what that means. So I’ve got that going for me.

[@birhan2006]

God knows the youtube comment section is my comedy central

[@paulwolf3302]

If your theory is counterintuitive, that's a problem. If it's very hard to understand, it's probably BS.

[@MJ-ix7wm]

... and I still got lost pretty fast. Lol. I tried.

[@stuckinamomentt]

What is the discipline to study this combination of: space + time + quantum + gravity + (assuming some branch of philosophy maybe epistemology) ? Is there such a major in university studies?

[@noelkinz]

Michio kaku's soul just entered he's body.

[@StoshGalumpke]

Amazing

[@stevecoley8365]

Time is space. Not just the emptiness that surrounds the stars. The more full life is...the faster we travel through a space called time. The more miserable we are...the slower time goes by.

[@osiris3550]

No

[@querywizard]

Space is the stage. Time is a measurement of causality and relationships of events on the stage. When we travel through time slower or faster depending on our velocity through space, it's more about how perspective is shifting the measurements of those relationships.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Maybe there is a black hole inside the photon or whatever particle at the planck length and time, such that the sub-planck black hole is in the quantum wave, while the photon or particle is at the planck scale?

[@md.fazlulkarim6480]

Honeycomb Universe. Is it?

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

@@md.fazlulkarim6480 string of information in black hole could propel inflation through singularity to blow up white hole into a photon.

[@alldowhoareiz1692]

When I pull on a rubber band, the rubber band will change its dimensions, with time. As soon as I let go of the rubber band, it begins its own spacetime-timeline within (sort of)

[@bigfletch8]

Freeze time and the band would not rebound. Easy in theory, but impossible in practice. This is an examplemof the limitsnof the "mind of duality", and why Zen style koans start to make more sense such as " the eye cannot see itself" The problem of trying to see the absolute via relative eyes reverses in a sense, where we try to make sense of the relative looking through absolute eyes. A very con-fusing during such consciousness paradigm shifts. A timeless wisdom (makes sense when you remove time) " reality is where you are looking from, not what you are looking at", or "Know Thyself, and know the universe"..Stoicism being an example of epi intellectualism, together with epigenetics, a link may q.m ers have yet to make. Does not happen as a group breakthrough, but only on an individual basis.

[@alldowhoareiz1692]

@@bigfletch8 constant flow hints at something powerfully holding the base energy above absolute zero. It almost seems it would've come to complete stillness a long time ago. Almost like something is willfully holding things above stillness. Now is it intentional... ie godlike willpower

[@bigfletch8]

@@alldowhoareiz1692 This question comes from the same relative mind, and inevitably leads to anthropomorphism.

[@alldowhoareiz1692]

@@bigfletch8 spacetime means that space and time is being expressed by the same function... I use the example of pulling on a rubber band to explain how space and time can be expressed at the same time... so freezing the rubberband only means that we don't allow for the thing that expresses change and motion to express its transition toward zero energy

[@kartikjoshi1035]

There are a lot of experienced physicists that are talking about that it's in the better understanding of basic things like quantum field theory and relativity will hold the clue to all the open problems that need to be addressed unlike going into the mathematical details of higher dimensions of string field theory.

[@djtan3313]

Nima is legendary.

[@varundev6379]

Is it possible that if ever we try a time travel, we won't be able to go to past or future, since the things would be in a different dimension or only present is what that is always percievable

[@TuranciHareket]

ever heard of einstein's special relativity?

[@dumpsky]

going to the future is actually no problem. the past is a completely different animal, not simply 2 directions of the same thing.

[@diobrando5415]

@@dumpsky Well, if going to the future is considered time travel, then we're are already and constantly time traveling

[@michaelking9818]

How can you go back in time in an expanded universe ?

[@SneakyBadness]

I'm so intrigued but I need this way dumbed down

[@iart2838]

Seems like it's all about WORDS, let's redefine the meaning of TIME first

[@user-gv8of3co8x]

@Times Face in Energy Logical ... Make sense .

[@creativesource3514]

Go on iArt, you start.

[@sumbuddy63]

I hate that I'm not getting it. I try and I listen and about 3 sentences in it's all bells and whistles to me. Someday maybe someone will illustrate it in just the right way fo me.

[@sumbuddy63]

@Times Face in Energy Umm, thank you?

[@pokerdealer2003]

My exact conversation last time I was camping at 3am after three tabs of acid, we got whole lot deeper and Canadian viper leaves were involved,,

[@gfsfyfy426]

Be yourself you can be whatever you want!

[@utubekade]

I think time is but a measure of rate of change. I think time emerges when you have at least two objects in existence, and are in motion.

[@STaSHZILLA420]

Time is a bi-product. Similar to how gravity is a bi-product of the warping of space from mass. Time itself isn't a governing force. Neither is gravity. They just arise as an emergent property of the fundamental forces.

[@denisla3546]

Ok Einstein show us your calculations🤣🤣

[@STaSHZILLA420]

@@denisla3546 Imagine an infinite space with just a single particle in it. How could you even tell that its moving? You wouldn't/couldn't tell its in motion or not without another particle to measure its distance from. It takes two to tango. Not to mention, time isnt constant. Its relative to the observer's reference frame. Lastly, youd find better results if you googled "time is a byproduct." Im sure you'll find the calculations youre looking for. Have a good day.

[@PAVLAKOS67]

Time doesn't exist. It is our way of understanding movement...

[@jonathankulikov8441]

@@PAVLAKOS67 Time is like money, which is also a useful, agreed-upon construct...hey, wait! Time is money!!!!

[@fubaralakbar6800]

In order to have any discussion about space and time, you have to start with first principles--meaning you first have to define what space and time are. And that's something I have no idea how to do :(

[@noahjuanjuneau9598]

If this topic interests you I recommend locating and reading a book titled ‘The Laminated Theory of Spacetime’ by Barbara Dewey for an additional interesting perspective on this subject. She was not a theoretical physicist but she did have some interesting ideas. Bcoz we are immersed in Space/Time it is nearly impossible for us to have an unbiased point of view on the subject… very much akin to the classic saying ‘If there were fish scientists, the last thing they would ever discover is… water.’ Similarly, we are ‘swimming’ in Spacetime and consequently our views on it are affected by that very fact. As the infamous saying goes ‘Well, you can’t get there from here but…’

[@terencedonovan5254]

- it's interesting that so many have opinions or feel a desire to comment on this - I'm a science dummy, but find myself wanting to put my 2 cents in; as a quip or as an observation. I guess that's because, like fish in water, we're all intimately experiencing space-time & feel we could have something valid to say about it, and we intuitively recognize that a physicists' tools for looking at 'space-time' are of necessity clunky ones. It feels like the very notion of separating out space and time is somehow wrong-headed

[@h.m.7218]

Space/time/motion/matter : is there any way to ever divide any of them from the others ?

[@ModMINI]

Matter is just packaged energy.

[@nigel900]

What is time, but a measure of distance?

[@harper626]

awareness of change

[@mv1991]

Yes, time is a measure of distance. That's why time slows down, the faster you go, just like the relative distance between two cities shortens, the faster your travel.

[@italogiardina8183]

Emergent time as the B theory of time (not A theory as phenomenological flow) that is counter intuitive from an anthropocentric reference. The particle wave duality (from double slit experiment) as a template for both theories. If double slit shows how (primitive view) it (perception) from bit (quanta) emerges then it seems semantics of time is grounded in a primordial referent of representation qua species.

[@mysticmardi]

brilliant! be brave and just say it plain. We can handle it. Many of us have been incrementally understanding this all along so, have go at it. For those who already live in the subtle this is welcome news. some may not bridge the two incomprehensibly unmatched mindsets. hint; if you are getting dizzy spinning spokes, go to the center, hub of the wheel, to the place where all is known. #gowiththeflow

[@wareaglejf]

Does our universe emerge from underlying information (data) like ones and zeros? Can the data be categorized as a mind?

[@positive120]

No. Our universe is one great matter. Mind is just meant to grasp matter. If you go further deep the human mind and intelligence are made of matter only. What is astounding is that the mind which is capable of grasping its matter cannot grasp even itself fully.

[@rohanjagdale97]

300 k brilliant subscribes. You watching right stuff

[@willbrink]

Fascinating! I sense a true breakthrough in understanding time, gravity, and space is at hand and close.

[@DrunkChimp]

Maybe only a couple of thousand years away. If we're still around by then.

[@gknight4719]

The emerging space, am I to understand space came into being at one point, meaning it came into existence in a none space? how can one have a none area? help!

[@ivanvincent7534]

Time is not real. Like the dream state it is all a construct emerging from and as the subject.

[@acepc2]

Could no longer understand what they are discussing at about 5:12

[@patmat.]

lol even earlier for me

[@skillisme]

I couldn't understand after a Planck time! 😆

[@grumpygrandpa5084]

Maybe not space and time are pixelated but our awareness of space and time as perceived by our brain is pixelated.

[@budweiser600]

1 second of time is the equivalent of 300,000km of space. We don't appreciate time enough.

[@Alex-wg8tw]

What if KZbin doesn't store all the videos that people upload to it, but instead links it's player to a certain period in the space-time continuum, and because it's there forever, it can replay it unlimited times? It's a simple analogy, but it may illustrate approach that is most coherent in terms of bonding quantum mechanics with cosmology. And the black holes are just "defects on the film" where information is just lost. We can't see inside a black hole because there's nothing there. That void wasn't filled during "filming" or has been damaged. And Planck's constant attributes to "pixelation" in that "video stream". Such theory could explain why there's no time travels from the future trough wormholes or by any other means. It's because past, present and future coexist in the pre-recorded form on the time-space continuum. String theory is just a recognition of a moire pattern.

[@AjithJayamohan]

I think dismissing an idea as a naive interpretation is wrong. We can always make things more complex, making it simpler is a harder problem. In the relational interpretation of QM which is advocated by physicists like Carlo Rovelli, Lee Smolin and Abhay Ashtrkar, time emerges as a consequence of interactions.

[@lutaayam]

I have no idea who is right but I'll take my chances with Einstein

[@kareldegreef3945]

none of them are right ;-) and Tesla was better :-D

[@CraftyF0X]

@Times Face in Energy I'd seriously advise you to seek professional help for your condition. Based on the word salad you wrote you might have serious issues with producing coherent thoughts, or to make any shred of sense for that matter.

[@creativesource3514]

@@kareldegreef3945 But they got the closest and furthered our understanding more than anyone else.

[@kareldegreef3945]

@@creativesource3514 mmm => ever heard the word " MATHMAGICIANS " ;-D there is a lot that doesn't ad up => they make stuf up to make the puzzle fit ;-) but it is always interesting (if something new pops up) .

[@CraftyF0X]

@Times Face in Energy At this point you start to fail even a basic Turing test. In case if you are not a bot, pls take your medication, your doctor probably prescribed it with good reason. You not only demonstrated ignorance on the topic but also an awfully thick confusion about a lot of thing. I really hope you just trolling around and this is not a manifestation of advanced delusion and metal illness.

[@mikecr4916]

It doesn't take a lot of energy to understand that time is merely a relative measure. Like Kate Beckinsale is a beauty standard others could relative to. No need to fantasize about a Space-Kate continuum even while her mechanics (including quantum level) can be affected by speed.

[@willarity6927]

Everything is everything, man.

[@hgracern]

Thank you, I love this. 👏🏻What would space have emerged into…idk. Maybe it’s eternity, ever now, wherein space time impossible. 💕

[@danm94]

I wonder now after all these years since this interview was taken, how much his view has changed.

[@owentucker5984]

Going around in circles is a sure sign of not having the foggiest idea what he’s talking about.

[@BillWood1]

Conflating space and time together is like conflating weight and volume. Both involve measures, but the relationship is loosely related. The same with space and time. TIME is the measurement of change at both the macro, and microeconomic level. If all change were to stop, at the molecular and universal level, then "time" as we understand it would stop. Time would end. But, space would not end. Time is the measurement of change. Space, as often referred to in physics, involves distance. It is a MEASUREMENT tool. Time, measures the pace of change. If change were to suddenly slow equally across the universe, on a macro level, then time would slow. But we would have no reference, knowledge, or awareness of it. And there would be no "relativity" to point it out either. Time, like space, is a RELATED measurement like the weight and volume measurements. But time and space are not the same. They measure different things. The incessant drive in physics to try to merge space, time, light speed, etc., etc., etc., and try to say they are essentially so related they are the same is ridiculous. They are all measurements of different things!

[@danluba]

I don’t understand this. We can’t measure distances less than the Planck length because the energy needed would collapse the area into a black hole. But this is just a MEASUREMENT problem, no? I don’t understand why this means that time and space is not fundamental. It seems to me like saying I can’t measure a 31cm line because my ruler is not long enough, therefore the line doesn’t exist. I sure would be grateful if someone could help me out with this.

[@timemechanicone]

Time Theory - gravity matter & space is simply just indifference or invariant time inside larger time bodies. I prefer to call all structures atoms etc as technologies & time as interactions of technologies. Everything is time. Hawking points for each atom. Timeline science.... 🖖typos

[@francesco5581]

i admit i've understood absolutely nothing ...

[@peterrobson9920]

Ditto

[@johannuys7914]

I wish I could lie! But no...I got lost within the first 30 seconds.

[@irfanmehmud63]

You are not alone in this confession.

[@drazicmilosovic1065]

Yep....I’ll just hang out here as well.

[@patmat.]

lol same

[@TheRealBozz]

Time only matters to living things. How can it be a dimension, emergent or space-time? How or why would the universe care about time? It's a measurement device used by sentient beings to calculate their probable life-spans. Everything else is ancillary.

[@hilarydrinkwater5392]

The difference between ionic and covalent bonds, Also explains why aqueous solutions of ionic compounds conduct electricity, while aqueous solutions of covalent compounds do not. When a salt dissolves in water, the ions are released into solution. ~ Electricity (valence electrons)

[@jsogman]

So wouldn't one of the essential elements to be to synthesize information theory with physics? Sounds like he's describing a method of decoding a description of reality into a reality or a map that is the territory so to speak?

[@coucousalut4899]

The close-ups distract a lot, on top of being very intrusive…And everybody does the same….

[@eddielopez2373]

Agreed. He’s a very animated speaker and there’s no reason to be zoomed in that close.

[@wayneasiam65]

Wouldn't the thing you're trying to see get engulfed inside the little black hole? And black holes radiate eventually away? Would not the data be retrievable that way? I heard once that Space is so Far Out it's out of Sight...

[@sinebar]

Ok here's what I think: I think there are particles locked up in spacetime itself and perhaps these particle occupy the very tiny regions of spacetime that are a Planck Length in size. Maybe these particles are gravitons or my term, "Planck Particles". Wow! Imagine if there were such a thing as a Planck Particle. Holy crap! Could such a particle exist? I have to think about this.

[@ellobo1326]

When you tell your child to stay in their room for 30 minutes, they are experiencing space time 🤷🏻‍♂️

[@djtan3313]

Bingo!

[@alloneword154]

If you chop up anything smaller and smaller doesn’t it have to eventually disappear?

[@ryanarmasu4162]

This is all well and good and I may be naive too but everytime I take the train from New York to Philadelphia I always travel 100 miles in an hour and a half. I measure the time on my watch and the distance by the railroad sign and they are both different and very real. What am I missing?

[@ogredev]

The “difference “ isn’t real, it’s completely manufactured in your mind.

[@996vtwin2]

Space and time are one. Let me explain. Lets say I want to measure and compare two distances away from a single point. Which way would be the shortest? draw a straight line from one point to another. Why is the shortest distance a straight line?

[@hmdz150]

As Einstein said, time has no independent identity because it is relativistic and not a constant of the universe (like the speed of light in vacuum).

[@carefulcarpenter]

_Synchronistic mathematics_ A tool that describes the unified field in terms we can visualize, measure, and experience. The glue that binds reality is meaningfulness. 10 dimensional information encoded in fourth dimensional reality.

[@MichaelNiles]

Space and Time are the same thing because we actually live in 4D space where one of those dimensions is infinitely warped so that it's become unidirectional. We are inside of an event horizon of a black hole in some parent universe.

[@js2010ish]

👍🏼

[@vincef7487]

“How can space and time be the same thing?”🤓 …How can they NOT be?!🤨

[@msbudmsbud7593]

But this conversation was not recorded in July 2021, right !?

[@seeker1620]

Concept of infinity ♾️ just blow my mind and teach me to live my live peacefully ❤️

[@warrenpeterson6065]

I grew up looking up into space and enjoying the same points of light. Years later I learned these points of light were actually millions of years away. Then even more years later I learned these points of light were actually galaxies like the Milky Way comprised of billions of other stars and even more billions of more planets. Then I learned these galaxies were actually moving away from me. What will I learn next?

[@theawarespace4978]

That the entire universe is a product of a larger, Transpersonal Mind, the activity of which results in universal spacetime.

[@HWJJSCHUMACHER]

1.40 ::: IMPORTANT NUMBERS !!!

[@venugopalan7428]

It is. And it has been defined, the time space mystery.

[@jamesianv]

I have the same problem learning Mandarin i know the vocabulary but cant grasp the meaning of a paragraph.

[@greghicks5960]

I understood some of the words he said.

[@cougar2013]

Space and time are not the same thing. We use them together to describe how events look to different observers when making use of relativity, but even there they are not treated the same.

[@AdrianBoyko]

I don’t understand why I’m supposed to be alarmed about what happens at the Planck scale. So what if there are distances that are so small that they are beyond any practical means of measuring them? Who cares if a black hole gets created if you try? Black holes are perfectly natural and we see them all over without it making us upset that we can’t see inside them.

[@GiedriusMisiukas]

Can't measure, but maybe it's still possible that space and time are in reality continuous, i.e. despite the impossibility to measure it?

[@freescheme]

I don't really see how spacetime can be considered "emergent" (in the normal sense of going "beyond"), if it is a dimensional reduction or projection from what's really going on. More like a simplification.

[@doloreslehmann8628]

Interestingly, I have no real problem with understanding emergent time, much less than with emergent space. After all, time is only different from space because we perceive it to be.