To stop the stone's movement through time, you must throw it at the speed of light. You cannot stop both at the same time; no speed in one of the two implies maximal speed in the other. Also, the equations do distinguish between space and time. They are part of the same vector space, but with a metric that is spherical in space, and hyperbolic in the relation between space and time. That is, the two have opposite sign when determining a particular sort of "distance". s^2 = x^2 + y^2 + z^2 - t^2.
@lasttheory
2 жыл бұрын
Yes, you're right, I've simplified a little here. Thanks for the additional context. I've tried throwing the stone at the speed of light, but I think I'll need to work out a little more to get there!
@philipm3173
Жыл бұрын
But you need infinite energy to do so so it's clearly impossible
@lasttheory
Жыл бұрын
@@philipm3173 Yep, exactly!
@vasekbrezina2801
Жыл бұрын
Exactly, the metric tensor clearly distinguishes between space and time.
@jongorrono6629
Жыл бұрын
@@philipm3173 You can't really make the rock stop either, except as an aggregate approximation. Anything with mass can neither exist precisely at v=c nor at v=0
@AspartameBoy
Жыл бұрын
The four dimensional distance formula includes a minus sign for the square of the time component so why would anyone equate space and time?! This is just an obvious blunder.
@allehelgen
Жыл бұрын
According to your obvious deductions, I guess that a car that cannot turn its wheels will have to conclude that going sideways is a myth.
@allehelgen
Жыл бұрын
the drawer of the desk, seeing that by opening and closing, its contents only moved forwards or backwards, concluded that the notion of right and left did not exist. I can go as long as you want with that kind of analogies.
@lasttheory
Жыл бұрын
Sorry, folks, I'm not very good with analogies... I don't know how you got from my video to cars not being able to go sideways :)
@dude124353
2 жыл бұрын
Your mistake is looking at a stone, a large object composed of trillions of atoms. If you were to observe a singular atom on its own in a featureless room, you would not be able to tell whether time is moving forward or backward. Time is in essence a coordinate just like space is. Time can be warped by heavy gravitational fields, just like space. Moving through space faster has a directly inverse relationship with the passage of time. There are many things that prove a relationship between space and time. Just because you held a rock in your hand and proved that you can’t travel it back in time doesn’t mean anything.
@lasttheory
2 жыл бұрын
That's a fascinating point about the observing a single atom. In fact, your argument can be applied to the entire stone, too. The difficulty comes when I'm in the room, too, with my pesky human ideas about the past and the future. I agree that time can be _treated_ as a coordinate, just like space; indeed, Einstein's equations do precisely that. But I don't agree that just because space and time are _treated_ the same in an equation, therefore space and time _are_ the same. If time really is the same backwards as it is forwards, where's my time machine?
@septillionsuns
Жыл бұрын
I sometimes wonder if the Universe itself is a series of coordinates for time travel. Kind of like a stone tape theory, but with the Earth in a position within the Universe relative to other galaxies, planets, etc. So, a higher being could, in essence (and theory), rewind existence or jump to different periods in time by those coordinates. That higher being would need a vantage outside of the space-time continuum for this to be possible.
@chrisevans1255
9 ай бұрын
I don't think that's right. You're talking about quantum physics, which is sub-atomic. Even protons eventually decay (and I mean eventually....). The reason we can't tell if quantum mechanical objects are moving forward or backward is that it's hard to talk in causal terms about something which is a probabilistic potential, rather than a discrete reality. Still, every atom, quark or boson is trapped in the macro world, which drags it all along time's arrow.
@petrkisselev5085
Жыл бұрын
Making assumptions about the way ALL scientists think is, at best, disingenuous.
@lasttheory
Жыл бұрын
Yep, making _any_ assumptions about the way _anyone_ thinks is not a good thing. I don't think that's what I'm doing here, though. I think it's reasonable, though, to say that space-time has been the dominant paradigm in the way physicists have thought about the large-scale structure of the universe over the last hundred years.
@binbots
2 жыл бұрын
The arrow of time points forward in time because of the wave function collapse. Because causality has a speed limit every point in space sees itself as the closest to the present moment. When we look out into the universe, we see the past which is made of particles. When we try to look at smaller and smaller sizes and distances, we are actually looking closer and closer to the present moment. The wave property of particles appears when we start looking into the future of that particle. It is a probability wave because the future is probabilistic. Wave function collapse happens when we bring a particle into the present/past.
@lasttheory
2 жыл бұрын
That's a great point, the collapse of the wavefunction (like the Second Law of Thermodynamics) introduces an arrow of time. I've never seen a convincing theory of the collapse of the wavefunction, though. _When_ does it collapse? _Why_ does it collapse? It's a strangely anthropocentric theory, more philosophy than physics. I'll have to think more about this... thanks for the comment!
@binbots
2 жыл бұрын
@@lasttheory Time isn’t a straight line. Time emerges and expands from every point in the universe. Because space time is expanding the future is probabilistic. The reason is with an expanding future a particle has more places it can go than it did previously. We can see this effect when we look at very small distances and how it makes unobserved particles behave. It isn’t the particle that has wave like properties. The space time fabric does.
@chrisevans1255
9 ай бұрын
Nicely put - time is a condensate, an apparition, a collapsoid. It is ubiquitously local.
@GoatOfTheWoods
4 ай бұрын
goddaamn , this post is fire! Rarely I see such a well thought non crakpot comment in phyics videos.
@FrostCraftedMC
2 жыл бұрын
the point you made about physicists thinking of models as reality is my entire issue with the modern state of physics. so many physicists are stuck thinking in side the box their fore fathers drew for them
@lasttheory
2 жыл бұрын
Yes. It's so hard not to think of models as reality. But that's the only way to make progress in physics: same reality, better models.
@pilliozoltan6918
7 ай бұрын
That's true, but you have to be consistence. You can't use this argument to get rid of a theory that you don't like. In this context the wolfram's physics is also just a model of the reality. An interesting one, but compared to others, barely useful, and definitely not the last theory.
@vanikaghajanyan7760
2 жыл бұрын
Introducing the concept of 4-space, a fundamental difference between time x0 and spatial coordinates is allowed. It supposedly consists of the fact that along the world lines corresponding to physical processes, x0 can only grow, whereas x1, x2, x3 can change as you please. However, the unification of spatial coordinates and time into a single manifold is not formal but is a real reflection of the picture of the world, and self-closure does not take place for the 4-line. The time coordinate x0 pulls along with it the spatial coordinates; x1,x2,x3, because if it is impossible to return to the past, then it is also impossible to return to where "there" is not with the spontaneous accumulation of space-time history. In general, no law of conservation of time is known - this circumstance is connected with the fact that space-time is a manifestation of the spontaneous evolution of the grav-inertial field. Damping takes place - vibration damping in a dynamic system by dissipation (dissipation) of the vibration energy when d
@lasttheory
2 жыл бұрын
Thanks, Vanik. There's a lot in your comment! I can't help but think that we've been scrambling to explain these differences between space and time ever since we came up with the idea of _space-time_, and that if we just jettisoned that concept, both space and time would both be a lot simpler!
@vanikaghajanyan7760
2 жыл бұрын
@@lasttheory Thanks for reply. Pauli, RT, paragraph 22, Geometry of the Real World, "So far we have assumed that the form ds^2 is a definite form. In the real space-time world, this does not take place, since ds^2 in normal form has three positive and one negative term." P.S. Real gravitational fields are variable in space and time, so there is no global equivalence between them and non-inertial reference frames. In the case of a gravitational field, no global transformation can exclude it and thereby bring the metric to the form of an inertial Cartesian system. This can be done only in an infinitesimal 4-volume in the vicinity of the event P. That is, the strong equivalence principle (the same flow of natural phenomena in the gravitational field and the corresponding non-inertial systems) turns out to be just a dream; and the principle of general covariance, which holds for all 4-coordinate systems without exception, is unreasonable (in GR).
@francretief1
Жыл бұрын
Time is not as mysterious as people think it is. Imagine a universe without movement. Also no movement or vibration of atoms or particles. In such a universe time would not exist because you need some movement to measure time. Thus time is as a result of movement. There is no such thing as Time in nature, only objects moving at different speeds. Time was created by humans to explain the speed of moving objects. Because Time is merely the result of movement, it means we cannot travel backwards in time, unless all movements are reversed which is not possible.
@lasttheory
Жыл бұрын
Yes, that's interesting, switching perspectives to see movement as fundamental rather than time as fundamental.
@donaldkasper8346
Жыл бұрын
Space and time are different things because we did not go out and discover them, we defined them. Therefore as we defined them, they are immutable. Furthermore, time is a concept, and space is something we measure. We don't measure time, we measure orbital mechanics with the sun. If time is a thing, I would presume it also makes waves, that is, who made it constant?
@akaramata4544
7 ай бұрын
I hate to be a party pooper, but no physicist actually claims that space and time are (ontologically) the same. Relativity theory claims that they are mutually entangled, not that they are functionally identical. At the very least, time is a scalar whereas space is a vector manifold. Clearly, these are not identical.
@lasttheory
7 ай бұрын
Yes, absolutely, I agree. I'm not claiming that physicists don't know the difference between space and time. What I'm claiming is that we've thought of these things as space-time for so long that it has messed with our ability to see things clearly. When I talk about the curvature of space in my videos, I reliably get comments saying: you mean the curvature of _space-time._ The very existence of the word space-time makes it harder to envision new ideas, like the Wolfram model, where space and time are fundamentally _different_ things. Thanks for the comment!
@ReNewton
2 жыл бұрын
Thank you. You articulated the essence of the delusion very clearly and positively. Spacecraft motion is my original specialty, but it took me many years to realize that the formulas described the illusion of motion, not motion itself.
@lasttheory
2 жыл бұрын
Yep, space, time and motion are funny things!
@donaldkasper8346
Жыл бұрын
What does "an illusion of motion" mean? It would guess you confuse "illusion" with differences that different observers see. I would venture to speculate Einstein was attempting to reconcile all these observational points, when they aren't reconcilable at all, or even that it has no meaning as we are in one observation point at one time and not many anyway.
@tempname8263
9 ай бұрын
Throw stone at speed of light - it stops moving through time. Meaning, it has no internal processes going on. And in regards to time being directionless, just consider a particle simulation of charged particles. If you invert momenta of all particles (aka invert the time axis), it will be still exactly as valid. Now introduce a second particle system with an uninverted momenta. Now you can see two systems moving back and forwards in time at the same time. Now think about making these systems much complex - up to actual bodies made up of trillions of particles. Here you can see how direction of time can truly become something almost fictional, one that depends on the observer's time orientation relative to the other bodies. Anyway, real physics aren't time-directionless. Data is being lost all the time, as two different events can lead to the same outcome, meaning you can't retrace your steps back in time by inverting momentas or anything like that. And we've got a clear entropy gradient - starting at the big bang, when our particles had a much less randomized and stabilized state than they do now.
@lasttheory
9 ай бұрын
Yes, you capture the entropy problem nicely. The laws of physics are the same forwards and backwards in time, yet the universe itself clearly isn't.
@donaldkasper8346
Жыл бұрын
How is math not a real description of our world and universe? Math can involve infinities, which gets carried over into astrophysics. But, infinity in math means "et cetera", or "more like that", but in our world and the universe, there are no infinities. There is no thing of an infinity.
@tarkajedi3331
2 жыл бұрын
An elegant and clear video ! I loved it !
@Youtubelaschool
Жыл бұрын
I was listening to an interview of Jonathan Gorard who works for Wolframs physics (on your youtube chanel) and he was saying we can not separate space and time because of covariance and here you say we can ?
@lasttheory
Жыл бұрын
Yes, well spotted! Jonathan's talking at the level of General Relativity, noting that in Einstein's equations, space and time are inextricably linked. Whereas I'm talking at a conceptual level. Yes, it's useful to think of space-time at the large scale of General Relativity. But at the small scale of the hypergraph, it makes less sense. Given that the idea of space-time can mislead us when we're thinking on the small scale, I think we'd do well to put it out of our minds when seeking a fundamental theory of physics. As ever, we should hold our concepts lightly!
@beervolcano
Жыл бұрын
I'm not saying that space and time are the same thing, but the arrow of time may only be an illusion. If time is indeed simply an effect of the amount of entropy in the universe, then it may be that the total entropy of the universe is always increasing and decreasing, but we can only perceive it as increasing. If you could somehow step outside the universe and observe it, it may be that you would see it expanding and contracting while physical processes would be occurring and then reversing. But, you can't step outside the universe. Perception is itself an entropic process, therefore you only perceive anything when entropy increases. When the total entropy of the universe decreases (and time reverses), the processes of perception also reverse. Perception only happens when the entropy of the universe is increasing and time is moving forward. With that said, I don't think that time is an effect of entropy, I think it's the other way around. I'm just saying that it's possible for there to be no real arrow of time.
@lasttheory
Жыл бұрын
Yes, you state the issues well. When I first came across it, I really liked the idea that the arrow of time arises from entropy. It's a clever idea, for sure! But I tend to agree with you that it seems a stretch, the wrong way around. That's why I like the concept of time in the Wolfram model so much: it's so simple, no cleverness needed. Thanks for the comment!
@FrostCraftedMC
2 жыл бұрын
since 'discovering' wolframs celluar automatons and his physics, ive considered the idea that all of "space-time" is really 1D with all other *possible* dimensions being emergent and only detectable/conceivable by entities existing within the graph of their own space-time
@lasttheory
2 жыл бұрын
Interesting. I'd love that to be true: 1D is _so_ much easier to program into a computer than 3D!
@suncat9
Жыл бұрын
0D would be the simplest. Without the emergent properties of space AND time, the entire universe, which is INFINITE, is a point. The only thing that's real is consciousness.
@SC-jh9qp
2 жыл бұрын
Could time not be merely a comparison between the apparent position of particles and where we remember they were before? If we were able to reach out and drag every quark (or smaller) and every ray of radiation etc in the cosmos into what we knew was once it's configuration and then let them go, then aren't we back in time?
@lasttheory
2 жыл бұрын
Yes, there's nothing in the pre-Wolfram laws of physics (Einstein's equations of General Relativity, Newton's laws of motion, etc.) that suggests that we _can't_ do what you suggest and reverse the direction of time. The Second Law of Thermodynamics alone insists that this can't be done. If you know how to achieve this, let us know! I'm still working on my time machine...
@SC-jh9qp
2 жыл бұрын
@@lasttheory Thanks for the reply, I'll let you know when I've debunked the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics 😀
@septillionsuns
Жыл бұрын
I think quantum entanglement thoroughly proves that time simply does not exist. Time is a human perspective. It's a very human centric notion to get stuck in time as an essential essence of existence. This does not negate time, per se, but certainly shows how limited the human perspective is, as we filter things through our analog, time-bound existence.
@personzorz
Жыл бұрын
You don't need a difference between a forwards and backwards direction of time if we are just near in time to a strange event like the Big bang
@lasttheory
Жыл бұрын
Yes, that's a good point. I don't pretend to understand time... it's more of a hunch than anything else that it's just not the same, even remotely the same, as space.
@Riley.Rumble
2 жыл бұрын
Great video, as always 👏 have you read "Reason In Revolt", by Woods and Grant? Politics aside, it explores a lot of the issues you touched on, namely the problems with idealist and metaphysical thinking in science. I keep it on my bookshelf right next to Wolfram's physics book! If you haven't read it, I strongly recommend it. If you have read it, I'm interested in your thoughts on it with respect to Wolfram physics
@lasttheory
2 жыл бұрын
Thanks Conor! No, I've not read _Reason in Revolt._ It sounds fascinating! For sure, science has always been used to push political agendas, no less so today than at any other time since the dawn of science, probably more so. Thanks for the recommendation!
@Zayden.
Жыл бұрын
Glad to see I'm not the only one who appreciates Reason in Revolt and Stephen Wolfram's ideas 👍
@kongolandwalker
Жыл бұрын
Is there any randomness in WoPh?
@lasttheory
Жыл бұрын
There _could_ be, e.g. if when you apply a rule to the hypergraph, you choose at random between all the possible places it could be applied. But in general, no, the hypergraph is fully determined, e.g. if you consider every possible application of a rule to the hypergraph, there's no randomness.
@nicov1003
Жыл бұрын
I think there's a problem here with this interpretation - the "evolution" of the graph actually isn't different from the thermodynamic explanation of the arrow of time. The evolution of the hypergraph is just the application of a specific set of rules to the state of the graph, while maybe there are some exceptional states, it seems to me you should also be able to create a symmetrical set of rules which can reverse the evolution of the graph back to its original set of states. If we think about the information expressed in the differences between the states of the graphs as time, "the evolution", then all that information is already contained in the rules - seems like space and time are kinda the same thing in this framework still
@nicov1003
Жыл бұрын
Or, at least, just as much the same thing as space-time in the general relativity which are different dimensions
@nicov1003
Жыл бұрын
In fact, now that I think about it, if you save each state of the hypergraph as a matrix, you can combine them together just by adding an extra dimension to the matrix, just like the extra dimension of time
@lasttheory
Жыл бұрын
There's lots that's interesting in what you say, Nico. You're right, writing the hypergraph as a matrix allows you to add time as an extra dimension of the matrix. But isn't that time dimension, represented by a single dimension of the matrix, very different from the space dimensions, represented by the edges and nodes encoded in the two other dimensions of the matrix? Ultimately, the hypergraph, however visualized, does give rise to General Relativity, and space-time is a good way to think about General Relativity at a large scale. But at the scale of the hypergraph, again, however visualized, time looks very different from space, I think.
@nicov1003
Жыл бұрын
So I was thinking about this this morning, and the question of whether entropy/change are merely measures of time which is something else like computation, and something occurred to me - with computation, while you can't experience time any differently when the computation is happening faster or slower, or requires greater or lesser complexity - if you assume that the compute which renders the universe is in some way finite, then you might expect to see that complexity effect other variables. This is totally speculative, but I was thinking, what if the acceleration of the expansion of the universe is that kind of variable - changing it would, from what I understand, also increase the number of points in space that have to be calculated for quantum fields. If we assume that the computational capabilities of the universe grows at a fixed rate with each computation, then in periods of greater complexity the universe's expansion slows down, and at lower levels of complexity it's expansion speeds up. Does that make sense?
@williamschacht
Жыл бұрын
That was an extremely eye-opening video on space and time. But I find it hard to believe that all physicists equate reality and models. Models are just crude approximations. Also, even though our puny brains can't perceive reverse time the field equations are still valid in both directions?
@lasttheory
Жыл бұрын
Thanks, William. You're right, most physicists understand (and all physicists _should_ understand) that the model is not necessarily the reality. As for the arrow of time, I tend to think that there really _is_ an arrow of time, and that the fact that most of our equations are symmetrical in time is just an indication that those equations are limited in what they tell us about reality.
@kayakMike1000
7 ай бұрын
Here's another thing about time.... It operates on events, two events can coincide, from some perspectives at least. But two things can't occupy the same space at the same time.
@AndrewWutke
2 жыл бұрын
In the context of time space I would like to find how exactly could we derive Special Relativity from the elementary graph. I mean a step by step process leading to Lorentz transformation. I have seen some graphic pictures with narratives intuitively appealing but the computational model should come up with relevant equations somehow.
@rarebeeph1783
2 жыл бұрын
From the observation that light has a constant speed, the properties of the Lorentz transformation arise naturally. I will admit, though, that I have never gone through the process of deriving the transformation itself, but here are some examples of the properties: Consider a clock made of two reflectors oriented orthogonal to the motion of a vehicle it is on relative to you. Send one light beam from one reflector, and record the path it takes from different reference frames. By the pythagorean theorem, the Lorentz factor 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) can be derived as the ratio between the distances/times the light travels/takes as measured by an observer on the vehicle (the light appears to move vertically), and by you, not on the vehicle (the light appears to move diagonally at the same speed). This demonstrates time dilation and length contraction. Then, consider the same clock, but oriented parallel to the motion of the vehicle, and this time send two light beams, one from each end. Assume they are fired such that you, not on the vehicle, observe them to be emitted simultaneously. Then, the one emitted from the front of the ship reaches the back first, and the one from the back reaches the front later, but they each return to their starting reflectors in sync with each other. But since someone on the ship cannot logically measure different time differentials between the hits of each beam against their respective reflectors, they must have measured the front side beam being released early by exactly half the time difference you would measure. This demonstrates relativity of simultaneity, specifically that the space axis of a moving reference frame is "tilted" into the future in the direction of motion.
@AndrewWutke
2 жыл бұрын
@@rarebeeph1783 Thanks for your reply What you wrote is correct but I wanted to see more relations to graph model of the universe. I have only went through the Wolfram introductory part though. The first thing necessary to demonstrate what are light quanta in this model and the mechanism they propagate. The photons must move relative to each other naturally. Then you need other particles emerging as possible reference systems. The question emerges here whether the most elementary nodes of the graph in total are equivalent to absolute space. The absolute space does not automatically invalidate Special Relativity.
@lasttheory
2 жыл бұрын
Thanks for the question, Andrew, and thanks for the detailed answer, RareBeeph. So far, I too have read only the _suggestion_ that Special Relativity _might_ arise from the graph. This is compelling, but I, too, would like to dig into a more precise _derivation_ of Special Relativity from the graph. I believe this exists, and I will study it, and talk about it in future videos. And yes, I think the graph _is_ equivalent to an absolute space, and yes, I agree, this does not automatically invalidate Special Relativity. I'm really looking forward to learning and presenting more about this. It's crucial to the case for Wolfram Physics.
@stephencarlsbad
Жыл бұрын
Reference frames are limited to close systems and tend to become irrelevant over large scale measurements. We can not superimpose the characteristics of a small, locally, closed system, like a room with a rock that is supposedly being stopped from moving in space, onto the larger reality of the perpetual motion, of all things within the infinite, universe. Reference frames are obviously important but in this scenario they should be treated as special, isolated cases. If true then everything is always perpetually moving through space and time. Furthermore, as observers, we can measure time stopping for another observer just inside an event horizon of a black hole, but does time ever really stop for that observer? Or does it only appear to stop only for the observer that is in a lower strength gravity field outside the black hole?
@markTheWoodlands
2 жыл бұрын
Space time has been correctly predicting experimental results for a century. It is foundational to our GPS system. The host of this channel does not even understand the basics of it, which is why he didn’t know how to make time stop for the rock.
@lasttheory
2 жыл бұрын
Yep, I did a pretty poor job of stopping time, I'll admit! And yes, Einstein's equations have been correctly predicting experimental results for a century, as you say. But it's _Einstein's equations_ that have been making those predictions. Space-time? That's just a concept that we've been layering onto Einstein's equations. As I say in the video, it's a truly useful concept. But it's not reality. We need to hold our concepts lightly, otherwise they prevent us from formulating new concepts that might, in the end, serve us better. Thanks for the comment, Mark!
@maxwelldillon4805
2 жыл бұрын
The one thing I can't reconcile about Wolfram's model is the multiway aspect of it. I don't understand how this concept fits with the idea of a single definite graph updating through time.
@lasttheory
2 жыл бұрын
Yes, absolutely, I've been trying to wrap my head around the idea of the multiway graph and multiway (branchial) space too. It's complicated, for sure, but I'm confident I can make sense of it. I'll be putting out episodes about the multiway graph soon. Let me know, Maxwell, if they make sense to you... I'll keep trying until they do!
@bigoptions
8 ай бұрын
I think that he thinks that it is either branch or multiway. Not both.
@markstipulkoski1389
2 жыл бұрын
If you would have moved the stone to the speed of light, from our frame of reference, time would have slowed to a stop for the stone. That doesn't mean space-time is fundamental, but regardless, that is how the construct of space-time works.
@lasttheory
2 жыл бұрын
Yes, for sure! But even if I could have mustered the infinite force required to accelerate the stone to the speed of light, my point remains: space and time are _different._ Thanks for keeping me honest!
@markstipulkoski1389
2 жыл бұрын
@@lasttheory The infinite energy requirement is irrelevant to the discussion. Large mass objects like GPS satellites at orbital velocities and small mass particles traveling very close to the speed of light confirm Relativity. The faster something moves through space, the slower it moves through time. It obeys simple vector algebra.
@lasttheory
2 жыл бұрын
@@markstipulkoski1389 Yes, absolutely. I don't think we disagree about anything here, Mark. Special Relativity is right. General Relativity is right. I'm not questioning any of that. I'm only questioning the ontological model - curved space-time - that we've imposed on the theory. When Einstein's theory of gravity superceded Newton's, it didn't _invalidate_ it: Newton's theory can be _derived_ from Einstein's as a simplification under certain conditions. But it did replace the old ontological model - forces that act at a distance - with a new one - curved space-time. It's the same with Wolfram Physics. It doesn't _invalidate_ General Relativity: Einstein's theory can be _derived_ from Wolfram's as a simplification under certain conditions. But it does replace the old ontological model - curved space-time - with a new one - the hypergraph.
@markstipulkoski1389
2 жыл бұрын
@@lasttheory Yes, we don't disagree on much. Helpful suggestion with your series though. This video is your latest and I had not watched the previous videos because KZitem only just suggested it to me. At the point of the stone analogy, I had no idea your video had anything to do with Wolfram, who I have watched many times. The video had a click-baity title and the next thing I see is this guy who seems to be trying to disprove Special Relativity. I thought you were a crackpot, honestly. I now see that you are not as I have binge watched your whole series and in the correct order. In the future, you may consider providing a short summary of your series, that it is a course on Wolframs TOE. It might help a viewer who wanders into the middle of the course. The Justin Riddle channel on quantum consciousness does this very well, for example. So, sorry I got hung up on the stone thing. You're doing a great job of interpreting Wolfram. I have watched a few of his collaboration sessions and you cleared some thing up for me. Keep up the good work.
@lasttheory
2 жыл бұрын
@@markstipulkoski1389 Thanks, Mark. That's a great suggestion. I'm new to KZitem and still trying to work out these issues, such as how to provide context when someone lands on a random video. I'll check out the Justin Riddle channel to see how it's done there. Really appreciate the feedback!
@mz-dz2yn
2 жыл бұрын
from my reading and listening to wolfram for 800 hours on wolframs new physics ... here are some of my thoughts ... tell me where i am missing wolframs points ... just like water seems continuous space seems continuous but is really discrete .... at beginning of universe or even in the explosion of stars there can be infinite dimensions which cool down to what we see as 3 dim. but some of those hidden dimensions way still be influencing atoms elements that were forged during times with more dimensions and we can see this for example with copper wire two miles long when u move one part of the wire up and down in magnetic field (what is magnetic field per wolfram? a few more hidden dimentions of the infinite ones of the past still lingering here now perhaps supported by dark matter dark energy somehow) for example with copper wire two miles long when u move one part of the wire up and down in a magnetic field the other end of the copper wire two miles away moves in three dimensions based on speed of energy in the copper. everything below the plank length is esp. applicable to wolfram because current science has no idea what is going on at that scale
@lasttheory
2 жыл бұрын
Wow, that's a great summary! All the things you mention are aspects of physics that aren't unique to Wolfram's model: plenty of other theories have predicted many dimensions cooling down to three dimensions, for example. So you're right, Wolfram's model comes into its own as a theory of what's happening below the Planck scale. The implications of the model for what we see above the Planck scale are still being worked out. You ask a great question: "what is magnetic field per wolfram?" I hope to speculate on particles and the forces between them (e.g. the electromagnetic force) in future episodes, but the answer to your question is not yet clear. Thanks for the comment!
@LuisAldamiz
Жыл бұрын
Einstein's theory has been proven over and over and over and over... Wolfram's not yet. Also time is distinct from space as it's described with a minus sign (times c) and that makes the edge "imaginary", whatever it means. It's also directional, unlike space.
@kludgedude
Жыл бұрын
The only way to stop movement through time dimension is to accelerate to the speed of light in a space dimension. There’s a balance between the two. Space and time are different like height and width are different. A difference in perspective only.
@lasttheory
Жыл бұрын
Thanks for the comment! "Space and time are different like height and width are different. A difference in perspective only." - this is the way most physicists think about it, and this is what has led us astray, I think. Sure, in the equations, and in various mathematical transformations we can do, space and time look very similar. But if we raise our eyes from the equations and look at the _universe_ - which, after all, is what we're trying to model here - space and time look very different.
@septillionsuns
Жыл бұрын
Space exists. Time does not. It only moves through time because the earth continues to move through space. Time is simply a movement through space.
@lasttheory
Жыл бұрын
Yes, absolutely, that's a way of looking it, thanks Nathan. What fascinates me is that the Wolfram model provides a completely different way of looking at it, where time is fundamental, corresponding to the step-by-step evolution of the hypergraph. This new way makes more sense to me.
@bigoptions
7 ай бұрын
No, space is like time; it's a measure of volume. That's like saying that a meter exists. A misunderstanding of these basic definitions is what screwed up science for about a 100 years. If you believe that space is a thing, then you are really talking about what is in space. That's called the aether which all of the greats believed in. And these so called scientists that denied that the aether exists for their hole lives don't get to say that hey we discovered this stuff called dark matter. I've got a new definition for you. When scientists don't admit that they made a mistake about something existing for a hundred years and then say they discovered it can from now on be called dunce cap scientists. Put it in Wikipedia.
@444haluk
Жыл бұрын
Time is only "things evolving", hence the increase of entropy in the local sense, well, makes the most sense. And space-time doesn't say they are the "same", it says you can apply "similar" transformations, while time is being "different". Namely, in their tensor notation, squaring the time's unit gives +1, while for others it gives -1. And as long as their changes are caused by the same cause, there is nothing wrong with the math. It just transforms them, doesn't do any ontology.
@lasttheory
Жыл бұрын
Yes, that's fair. You're absolutely right, space and time are _not_ treated the same in the equations, there is that +1 / -1 difference. My concern is that space-time has become such an entrenched _concept_ in physicists' minds that it's difficult to go back to time being thought of as fundamentally different from space. Thanks for the thoughtful comment!
@gegurotgoku4419
2 жыл бұрын
do we really know that time can't move backwards. I sometimes imagine what if the time is something that homogenously fills the universe such that if its arrow start starts going backwards we would not even notice. it happens to be the case that we can only sense time (as a conscious observer) while moving forwards with it. what if arrow of time is switching forward and backward through out the universe with same rate everywhere randomly. prove me wrong with a practical example if you can
@AndrewWutke
2 жыл бұрын
something cannot move backwards or forwards if it does not exists. Time is an abstraction of clocks used as a reference for measurements. Each time you say time you should replace this with "clock" and it is designed to move in one direction and under no circumstances spontaneously reverse the state. Counting pulses incoming from a pulsar can only have one outcome. The count increases. You cannot uncount an incoming pulse.
@lasttheory
2 жыл бұрын
You have a profound point, here. We are _in_ the universe. Time appears to go forwards to us because forwards is the direction in which our perception of the universe is imprinted in our minds. I'll be returning to the subjectivity of time in future episodes: it's a fascinating topic. Thanks for the comment!
@gegurotgoku4419
2 жыл бұрын
@@lasttheory thanks for your consideration sir.
@lasttheory
2 жыл бұрын
@@AndrewWutke That's a good way of putting it, thanks Andrew!
@davez4285
2 жыл бұрын
What’s time? There are two times here. One group thinks time is universal as t, the other thinks it is relative, as t’. t and t’ have the relationship t’=r(t-Kxv). At speed of light, or at black hole, r=0, so t’ stops. But t goes as usual. t’ is the time you observed through light. it is different from an object’s objective time t. Because c is considered as constant at any reference frame, so t’ and t are not synchronized. One group thinks there is space-time. It is really just a Lorentz transformation of t. It is not more than a Fourier transformation in signal analysis, from time domain to frequency domain. Just remember that when people talk time stops at black hole, or moving at c, that time is t’. A moving object, it’s time running faster or slower, that’s t’. Spacetime is curved, that also is t’. We really should not think only t’ is so called time. (Actually t is the base time, because v and c are calculated by t, not by t’). t’ and t, both are man-made. That’s all.
@AndrewWutke
2 жыл бұрын
Paradoxically Einstein came with a good definition of time which he did not absorbed well in the philosophical context. This is an abstraction facilitating measurements of progress. In a nutshell it us an abstract array of clocks positioned wherever needed. In fact time as such does not exist but the totality of things changing everywhere makes an intuitive generalisation that something is flowing everywhere. But this is inaccurate equally as that force is always needed to move an object even though inertial motion does not need one which people did not realise before Newton.
@lasttheory
2 жыл бұрын
This is great, thanks Dave. Yes, time is more complicated than we think. And yes, there's universal time, and there's relative time. Or, to use slightly different terms, there's cosmological time, and there's perceived time, which depends on your reference frame. So much more to say about this, coming up in future episodes!
@lasttheory
2 жыл бұрын
@Andrew Wutke I love this image of clocks everywhere! Einstein had an extraordinary talent for making his theories comprehensible _physically_ rather than _mathematically._
@ΧρήστοςΧρηστος-φ1κ
Жыл бұрын
Thank you for your videos,i hope that soon as possible, your work and Wolfram's will give to physics'a great push fwd!
@markusantonious8192
Жыл бұрын
Lee Smolin and Roberto Unger effectively demolished the notion of 'space-time' in their fine work, 'The Singular Universe and the Reality of Time'....Indeed, little 'ole me came upon these arguments (in much less technical form) over 40 years ago. A common theme here is the inappropriate assessment of the function - and limitations - of mathematics and, as the presenter here conveys, the abject failure of physicists to grasp that their mathematical models of the world are, essentially, *idealizations* (abstracted models) and that such can never incorporate the real flow of time.
@lasttheory
Жыл бұрын
Yes, thanks Markus, I think you hit the nail on the head: it's incredibly important to hold in our minds the distinction between our _models_ of reality and _reality_.
@lemenyves34
Жыл бұрын
But I am afraid that relativity does distinguish between space and time, because it uses the imaginary unit (or a Lorentzian metric if you prefer). I am thence not sure to follow your argument properly.
@lasttheory
Жыл бұрын
Thanks, Yves. And yes, it's not the _equations_ I'm questioning here, since they're obviously right, but how closely we've held to the _concept_ of space-time. As you say, space and time are _not_ the same thing in the equations, yet we've somehow wedded ourselves to this idea of a curved four-dimensional surface called "space-time". I think this has negatively impacted our ability to think clearly about time.
@lemenyves34
Жыл бұрын
@@lasttheory This is possible. However, I am not convinced that our intuition of time as a quantity distinct from space could possibly disregard the fact that time appears for most practical purposes to behave towards space like the complex unit behaves vis a vis the real unit. I fail to be able to make this relation intuitive, however, and obviously fail to see what.could possibly come next. Good luck in your search, anyway.
@maxmadonov4549
2 жыл бұрын
hm. The argument that you can stop stuff from moving in regards to some arbitrary point of reference, does not mean such thing as "stoping" exist. It can be that everything moves, just as it does through time. Expansion of the universe is proven thing. So everything moves, the fact that some things are "stationary" in relation to each other does not make space and time separate. Space and time are obviously different, but they are connected. Time moves faster next to massive objects.
@lasttheory
2 жыл бұрын
Yes, you put it perfectly: "Space and time are obviously different, but they are connected." I think we've lost track of the first part of that over the last 100 years or so.
@davidgold2235
6 ай бұрын
What about Shape Dynamics?
@lasttheory
6 ай бұрын
I haven't looked deeply at Shape Dynamics, David. My interest in the Wolfram model comes from its truly different, computational approach, which as soon as I heard about it made far more sense to me than any of the mathematical approaches we've been using in physics for the last few centuries. So yes, of course, it's possible that a mathematical approach, such as Shape Dynamics, might advance our understanding, but I think it's going to take a paradigm shift like the Wolfram model to allow us to truly make progress. Thanks for the question!
@davidgold2235
6 ай бұрын
@@lasttheory If I understood you, the theory says that spacetime is emergent from a network
@lasttheory
6 ай бұрын
@@davidgold2235 Yes, that's right, space emerges from the hypergraph, in a way that Jonathan Gorard has proved is consistent with the Einstein equations, i.e. general relativity.
@davidgold2235
6 ай бұрын
@@lasttheory There have been many alot of people who say spacetime is an emergent phenomenon. Arising from something like - your hypergraph - or quantum mechanical degrees of freedom, etcetera. Nima has said that gravity limits our ability to measure spacetime, so it is not fundamental.
@lasttheory
6 ай бұрын
@@davidgold2235 Yes, for sure, this is far from the first effort to derive space and time, much less to treat space and time as discrete. In my mind, it's the most promising, but maybe that's just me! Thanks for the comments!
@kayakMike1000
Жыл бұрын
Space is that which separates "things". Could be particles or non particle stuff like wave crests or valleys... Time is that which separates events.
@tomdorman2486
2 жыл бұрын
If you say your frame of reference is not moving but time is,how do you account for the Inertia you are feeling? Is not gravity the effect of inertia as space/time expands?
@lasttheory
2 жыл бұрын
According to Einstein, gravity is our interpretation of the fact that any matter in freefall follows a geodesic, i.e. the shortest possible path, through space-time. And I don't think Wolfram Physics changes this. I don't think Wolfram Physics changes _anything_ about General Relativity (at least, not _yet_) other than the concepts (such as space-time) we impose on it. Thanks for the comment, Tom!
@tomdorman2486
2 жыл бұрын
Enjoyed the exchange.
@Jm-wt1fs
Жыл бұрын
Have a feeling you would enjoy this KZitemr called “Chris the Brain” who has been putting out a series reimagining the interpretation of general relativity to something pretty intriguing. His recent video was on time as a limited, subtractive dimension, as opposed to the 3 additive spacial dimensions, which you’re getting at here as well. He also talks about the entropy argument and why it’s a cool but stupid belief
@Jacob-Vivimord
Жыл бұрын
What if the reference frame is infinite? If space is infinite, that's your reference frame. You can't stop moving through infinite space. (Can you?)
@lasttheory
Жыл бұрын
This is an interesting question, thanks Jacob. I don't have any definitive answers here, but the hypergraph of Wolfram Physics does seem to provide a fixed reference frame that's maybe lacking in General Relativity. I look forward to seeing how this plays out!
@chrisevans1255
9 ай бұрын
Reference frames are local (hence relativity). Infinite space has no reference frame, since it has no locality. It's a head-scratcher when you realize there's nothing standing still, but we have no clue how fast things might be moving, either. Even light, famous for moving at a constant speed, could only do so if the Universe was completely empty. As it stands, light varies in both speed and velocity so, really, we're stuck with relativity.
@Scampleton
Жыл бұрын
I had a thought on your space vs time example (though I think I agree they're different). You're describing the rock as being stationary in space relative to you, but when it's not moving relative to you it's also stationary in time (relative to you). It'd move in time relative to you if it moved away or toward you.
@lasttheory
Жыл бұрын
Ah, interesting, yes. That gets to the question of whether there's such a thing as absolute time. Let me ask this: is the rock moving relative to the time of the big bang?
@Scampleton
Жыл бұрын
@@lasttheory Well that happened everywhere, so no if you're talking about the part of the BB that eventually formed the rock and anything stable relative to it, but yes it is moving forward relative to the rest of the universe. In that sense all of space (at large scales) is falling behind in time relative to any point you can pick, with things moving slower in relative time (and therefore backward relative to you) the further away they are (until you get to the edge of the observable universe where you're also at the beginning of time).
@stevo-dx5rr
Жыл бұрын
I agree with the premise that we should not conflate reality with our models of nature. But I remain skeptical of your arguments against space time. Clearly, space time is an amazing and beautiful concept; it may indeed be an “invisible thing”, but to my knowledge it agrees with basically every experimental result, at both the small and large scale. So, it’s clearly an incredibly powerful invisible thing. Of course, so too are the famed epicycles. Also, just because it might take infinite energy to hurl a stone at the speed of light in order to stop time for the stone doesn’t seem to represent a contradiction of the unification of space and time, at least to me. Light obviously moves through space at the speed of light and is therefore sort of timeless. So do some other elementary particles. Another way to say it is that in some reference frames, time can appear to stop or slow to an absolute crawl relative to other reference frames. It’s not forbidden, it’s just not accessible to us to stop time. Of course, this is just relative time, right? Should we be calling it space relative-time instead of space time? I don’t really know. Lastly, I think that although Wolfram’s approach may seem simpler and more elegant, I don’t think that necessarily means it is more correct. It too is still an invisible thing. It may be more appealing because of our backgrounds in Computer Science, but nevertheless I acknowledge my bias (and I know you do too from earlier videos in the series). I’m afraid I probably have some huge misunderstandings in this domain; feel free to help me! Thanks.
@lasttheory
Жыл бұрын
Thanks for the comment, as ever. I think we agree on most of this! "space-time is an amazing and beautiful concept" - yes, absolutely! "it agrees with basically every experimental result, at both the small and large scale" - on a large scale, yes, for sure, but it breaks down at the Planck scale. I'm being a bit provocative in this video, I admit, but I think we should hold even our most amazing and beautiful concepts _lightly._ Otherwise, we risk blinding ourselves to new concepts that may clash with our old ones, yet prove fruitful. In this case, I think the concept of space-time makes us less likely to pursue the hypergraph as a potentially fruitful line of inquiry, because the concept of time in the hypergraph is so different, so separate from space. And yet, the hypergraph is not only compatible with the concept of space-time at a large scale, it demonstrably _gives rise_ to space-time at a large scale (as Jonathan Gorard has proven). In other words, holding our concept of space-time lightly allows us to consider a seemingly incompatible concept that actually _explains_ space-time. And you're right: we should certainly beware of our biases as the generation that has grown up with computers!
@stevo-dx5rr
Жыл бұрын
@@lasttheory Aye, I really like Wolfram Physics. It gives us new ways to view our world. I’m really hoping that all the incredibly smart people working on it are able to make great progress on it! Keep up the content!
@Merkabah727
Жыл бұрын
Dude do the moving the stone backwards and forwards in space while you're moving with it again. While its still moving forwards only in time. You don't get it.
@Zeuts85
9 ай бұрын
It seems to me that the hypergraph may also be confusing the model with reality--though it's getting very close to bedrock. It doesn't seem to me that nodes and edges are the simplest possible elements, for they could be described by "bits" of information. In my view, the most fundamental thing is "distinction" itself, for without it nothing can be said to exist. If you think about what we mean by something "existing" it is that it is "distinct" from other things--such as empty space, or one node being distinct from another node. Could one get simpler than mere distinction itself? I don't see how. From this, all else can be built, including hypergraphs. So in essence, reality is just the set of all possible sequences of bits. What we call "rules" are just interpolations of patterns in those sequences. I don't see this view as in contention with the Wolfram model, it would be a layer beneath it. Perhaps it is so trivial that nobody bothers to mention it? However, to me it seems important because it implies that the simplest possible "step" in time is the changing of a single bit in a sequence. If you imagine the space of all possible sequences, many sub-sequences selected together and ordered in particular ways would "appear" to follow particular rules as one maps patterns of changes across them. This creates those "pockets of reducibility", where a sub-sequence may model some or all of another sub-sequence via symmetries, thereby turning the universe into something an entity like a brain might be able to model. The sequences of bits with no inherent patterns would appear to follow more or less arbitrary rules--rules that generate essentially pure randomness.
@lasttheory
9 ай бұрын
Yes, that's interesting, thanks Matt. One way to look at the hypergraph is that it's just sequences of numbers (representing the nodes connected by the edges). I think that gets closer to you binary bit representation. Fascinating stuff!
@Zeuts85
9 ай бұрын
@@lasttheory Thanks for the reply. So is it really just a matter of representation? I can look at a sequence of bits and say "that represents an image" or "that represents text" or... "that represents a hypergraph." If so, and physics as we know it elegantly emerges as the result of the time evolution of hypergraphs, then wouldn't it mean reality itself is just a matter of perspective? I.E. the "theory of everything" would really boil down to a simple rule that generates all possible sequences of bits, and from there, we just look for useful ways of interpreting this infinite jungle? I.E. Find the "rule" that interprets the bits in a way that is indistinguishable from the universe we experience? (I guess that's really no different from what Wolfram is trying to do with hypergraphs, is it? It just pushes the problem down a level of abstraction--probably in a way that isn't very useful. 😆) Edit: Nevermind, I just realized that this is basically answered in one of your later videos, and especially your reply to someone else's comment: "What the Wolfram model is saying is that of all the things that could be simulated on a Turing Machine, the hypergraph is the simplest possible data structure that might represent our universe." That clears this up nicely for me.
@lasttheory
9 ай бұрын
@@Zeuts85 Yes, thanks Matt. The wild thing here is that it doesn't matter _how_ you represent the universe - you can draw it out as a hypergraph of nodes and edges, or just leave it as sequences of numbers - what matters is how it appears to us humans, who are _made_ of nodes and edges, or, if you prefer, of sequences of numbers. No matter how we visualize what _underlies_ reality, reality as _perceived_ by us remains the same.
@tempname8263
9 ай бұрын
@@lasttheory Well, but sequence of numbers is just a 1d graph containing numbers. We need to dig deeper. We need branching graphs!... ...We need branching hypergraphs of numbers! :o That's genius! Let us make Wolfram's theory even more incalculable for fun :p
@lasttheory
9 ай бұрын
@@tempname8263 I'm going to really need to up my coding game if you're going to make the model every more incalculable ;-)
@kyaume21
Жыл бұрын
But hyperraphs are also just a model. They are a program on your computer, but the tree I see outside is not in your computer. I don't know if this is the claim , but hypergraphs are as much a model as are the equations you refute as real. In fact, Wolfram Physics it seems to me, is (as yet) without any Physics, as I have seen (so far - correct me if I am wrong) no physical laws. Is there any predictive value in this theory? With respect, but before you declare any other theory dead, would it not be good courtesy to come up with some (experimental or otherwise) actual proofs that your theory is right?
@lasttheory
Жыл бұрын
Yes, you're absolutely right, hypergraphs are just a model, same as equations. I'm not saying anything about which is real. And I'm not saying that any _theory_ is dead: Einstein's General Theory of Relativity is _right_ on a large scale. I'm just saying that a shift in our way of thinking, away from space-time and towards hypergraphs, might prove extremely fruitful at this point in the history of physics. We _do_ have proofs that Einstein's equations can be derived from hypergraphs: take a look at Jonathan Gorard's paper _Some Relativistic and Gravitational Properties of the Wolfram Model_ arxiv.org/abs/2004.14810 This doesn't mean that we have proof that the Wolfram model is right, just that it's consistent with General Relativity. But it's a start. It'll be a long time before we have a novel prediction from Wolfram Physics that can be verified experimentally, but that's true of _all_ theories before they're complete. And no theory will ever be complete unless someone takes it seriously and does the work to develop it. I can't say whether the Wolfram model is _right,_ but it definitely seems to me worth taking seriously. Thanks for the comment, I really appreciate being challenged on this!
@bigoptions
8 ай бұрын
You got that right; space and time are different, but they are not different things. Because they are not things.
@lasttheory
8 ай бұрын
OK, thanks, but we're getting into semantics here! I use the word "thing" to include abstract "things" not just concrete, physical "things". For example, for me, "beauty" is a "thing" too. Also, "sematics" is a "thing" I try to avoid ;-)
@bigoptions
8 ай бұрын
I understand your point; now use your logic calling a bend in time/space an abstract idea, that I think can be useful for doing equations, and then look back at the scientists that made statements and conclusions based on them being things! Here is an example of why some distinctions needs to be made; do you know that if light is a wave nothing is traveling from the sun to the earth? Then that notion that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light is nonsense. I can't wait until you hear what I have to say; your going to love it. that will have to wait, but let me help you now. I have to work on it anyway for a video that will have to help people understand that are much less openminded than you. So, why have you discounted the work of Wheeler and /or Vogt? Seriously, the specific reasons. @@lasttheory
@bigoptions
8 ай бұрын
If I can change your mind, it will open up a new and I think correct branch of physics to you. When I explain it in a video, I was expecting only like 1% of the viewers to accept it, but they are worth the effort. If I make the video or videos right, I expect Wolfram and others like him to get on board. And what about the statement that Hawking didn' t believe in black holes in the end!?
@lasttheory
8 ай бұрын
@@bigoptions Right, that's well stated. The way I think about abstract ideas v physical things is that it's good to have models (forces, space-time, hypergraph) but it's also good to hold them lightly. In other words, it can be incredibly productive to think of the universe _as if_ these "things" existed, but not to the point of getting so invested in their existence that it blinds you to other possibilities. What specific ideas from Wheeler and Vogt are you thinking of?
@bigoptions
8 ай бұрын
The hologram theory is originally Vogt's theory, and a hologram theory was what Hawking started talking about near the end of his life. Wheeler studied the work of all of the greats (he considers Einstein to be, in my words, a clown) and built on and discovered new things. I read like two thirds of his book (not easy) and stopped at the explanation of geomagnetic precession; reading about calculations can put you to sleep. To understand him you have to study the definitions of the words he uses. I didn't want to be a KZitemr, but unfortunately I need the viewers for another reason. As wheeler points out, in my words, Steinmetz was the true Einstein and Tesla was a different type of genius. Notice that I can't just tell you that their theory's are right; I have to explain them. The facts have to pile up and then you have to dig out and remove the mistaken assumptions that had become facts, like that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light; light has no speed because nothing is traveling from the sun to here! People that don't know that time and space and a wave are not things can not peer review wheeler's work. He is one of the smartest people in the world and you can talk to him on youtube if you want. Understand that for him to explain something to you, he is likely to have to explain basic definitions to you if the subject is totally (but you may not know it) misunderstood.@@lasttheory
@kayakMike1000
Жыл бұрын
But you CAN stop time by traveling at the seed of light ...
@lasttheory
Жыл бұрын
Maybe _you_ can, Michael... but I've never quite reached the speed of light. Working on it ;-) Thanks for the comments!
@stephencarlsbad
Жыл бұрын
I agree about Einstein, whom I absolutely love, missing the mark about time not being differentiated from spacial dimensions. This is what leads to his error with block universe theory of time.
@chauchristopher2016
Жыл бұрын
Most people don't think energy and momentum are same, so time and space are in similar situation.
@chrisevans1255
9 ай бұрын
Momentum is a vector quantity. Energy (if you mean kinetic), is a scalar.
@tarkajedi3331
2 жыл бұрын
The kids will love the stone example ! Thank you from Australia!
@lasttheory
2 жыл бұрын
Thanks! I do enjoy trying to find the simplest possible ways to explain these things... let me know what the kids think!
@tarkajedi3331
2 жыл бұрын
@@lasttheory Seriously The kids like anything that they can do themselves!!! We can go find a rock and follow along together ! Excellent work again!
@donaldkasper8346
Жыл бұрын
Math is not a model of our universe. Math is a tool to describe our observable world.
@YarUnderoaker
2 жыл бұрын
By the way, increasing amount of edges for our universe must be rare events compared to cyclic transformation of atoms of space.
@lasttheory
2 жыл бұрын
Yes, absolutely. I find this fascinating. Stephen Wolfram agrees with you that almost _all_ of what's happening in the graph is merely the maintenance of the structure of space. If we could understand in detail _how_ the rule / rules achieve this maintenance, that would be quite something! Thanks Yarov.
@nevetstrevel4711
Жыл бұрын
Id argue time just outright doesn't exist at all
@lasttheory
Жыл бұрын
Right. Time's tricky. In Wolfram Physics, there's a simple concept of time: every application of a rule to the hypergraph is a step in time. And there's a more complex concept of time: multiple paths through the multiway graph reduced by conscious beings to a single thread of time. I'd like to make videos on these concepts, but so far, I haven't had the time... so perhaps it doesn't exist after all?
@irishgamer876
2 жыл бұрын
I always visualize time as the evolution of the universe to, but just because its easier for me to think of it like that
@lasttheory
2 жыл бұрын
Yes, it's easier, for sure. My hope is that it's also more accurate. It's a wonderful thing when a theory of physics makes the universe _easier_ to understand, rather than more _difficult._ That's one of the reasons I find Wolfram Physics so promising. Thanks for the comment!
@sideoutside
2 жыл бұрын
All you've shown is that your conscious experience of reality is nothing but an illusion of your mind, while reality is something that can never be known to you. So typical..
@lasttheory
2 жыл бұрын
Yes, consciousness complicates the picture here, for sure: time seems to be moving forward to me, a conscious creature designed to perceive time as moving forward!
@metroboominauditorybellow563
Жыл бұрын
I wonder how Wolfram Physics explains turbulence
@lasttheory
Жыл бұрын
Yes, that's interesting: there'll be turbulence in any complex system, including the evolution of the hypergraph in the Wolfram model. Coarse-graining is much easier where there's no turbulence.
@metroboominauditorybellow563
Жыл бұрын
@@lasttheory Now I wonder what it would say for turbulent motions in our planet, how will it handle it, and would it be like to other models that we have in physics already?
@davez4285
2 жыл бұрын
The Michelson-Morley experiment showed non existence of aether and concluded that the speed c is not affected by earth’s motion. Then with the MM experimental result, Einstein published special relativity, and introduced the c as constant under any inertia frames. The MM experiment showed speed of light c is not affected by earth’s motion based on the light beam interference. The MM experiment itself didn’t measure the speed c. It only showed that earth’s motion didn’t affect light beams interference. That’s not equivalent to the speed c is constant. Two contradictions: It contradicts the light travels in curves under gravity, the tides are due to moon’s gravity. And it also contradicts the speed c in air is slower than in vacuum. (Because the experiment was done in air. If it is repeated in the vacuum, a). if the light interference is still not affected by the earth’s motion, then it contradicts the result of the experiment in air. b) If it is affected, then c is not constant. Either way, it contradicts the scientific facts) It is unlikely that light is continuous if reflected from mirror. If we measure the c on the earth (v) three ways: (1) v and c at the same direction, (2) opposite directions, (3) vertical. If the c are measured with the same value, we can only conclude that the light beam is smart. If space A or spacetime is curved, then it must have a space B that is not curved. Saying curved means it has curvature r, but how to calculate r, it must be defined on a non-curved space. That the earth surface is curved infers that you are referring the surface in Euclidean space. The curvature of a surface cannot be defined based on its own surface or another curved space.
@lasttheory
2 жыл бұрын
This is all interesting stuff, Dave! When physicists say "the speed of light" they generally mean "the speed of light in a vacuum". The transmission of light through air is slower, because of the interactions between the light and the matter in the air, but that doesn't change the fact that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant. It's just that the air complicates things! You're right that it's difficult to visualize the curvature of our space-time without thinking of it as being in a higher-dimensional space. But that higher-dimensional space need not actually exists. After all, we can't see it, so what evidence do we have that it exists? The only evidence is that matter moves through our space-time in ways that are consistent with its being curved: and the only thing that is evidence _for_ is the way matter moves through our space-time. It's not actually evidence for a higher-dimensional space. Thanks for your ideas!
@kevconn441
2 жыл бұрын
Special relativity and the constancy of c come from Maxwell's equations, not MM experiment.
@davez4285
2 жыл бұрын
@@kevconn441 wrong. MM experiment concluded the earth’s motion doesn’t affect c because the light beams interference didn’t change. Then Einstein published SR. The Maxwells equations indicate c in the vacuum is constant, not c is constant under any reference frames.
@kevconn441
2 жыл бұрын
@@davez4285 You seem confused about MM. Anyway, don't worry about it... Just read what Einstein wrote. Even the title of his 1905 paper on SR is a hint.
@davez4285
2 жыл бұрын
@@kevconn441 Albert Einstein wrote, "If the Michelson-Morley experiment had not brought us into serious embarrassment, no one would have regarded the relativity theory as a (halfway) redemption
@Terpsichore1
2 жыл бұрын
Apart from the obvious confusion the accepted ‘space time’ model left me (an amateur) with personally, I’m still taken aback by the incautious acceptance of ‘models’ attempting to describe the enormous complexity of reality which have a profound impact on our everyday lives, let alone understanding the Universe. So many examples of this. I think this is ‘scientism’, rather than science, heedless of potential problems or risks. Clear and concise as usual, thank you!
@lasttheory
2 жыл бұрын
Thanks! Yes, absolutely, it's really important to differentiate between the model and the reality. Models can be powerful, but reality has a habit of proving itself more powerful than any model!
@TheWooTubes
Жыл бұрын
Scientists are sometimes 'discouraged' from sharing their worries and fears, by people who stand to gain more from not making extra investment in threat mitigation and being lucky. Key decisions are often made by people who don't understand the risks. See: Brexit.
@Terpsichore1
Жыл бұрын
@@TheWooTubes Yes. I’m almost certain that’s true. You lost me on the “Brexit” reference though. Unless you think most people voted for Brexit solely based on a particular financial model? Which of course they didn’t. Or do you mean something else?
@TheWooTubes
Жыл бұрын
@@Terpsichore1 No, quite the opposite. Nobody knew what the model was because the people driving it refused to define it. They were encouraged to imagine their own and told everything would be fine. I've no idea if the leaders had any clue about what would happen but they clearly weren't expecting this; so they hadn't assessed the threats facing their ill-defined 'thoughts and prayers' of taking back control.
@Terpsichore1
Жыл бұрын
@@TheWooTubes Yes. There was no single model. It was purely a subjective decision. Two sides made their cases. People made their choice regardless of positive or negative consequences. If you voted remain, you didn’t like the result. If you voted leave , you were happy with the result. I really don’t see this has any relevance to what was discussed here.
@Naomi_Boyd
2 жыл бұрын
I thought Wolfram was busy trying to quantize space. A futile effort really. If space were quantum in nature, time dilation and length contraction would have to occur in steps which would become apparent at one extreme or the other. We've tested both with atomic clocks and particle colliders and cosmic rays. We've never detected the slightest deviation from the smooth exponential curve that theory predicts. I do hate the term "space time" though. You could replace it with the word "light" everywhere it appears in the theory and it would make just as much sense if not more.
@lasttheory
2 жыл бұрын
Yes, absolutely, space is quantized in Wolfram Physics. Specifically, the graph is made of discrete nodes and edges. And yes, this quantization would definitely have effects at the extreme... but what if the extreme is 10^-100m? No testing with atomic clocks, particle colliders or cosmic rays would detect such effects. And I agree, the word "space-time" isn't pretty. I'm glad it has had it's day!
@ktrethewey
Жыл бұрын
Thank you, sincerely, for such common sense!
@pialachner9378
2 жыл бұрын
isn't time just a description of matter moving through space, though? Even even so, just because you cant do it doesn't mean it cant be done. Always love hearing new opinions though, no harm done.
@pacotaco1246
2 жыл бұрын
look up the Thermal Time Hypothesis, some physicists look at spacetime as a 'space-entropy instead
@lasttheory
2 жыл бұрын
Well, no, according to Wolfram Physics, time isn't just a description of matter moving through space: time is the unfolding of the universe. I haven't completely given up hope of getting my time machine working, but maybe, in the end, we're all going to have to accept reality and admit that time doesn't work in quite the same way as space!
@lasttheory
2 жыл бұрын
Yes, the argument that time is the direction in which entropy increases is an enticing one! I maintain that despite its brilliance, it's a rather desperate attempt to rescue the arrow of time. I just don't think we need to get that clever: time is time; it has an arrow!
@drfill9210
Жыл бұрын
If you applied an infinite force to the rock, you could stop it in time, no?
@chrisevans1255
9 ай бұрын
Only from the point of view of an observer in a sub-light reference frame. The rock still experiences time flowing.
@chriswest8389
3 ай бұрын
S.T always seemed totally buzzard. A multiplicity of selfs for example. Great timing. There goes my time travel novel. Next up, Q.M?
@lasttheory
3 ай бұрын
Sorry to kill your time travel novel, Chris. But yes, absolutely, next up is quantum mechanics. The whole concept of an observer collapsing the wavefunction has to go, to be replaced with something that actually, you know, makes sense!
@chriswest8389
3 ай бұрын
@@lasttheory What about Q.m - all posible universes model.In this one S/t is not possible. Na, you didn’t rain on my sci fi parade. I think I can still have some fun with it. Thanx for your feedbk.
@AndrewWutke
2 жыл бұрын
That is a brilliant presentation in many ways but I would like to know what is your definition of time. It is not obvious. Time is many things. The fact of renaming it by evolution is in itself obvious but does not add much value. How do you measure Evolution?
@lasttheory
2 жыл бұрын
Thanks, Andrew. You're right, I haven't precisely defined time. It's more complicated, in Wolfram Physics, than "the evolution of the graph". I'll need to introduce the multiway graph - and, specifically, space-like and time-like foliations of the multiway graph - to go further. Much more to come on this in future episodes!
@AndrewWutke
2 жыл бұрын
@@lasttheory I made a shallow dive to Wolfram's physics listening to his introductory lecture. It seem clear to me that time is not an entity but totality of phenomena of causal connections realised by the universe represented by the graph evolving this way. Some persistant structure called clocks can be used to synchronise events with a number. Also we need to assume nearly identical clocks can be constructed and they show progress at the same rate when at rest. The problem of inability of instantaneous distant clocks synchronisation has been solved by Special Relativity using a convention stipulating constant speed of light for any moving system. In summary reverse causality in general and time travel are an utter nonsense based on Wolfram's way of thinking.
@TheMeaningCode
2 жыл бұрын
@@AndrewWutke His several conversations with Lex Friedman are worth listening to. Lex asks penetrating questions.
@lasttheory
2 жыл бұрын
@@AndrewWutke Ah, yes, time and causal connections, this is fascinating stuff! Causality is certainly key to understanding time in Stephen Wolfram's universe. The multiway graph is coming soon to The Last Theory... And yes, unlike physics until now, in which the arrow of time has been somewhat fuzzy, there's no confusing the direction of time and causality in Wolfram's universe!
@atypocrat1779
Жыл бұрын
Thank god E=mc^2?is dead. I’ve always been slightly uncomfortable with the idea of nuclear
@lasttheory
Жыл бұрын
Sadly, I don't think E = m.c^2 is dead. Just ask the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki whether they think a small amount of mass can be transformed into a large amount of energy.
@tarkajedi3331
2 жыл бұрын
A marvellous video !!!
@TheWooTubes
Жыл бұрын
I really enjoyed the 2 videos of yours I've listened to while doing the housework today but I don't understand why you stop short of saying that 'the universe is computation' is also a case of believing the model is reality. I used to run a computer that was used by software engineers to write simulations of nuclear reactors. I didn't conclude that the processes on our DEC VAX were a danger to me or that fission is a computation. I saw both as processes with sufficiently similar characteristics to fool a human operator.
@TheWooTubes
Жыл бұрын
Btw: I've read in the last couple of days that Minkowski, whose model we use, accepted that the Time dimension was a 'one-way Street' (at least in our part of space-time.)
@lasttheory
Жыл бұрын
Thanks for the astute comments! I completely agree that saying that "the universe is computation" is also a case of believing the model is reality. Take a look at my video _Where's the computer that runs the universe?_ kzitem.info/news/bejne/zmymr22knaV2fm0 where I argue the same thing: saying that you can model the universe with computation _doesn't_ mean that there's a computer that runs the universe. It's an important insight that I wish _everyone_ understood: the model is not reality. And thanks for mentioning that Minkowski thought time a "one-way street": it's good to see that there are brilliant physicists who _don't_ accept the conventional wisdom about time.
@DemonDaze251
Жыл бұрын
I'm so grateful to have found this channel. As an astrophysics major I had multiple professors tell me Einstein is right, while only a few believed Einstein was probably wrong and also Newton.
@lasttheory
Жыл бұрын
That's great, I'm happy you're liking the channel! I wouldn't say Einstein was "wrong": the equations of General Relativity are an astonishingly accurate representation of the large-scale structure of the universe. I'd just that the concept of space-time has kinda taken over everyone's brains! We need to think differently if we're going to see deeper than Einstein's equations. Thanks so much for the comment, I'll keep the videos coming!
@DemonDaze251
Жыл бұрын
@@lasttheory You're so right, it's more about simplification and what works at your scale. I will say Renormalization isn't math and it is probably responsible for leading many physicists astray. Proffessor Unzicker, here on youtube, has been delving into the history and expounding on the science in really great videos from a P.H.D perspective
@lasttheory
Жыл бұрын
@@DemonDaze251 Thanks, I'll check out Unzicker's Real Physics. Looks like an intriguing channel!
@almircampos
Жыл бұрын
IMHO, this video is the lowest point in this wonderful series, so far. Don't get me wrong. I've been watching an episode after another with no interval between them and I'm increasingly fascinated. However, this video confirms the arrogance already displayed in the series' title "The LAST Theory". The demonstrations of the "insanity" of the Theory of Relativity are, by far, the poorest I ever seen in my entire life, and completely incompatible with the maestry shown on the previous videos. Personally, I can't see any gain in attacking other well succeded theories in this (disrespectful) way. A conciliatory explanation for that could be the visceral passion Mark seems to have for this theory. It's like when we desperately fall in love with a person and everything else doesn't matter. Those who already were caught in situations like that probably know how dangerous and frustrating they can become. Having said that, let's move to the next video an be amazed again.
@lasttheory
Жыл бұрын
Thanks for the comment, Almir, and sorry this video was a low point for you. I certainly didn't mean to discredit the General Theory of Relativity in this article. Einstein's equations are clearly right. What I did mean to take aim at is the _concept_ of space-time. Einstein's equations make sense mathematically without making the additional intellectual leap to consider space and time to be the same thing. I don't think Einstein himself ever believed that they _are_ the same thing. Unfortunately, the concept of a 4-dimensional space-time has taken such a hold over our thinking that it risks blinding us to new possibilities, such as that time is fundamentally different from space. As I argue in my video Beware invisible things - kzitem.info/news/bejne/qqSt3al9inV7qoI - I think we should hold _all_ our concepts lightly if they're not to limit our thinking. That includes our concepts of space-time, and it includes the concepts of Wolfram Physics, too. It's not a question of being in love with a particular theory, it's a question of holding _all_ our concepts lightly enough that we can keep our minds open to other possibilities. Hope that helps explain my position. Thanks so much for watching and taking the time to respond!
Пікірлер: 220