“We live on an island surrounded by a sea of ignorance. As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance.” ― John Archibald Wheeler
I love the way this guy talks. You can see in his eyes that he's not really convinced that what he's saying is in fact the absolute truth, but he's trying to be as honest as he can be given his position of trying to satisfy the interviewers quest for an answer
All I can say is that this man's concept of time is exactly my concept of time and I'm just a guy who's been interested in the time and timekeeping for most of my life and while I do hold an advanced degree, none of my degrees have to do with physics. I came to my view of time by reading and studying on my own. And what is more impressive about Julian Barbour is that he makes his case in plain english.
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL Wrong . You can experience time simply looking at the sky changing, trees changing, yourself changing and so on.. without any social interaction. Time is not a concept but physical reality. What nonsense and stupidity in this video !
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL you are right, time does not really exist, only physic matters motion is getting affected by gravity and/or speed and this is finally having an influence on the result of that "time conception"
This is a most interesting, thoughtful exposition of "time" as a human construct with innumerable uses in our everyday world. It does not say much about time as the quintessentially mysterious foundation of theoretical physics.
I was watching a physics video in which it was explained there is no need for time in physics, that everything little t does in calculations can be done another way without it. My take on time is summarized... Time is a concept only. The concept developed out of our thoughts about our observations of things moving relative to each other. I wouldn't be surprised to discover that the boundary between physics and philosophy is really very fuzzy.
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL Hey - I so agree with you - time is just a concept invented by man and initially prompted by living inside a big clock. It's so not 'mysterious'!
@@chickenduckquack I am glad that you and I and Carlo Rovelli are all in fundamental agreement. But I wouldn't say "just a concept". I would say, "a most extraordinary, fabulous, astounding, useful and convenient concept". lol
0:09 What is Time? “A succession of pictures” continuously changing one into the other We need a concept of change to hold a concept of time 0:59 Newton’s flow of time is wrong according to Barbour 2:00 You need change. Without it, you can’t say time has past. 2:58 Watches march in step not with Time, but with each other 3:36 Time, for practical purposes, is about keeping people synchronized, in about the same, common time 4:41 Refinements. Einstein showed the idea of absolute simultaneity is difficult at high speeds 5:24 Simultaneity at separate points. 6:07 We’ve reached a pleatu until Quantam Mechanics. Atoms 6:49 Atomic Clocks, cesium atom. 7:35 Greater Accuracy requires Greater Care, Taking more variables in account
Photo frame of everything is changing within a fraction of a second and going into the past, next frame is still awaited and all pass in a blink of an eye
Even in an unchanging environment or when staring at a picture you have thoughts passing in your mind. As long as you have consciousness You couldn't possibly be unaware of the passing of time. Time is conscious awareness.
This logic is flawed though. You say "even in an unchanging environment you have thoughts passing in your mind". Therefore the environment is not unchanging. Unless you stray from the physical view of the universe (I won't say reductionist), it is obvious that time only exists as the perception of change. If your consciousness was frozen, all the electrons stopped and the neurones stopped firing, then you wouldn't perceive time. If the environment is TRULY unchanging, then you aren't aware of time passing because you too are frozen.
@@marcv2648 - good point - and also science popularizers - such as the producers & interviewees of this video series - they need to know what's getting thru to the lay audience - and what isn't
Distance by time is always a constant. The maximum is C. Energy content of anything is the measure of velocity. Directions make senses as for as velocity is concerned. Variations in directions is what traps energy otherwise it is ever constant. Mostly vector equations. Time is a measure of relative velocity of matter to that of light speed.
Time is our awareness of and sensitivity to the constant and steady flow of energy resulting in the movement of material objects, be they astral bodies, water flowing or clouds blowing. Everything moves. It is the very nature of reality.
Yes but I put it this way... Time is a concept only. The concept developed out of our thoughts about our observations of things moving relative to each other.
I agree with Julian Barbour's ideas about what time actually is. Time is merely movement in our physical universe. It is wild and unfounded theory which claims that time is a "dimension". I also think that all events are reversible, meaning that time has no true direction. Entropy supposedly is "time's arrow", but with energy or deliberate action (by us), we can reverse "time's arrow". Additionally, entropy must include a change in positions and movement which is the proposed definition of time.
I'm a bit surprised with JBs comments about the deep rooted psychological experience of time moving forward and how he experiences it too. I thought with his viewpoint and all the research he's done on the subject that his perceptions would be free of that naivety.
This is it. Time is just the comparison of events with an agreed upon metric (usually a stable oscillator - a pendulum, the vibration of a cesium atom, etc).
Time is simply the measurement of change, nothing else! No change, no time...I am a prresentist, the past does not exist as well as the future, only the changes in the present.
Brad Younger Moments aren't measured which is my point. As such, moments can't be defined in terms of relativistic affects as, conceptually, all moments are of the same duration regardless of one's point of view. Moments are outside the realm of physics and are more concept than fact.
Moments can be measured from the perspective of the individual and matched "near-precisely" to someone else's measurements - everything is relative, as we know. Planck lengths would be the most "near-accurate" measurement of a moment. But beneath a Planck length, measurements becomes meaningless within the confines of our universe.
I like the thinking of that person, Perhaps he has no exception of new idea. I am nobody but as I know time is rule our life more than we think of. Great example is our own body and brain which can communicate more than the tick of clock, even what he thinks about how we get thoughts its about time at it own value.
I think time passes no matter what, you just need a frame of reference to prove it, just like you need a frame of reference for motion. The earth moves, but not from our frame of reference. Just an opinion, and probably an incomplete one.
Time not only seems to require change in things but also the activity of memory. Without memory, there is no change only disconnected states of things. Another way of looking at this is to say that memory is the glue which holds individual states in an ordered succession of "earlier" and "later". Taking this viewpoint reduces time to a structure in the phenomenal world, the world that all sentient beings experience. I think the philosopher Kant had it right when he said that we must limit our science and knowledge to the phenomenal world. We have no direct access to things as they are in themselves, completely separate from our avenues of experience. Ultimate reality is like the engineer's black box, something whose inner workings we cannot directly experience but only what its output is, given a certain input. To say we can directly experience reality in itself is to say then that reality is phenomenal, constrained and determined by the structure of experience, which includes both time, space, and causality.
he says time hasn't passed because he doesn't see any motion. i think time is moment that passes, even if a glass of water drops and reverses back to how it was, a moment has passed. history has occurred. time travel is impossible but repeat of events is.
@@drbonesshow1 Eh? Have you watched the recent Westworld TV series in which a virtual Bernard the android spent 30,000 years or so in the Sublime tracing down all possible outcomes so he could return and nudge humanity away from self destruction?
Time, Space, Existence, Consciousness, Matter/Energy, Deity, Number... all of these are words (with different contexts and usages) describing distinct but inextricably connected aspects of one fundamental binary: Perceived and Unperceived.
i'm usually frustrated by videos about time. i think it is a huge mistake to dismiss the most important variable in physics as imaginary :) but this video did not upset me that much :)
Time is the effect of existence of mass which occupies space. Mass is the effect of existence of consciousness awareness. Together mass, space and time are the effects (illusion) of the same awareness consciousness.
Time is relative only to physical movement. If you believe that what separates future from past is an immeasurably brief moment, then you are seldom present.
Why TIME fascinates people is the fact WE ALL grow older to the point we DIE as opposed to growing younger towards our mother's womb! We can only experience time going backwards is through photographs or instant replay and rewind on movie cameras.
Superb video, thank you. Time for me is an emergent aspect of Entropy. Without Entropy there would be no way of noticing the passage of Time, and entropy is one directional. Hence, Time is too. Thinking about what i just wrote, i think its not entirely a cogent explanation, since by expending energy, one can undo a high entropy state into a lower one. 😅😅
The professor in the video (Julian Barbour) recently released a book that talks about this idea of time's relation to entropy in much more detail, you might find it interesting. It's called 'The Janus Point - A New Theory of Time'
On the other hand you may find this more compelling... Time is a concept only. The concept developed out of our thoughts about our observations of things moving relative to each other.
2:20 - I think to really say "no time is passing," you have to extend the "no change" to everything - the entire universe, including yourself. Even if the whole universe outside of you froze, you still have a subjective internal experience of time passing. You've built that up over from experience. If someone locks you in a dark room for half an hour, you probably know you've been in there for more than 10 minutes and less than an hour. Different people would have more accurate internal clocks. But, if NOTHING changes, universe wide, then I absolutely believe that no time has passed. If you return the entire universe to the state it was in 200 years ago, it IS 200 years ago. Etc.
Oh. You've been watching the universe lately? ha ha only kidding you. I'm one of those type people who is able to guess the time, most of the time (pun intended) ~ almost to the minute 80% of the time, and to within about 11 minutes about 19% of the time, no matter where I am or what I am doing or who I am with or even if I've traveled or am in a dark environment or just woken up. I don't know why, but I find it interesting that it is so. As for your point about 2:20, I think that subjective experience is what he was referring to when he said, "it's deeply psychological' or something to that effect.
The quote on Einstein not really having given "duration" much thought is a wowser in the context of the clash betw. Einstein and Henri Bergson (then-celebrated philosopher who defined "duration" as the aspect of time that can't be reduced to number), a once-famous conflict recently brought back to light by Jimena Canales' book "The Physicist and the Philosopher." Bergson rules! Einstein drools! XX
Julian Barbour is a world expert on the subject of time; he also holds the minority viewpoint among physicists that time does not exist. He is a deep thinker and this video doesn't do him justice. If you really want to understand his views on time, and learn a lot about the foundations of physics, read his book The End of Time (1999).
His concept is absolutely correct and the reason why time has never been settled on what it actually is, or if it even exists. The issue is just as big taking time out of the equation as having it in the equation. I don't think Einstein agreed with what time was, he just needed to have it added in to complete his theories. The issue is that these theories, which have been shown to be true, over and over again show that time as Einstein thought of it, was indeed real. The worst part which Julian touches on briefly is that Einstein didn't even like time, it was more that he could not exclude it to complete his theories. If you can't exclude time from a working theory then it must be real. The issue with time is that it forces you to comply, it's like a jail you can't break out of. As much as you don't want to include it in your theories, you have to. Even worse is that time makes you comply in theories the same way each time. It's one of the biggest reasons why no traction has been made since Einstein on this subject. The biggest annoyance ever.
Time isn't real. It was invented by man. As a side effect of having a regular set of 'snapshots' of some motion and using 'distance' we can get both velocity and acceleration. Clocks are used as a guide to take those snapshots. But the kicker here is that ONLY man is interested in velocity or acceleration. We use those concepts to study our world. No Animal or rock formation gives two hoots about the 'time'. Think about it, only man wants to meet next wednesday at 2:45 and only man wants to study the motion of a ball bouncing down the stairs!
Time is distance (space) divided by velocity t=s/v. . Frequency is the number of light-waves produced in 1 second of time (f=1/t). Time is therefore the frequency of a light-wave multiplied by its wavelength and it is relative to time (again t=s/v). That is why the speed-of-light (c) in a vacuum just happens to be based on the wave-length and frequency of light-waves. That is spacetime. It has absolutely nothing to do with Earth-time based on the rotation of the earth around the sun, in which time is based on astronomy and not physics.
My idea is Time exists when there's movement in the universe/dimension/reality/existence, call it whatever. If everything stops completely, nothing exists. The light that travels to our eyes to process and "see" things would stop also. How can we measure when all process of perception have completely stopped. How would you explain time to a person that cannot see, hear, or touch anything.
Good response. Made me think a bit. For anything to exist there must be "time" in a "space" for it to be in. Kind of like a pet fish would require a tank and water in it. Fish requires both not one or the other. Water to swim in and a tank to hold the water. Movement with distance is existence.
@@josuecaldero5955 Alternatively... Time is a concept only. The concept developed out of our thoughts about our observations of things moving relative to each other.
I told my physics teacher that time did not exist, that we only experience it because something changes, if nothing changed, we would not perceive it. He send me to the psychologist and I got kicked out of school and they out me on pills. So those pills made me very sad and I never went back to school so I have a very low paying job and I never could get a girlfriend.
EElectric_M what an incredibly stupid teacher... and anecdote. I was bad at physics because I used to be bad at math, I should have been a c student in physics, but instead got Bs specifically because I talked about things inquisitively and asked weird questions. I don't know one teacher who wouldn't accept, at least conversationally, what you said.
It's interesting we're all on time here, just time stamps are different. According to statistical probability, some commentators might pass away since video has appeared. It's like time doesn't pass when nothing is changing on the picture, but inner time order of events that made this section possible is constantly braking down. Picture might appear timeless, but on a cost of it's inner substance also called entropy. This is important because things are in a constant free fall towards center of gravity curvature.
Agree at 1:00 ... because Newton's claim that if nothing happens time still goes on doesn't seem to hold basic water as 'time occurring' would be something. There's no such thing as nothing because it would take something to identify it. So time would then seem to not be a measure OF events but THE EVENT ... events do not 'flow with time' time is, are events ... of if you like, time are the events between events.
If time is motion then time doesn't exist where no motion is. Motion creates heat - thus when there is no heat then there is no motion and no time. WOOT! My freezer is a time-machine! ^^
To sum it up its all great sounding theories, but thats all they are. We like to hear these scientists talk because it gives us the idea that we as humans understand exactly why we are here. Maybe to cope with inevitable death? Finding peace in scientists that do the thinking for us, so we don't have to think for ourselves? What if there was a creator, and this creator wants to give love and understanding, but we reject it by listening to these prophets? Maybe we should repend and listen to our heart, why do we have these morals, why do we know what is bad. Why do most humans just want to attract a partner and create a family, I mean in the core of what we want. You can argue career is important, and a lot of people think they want that, maybe through TV shows and celebs telling you that getting to where they are is the answer. To build a career, to make a name for yourself, for what? Where do you live for then? Money? Power? Ego? We know money does not create positive substance in the mind, fame doesn't either it seems, if you take a close look at them. Who is creating these celebs? And why? I would argue maybe its like the lottery, once a year some one wins it, thats enough motivation for a lot of people getting a ticket. Maybe it's the exact same thing with actors and fame, they are the lottery winners of fame and fortune, showing how it is possible for young people to pursuit these empty goals. Maybe this is one of the many parts that is destroying people, depression, suicide, it's the biggest killer ever, yet nobody talks about it; here, take a pill, created by scientists in a lab serving big pharma. End of bad spelled rant
Time is a flow of events....physical or mental ..... The physical seems to offer no reverse direction but strangely, the mind seems to. The parallel universe and time travel is in the dream state .....
Surely without time no two events could be separated? If time did not exist per se, everything would either remain unchanged or would instantly change to a final state. Time is the indicator of the energetics of change, since energetics is tied in with the rate at which an event can take place, with available energy. A heavy object could be thrown a great distance very quickly if there were enough energy avail, but only slowly if there was not. Time is a function of energy in some way.
Hey look, that glowing ball pops up every day, we could use that to make appointments... But..., it's not really a stable system. Don't worry, we'll skip and add days now and then, it's fine. We'll even pull an hour from the bottom and glue it to the top so we have a longer one for a while... My favourite quote by someone in school when i was younger: "it's about time that it's time."
There are four independent sizes or vastness (might not be the correct word, sorry) : Length, Mass, Electrical charge and Time. We have direct observing ability only for the length. Thats why it is very difficult to understand the others. Not only the time.
Time is a cross-boundary, "unification concept" of motion and he seems to bog down in the notion of time being an agreement between two watches. It's not. Those two watches have to agree with not only each other but with the number of (what we've defined as) seconds there are in a day which has to agree with the speed at which the earth is rotating which has to agree with the speed the earth circles the sun which has to agree with the velocity the sun is revolving around the center of the galaxy, etc.We unify all those different types of measurements with an almost ineffable notion we use as the "master-measurement" and call it time. It IS an "illusion" but a necessary one which is self-imposed. It is, in fact, a requirement of intelligent existence. We literally can not "not have a concept exactly the same as time".
that is what you explain the old measurement of time if you need an update we us vibrations from atomic systems. Of such these include Cesium and ammonia
Yes but I put it like this... Time is a concept only. The concept developed out of our thoughts about our observations of things moving relative to each other.
1. Imagine the universe as a giant grid. 2. Entropy happens because, over time, particles in that grid move in ways that tend to become more disordered. 3. Hence entropy is possible only in a universe where motion is possible. A completely static universe where nothing ever changed its grid position would never increase in entropy. 4. Motion is built into E = mc^2, Einstein's equation that shows the equivalence between matter and energy: the speed of light (motion as distance/time). 5. It seems curious to me that the exact speed of light would factor into the equivalence between matter and energy. That is, matter and energy don't seem to be separable from motion. In fact, motion is the conversion factor between matter and energy. 6. I think this inseparability might explain why there has to be "something" rather than "nothing." A "nothing" universe makes no sense as something that could exist given its lack of motion (and hence lack of light since I have read that a photon in a vacuum cannot be slowed or stopped without destroying it). That's about as far as I have gotten with this line of thinking. I'm sure it is wrong in many ways but I feel like it's worth exploring in trying to find out what time is.
spot on. without apparent change or difference, our sense of space and time (or space-time) would necessarily cease. the passage of time is basically translocation (conditions spatially or locally change in relation to each other) or transformation (a condition changes in relation to itself; i.e. the rusting of paint, the melting of an ice cube, or whatever), whereby both translocation and transformation are basically the same thing on different scales or at different magnitudes. a watch and a clock aren't that different from a ruler or measuring stick, except they're usually circular and have a radial arm that mechanically traverses the circumference or regular intervals continually at a consistent speed. however, yes, there are subjective and objective aspects of time; hence 10 minutes of objective time can subjectively feel like an hour of objective time, whereas an hour of objective time can subjectively feel like 10 minutes of objective time. the objective aspect of time pertains to the mechanical rotation of the radial arm around the clock face, whereas the the subjective aspect pertains to your experience of the change or difference that has occurred.
We experience time because we are made of matter. Matter 'moves', so we 'feel' time 'moving'. Essentially, time is an illusion created by the movement of matter.
***** You can't know that. As Julian Barbour said in the video: If all matter in the universe suddenly paused or stopped, 'time' would not magically keep going, because time only exists as mediator between objects.
My take on time is that 1) we live in a simulation 2) as with videos and movies, we all live in a successful of frames - which I call instants - and those instants are kept in synch via the Newton's and Einstein's rules. Because we have a brain in which there are memories, we're able to perceive that succession of instants as a passage of time. We never directly perceive a passage of time but only 1 instant.
I think this may be a more accurate version of your statement... Time is a concept only. The concept developed out of our thoughts about our observations of things moving relative to each other.
I think time can represented as a change in the surroundings which can relate to entropy , if we reverse the changes(both reversible and irreversible)we reverse time.
this is a miopic presumption from Barbour; he needs to see something changing? what about seeing a stationary object with a fixed light source? One would automatically presume that time is suspended or non-existant because one can't see a change? What about the fact that protons and electrons though not readily visible are perpetually moving/changing? Maybe I'm off here, I dunno -
you are off but it's partly due to Barbour's explanation - Barbour doesn't mean that we only use sight to experience change and thereby sensing or experiencing time - it's just an example - the important concept for him is that time is experienced when things change - changes either outside ourselves or inside (bodily sensations) try this thought experiment - if the entire universe froze - would time still be ticking away in - say - another dimension - isn't that like believing in god - without proof of time as a fundamental dimension - then the likely explanation is that time emerges from the tempestuous changes going on in space - something changes in some way - time is experienced
Read the answers to whether time is an illusion or real in the book, "Infinity, Time, Death and thought". Time is a product or result of thought but includes 4 distinct aspects of time and their relation to both consciousness and their place in the physical universe. Discover why the universe can never reverse time, however that time is reversible in a non physical realm.
He is all over the place. Time is simply a measurement at a factor of the speed of light. It is a way to measure the distance between occurrences. Simple
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL You are incorrect. We all use time everyday to measure events. You have to be to work at a certain time. You leave work after being there a certain amount of time. If I ask you when did you graduate from high school, you will use time to measure how long ago the event happened. Your time is a concept talk is a bunch of air for airheads. My watch is not a concept air Jordan
@@goldstream5147 There's no denying that time is a very useful concept. It is entirely understandable that after a lifetime of believing time to be a 'something' in the universe, one would find it challenging to realize its conceptual nature. I certainly did. I'm sure that if you watch Carlo Rovelli's CZcams lecture's on time you will change your mind. He explains it far better than I can. (Actually I'm not sure but I believe there is a good chance).
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL Time has shown that ignorance is bliss, which is an important point, what you believe time to be is not what we know time to be. For you it can remain a concept. For you, your kind evolved from monkeys. For us, time is not defined as a concept and we come from the earth, not the monkeys like your kind believes. Embarrassingly, 100 years ago your kind couldn’t even tell that Africans were human, let alone what time is. Also, Einstein and others have also confirmed that time is a part of space - space time.
I believe...Time is: A measure of change in the entire existing universe, caused by the motion of matter/energy/space expansion in relation to itself. Because time is founded in motion, time is relative to speed. Time and space are the same in that space itself is expanding, thus moving, movement is change, and time is simply a measurement of that change. So time is as real as space and it’s motion of expansion. Not so difficult to understand really.
Raydensheraj......Haven't read his books, I'm sure they're a wonderful read, but I just get the impression from his narrative here that he's not exactly sure that what he's saying is totally true. No problem tho, because sometimes we have to say things we don't particularly believe to get to where we wanna go. If that makes any sense
In response to - "It may be that time has passed but you just cant say." Julian replies - "I would prefer to put a name on something that I can see". That sounds like a very narrow view. Does that imply that when you are sleeping time is not passing?
What really exists in this reality is "events" not "time". Events have their own pace ...slow, medium & fast .Time is only a "measure" of "pace"of these events happening. In reality, the pace of an event can be increased or decreased by means of some force.....so.... Time is only a "measure" associated with events. Got it?
A photon's clock runs really really slow seeing as it's moving at the speed of light. Time stops at the event horizon of a black hole. Science doesn't seem to be easy for you...
Time is a concept only. The concept developed out of our thoughts about our observations of things moving relative to each other. Do you understand now?
It's so very simple - why do people make a meal of 'time'? We only live in the now - past and present 'realities' can easily be dismissed literally as nonsense. Initially man was guided by the clocks that we live inside day, month and year. But they only provide a rough idea of when to do anything so man invented basic clocks and improved on them to allow us to more accurately meet and determine when to plant, etc. But later, the inquisitive human needed to analyse his environment. Living only in the 'now' is difficult because things are only ever in one place and that isn't interesting at all. So we needed to take snapshots of the thing we are intereted in and then we have a need to decide when to take that snapshot. We could use a metronome and on each tick take a picture but having a number associated with the pic helps keep the pictures in order and a regular 'beat' would produce a linear result. This gives us 'time' on the x-axis. So now the clock we used to meet and greet is used to give the required 'timing'. The readout on the clock is what we know as 'time' - or 'the time'. Clocks have NO magical properties - they just go round and round and round as long as you keep them wound up (powered). That's it! Note that we decide how fast the clock rotates and how many numbers there are on the dial - so really clocks just show us exactly what he have designed them to show us. Oh and as time is just a concept - you can't dilate it, sorry. Oh and Space time is bull. Our 'brains' need to go back and have a re-think...
They say time is going from order to disorder but isn't it more accurate to say that time is the measurement of motion or in the case already mentioned, the measure of going from order to disorder, the measurement of change?
Change α Δx/Δt were the small letter "t" is time. It's kinda' basic physics. I read his book and wasn't convinced. Without time how can you explain the transition from frame to frame? How can you even use the word 'transition' without a time reference? The best you can do is to give time another name, but hell it is still time.
Barbour is NOT saying that there is no time - he's saying it isn't fundamental - he's saying that the transition from frame to frame is creating time - whereas you are saying that time is ticking away before and after the consecutive frames - so that transition is occurring within it - it's a subtle difference - but worth trying to grasp
John Eyon How can that transition exists without time? I can easily imagine space not being fundamental, you just need a network configured in a particular way. But it seems to me that all attempts at considering time as not fundamental end up doing the trick of just hiding it inside another concept: transition, change, transformation... None of those concepts actually make sense without some idea of time as a preexisting condition.
Let's say, we live a vibrational existence - like Julian Barbour states in the first minute of this video. Let's also say, in our universe we are vibrating into and out of existence at a fixed rate - maybe at the prime or harmonic frequency of the Cosmic Background Radiation. Let's also say, that black holes represent the density of mater that can not fully form during one instance of our existence and that gravity is the force of our coming into existence. Quantum Probability then would be the result of beat Frequency oscillations between particles and each frame of our existence. As we perceive matter as particles when we exist and as waves when we don't exist. Time would then be the wavelength between any two adjacent points of our existence. Therefore, even if nothing changed in our universe during those two points time would still have ticked on. Barbour's statement that if nothing changed, time wouldn't exist can be proven wrong by showing two people living apart where one experiences a change between oscillations and the other doesn't. Similar to the old, if a tree falls in the woods and nobody hears it, does is make a sound argument. It also addresses the double-slit experiment; as particles act as waves during non-existence, but as particles when we existence. Of course, the Cosmic Background Radiation chart isn't one pure color - so it seems reasonable to assume that time is different at different points in the universe - just like it is in heavy gravitational fields. Which makes me think that the bending of light is caused by the force of our coming into existence and not by our normal interpretation of gravity. Of course this also hinges on the fact that information about mass, direction, and energy isn't lost during our non-existence, but black hold scientists insist that knowledge is never lost. So, I rest my case.
3.24 Clocks are "marching in steps with each other." Well they are not, are they? Only if they are in the same frames of reference, that is only if they move in unity. Otherwise their steps will not be synchronized.
golden86 that's still the most coherent and realistic definition of time. Wasn't it John Wheeler who said that? Or am I thinking of someone else? (I believe Wheeler also coined the term "black hole").
golden86 It did. Your awareness is limited to a single event. Infinite number of you confined to awareness in a single event as long as universe exists.
I don't know what time is, other than the passing of one's life. In my case, I'm closer to my end than I am to my beginning. So time is not my friend. Maybe that's all time is. The measure of one's life.
The only reason why time isn't a real thing is because of relativity. Time almost stops towards the speed of light. This is why clocks tick at a difference pace in space and they slow down as they move faster. So you can't possibly define time as a specific amount. That's the beginning of the iceberg as to why we can't define time.
Are you serious? Discussing time and not even mentioning the 2nd law of therodynamics which defines the arrow of time. You may sync your watch or not but when they start ticking they only do so till their charge runs out, never do they accumulate charge no matter how you try. That is so fundamental a propery of time I have no idea how you missed that out
If watches were actually driven by 'time' they could never go out of sync or be wrong. But they do go out of sync and are often wrong and that's because time and watches are related only by our thinking process. I summarize my thoughts like this... Time is a concept only. The concept developed out of our thoughts about our observations of things moving relative to each other. (Think on the trainman's watch and the train arriving in the station. They are simply objects moving relative to each other and 'time' is the concept that relates their movements in our thoughts).
“We live on an island surrounded by a sea of ignorance. As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance.” ― John Archibald Wheeler
Like fractals!
@@youretheai7586 You're the fractal.
What he says at 3:09 is truly the key.
I love the way this guy talks. You can see in his eyes that he's not really convinced that what he's saying is in fact the absolute
truth, but he's trying to be as honest as he can be given his position of trying to satisfy the interviewers quest for an answer
So his books are just mumbo jumbo hmmm....ohhhkayyy
All I can say is that this man's concept of time is exactly my concept of time and I'm just a guy who's been interested in the time and timekeeping for most of my life and while I do hold an advanced degree, none of my degrees have to do with physics. I came to my view of time by reading and studying on my own. And what is more impressive about Julian Barbour is that he makes his case in plain english.
Consider...
Time is a concept only.
The concept developed out of our thoughts about our observations of
things moving relative to each other.
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL Wrong . You can experience time simply looking at the sky changing, trees changing, yourself changing and so on.. without any social interaction. Time is not a concept but physical reality. What nonsense and stupidity in this video !
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL you are right, time does not really exist, only physic matters motion is getting affected by gravity and/or speed and this is finally having an influence on the result of that "time conception"
No physicist in the world today know for sure what "Time" is. However, some youtubers seems to have it all figured out.
*know's
knows*
Nose.........nos...........
youtubers can have hypotheses - it's a law of nature
Einstein was a patent clerk. Just sayin.
This is a most interesting, thoughtful exposition of "time" as a human construct with innumerable uses in our everyday world. It does not say much about time as the quintessentially mysterious foundation of theoretical physics.
Do you get paid by the syllable or something?
@@scottk1525 I can see why you asked. I was sure polysyllabic in that comment.
I was watching a physics video in which it was explained
there is no need for time in physics,
that everything little t does in calculations can be done another way without it.
My take on time is summarized...
Time is a concept only.
The concept developed out of our thoughts about our observations of
things moving relative to each other.
I wouldn't be surprised to discover that
the boundary between physics and philosophy
is really very fuzzy.
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL Hey - I so agree with you - time is just a concept invented by man and initially prompted by living inside a big clock. It's so not 'mysterious'!
@@chickenduckquack I am glad that you and I and Carlo Rovelli are all in fundamental agreement.
But I wouldn't say "just a concept".
I would say,
"a most extraordinary, fabulous, astounding, useful and convenient concept".
lol
0:09 What is Time?
“A succession of pictures” continuously changing one into the other
We need a concept of change to hold a concept of time
0:59 Newton’s flow of time is wrong according to Barbour
2:00 You need change. Without it, you can’t say time has past.
2:58 Watches march in step not with Time, but with each other
3:36 Time, for practical purposes, is about keeping people synchronized, in about the same, common time
4:41 Refinements. Einstein showed the idea of absolute simultaneity is difficult at high speeds
5:24 Simultaneity at separate points.
6:07 We’ve reached a pleatu until Quantam Mechanics.
Atoms
6:49 Atomic Clocks, cesium atom.
7:35 Greater Accuracy requires Greater Care, Taking more variables in account
Photo frame of everything is changing within a fraction of a second and going into the past, next frame is still awaited and all pass in a blink of an eye
@@kalapitrivedi6966 i don't think it's like a photo
Even in an unchanging environment or when staring at a picture you have thoughts passing in your mind. As long as you have consciousness You couldn't possibly be unaware of the passing of time. Time is conscious awareness.
Then unless you are truly paying attention to your consciousness, there is no feeling of time existing.
This logic is flawed though. You say "even in an unchanging environment you have thoughts passing in your mind". Therefore the environment is not unchanging. Unless you stray from the physical view of the universe (I won't say reductionist), it is obvious that time only exists as the perception of change. If your consciousness was frozen, all the electrons stopped and the neurones stopped firing, then you wouldn't perceive time. If the environment is TRULY unchanging, then you aren't aware of time passing because you too are frozen.
Well, he did say "if you have a record" of a picture and it doesn't change....I've never ever seen a picture on a record...there is that.
Amazing! With this one video, millions of physicists were created in the comments section
To be taught and get convinced means some changed opinion, pple have retained theirs except for a fool like you who cant have such own opinion!!
Well, 703 anyway.
The guys who get a paycheck doing theoretical physics all have different conceptions and pet theories of time, so it's fair game.
@@marcv2648 - good point - and also science popularizers - such as the producers & interviewees of this video series - they need to know what's getting thru to the lay audience - and what isn't
I thought this was going to be the metaphysical interpretation of time, but it's time used as a practical measuring tool type of video.
Distance by time is always a constant. The maximum is C. Energy content of anything is the measure of velocity. Directions make senses as for as velocity is concerned. Variations in directions is what traps energy otherwise it is ever constant. Mostly vector equations. Time is a measure of relative velocity of matter to that of light speed.
Velocity does not exist for a single body in empty space . Velocity is measured relative to something.
We don’t know the real speed of time
Time is our awareness of and sensitivity to the constant and steady flow of energy resulting in the movement of material objects, be they astral bodies, water flowing or clouds blowing. Everything moves. It is the very nature of reality.
Yes but I put it this way...
Time is a concept only.
The concept developed out of our thoughts about our observations of
things moving relative to each other.
I agree with Julian Barbour's ideas about what time actually is. Time is merely movement in our physical universe. It is wild and unfounded theory which claims that time is a "dimension". I also think that all events are reversible, meaning that time has no true direction. Entropy supposedly is "time's arrow", but with energy or deliberate action (by us), we can reverse "time's arrow". Additionally, entropy must include a change in positions and movement which is the proposed definition of time.
I'm a bit surprised with JBs comments about the deep rooted psychological experience of time moving forward and how he experiences it too. I thought with his viewpoint and all the research he's done on the subject that his perceptions would be free of that naivety.
Time is just a scalar referential and only exist inside us. We created time in order to self-positioning between events.
This is it. Time is just the comparison of events with an agreed upon metric (usually a stable oscillator - a pendulum, the vibration of a cesium atom, etc).
Time is simply the measurement of change, nothing else! No change, no time...I am a prresentist, the past does not exist as well as the future, only the changes in the present.
Everyone on the comments had the insight that humanity is trying to understand since always. Amazing how many genius there are on the internet!!
opinions need to be cancelled 😝
This moment, right now, exists, has exited, will exist. In this sense, perhaps, we never truly die.
We don't, you got it :), we are infinite in the reality of the now.
+DataSlam The problem with using a "moment" as a measure stick is that you can't measure its size. For instance, how long is a moment?
Brad Younger Moments aren't measured which is my point. As such, moments can't be defined in terms of relativistic affects as, conceptually, all moments are of the same duration regardless of one's point of view. Moments are outside the realm of physics and are more concept than fact.
Moments can be measured from the perspective of the individual and matched "near-precisely" to someone else's measurements - everything is relative, as we know. Planck lengths would be the most "near-accurate" measurement of a moment. But beneath a Planck length, measurements becomes meaningless within the confines of our universe.
Its idea existed, and now its memory in that sense will remain too.
Time is my mom yelling at me for hours
I like the thinking of that person, Perhaps he has no exception of new idea. I am nobody but as I know time is rule our life more than we think of. Great example is our own body
and brain which can communicate more than the tick of clock, even what he thinks about how we get thoughts its about time at it own value.
I think time passes no matter what, you just need a frame of reference to prove it, just like you need a frame of reference for motion. The earth moves, but not from our frame of reference. Just an opinion, and probably an incomplete one.
Time not only seems to require change in things but also the activity of memory. Without memory, there is no change only disconnected states of things. Another way of looking at this is to say that memory is the glue which holds individual states in an ordered succession of "earlier" and "later". Taking this viewpoint reduces time to a structure in the phenomenal world, the world that all sentient beings experience. I think the philosopher Kant had it right when he said that we must limit our science and knowledge to the phenomenal world. We have no direct access to things as they are in themselves, completely separate from our avenues of experience. Ultimate reality is like the engineer's black box, something whose inner workings we cannot directly experience but only what its output is, given a certain input. To say we can directly experience reality in itself is to say then that reality is phenomenal, constrained and determined by the structure of experience, which includes both time, space, and causality.
he says time hasn't passed because he doesn't see any motion. i think time is moment that passes, even if a glass of water drops and reverses back to how it was, a moment has passed. history has occurred. time travel is impossible but repeat of events is.
Can't we define time as change in the arrangement of atom ?
Cant see the wind but it's there professor!
He's using "see" as the verb to express "experience". Is that all you get from this, an activation of your own pedantry???
Came here after Top5s video to hear about this very interesting !
As a physics professor, the only thing that I truly understand about time is that there is too little of it for me.
You may have mine. Want to buy it from me?
If you could think and move a million times faster than you do
you would have a million times more time in which to think.
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL The answer to that is sadly no. Sorry to burn your pumpernickel.
@@drbonesshow1 Eh?
Have you watched the recent Westworld TV series in which a virtual Bernard the android spent 30,000 years or so in the Sublime tracing down all possible outcomes so he could return and nudge humanity away from self destruction?
p.s. 'time' in the Sublime has a ratio of a thousand to one in relation to 'real' time (because the computer can think so much faster).
Time, Space, Existence, Consciousness, Matter/Energy, Deity, Number... all of these are words (with different contexts and usages) describing distinct but inextricably connected aspects of one fundamental binary: Perceived and Unperceived.
i'm usually frustrated by videos about time. i think it is a huge mistake to dismiss the most important variable in physics as imaginary :) but this video did not upset me that much :)
Time is the effect of existence of mass which occupies space.
Mass is the effect of existence of consciousness awareness.
Together mass, space and time are the effects (illusion) of the same awareness consciousness.
Time is relative only to physical movement. If you believe that what separates future from past is an immeasurably brief moment, then you are seldom present.
Why TIME fascinates people is the fact WE ALL grow older to the point we DIE as opposed to growing younger towards our mother's womb! We can only experience time going backwards is through photographs or instant replay and rewind on movie cameras.
Superb video, thank you. Time for me is an emergent aspect of Entropy. Without Entropy there would be no way of noticing the passage of Time, and entropy is one directional. Hence, Time is too. Thinking about what i just wrote, i think its not entirely a cogent explanation, since by expending energy, one can undo a high entropy state into a lower one. 😅😅
The professor in the video (Julian Barbour) recently released a book that talks about this idea of time's relation to entropy in much more detail, you might find it interesting.
It's called 'The Janus Point - A New Theory of Time'
On the other hand you may find this more compelling...
Time is a concept only.
The concept developed out of our thoughts about our observations of
things moving relative to each other.
Time was invented by man - it is a concept. It has no direction. We only live in the now and as such 'time passing' has no meaning.
Time does not exist. Therefore it cannot begin and it cannot end. What we perceive as time is simply changes that take place in our existence.
You perceive change only because of the existence of Time.
There is the past, present and future. We call it time. How it relates to the speed of light is quite a jump. The photo ages so it does change.
2:20 - I think to really say "no time is passing," you have to extend the "no change" to everything - the entire universe, including yourself. Even if the whole universe outside of you froze, you still have a subjective internal experience of time passing. You've built that up over from experience. If someone locks you in a dark room for half an hour, you probably know you've been in there for more than 10 minutes and less than an hour. Different people would have more accurate internal clocks. But, if NOTHING changes, universe wide, then I absolutely believe that no time has passed. If you return the entire universe to the state it was in 200 years ago, it IS 200 years ago. Etc.
Oh. You've been watching the universe lately? ha ha only kidding you. I'm one of those type people who is able to guess the time, most of the time (pun intended) ~ almost to the minute 80% of the time, and to within about 11 minutes about 19% of the time, no matter where I am or what I am doing or who I am with or even if I've traveled or am in a dark environment or just woken up. I don't know why, but I find it interesting that it is so. As for your point about 2:20, I think that subjective experience is what he was referring to when he said, "it's deeply psychological' or something to that effect.
The quote on Einstein not really having given "duration" much thought is a wowser in the context of the clash betw. Einstein and Henri Bergson (then-celebrated philosopher who defined "duration" as the aspect of time that can't be reduced to number), a once-famous conflict recently brought back to light by Jimena Canales' book "The Physicist and the Philosopher." Bergson rules! Einstein drools! XX
JUST LIKE HE SAID NOTHING WOULD CHANGE IF TIME NEVER CHANGED.
Julian Barbour is a world expert on the subject of time; he also holds the minority viewpoint among physicists that time does not exist. He is a deep thinker and this video doesn't do him justice. If you really want to understand his views on time, and learn a lot about the foundations of physics, read his book The End of Time (1999).
His concept is absolutely correct and the reason why time has never been settled on what it actually is, or if it even exists. The issue is just as big taking time out of the equation as having it in the equation. I don't think Einstein agreed with what time was, he just needed to have it added in to complete his theories. The issue is that these theories, which have been shown to be true, over and over again show that time as Einstein thought of it, was indeed real. The worst part which Julian touches on briefly is that Einstein didn't even like time, it was more that he could not exclude it to complete his theories. If you can't exclude time from a working theory then it must be real. The issue with time is that it forces you to comply, it's like a jail you can't break out of. As much as you don't want to include it in your theories, you have to. Even worse is that time makes you comply in theories the same way each time. It's one of the biggest reasons why no traction has been made since Einstein on this subject. The biggest annoyance ever.
Time isn't real. It was invented by man. As a side effect of having a regular set of 'snapshots' of some motion and using 'distance' we can get both velocity and acceleration. Clocks are used as a guide to take those snapshots. But the kicker here is that ONLY man is interested in velocity or acceleration. We use those concepts to study our world. No Animal or rock formation gives two hoots about the 'time'. Think about it, only man wants to meet next wednesday at 2:45 and only man wants to study the motion of a ball bouncing down the stairs!
Time is distance (space) divided by velocity t=s/v. . Frequency is the number of light-waves produced in 1 second of time (f=1/t). Time is therefore the frequency of a light-wave multiplied by its wavelength and it is relative to time (again t=s/v). That is why the speed-of-light (c) in a vacuum just happens to be based on the wave-length and frequency of light-waves. That is spacetime. It has absolutely nothing to do with Earth-time based on the rotation of the earth around the sun, in which time is based on astronomy and not physics.
I found the comments section far more interesting than the video which was lacking in meaningful information.
deckard6_6 "meaningful information"; that's putting it...nicely!
My idea is Time exists when there's movement in the universe/dimension/reality/existence, call it whatever. If everything stops completely, nothing exists. The light that travels to our eyes to process and "see" things would stop also. How can we measure when all process of perception have completely stopped. How would you explain time to a person that cannot see, hear, or touch anything.
>>If everything stops completely, nothing exists
Good response. Made me think a bit. For anything to exist there must be "time" in a "space" for it to be in. Kind of like a pet fish would require a tank and water in it. Fish requires both not one or the other. Water to swim in and a tank to hold the water. Movement with distance is existence.
@@josuecaldero5955 Alternatively...
Time is a concept only.
The concept developed out of our thoughts about our observations of
things moving relative to each other.
Time is when you are fed up of waiting for the bus to come on time
This week seems like a great use of my time right now.
I told my physics teacher that time did not exist, that we only experience it because something changes, if nothing changed, we would not perceive it. He send me to the psychologist and I got kicked out of school and they out me on pills. So those pills made me very sad and I never went back to school so I have a very low paying job and I never could get a girlfriend.
EElectric_M what an incredibly stupid teacher... and anecdote. I was bad at physics because I used to be bad at math, I should have been a c student in physics, but instead got Bs specifically because I talked about things inquisitively and asked weird questions.
I don't know one teacher who wouldn't accept, at least conversationally, what you said.
well thats just depressing
Good.
Just wait a bit, to find a good woman, well, it takes some time. 😁
If someone was in a black room couldn't see or hear or anything...fact nothing was happening...doesnt mean time was not passing. Hes wrong.
Time has to be defined at a more fundamental level than what is discussed here.
It's interesting we're all on time here, just time stamps are different. According to statistical probability, some commentators might pass away since video has appeared. It's like time doesn't pass when nothing is changing on the picture, but inner time order of events that made this section possible is constantly braking down. Picture might appear timeless, but on a cost of it's inner substance also called entropy. This is important because things are in a constant free fall towards center of gravity curvature.
My two favorite scientist that i like is Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein
Multitasking....on dunny learning about our concept of time.
Agree at 1:00 ... because Newton's claim that if nothing happens time still goes on doesn't seem to hold basic water as 'time occurring' would be something. There's no such thing as nothing because it would take something to identify it.
So time would then seem to not be a measure OF events but THE EVENT ... events do not 'flow with time' time is, are events ... of if you like, time are the events between events.
If time is motion then time doesn't exist where no motion is. Motion creates heat - thus when there is no heat then there is no motion and no time. WOOT! My freezer is a time-machine! ^^
Oners82 It is possible to reach absolute zero - at least temporary.
Oners82 It is possible now.
No atoms = no temperature.
I'm addicted to this channel
BREAKING NEWS: Time is this thing, which can be measured by clocks, so that we can keep appointments. What a literal waste of time...
To sum it up its all great sounding theories, but thats all they are.
We like to hear these scientists talk because it gives us the idea that we as humans understand exactly why we are here.
Maybe to cope with inevitable death? Finding peace in scientists that do the thinking for us, so we don't have to think for ourselves?
What if there was a creator, and this creator wants to give love and understanding, but we reject it by listening to these prophets? Maybe we should repend and listen to our heart, why do we have these morals, why do we know what is bad.
Why do most humans just want to attract a partner and create a family, I mean in the core of what we want.
You can argue career is important, and a lot of people think they want that, maybe through TV shows and celebs telling you that getting to where they are is the answer. To build a career, to make a name for yourself, for what? Where do you live for then?
Money? Power? Ego? We know money does not create positive substance in the mind, fame doesn't either it seems, if you take a close look at them.
Who is creating these celebs? And why? I would argue maybe its like the lottery, once a year some one wins it, thats enough motivation for a lot of people getting a ticket. Maybe it's the exact same thing with actors and fame, they are the lottery winners of fame and fortune, showing how it is possible for young people to pursuit these empty goals.
Maybe this is one of the many parts that is destroying people, depression, suicide, it's the biggest killer ever, yet nobody talks about it; here, take a pill, created by scientists in a lab serving big pharma.
End of bad spelled rant
Time is a flow of events....physical or mental ..... The physical seems to offer no reverse direction but strangely, the mind seems to. The parallel universe and time travel is in the dream state .....
Surely without time no two events could be separated? If time did not exist per se, everything would either remain unchanged or would instantly change to a final state. Time is the indicator of the energetics of change, since energetics is tied in with the rate at which an event can take place, with available energy. A heavy object could be thrown a great distance very quickly if there were enough energy avail, but only slowly if there was not. Time is a function of energy in some way.
First part of your claim is exactly right. The second part, no. The 'energetics of change' is the proxy we use to try to measure Time.
Hey look, that glowing ball pops up every day, we could use that to make appointments... But..., it's not really a stable system. Don't worry, we'll skip and add days now and then, it's fine. We'll even pull an hour from the bottom and glue it to the top so we have a longer one for a while... My favourite quote by someone in school when i was younger: "it's about time that it's time."
There are four independent sizes or vastness (might not be the correct word, sorry) : Length, Mass, Electrical charge and Time.
We have direct observing ability only for the length. Thats why it is very difficult to understand the others. Not only the time.
Time is a form of measurement, and nothing more.
A common mistake to confuse the ruler for what you're trying to measure...
Time is a measure of progress. Time has wave properties. Progress through time is directly affected by temperature.
Time is a cross-boundary, "unification concept" of motion and he seems to bog down in the notion of time being an agreement between two watches. It's not. Those two watches have to agree with not only each other but with the number of (what we've defined as) seconds there are in a day which has to agree with the speed at which the earth is rotating which has to agree with the speed the earth circles the sun which has to agree with the velocity the sun is revolving around the center of the galaxy, etc.We unify all those different types of measurements with an almost ineffable notion we use as the "master-measurement" and call it time. It IS an "illusion" but a necessary one which is self-imposed. It is, in fact, a requirement of intelligent existence. We literally can not "not have a concept exactly the same as time".
that is what you explain the old measurement of time if you need an update we us vibrations from atomic systems. Of such these include Cesium and ammonia
Time is a measure of change in the material world.
Yes but I put it like this...
Time is a concept only.
The concept developed out of our thoughts about our observations of
things moving relative to each other.
1. Imagine the universe as a giant grid.
2. Entropy happens because, over time, particles in that grid move in ways that tend to become more disordered.
3. Hence entropy is possible only in a universe where motion is possible. A completely static universe where nothing ever changed its grid position would never increase in entropy.
4. Motion is built into E = mc^2, Einstein's equation that shows the equivalence between matter and energy: the speed of light (motion as distance/time).
5. It seems curious to me that the exact speed of light would factor into the equivalence between matter and energy. That is, matter and energy don't seem to be separable from motion. In fact, motion is the conversion factor between matter and energy.
6. I think this inseparability might explain why there has to be "something" rather than "nothing." A "nothing" universe makes no sense as something that could exist given its lack of motion (and hence lack of light since I have read that a photon in a vacuum cannot be slowed or stopped without destroying it).
That's about as far as I have gotten with this line of thinking. I'm sure it is wrong in many ways but I feel like it's worth exploring in trying to find out what time is.
spot on. without apparent change or difference, our sense of space and time (or space-time) would necessarily cease. the passage of time is basically translocation (conditions spatially or locally change in relation to each other) or transformation (a condition changes in relation to itself; i.e. the rusting of paint, the melting of an ice cube, or whatever), whereby both translocation and transformation are basically the same thing on different scales or at different magnitudes. a watch and a clock aren't that different from a ruler or measuring stick, except they're usually circular and have a radial arm that mechanically traverses the circumference or regular intervals continually at a consistent speed. however, yes, there are subjective and objective aspects of time; hence 10 minutes of objective time can subjectively feel like an hour of objective time, whereas an hour of objective time can subjectively feel like 10 minutes of objective time. the objective aspect of time pertains to the mechanical rotation of the radial arm around the clock face, whereas the the subjective aspect pertains to your experience of the change or difference that has occurred.
We experience time because we are made of matter. Matter 'moves', so we 'feel' time 'moving'. Essentially, time is an illusion created by the movement of matter.
.....
***** You can't know that. As Julian Barbour said in the video: If all matter in the universe suddenly paused or stopped, 'time' would not magically keep going, because time only exists as mediator between objects.
'time' is an abstraction of change. if nothing changed, there would be no "time"--plain and simple.
tonyfalca Yep. Listen to Tony hes explained it better than me.
Time is the universe's way of stopping everything happening at once
The Grand Reification Theory
What does 'happening' mean?
My take on time is that 1) we live in a simulation 2) as with videos and movies, we all live in a successful of frames - which I call instants - and those instants are kept in synch via the Newton's and Einstein's rules. Because we have a brain in which there are memories, we're able to perceive that succession of instants as a passage of time. We never directly perceive a passage of time but only 1 instant.
I think this may be a more accurate version of your statement...
Time is a concept only.
The concept developed out of our thoughts about our observations of
things moving relative to each other.
It is not just the view. Time doesn't exist is reality.
I think time can represented as a change in the surroundings which can relate to entropy , if we reverse the changes(both reversible and irreversible)we reverse time.
this is a miopic presumption from Barbour; he needs to see something changing? what about seeing a stationary object with a fixed light source? One would automatically presume that time is suspended or non-existant because one can't see a change? What about the fact that protons and electrons though not readily visible are perpetually moving/changing? Maybe I'm off here, I dunno -
you are off but it's partly due to Barbour's explanation - Barbour doesn't mean that we only use sight to experience change and thereby sensing or experiencing time - it's just an example - the important concept for him is that time is experienced when things change - changes either outside ourselves or inside (bodily sensations)
try this thought experiment - if the entire universe froze - would time still be ticking away in - say - another dimension - isn't that like believing in god - without proof of time as a fundamental dimension - then the likely explanation is that time emerges from the tempestuous changes going on in space - something changes in some way - time is experienced
Read the answers to whether time is an illusion or real in the book, "Infinity, Time, Death and thought". Time is a product or result of thought but includes 4 distinct aspects of time and their relation to both consciousness and their place in the physical universe. Discover why the universe can never reverse time, however that time is reversible in a non physical realm.
He is all over the place. Time is simply a measurement at a factor of the speed of light. It is a way to measure the distance between occurrences. Simple
Not a measurement.
Time is a concept only.
The concept developed out of our thoughts about our observations of
things moving relative to each other.
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL You are incorrect. We all use time everyday to measure events. You have to be to work at a certain time. You leave work after being there a certain amount of time. If I ask you when did you graduate from high school, you will use time to measure how long ago the event happened. Your time is a concept talk is a bunch of air for airheads. My watch is not a concept air Jordan
@@goldstream5147 There's no denying that
time is a very useful concept.
It is entirely understandable that
after a lifetime of believing time to be a 'something' in the universe,
one would find it challenging to realize its conceptual nature.
I certainly did.
I'm sure that if you watch Carlo Rovelli's CZcams lecture's on time you will change your mind.
He explains it far better than I can.
(Actually I'm not sure but I believe there is a good chance).
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL Time has shown that ignorance is bliss, which is an important point, what you believe time to be is not what we know time to be. For you it can remain a concept. For you, your kind evolved from monkeys. For us, time is not defined as a concept and we come from the earth, not the monkeys like your kind believes. Embarrassingly, 100 years ago your kind couldn’t even tell that Africans were human, let alone what time is. Also, Einstein and others have also confirmed that time is a part of space - space time.
I believe...Time is: A measure of change in the entire existing universe, caused by the motion of matter/energy/space expansion in relation to itself. Because time is founded in motion, time is relative to speed. Time and space are the same in that space itself is expanding, thus moving, movement is change, and time is simply a measurement of that change. So time is as real as space and it’s motion of expansion. Not so difficult to understand really.
Or...
Time is a concept only.
The concept developed out of our thoughts about our observations of
things moving relative to each other.
thank you Julian .
Raydensheraj......Haven't read his books, I'm sure they're a wonderful read, but I just get the impression from his narrative here that he's not
exactly sure that what he's saying is totally true. No problem tho, because sometimes we have to say things we don't particularly believe to
get to where we wanna go. If that makes any sense
In response to - "It may be that time has passed but you just cant say." Julian replies - "I would prefer to put a name on something that I can see". That sounds like a very narrow view. Does that imply that when you are sleeping time is not passing?
I agree with you. His view is so narrow it’s not helpful.
True. I think part of the problem is semantics.
"So Man re-created Time again in his own image, in the image of a movie he imagines it..."
What really exists in this reality is "events" not "time". Events have their own pace ...slow, medium & fast .Time is only a "measure" of "pace"of these events happening. In reality, the pace of an event can be increased or decreased by means of some force.....so.... Time is only a "measure" associated with events. Got it?
but time moves at the same pace forever and always and with that how do you explain spacetime
A photon's clock runs really really slow seeing as it's moving at the speed of light.
Time stops at the event horizon of a black hole.
Science doesn't seem to be easy for you...
If time didn't exist independently of events, you couldn't tell if events happened slowly or quickly, LOL.
I am here because i want to understand time. Really no one have idea what is time and everybody talk about it
Time is a concept only.
The concept developed out of our thoughts about our observations of
things moving relative to each other.
Do you understand now?
He is clearly bubbling, Time exists even if we can't persive it.
ok, but how can we measure it?
It's so very simple - why do people make a meal of 'time'? We only live in the now - past and present 'realities' can easily be dismissed literally as nonsense. Initially man was guided by the clocks that we live inside day, month and year. But they only provide a rough idea of when to do anything so man invented basic clocks and improved on them to allow us to more accurately meet and determine when to plant, etc. But later, the inquisitive human needed to analyse his environment. Living only in the 'now' is difficult because things are only ever in one place and that isn't interesting at all. So we needed to take snapshots of the thing we are intereted in and then we have a need to decide when to take that snapshot. We could use a metronome and on each tick take a picture but having a number associated with the pic helps keep the pictures in order and a regular 'beat' would produce a linear result. This gives us 'time' on the x-axis. So now the clock we used to meet and greet is used to give the required 'timing'. The readout on the clock is what we know as 'time' - or 'the time'. Clocks have NO magical properties - they just go round and round and round as long as you keep them wound up (powered). That's it! Note that we decide how fast the clock rotates and how many numbers there are on the dial - so really clocks just show us exactly what he have designed them to show us. Oh and as time is just a concept - you can't dilate it, sorry. Oh and Space time is bull. Our 'brains' need to go back and have a re-think...
They say time is going from order to disorder but isn't it more accurate to say that time is the measurement of motion or in the case already mentioned, the measure of going from order to disorder, the measurement of change?
How could you define time in a better way?
LOVE ME SOME jULIAN BARBOUR. it took time
Change α Δx/Δt were the small letter "t" is time. It's kinda' basic physics.
I read his book and wasn't convinced. Without time how can you explain the transition from frame to frame? How can you even use the word 'transition' without a time reference? The best you can do is to give time another name, but hell it is still time.
Completely Agree
Barbour is NOT saying that there is no time - he's saying it isn't fundamental - he's saying that the transition from frame to frame is creating time - whereas you are saying that time is ticking away before and after the consecutive frames - so that transition is occurring within it - it's a subtle difference - but worth trying to grasp
Barbour's definition makes no sense, but Newton's does.
John Eyon How can that transition exists without time? I can easily imagine space not being fundamental, you just need a network configured in a particular way. But it seems to me that all attempts at considering time as not fundamental end up doing the trick of just hiding it inside another concept: transition, change, transformation... None of those concepts actually make sense without some idea of time as a preexisting condition.
@@SidneyBloom EXACTLY.
Let's say, we live a vibrational existence - like Julian Barbour states in the first minute of this video. Let's also say, in our universe we are vibrating into and out of existence at a fixed rate - maybe at the prime or harmonic frequency of the Cosmic Background Radiation. Let's also say, that black holes represent the density of mater that can not fully form during one instance of our existence and that gravity is the force of our coming into existence. Quantum Probability then would be the result of beat Frequency oscillations between particles and each frame of our existence. As we perceive matter as particles when we exist and as waves when we don't exist. Time would then be the wavelength between any two adjacent points of our existence. Therefore, even if nothing changed in our universe during those two points time would still have ticked on. Barbour's statement that if nothing changed, time wouldn't exist can be proven wrong by showing two people living apart where one experiences a change between oscillations and the other doesn't. Similar to the old, if a tree falls in the woods and nobody hears it, does is make a sound argument. It also addresses the double-slit experiment; as particles act as waves during non-existence, but as particles when we existence. Of course, the Cosmic Background Radiation chart isn't one pure color - so it seems reasonable to assume that time is different at different points in the universe - just like it is in heavy gravitational fields. Which makes me think that the bending of light is caused by the force of our coming into existence and not by our normal interpretation of gravity. Of course this also hinges on the fact that information about mass, direction, and energy isn't lost during our non-existence, but black hold scientists insist that knowledge is never lost. So, I rest my case.
3.24 Clocks are "marching in steps with each other." Well they are not, are they? Only if they are in the same frames of reference, that is only if they move in unity. Otherwise their steps will not be synchronized.
"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once."
yeah.... no
what is everything...first?
golden86 that's still the most coherent and realistic definition of time. Wasn't it John Wheeler who said that? Or am I thinking of someone else? (I believe Wheeler also coined the term "black hole").
Is a thing what it does?
golden86 It did. Your awareness is limited to a single event. Infinite number of you confined to awareness in a single event as long as universe exists.
I don't know what time is, other than the passing of one's life. In my case, I'm closer to my end than I am to my beginning. So time is not my friend. Maybe that's all time is. The measure of one's life.
where is that library it's awesome
Time does not exist. It is a human invention to keep track of the sequence of events.
For Mr Barbour the question should not have been " What is time" but " What time is it"?
The only reason why time isn't a real thing is because of relativity. Time almost stops towards the speed of light. This is why clocks tick at a difference pace in space and they slow down as they move faster. So you can't possibly define time as a specific amount. That's the beginning of the iceberg as to why we can't define time.
This guys very proud isn't he? He has some interesting examples but in a way it doesn't relate to what he's trying to "prove"
Are you serious? Discussing time and not even mentioning the 2nd law of therodynamics which defines the arrow of time. You may sync your watch or not but when they start ticking they only do so till their charge runs out, never do they accumulate charge no matter how you try. That is so fundamental a propery of time I have no idea how you missed that out
If watches were actually driven by 'time'
they could never go out of sync or be wrong.
But they do go out of sync and are often wrong and
that's because time and watches are related only by our thinking process.
I summarize my thoughts like this...
Time is a concept only.
The concept developed out of our thoughts about our observations of
things moving relative to each other.
(Think on the trainman's watch and the train arriving in the station.
They are simply objects moving relative to each other and
'time' is the concept that relates their movements in our thoughts).
I got a idea what it is thanks 🙏🏻
If time is just the measure of change..why does a clock going fast through space click more slowly then a clock at rest?
While there is a general sense of time in quantum field, something does have to happen in space for time to pass in the past, present and future.