Hello, UKpostsrs. The World Science Festival is looking for enthusiastic translation ambassadors for its UKposts translation project. To get started, all you need is a Google account. Check out A Matter of Time to see how the process works: ukposts.info_video?ref=share&v=G8FnFjqiAWs To create your translation, just type along with the video and save when done. Check out the full list of programs that you can contribute to here: ukposts.info_cs_panel?c=UCShHFwKyhcDo3g7hr4f1R8A&tab=2 The World Science Festival strives to cultivate a general public that's informed and awed by science. Thanks to your contributions, we can continue to share the wonder of scientific discoveries with the world.

'Time is just one damn thing after another.. " - Paul Davies ...LOVE it! #BestQuoteOfTheDay : )

"I think that you just logically self-destructed" -Max Tegmark Awesome put down. Almost as good, but certainly less subtle, than the phrase attributed to Pauli: "Not is only is it not correct. It's not even wrong.'

I cannot express in words how much I enjoy these lectures in physics, either classical or quantum mechanical. I believe anyone interested in either subject should make it a habit to download these videos and give them a listen. It is not all about entertainment, rather, it is about learning that makes these forums so educational or intellectually stimulating. Thanks for uploading these videos.

Maudlin's alternative topology axioms are just a special case of one-dimensional open set point topology that he rejected at the start. So he really did not add anything new to "geometry", and in fact he made open set topology just harder to do for general spaces. All he really claims is that the geometrical basis for physics can be a restricted field of open set topology. What's more, he is wrong about putting directions on open sets. Most open sets admit a vector field which is often orientable. But further, many of the more interesting and perhaps physically relevant geometrical spaces are non-orientable. Such are spacetime that contain closed timelike curves. So while Maudlin's Line Axioms are a useful simplification, it is hard to credit that they can be used as a complete basis for mathematical physics as we currently know it, especially if close timelike curves can be found, since then time would not be orientable as Maudlin seems to think it is, and that's a response Davies should have mentioned, to whit, one can possibly do experiments to show spacetime is non-orientable which would empirically justify Davies interpretation that we what perceive is time asymmetry of states, not time flow or time direction. Of course, when time asymmetry is observable then a natural direction to time can be defined, it is phenomenal though, not fundamental in the laws of physical (physical states are not physical laws), I think that's what Davies was trying to say, but they kept interrupting him. Another thing is that Maudlin's language is nothing but Penrose-Rindler Twistor theory. And Tegmark is right that this does not help explain the psychological "flow" of time. And Davies is correct, in the sense that the best science can determine is that the "flow of time" is psychological, and is based on the rock solid reality of time asymmetry. A simple thought experiment can show this, imagine a putative Strong AI entity run in a computer that is set up with future boundary conditions at our "present" and then run entirely backwards in computer simulation time from our perspective. Would the AI have a consciousness? We might grant yes (some philosophers would say yes, at least plausibly, by any reasonable Turing test and assuming functionalist theories of consciousness) but then this AI creature would experience a flow of time exactly opposite to ours. Meaning that flow of time is real enough, but is relative to states of consciousness, in other words, flow of time is real psychology but illusory as fundamental physics. The root of Maudlin's confusion I think is precisely that, as he points out, time is one-dimensional, and therefore there are only two orientations that time permits, and so it is too easy to be fooled into thinking one of those orientations is the real objective flow direction of time. Once one realises this source of easy enticement I think Davies' view becomes far more sensible. BTW: I read a few comments dissing Maudlin, but as Tegmark pointed out, the discussion got most interesting when Maudlin made his provocative claims about an intrinsic direction to the time dimension. Even if someone ultimately is spouting nonsense, it can reveal useful truths or questions that have not been fully answered.

It would be nice if these WSF films put the name of the panelists in the description above, and even better if it included a very short one or two line bio for each. Often a panelist will say something that makes me wonder about their occupation - math, physics, philosophy etc. and many times I'd love to see the correct spelling of their names. As it is now I have to go back to the beginning to listen to the introductions again. Besides that - I LOVE WSF - Keep up the wonderful uploads!

Why do I feel like I just watched chess game between a man and a pigeon? You know the one where the man knows the rules and makes moves based on experience and careful judgment, while the pigeon knocks over the pieces, shits on the board, and struts around like it won.

When I look back at my perception of the world as a Kidd, everything from a grain of sand to the stars felt like pure information.every single shred of light my eyes looked at was as interesting as life itself. I miss that feeling of magic so much...

This is more than my brain can handle. Had to watch it in small fragments. Very fascinating!

I love to watch the World Science Festival. Keeps my brain working and therefore young. Brain exercises for real.

It's somehow getting creepy how good the youtube algorithm know's what I'm thinking about, e.g. the topic of time as literally every day I get exactly the videos recommended that are fitting to the topic, not only trivial ones like time. Synchronizities can be quite irritating ^^

Always good to see a discussion on something that doesnt even exist! Time is what we use to measure change, flow or process. There is always only this moment now, but everything flows into this moment and creates what we call action or flow (process or change) and we then experience 'time' as a result of this happening. There is always only now and as Immanuel Kant puts it : Time and space are the framework within which the mind is constrained in order to construct its experience of reality.

Absolutely love these debates & lectures WSF. Yet this was one of the most awkward, vague and deflecting panel I have yet to watch. Don't get me wrong, complete respect for every view, and every person willing to share their view on a subject. Yet the breakdown in the last 40mins was hard to watch. Wow.

Another gem! My favourite topic and Paul Davies as a guest, he's one of my favourite physicists. This channel is absolutely wonderful!

One problem here is that Physicists tends to assume that the algebraic relationships we daily use, are the truly unique one. The math relationships that commonly we use is one of the infinite algebras that can be defined. And you can reformulate the complete physics theory using a different form of (well defined) math. Differents foundations can predict same results that the commonly used math and eventually provided new properties.

Tim you are my hero! (1) your fellow panelists don't get the difference between the language and the story (2) any aspect or reality could be deemed an illusion (composed of or reducible to other phenomenon) or thought of as emergent from all the other aspects of reality (3) physics hasn't answered the big questions about time and space so I think it is a bit premature to be calling Time an illusion with certainty (4) quantum mechanics seems to describe a limit to our knowledge of physical reality - when we impose macroscopic conceptual models and parameters onto and constrain the very small - and so maybe this means we need a meta-language to overcome the limits of current mathematical approaches which is based on the wave function and linear algebra. In the realm of Time, there is still an important role for metaphysics to play in this whole debate. (5) How can there be an asymmetry in something that does not exist (6) the ancient Greeks intuitively knew that we lived in a dynamic universe where change (time) was fundamental. Who can argue with an ancient Greek? (7) How can anything move (Zeno) without change (flow) in space? Motion is not just an ordering of configurations - how did those configurations arise and unfold? (8) Einstein was wrong about Quantum Mechanics too! (9) These other guys are creating a problem due to the misuse of language. (10) There may need to be a distinction made between time as we perceive it and time as the entropy of the universe and time on the quantum scale. Anyhow thanks for bringing some intellectual integrity to this debate. (11) Physicists also don't understand gravity, dark matter or black holes (12) How can time be malleable if it doesn't exit (13) how can the twin that travels near the speed of light be younger, if time does not exist? Yes his cells are in a different configuration because time has flowed at a different rate due to his acceleration. Time defines the rate of change in a system under different influences and conditions relative to others. Thus it is an aspect of physical reality and one that defines our lives and our very existence. No time, no change, no physics. Also thanks to the moderator for pointing out that a theory (time is an illusion) must be falsifiable.

This discussion seems to be colored by the perception, that some qualities are more valuable than others. A rather confronting setting in which to discuss science and philosophy. These guys should also make a documentary, so they wouldn't have to cut each other off all the time. Then they would all have a better chance to project their views on Matter of Time. They all seem to have brilliant points. My oppinion. :)

Really interesting lecture!!! On a side note, they should have the UKposts posters on the panel as they have all the answers and know everything lol.

This is an amazing group of people to have a discussion on time with.

Space is information. Time is the clock rate (think CPU clockrate) that that information is processed at, ie. evolves. Spacetime is a localized cluster of computation. The more space you have in a cluster, the slower information is processed, so everything else evolves faster (think being at the edge of an event horizon and seeing the universe fast forward to its end, a lot of information is queued - compressed like space - in front of you and you process it but at a much slower speed due to the large amount). And gravity is just the force that creates local computing clusters and at the same time prevents too much information from clustering together by way of Hawking radiation. In those clusters, there are specialised decisional cores created by intermolecular forces (biological systems). More analogies can be made. In the end you can argue that the universe is just a very complicated super computer very different from and a whole lot more complex than human-made super computers. A fixed length simulation. An experiment to see if artificially created consciousness can ascend the boundaries of their enclosing universe.

If these people represent the leading edge of the science of time, then it seems, that we really don't have a clue.

Could time be a factor in "Red Shift"? If the early universe was smaller (More dense), The curving of Space-time "Gravity" would be more dominant then it is now and cause time to move slower due to gravity's effect on time. Light waves emitted during this time would appear to us as moving slower (in Relativity perspective). As light departs this (slower) extreme gravity and travels through less warped (quicker) Time-space it would be stretched out, like spaghettification in a Black-hole. Causing a Red-shift consistent with a light source moving away. The greater Red-shift observed in farther away galaxies might not be from an expanding universe but could instead be from the conditions that existed at the time the light was emitted. Nearer galaxies may have emitted the same extreme Red-shifted light at that same time long ago. Those light waves have long since past us by and what we see now is their light waves affected by the lesser gravitational force present when they were emitted. The apparent speeding up of the expansion of the universe & Dark Energy might all just be an allusion of time. Please reply, for or against.

Amazing discussion, really makes you stop and wonder how beautifully complicated the world around actually is.

Mr. Rovelli, yes, to unravel the mystery of time. I will put my idea on the table: Time is a quantity, a name for a physical quantity that is stoic, does not run "by itself". Only when it starts moving to the time dimension!!!! material object (it can also be a cursor), cannonball, plane, rocket, only then can we talk about time, i.e. about the speed of the passage of time. So "time doesn't run for us, but we run for it", we run "after time", along the time dimension and thereby cut intervals (seconds, minutes, hours, years...) into the dimension. The second view of time, of the course of time, of the pace of the passage of time, is when the "twisted" time dimension (in 3+1 or 3+3D space-time) is unpacked (in the macro world), from the boiling chaos of dimensions after the big bang, and in the microworld the time dimension both collapses and expands. Therefore, the interactions on the Planck scales are linear.- - Try to think with this indicated !!! direction, what do you think?

One idea I always get when I think about time, is that it is a 4th dimension - a literal direction in space (not spacetime; just space) that matter can traverse. Just like up, down, forward, and backward, there is +w and -w as well, and along with the momentum in the 3 "familiar" directions, we were also given momentum in the w direction, at the big bang. We experience this as time "flow" but it is not time that is moving, but us moving through space along 4 axes. Perhaps time dilation i s what parallax looks like to 3d beings in a 4d space. Sadly, I don't know how to do any of the maths to find out if any of that makes sense, or it could be exactly what they're saying but in different words....idk.

The key to this is that acceleration is always stretching space time ,... with each second of time continually growing longer, not going slower as a present experience, but slower only if you were able to compare the present rate span of a present second to say a thousand year old rate span of a second.

Good to see the debates get a bit heated now and then.

Someone has commented that the philosopher is quibbling over semantics. But semantics are ultimately important as we can only get to meaning by using words accurately, and those words can only have one definition. However the definitions will have to use words, which themselves must have only one definition, and so on. So we end up with semantic regress. If we have read Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason" then we will be aware that we can only think by categorization, and we categorize and cross-categorize everything if there is but one arbitrarily designated attribute on which to categorize/cross-categorize. By this process we automatically sense of spectrum of attributes which we extend in two directions, like bigger and smaller. One of Kant's questions concerned to what extent it is legitimate to to assume the human-constructed spectrum extends to infinity in both directions. This leads to Kant's "antinomies" in which two opposing ideas can seem equally plausible, like such and such has always existed, or it had a begining, but if a beginning, what before that? In other words, many of these questions may be invalid, but how do we know? Kant suggested that reason, upon which we totally rely in the modern world, has some built in flaws, and asked what could we use to study reason itself to be more sure or less sure of it's projected outcomes? What all this means relative to this topic is that we may be somewhat on the wrong track and never even know it. A first try at thinking outside the same old box is to deny the spectrum idea. So a big apple is not just a larger version of the small apple, but they are unique individuals. We could toss out time, which we think of as a spectrum, a line, a time line, but retain distance and position and even change of position. This is mentally hard to do, and seems kooky, but may for all we know be a step in the right direction. It may be that our sense of time is purely biological, due to the need to eat from time to time, sleep, and of course because we are all time-limited. I think time is a good candidate for rejection, and then we would not ask about "before" the Big Bang, but ask where was such and such before it was there, and how did it get from where it was to where it is? Then to ask why it took such and such a time to move would only be a relative comparison to our biological sense of time, a purely human construct, and we could just as easily measure against something else that is moving, or merely say the individual was there, then there, then there and so on. We can still plate chromium onto steel, and talk about the movement of the chromium atoms and the ions, and just be aware that when we specify the time it takes to plate to a given thickness such is just an expression of our annoyance that our time is running out, and we'd thus prefer the plating to go faster. I don't think atoms and electrons and energy fields are aware of time, but they are "aware" of each other when they attract and repel. In this way of thinking change of position is relative to mass and energy. If two rocket ships with equal mass but different strength engines and thus energy-efficiency race each other, we antsy humans would declare one the winner of the race, but without the human time sense, we would say that when fuel was spent, one was there, and the other one over there.

Cause of time: Since space expansion and time flow are the same, C / T = 1. We are felt that change of space and energy due to expansion is a flow of time.

What a fitting ending: “We’ve run out of time”

Take a shot each whenever someone says 'time.'

One thing that has fascinated me is the difference between children's time & adult time ...My summer holidays to Christmas always seemed to be long long time ..yet now the speed of time summer winter summer winter appears SO swift ..guess that's a physical thing rather than a universe thing...

Most intriguing scientific conversation I've heard between two relatively distant intervals of time! i.e. In a long time! Don't know when the present state of spacetime would pass through a similar interval in the future. Waiting for it though!

Time is the thing that prevents everything from happening at once.

I liked this astonishing debate about time! So I propose a way to describe the illusion of time in a model of many clocks that, emerging from the singularity in a regular distance, they point the seconds perceived by a distant observer in blue or red. This chain of clocks represent the distortion of time caused by the distance of the singularity. The perception of "flowing time" depends on the block of gravitational influences where the clock is marking its rhythm, and the changes caused by the distance from the singularity. It is not expected that this distortions become to change our daily and distant from singularities lives. Revert the illustration to compare the emergence of time from the region where the time is known as stopped seems to be more useful. By this way, the natural state of time is null in the deep of singularity. The rhythm of the clock can now be compared with the scintillation of a photon.

The thing that confuses me about "Time Dilation" is, does the presence of force/thrust make the mechanism of the clock slow down (rather than time itself slowing)? Thrust makes things seem heavier (G-Force). The gears in a watch are being subjected to the force of thrust, and wouldn't that make the watch tick that much slower while it's being subjected to the thrust. The end result would show a difference in what watch A (stationary on the ground) measured compared to watch B (put in motion, particularly on the Concord). Even w/ Atomic clocks, the "gears", so to speak, are still subject to the physical laws of gravity and motion, etc (and the so called dilation is so much more subtle than if you ran the experiment w/ a grandfather clock on a concord). In a nutshell, is the experiment (that demonstrates Time Dilation) really just showing that motion has an effect on physical objects?

I actually met the Andrew Hamilton mentioned in this video while in my Black Hole Physics class :3 He's pretty awesome.

I've no idea why they even bother discussing with that philosopher. He has no real arguments, and he is 100 % sure that he is correct - no matter what anyone else presents of arguments against it. He's like a child.

22:08 - The equivalence principle states that you can't tell the difference between being in a gravitational field and being accelerated. If you are passing a star and are in its gravitational field, you are being accelerated.

Another way to look at it is that everything moves at the speed of light all the time in 4 physical dimensions. Depending on the chosen 3d projection of the object it could be standing still or moving at the speed of light. From the viewpoint of a photon, having a tangental 3d projection, we are moving at the speed of light (and vice versa).

I've tried to give Tim Maudlin, the philosopher, a chance when listening to him defend temporal becoming (the flow of time), and he just didn't do a very convincing job. It seems like he just wants the formulate ways to make our perceptual experience an objective feature of time. I admit that this experience can be quite stirring to many, but if our best physical theories go against it, we should think twice. There are good philosophical arguments against the idea that we even experience the flow of time, such as those formulated by Dr. Simon Prosser.

Space exists so everything doesn't happen to me, and time exists so it doesn't happen all at once.

I'd like to spend more time watching such debates please. In-between keeping my own 'time' at the drums of course.

Footballs released from a reservoir flow towards stronger gravity (or slip on the dent in the plane of space-time). So do grains of salt, and even smaller, planck units of time. Gravity changes the speed. Gravity is a property of atoms, without atoms or gravity, time stops. I love these debates and the ideas they cause, even when they aren't totally logical. If time is a property of space-time, it cannot slip on the plane of space-time. But it is so fascinating. If time goes forward because atoms move, does time stop, or pause, at 0 Kelvin? Is the universe at 0K when all atoms cease to exist? But before atoms were created, the universe was hot, and after they cease to be the universe will be cold, what happened to the energy? Because it is spread out, it doesn't do anything? Is that only what happens to the 5% of normal matter, what happens to dark matter and dark energy at the end of the universe?

This is very entertaining and I am none the wiser. But still I am happier than before I watched this.

really enjoyed this one.

The thought experiment with two boxes with light balls traveling back and forth between mirrored walls within explains how clocks measure distance. The time is measured slower in the box that starts moving. It can be seen that the light ball has a longer path length as the ball travels (at light speed C) from wall to wall.

Does time simply change close to or away from gravity simply because space is being bent and so the distance traveled is either greater or less? This doesn't mean time it's self changes, only the distance really traveled. You would think you are moving in a straight line but due to space being as it is, i.e able to bend, you are in fact moving along a curved surface. The other thing i wonder about is that if as you move closer to the speed of light, you are moving into the future, then how come we see light? If light it's self is moving in the future, it would then always be ahead of us in time and therefore we wouldn't be able to see it right? When it comes to the clock experiment where they have one high up traveling fast and the other stationary on the ground, does gravity affect the atom within the clock? So again, rather than time it's self changing, might it be that gravity is somehow changing how the atom within the clock moves and so giving the dfferent time to the stationary one? Just my thoughts.

I”m always surprised about comments everyone leaves. We all think we are smart.

Could the mathematics of quantum mechanics represent the physics of ‘time’ as a physical process with an emergent future unfolding relative to the atoms of the periodic table therefore unfolding relative to our own actions? This is the idea that this theory is promoting that the wave particle duality of light and matter in the form of electrons is forming a blank canvas that we can choose how we interact with forming a future of our own choice relative to the energy and momentum of our actions.

Very important discussion for me. Thank you. Absolutely emergent. 1:26:00

Wonderful and entertaining discussion, thank you 😂. And may I say ALL these guys' views were worth hearing. Play on.!

48:11 - Random low level piano music that only lasts for a few seconds?..... Um, ok?

Tim Maudlin. If you were ever to read this. Arrogance is not a nice trait to possess. I find Max Tegmark to be more humble towards you than you actually deserve. Especially when you mix things up and suggest that your "co-talkers", might not be as "sane" as you thereby imply, you are. That aside. Why wasn't Sean M. Carroll invited to this talk?

As for me, space (of axions) is 2-d sheet with fractals/particles, surface of icosahedrons (contact number); time is directions in/of graphs of algorithm on impulse map=space of wave packets=virtual particles (vacuum 0-state). Sometimes, cycled megamultidigraphs on map/algorithm mean different cycles for life.

The question that always comes up for me when I hear about the time dilation experiments is this: how can we know that its actually time thats changing and not the methods being used to keep track of the time being effected by the acceleration/deceleration or some other factor. I've never taken the time to look into it though. I'm sure I'm not the first to ask that question so I assume its been answered... hopefully some day I find the will to find out.

The guy in the middle is so cute 🥰 and his slight little stutter

Dude on the very left is so nervous lol aww cute

Sending two clocks around the star or black hole in different paths does not mean "they are not accelerating". On contrary, they are accelerating into the middle of the gravitation "hole". And if they use different paths, their acceleration is different and from our point of view they will have "different" time.

1:23:30 Pay close attention because E is a single whole unit of measurement: one for one. This guy see the blocks used to count with. However space is connected to time and does have a direction but why someone would gave it the name “axis of evil” is beyond me. Data from the Keck telescope is claimed by some to indicate the fine structure constant was once smaller, and some claim the data from the Very Large Telescope indicates the opposite, that the fine structure constant was once larger. Keck points in the northern hemisphere, while the VLT is pointed south. This means that in one direction, the fine structure constant was once smaller and in exactly the opposite direction, it is bigger. The ratio of {a} is never the same twice. And we find ourselves in the middle, where the constant is now apox 1/137.03599… which shows time running backwards to move forward increasing mass densities which makes sense when you think about it as we all fit in made of different frequencies but it will certainly make your head spin as the contradictions that create frames of information are mind bending. There are wait states of immense size that physics has yet to add into the calculations. The observer does not see it's own wait states as relativity predicts, only the wait states of other observers made of the same "E" that do not exist at the exact same time as it appears which explain the paradox of measuring events with the speed of light. (I see your clock slow down, not my own and you see my clock slow down not your own)

The shaggy philosopher needs a proper lesson in relativity. Painful.

Philosofer in glasses Is overannoying

1:22:20 Yes... that's absolutely true! Thank you for showing how simple it is to win this argument using your terms. Time does have two dimensions and that is why you and other physicists cannot understand what causes the fine structure constant because it has two opposite arrows connected to a true inertial frame of reference: e{a}/t=hv. That was easy. But for those that want more evidence outside of mathematics we see these two separate dimensions of time in the DNA gene ensemble and the circle of fifths corrected as well. And if you cut an Ammonite in half you can see both clocks where if you look close in the center of some you will also see in the center a point showing the signs of reverse phase rotation in each side of the shell: male and female. The missing graviton is a girl. Sex is E-motion and the new atom has sex. But you don't need to go that far to show two clocks working together because the lines of magnetic flux created by a simple bar magnet show a left hand clock and a right hand clock relative to north and south. Gravity and the electric force also have their own opposite direction arrows.Time simply stated is indeed two wheels spinning together in opposite direction just as we see in the fine structure constant where E is maintained a constant by the asymmetry of the weak force and time dilation. Consciousness has Mass and the brain does not create Mass. The brain is a filter of information made out of time and is supported by the 4 forces in physics that extend beyond it pointing back in one direction towards the beginning location of highest Mass density before the strong force was created. Gravity proves time is real as does the separation of observers and measured points of past observation created in octave levels causing the illusion of missing matter to those that don't understand time and the cause of gravity. Answer to 9:48 and 16:20, See SLAC's 2012 BaBar experiment that confirmed time has asymmetry with a sigma 14 level of certainty and read this showing gravity is caused the subtrahend of two harmonic commas. Basic instinct always prevails in the end because reality creates it. 13:22 Yes, a gross misinterpretation and Einstein agreed. This was posted on an electronics site and deals with the politics in effect regarding CERN's 2011 worldwide announcement that neutrinos were exceeding the speed of light: (v-c)/c=2.48e-5 of a second in 453.6 miles. If you want to see what time is all you have to do is look at light through a slit and make it thinner and you will see a point where the light is rotated from vertical to horizontal that without an answer "why" has perplexed physicists... but as always there is a reason that makes sense and once understood the answer is quite obvious. And the obvious answer why we see the light become horizontal is because it deals with our reference frame of observation which requires the time of two Mass oscillation cycles to create one "instance" of an observed center of gravity in 3 dimensions relative to time that creates the direction of gravity relative to the observer in spacetime, and we are seeing not a precession, but the cause of precession due to "particle" spin. And that observation brings us to understanding gravity connected to light because both are connected to time on opposite ends of two arrows connected to time. "When we look at light we are looking at the source of light within the weak force connected to time creating a speed of light clock that should stop our clock completely because it is the master clock where the term "relative to light's clock" does not apply as it does to two observers looking at each other's clock held together by the strong force. Our clocks move because time has asymmetry and our clocks are dealing with time dilation separating them based on the constant speed of light. The asymmetry of the weak force {a} is the key to understanding physics being presented here in relationship to time and space which eliminates uncertainty. There are no dice and I'm going to prove it using simple basic math to put the outcome of proven complex mathematics together. To make further progress in electronics a true or "initial" inertial frame of reference needs to be established for the weak force so the "missing" graviton or "hole" as it is called observed in semiconductors due to it's reverse oscillation phase arrow can have it's phase timing separated from the electron's forward arrow as is already observed and both phases be set relative to the master clock cycle within the weak force so the graviton can have it's 4th oscillation phase in time added to the atom. That's right... the atom has 4 phases or "parts". If space is relative to time, as we know it is, then anything, atoms included oscillating in space must have 4 phases of oscillation. And you cannot measure a particle's location and it's velocity accurately if you leave out half of time needed to make the measurement. And to do such a measurement you must first establish an inertial frame of reference to set (the length of) the clock being used to measure the particle's location and speed. And as we go deeper I must refer to the reverse Mass oscillation phase connected to time responsible for the asymmetry in time SLAC's BaBar data exposed a year after their E158 data did the same thing first thanks to CERN. You won't like the politics hiding the discovery, but you will find this interesting: e{a}/t=hv. The speed of light is 186282 miles per second: IE 186282 miles = 1 second. This is the result of Mass oscillation or "the Master clock cycle" that has two arrows associated with the DNA's "tonal space" of phosphate and sugar of opposite phase timing creating a pendulum that is slightly longer on the following oscillation phase as the fine structure constant equation shows: e{a}/t=hv. (The fine structure constant is maintaining E as a constant using time dilation, it's a worm hole where more time is measured going back in than came out because time did not stop during the oscillation cycle and time is what we use to measure/observe with. It shows gravity is cause by the subtrahend of the two arrows connecting gravity to the weak force as half of EM... or more correctly a minute amount more we notice and measure as the direction and force of gravity relative to the observer. CERN's muon phase timed neutrinos were announced Worldwide in 2011 @ (v-c)/c=2.48e-5 sec in 453.6 miles. That is an exact match with SLAC's E158 asymmetry of the weak force data @ 2.48e-5 sec added to the speed of light traveling 453.6 miles creating an asymmetry in time of 20e-5 sec, what we call gravity. After the data was shown to match the E158 ratio SLAC went back over their BaBar data and confirmed the asymmetry in time exposed a year later giving it a sigma 14 level of certainty. There was a write up on it on Wikipedia but that's been pulled off now but was copied and noted in other areas of the Internet. Here is the simple math that proves it. If you open up a calculator and follow the flow it's easier to see doing it yourself. Weak Force Asymmetry {a} adds 1hour/3600 seconds every 1000 years: Re: SLAC E158 data "using clocks". Muon neutrinos do not exceed speed of light as CERN said "if the data is correct". They are created at the speed of light adding to the speed of light measurement just like the photon "tricks" Summerfeld detected in 1948. (Because their phase angle is @ theta 23 unlike electron neutrinos but you don't need to understand that to see the data match.) 3600sec / 1000 years = 3.6 seconds of weak force asymmetry time added in a year, the distance light travels in 3.6 seconds. 3.6 sec x 186282 (speed of light) = 670615.2 miles added to the speed of light in one year 670615.2 / 365.2425 year = 1836.082055072999 miles added to speed of light in one day 1836.082055072999 / 24 hours = 76.50341896137498 miles added to speed of light in one hour 76.50341896137498 / 60 minutes = 1.275056982689583 miles added to speed of light in one minute 1.275056982689583 / 60 seconds = 0.021250949711493 of a mile added to speed of light in one second Now that we know the know the {a} asy time/distance added in a second to the speed of light (0.021 mile) we need to know the fraction of a second speed of light distance it took for light to travel only 453.6 miles which is the distance CERN's neutrinos traveled to know how much {a} asy time to add to the speed of light traveling 453.6 miles and see if the {a} weak force asymmetry gain in time matches CERN's 2.48e-5 sec neutrino gain in time exactly as I said it would to create the force of gravity. So we simply divide 186282 miles (which equals one second) by 453.6 miles (the fraction of one second distance the neutrinos traveled) to acquire the weak force asymmetry value added to the speed of light. 186282/453.6 miles = 410.6746031746032 (or 453.6 x 410.6746031746032 =186282 SOL) Now we add the weak force asymmetry time gained to the fraction of one second value of 410.67 0.021250949711493 / 410.6746031746032 = 5.174644243208279 e-5 This shows the forward/back total neutrino oscillation time gained in 453.6 miles caused by the asymmetry of the weak force. Now notice the total asymmetry time gained of 5.17 e-5 sec is almost exactly double CERN's 2.48 e-5 sec past the speed of light. The next two simple calculations change physics by adding a 4th oscillation phase to the atom (graviton) and a second reverse arrow to time needed to support the "missing" graviton misnamed the hole opposite the electron and use CERN's data to show it's correct length relative to the electron and prove time has asymmetry that supports the force of gravity exactly as I had been saying for years never expecting this to happen and be so easy to prove and show that E=T, and time like energy must be conserved. We add a second reverse arrow (required for time to have asymmetry) for time by simply dividing 5.174644243208279 e-5 in half. 5.174644243208279 e-5 / 2 = 2.58732212160414 e-5 sec So we have 2.58732212160414 e-5 sec weak force asymmetry time gained in the forward arrow of time, and 2.58732212160414 e-5 sec weak force asymmetry time gained in the reverse arrow of time. We now add gravity to the second reverse arrow simply by using CERN's data which provides the correct forward arrow measurement of weak force asymmetry added in 453.6 miles by subtracting the forward arrow gain of 2.48e-5 sec from half of the ratio gained in 453.6 miles of 2.58 e-5 sec. 2.58 e-5 - 2.48 e-5 = 0.10 e-5 We now add it to the second reverse arrow 2.58 e-5 + 0.10e-5 = 2.68 e-5 sec So using SLAC's exceptionally specific but proven E158 WF Asy ratio obtained from adding the distance light travels in one hour to the distance light travels in one thousand years applied to 453.6 miles we can see using basic math that SLAC's E158 data matches CERN's neutrino data announced worldwide @ (v-c)/c=2.48e-5 sec in 453.6 miles with both sets of data adding 2.48 e-5 sec in the forward arrow of time and SLAC's data adding 2.68 e-5 sec to the rearward neutrino oscillation phase adding a reverse arrow connected to time. This creates an asymmetry in time of 0.20e-5 sec (2.68 e-5 - 2.48 e-5 = 0.20 e-5) needed for gravity exactly as predicted. CERN Neutrinos @ (v-c)/c = 2.48 e-5 create a lesser diesis (Einstein's Comma) = 0.20 e-5 (0.10e-5 + 0.10e-5) by matching SLAC's E158 asymmetry of the weak force data in the forward arrow of time @ 2.48 e-5 sec in 453.6 miles. This is a game changer from dice to two sided cards because the data match shows time has a reverse Mass oscillation arrow that gravity needs to exist exactly as shown by the Unified Field Theory equation that first showed me and a few others the weak force has an asymmetry that allows our clocks to move independent of each other. SLAC's E158 ratio that creates the asymmetry of the weak force ratio is an incredibly specific ratio and I had been quoting the E158 data for years after finding it's value showing why it had to match like this creating 3 specific ratios out of the E158 ratio to add an asymmetry to time calling it a lesser diesis comma. A coincidence of this magnitude is simply not possible. (This was done long before SLAC went back over their BaBar data and confirmed the asymmetry in time giving it a sigma 14 level of certainty "far more than needed to declare a discovery".) There is a lot of money involved with Science so don't think scientists don't play games with the truth. That's why was I was forced to sue my neighbor, Dr. Mark Skinner, Boeing's Senior Scientist on Maui which isn't helping the truth be told due to what followed affecting over 100 KAPWC HOA members that tried to vote the good doctor and his friends off our HOA Board which we did with a Court Reporter present only to get sued in return with our own HOA money as they refused to step down even taking out money to pay their criminal defense fees exposing a corrupt legal system most Americans refuse to accept exists at the extreme level it does. But you can't have positive energy without negative energy and the larger the object the more obvious that becomes. The more positive energy I am able to create, the more negative energy is exposed being converted to support a process of Nature that cannot be stopped. To challenge CERN's (v-c)/c=2.48e-5 sec claim neutrinos (CERN used muon phased timed neutrinos) were exceeding the speed of light which they weren't just as the photon is mistaken to do too, same mistake from misunderstanding the data like dark matter caused by an octave level structure that puts the matter "back", many physicists said the data had to be in error because neutrinos (electron phase timed neutrinos) were measured traveling at the exact speed of light from ten's of thousands of light years away, not exceeding it. The problem with that "correction" is the fact that we know neutrinos oscillate and have mass and the same laws of Relativity that state no particle can exceed the speed of light ALSO state no particle with mass can travel at the speed of light. So the experts used one "impossibility" to dismiss another "impossibility" failing to see the gross error in logic and some tried to reduce the neutrino mass to say there must have been some slight delay but from ten's of thousands of light years away even a "slight" mass amount would be measurable, not to mention CERN stated and an exact SOL measurement after they 'fixed" the "loose cable"... LOL There is a reason for observing a difference in electron vs muon phase timed neutrinos but it is beyond the scope of this post's layman presentation. What we see happening in physics where data is "doctored" to make theories fit is what happens when you use "dice" to measure time with rather that listen to the greatest physicist that ever walked the face of Earth when he tells you that "God dose not play dice with the Universe".

I LOVE how the philosophical and scientific paradigms' perceptive strength and weaknesses at the frontier of knowledge and wisdom play out in this debate, hearing philosophers describing the substance of time and scientists describing the meaning of time, and the limits of each perspective revealed by their arguments. The questions debated here suggest a fundamental perceptional distortion from each paradigm, as each panelist argues his perspective. It's akin to asking sensory-based questions like "Does this taste big?" or "Does this look salty?" They challenged the philosophers to describe how something works and the scientists to induce what something means -- interesting role reversal. Very different ways of describing the same concept/thing -- we're ALL blind me trying to describe our elephant after all! Keeps quite a few of us up late at night, doesn't it? :D

Max Tegmark has to be one of my favorites!

If you could attach a clock to a particle in an accelerator & a clock to a static target the particle is aimed at, then fire the particle & accelerate it to 99% the speed of light & allow it to travel around the accelerator for a while before colliding it with the target, at which point both clocks record the time of the collision, when you check the two clocks they would show two different times for a single event that happened at one point in time & space? Wtf is that about?!

Wonderful presentation, thank you.

I am not a specialist, but I liked the video. Also Maudlin's contribution, because without him it would hardly be a debate. Moreover, his point of view seems to go the same direction as Smolin's. Like Smolin and Unger he points out that mathematics is a language and that, like any language, it brings with it certain hidden assumptions. More in particular: it reduces 'time' to t; it is atemporal per se. What I am missing is someone who adopts J.T. Fraser's point of view, where reality has several 'layers' of complexity, each with its own 'time'; time emerging from the atemporal level of quantum physics.

was anyone annoyed by the philosopher? i liked that it was engaging but to me, he felt out of place.

Max Tegmark looks like he time-traveled here from the 80's.

Time in science is exactly the relative difference (which is the definition of perception) between two states of matter having the human chosen standard (invented, created and accepted - a biological limitation) - the clock and the time unit (this can be elaborated as well). In humans is based on hypnosis and impossibilyty to adapt and follow (move at that speed if you want - synchronize and create the hypnosis with that thing)

REALLY understanding the concept of time, is one of the most important topics in physics. Still not solved....many ways to approach this. I want smartass Hockenberry on this...haven't checked out the other participants yet. Still at 0:46

As a non-scientist I'm a bit worried that bringing philosophers into debates like this kind of muddies the waters. I'd like to start by understanding the basic scientific, physical, mathematical principles and ideas, and I'm not sure a philosopher makes for the best interpreter or bridge between the scientist and the layperson like me. The problem is translating complex questions and theories that perhaps can only be truly precisely expressed in equations into plain accessible English - Feynman could do it, but hey, I guess genius polymaths with a gift for communication don't exactly grow on trees, sadly...

Too much word play and nonsensical arguing. Zzzzz

But, when the box starts moving horizontally away from the other non-moving box (light traveling in the vertical), what causes the light to move horizontally? If I have a light beam traveling back and forth between two walls of a box in the vertical and a horizontal force is applied to the box, what makes the light move horizontally?

I'm with the guy who looks like a close relative of Ed Byrne. He's advocating not for a new theory, but a new language to discuss existing theory more clearly. It is an aid to comprehension and communication, enabling a much more productive discussion.

If you’re moving through these videos looking for “something,” start asking questions and keep creating! However, I do ensure a good meditation will present the Eureka moment you seek❤️🧠🕰🧘🏽‍♂️ If you’re here for leisure and growth-likewise- continue the path. We’re on the brink of beauty and compassion. Make it your business to understand your art 🔥☀️ The world awaits your greatness✍🏽

WSF & WSU ... consistent providers of awesome content !

The experimental evidence that gravity affects time is directly observed with modern atomic clocks. Modern GPS gear has to expressly take this effect into account. A more interesting experiment is the one proposed in 1964 by J.S. Bell and later carried out by Clausen, Aspect, and others. Bell derived his inequality with the simplifying assumption of a master clock, such that the twin particles are presumed to age in perfect phase-locked synchrony as they speed apart. But if you allow for differential timekeeping, then you cannot derive Bell's Inequality in which the presumptive hidden variable vanishes. There would remain a residual non-zero "beat frequency" that doesn't vanish. In other words, time itself is the not-so-hidden variable. Einstein might have called this "spooky timekeeping at a distance."

Time is a measurement tool that can be influenced by different factors and the expansion of the universe(or what we call the arrow of time) being an always present factor.

The interesting stuff starts at 1:01:30 minutes ------ that is the only real challenge to the normal relativistic view, and as you can see at the end the other two physicists concede some of the point. The first two thirds of the video is just more of the same as any other on the subject.

So my head is older than my feet?

space impedes light and changes in space-density and how matter moves in relation to space-flow causes matter to slow down/ speed up and bend it's path

19:40 they should make aircraft altimeters that way.

This is an invitation to see a theory on the nature of time! In this theory we have an emergent uncertain future continuously coming into existence relative to the spontaneous absorption and emission of photon energy. Within such a process the wave particle duality of light and matter in the form of electrons is forming a blank canvas that we can interact with forming the possible into the actual! The future is unfolding with each photon electron coupling or dipole moment relative to the atoms of the periodic table and the individual wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum. As part of a universal process of energy exchange that forms the ever changing world of our everyday life the ‘past’ has gone forever. At the smallest scale of this process the ‘past’ is represented by anti-matter annihilation with the symmetry between matter and anti-matter representing the symmetry between the future and the past as the future unfolds photon by photon. In such a theory the mathematics of quantum mechanics represents the physics of ‘time’ with the classical physics of Newton representing processes over a period of time, as in Newton’s differential equations. In my videos I explain how this process is relative to temperature and the phase changes of matter.

If only Neil deGrass or Brian Green were also here to argue : ))

8:07:Entroy arises from difference due to difference of time in top floor and ground floor: When there is difference of time between different places it will exert a force which will try to destroy the building:

The philosopher has very good ideas. It's too bad those physicists can't understand that the language we use to describe things is important.

3 dimensional time

I think Tim the topologist is the one that has the spacetime and lightcone things to work like relativity is supposed to work. Whew. What a workout!

The twins paradox invariably takes me back to Heinlein's Time for the Stars. Every time.

The usual progression of events, and time itself may be two quite separate things. That is, although events seem to follow one after the other (moving toward the future), the "time" for them to take place in is unfolding (flowing) from the future through the present and into the past. Picture a reel to reel tape recorder. The unrecorded tape (future) passes through the record head (present) and onto the take-up reel (the past - history). Time in itself may well "move" in such a manner.

Who the hell invited the Philosopher? They bring nothing to the table

At the end there this moderator is starting to annoy me. How many times does he have to repeat that the *FLOW* of time is an illusion, not time itself?! And then 2 seconds later the moderator still asks "can you prove that time is an illusion". IT'S NOT!!!! THE *FLOW* OF TIME IS! Jesus Christ.

"Next Wednesdays meeting has been moved forward 2 days". I like that. It could mean Monday if we think about it, like 'internally', from our 'ego' - but the meeting is on Friday, if we think about it in terms of Time! Its really hard to define why for some strange reason but it means Both.. Thats pretty good. He took a long TIME getting there though.. LOL

what makes sense of the arrow of time is this: Time is created by the Expansion of Space. Since Space is only Expanding and not Contracting, Time is a One Way event,. If the Expansion Rate of Space is Slowed by Gravity, That would explain why Relativity is an Accurate. Predictor As well as the Reason why there is an Arrow And Why time is relative to the observer's position. It's the position as it relates to the Expansion rate of Space. More Gravity, Slower Time. More Velocity, More Mass, More Mass, More Gravity, More Gravity, Slower Time. I have a mental image of an object at rest in a Gravity well being like a body at rest beneath a waterfall. The same body at rest in the water above the waterfall would be carried along at the flow rate of the water, which would vary according to how the Local landscape affects it. If you could weigh yourself on a scale as you were carried along above the waterfall and then again at the bottom of the waterfall, you would find a difference in the weight measured on the scale. Standing on the surface of the Earth is like standing beneath the waterfall. Standing on the surface of Jupiter, a bigger waterfall, standing on the Moon, a smaller waterfall.

Anyway I'm off to boil a couple of eggs for yesterdays breakfast...

My goodness, it's the second World Science Festival video that I'm watching which features a mixed panel coming from physics and from humanities. I have nothing against philosophy! But this feels like two guys making fools of themselves in front of two other guys. The one that's 2nd from the left is being so pathetic trying so hard to show off by beating the physicists at their own game.

Time is the definition - the 'measurement' - of an 'interval' between two or more events. A change in a relation between two 'entities'. Without any change... there is no time. Time is another word for changes... or perhaps a 'byproduct' of them. It is US that are 'moving' or 'changing' ... and we can measure the "time" it takes to do so.

I understand the idea of how an axium can be stretched from a 1-dimensional perspective but how would it achieve higher dimensional properties within its own dimension? Also if an axiom could be stretch in so-called directions from a 1-dimensional perspective then the line itself would not be interconnected right?