The Time Paradox That Helped Feynman Win a Nobel Prize

Comments · 26

• HI

  @HiddenUniverse01 · 6 months ago

  Feynman had an incredible way of turning confusing physics problems into simple ideas. That’s what made his discoveries so powerful.

  9

• BE

  @benjaminmaiyo4274 · 2 weeks ago

  Good person is talking i can smell it❤

• JA

  @jamestagge3429 · 6 months ago

  There is much about this video I find it hard to accept. I will be as succinct as possible. Dr. Roger Penrose has stated that the vibrating energy quanta which manifest as sub atomic particles are the fundamental clocks of the universe and that materiality is wholly objective though as mentioned here, rather complex or involved and certainly confusing. It makes sense in that a “vibrating” quantum of energy cannot be in two states at once. Therefore as it changes those states, there is a sequence in the process of that change and there is duration when in one and then the other and then in the return to the previous state. That duration in part a product of that sequence is time. Entropy, as traditionally claimed gives time its arrow/direction. This understanding if true would make the matter far more intuitive than Feynman suggests, I would think. <br>As for the double slit phenomenon, I understood the notion that claimed that an electron shot toward the plate with the slits was already in the form of a wave as it traveled to the plate so that wave would naturally be sufficiently spread to pass through both slits at once. By this explanation, it is “not” to be understood that it passed through both while maintaining a material condition of a single defined entity. Of course, then as this wave passed through both, the interference was created and the multiple pattern on the solid plate behind the double slit plate. The collapse of this wave form seems a mystery though.<br> <br>As for infinities, there is no such thing in materiality. This is piffle. The very nature of existence, i.e., to exist materially, an entity must be finite, delineable and quantifiable, all three contradictory to the concept of infinity. Consider the contradiction which arises when pondering a line segment, let’s say, 1” long. By definition, it would have to begin somewhere in space and terminate a quantifiable 1” away. It is claimed that this line segment would have infinite points yet its ends would have to be designated by points beyond where there were no others or it could not have been defined as a line segment to begin with, yet it is/was. By that, each point beyond which there were no others designating the two ends of the line segment would have to be quantifiable or again, the line segment could not have been defined to begin with. So it cannot be composed of infinite points. However, a contradiction arises in that if those end points are quantifiable they could be any particular measure. For example, were they 10x in scope we would be obliged to ask, “why are they not 5x, or 1x, or .0000…1x ad infinitum) so the line segment would have to be composed of infinite points in the very context which defines that as impossible. So it can’t have infinite points yet it must. <br> <br>Or consider the supposed “bouncing universe” where it expands, stops contracts to expand again, ad infinitum. This line of iterations of the universe is said to extend back infinitely. This is just more piffle. This infinite line extending backward could not be traveled forward meaning that the sequences of iterations necessary to the theory is defeated. Even if we ignore that we could not travel it forward to the here and now, were we to do so, we could never get here, ever. Yet here we are positing the notion. Also, the sequence necessary to the theory, that each iteration of the universe gives rise to a subsequent iteration is reversed, again, causing the theory to fail. Finally, it is claimed by so many physicists that this iteration is infinite in scope which is a contradiction of all of the physics we are admonished to accept. The claim that they universe expanded to the size of a grapefruit (a quantifiable measure) by inflation until it ceased but continued on expanding makes no sense. What might that last measure of expansion then have been after which the very next one was infinity? Additionally, how could this infinity collapse to a quantifiable measure to expand again? <br> <br>There are no infinities because they cannot structurally be integrated as suggested in this video. Pairing the concept of infinity with those of materiality cannot be done and always results in a contradiction.

  4

• KE

  @kellyrainmaster · 6 months ago

  The physical realm is an expression of something higher. Cause is beyond physics as we know it.

  3

• MA

  @marypagan3366 · 6 months ago (edited)

  Supposing that they take all of his many lectures and link it up with AI image of how he looked. We do have his appearance, his voice and his lectures! AI puts it all together.

  2

• EN

  @ENJOYFISHINGLIVE · 6 months ago

  Epic

  1

• HA

  @Hawkeye-888 · 1 day ago (edited)

  Time is real and is set by the movements of Earth, our sun , &nbsp;our &nbsp;Solar System its stars in relation to our planets etc. That is now the concept of time as perceived by humans began. &nbsp;If humans developed a pill that made us never age,, we would still need a system of agreed upon &quot;ropes and pulleys&quot; to let earthlings agree on what time it is, or if the word time bothers you,,,, agree on what NOW is. Only a mental institution or a prison would insinuate that time has no meaning. Trying to push the subject of time into a conversation that only physicists &nbsp;might enjoy is simply being obtuse. Why not wave your framed nobel prize at us.

• JE

  @jerrytolley4473 · 7 days ago

  Great Audio but the AI video leaves a lot to be desired.

• TI

  @timowalker24 · 6 months ago

  These are NOT HIS words… just AI right?

  1

• HO

  @Homengineer · 6 months ago

  It like he is describing man kinds brain.

• HP

  @HPatRoyers-fs2ub · 6 months ago (edited)

  It’s worth noting that, while all these concepts are true, most of what he is saying only happens, at noticeable levels, at great speeds. &nbsp;<br><br>In general, time is a slow trek forward from our own perspectives on earth. &nbsp;But it is fascinating to think that when we look at andromeda we are seeing it as it was 2.5 million years ago. &nbsp;😊

  1

• MR

  @MrMurlik · 6 months ago

  &quot;What we do: Present physics concepts inspired by Feynman’s teachings using AI-assisted narration and educational storytelling.&quot;<br>In other words, this Fenman&apos;s speech is a fake.

  3