TE
TechEcho
Home24h TopNewestBestAskShowJobs
GitHubTwitter
Home

TechEcho

A tech news platform built with Next.js, providing global tech news and discussions.

GitHubTwitter

Home

HomeNewestBestAskShowJobs

Resources

HackerNews APIOriginal HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 TechEcho. All rights reserved.

Carlo Rovelli on the ‘greatest remaining mystery’: The nature of time

120 pointsby wyndhamalmost 7 years ago

9 comments

ballenfalmost 7 years ago
Royal Institute presentation that I really enjoyed. Has some visual aspects, but can be mostly listened to while driving:<p>The Physics and Philosophy of Time - with Carlo Rovelli<p>&gt; From Boltzmann to quantum theory, from Einstein to loop quantum gravity, our understanding of time has been undergoing radical transformations. Carlo Rovelli brings together physics, philosophy and art to unravel the mystery of time.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;youtu.be&#x2F;-6rWqJhDv7M" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;youtu.be&#x2F;-6rWqJhDv7M</a><p>Posted 13 June 2018, recorded 30 April 2018.
howard941almost 7 years ago
C-SPAN videotaped Covelli speaking about his new book at a bookstore. About an hour long:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.c-span.org&#x2F;video&#x2F;?445419-2&#x2F;the-order-time" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.c-span.org&#x2F;video&#x2F;?445419-2&#x2F;the-order-time</a>
badrabbitalmost 7 years ago
I think I&#x27;m a simpleton because I could never imagine time being it&#x27;s own thing. I see time as simply the amount of change in reality we can perceptually sample. Much like how an object in motion will continue in it&#x27;s motion until it meets resistance,reality in my opinion is in continuous motion that has yet to meet resistance. Time (imo)is our measure of this change divided by our ability to sample it(where this ability could be second,minute,etc...)<p>Again,that&#x27;s my opinion as a layman. I&#x27;ve always wondered why time was the focus, when I at least have been more curious about universal change. Why is everything in motion? and how is everything universally connected to where it changes at the same rate?<p>Maybe there&#x27;s already plenty of work on this and I&#x27;m being ignorant(apologies if so).
评论 #17378713 未加载
评论 #17378954 未加载
评论 #17378715 未加载
dyukqualmost 7 years ago
Some tangential thoughts: even though I like these popular science (physics, to be precise) books, I have hard times to imagine their writers as a <i>real scientists</i>. Tyson, Greene, Carroll, Kaku, Rovelli... So many writers author so many books about these <i>hey-look!-so-fascinating!</i> things. It looks like a bandwagon and more and more scientists (yes, physicists especially) are getting on it - like they don&#x27;t have any important research to do, like they are so hopeless and desperate about the current state of physics and they stopped caring about it and found a <i>proxy</i> to monetize their knowledge. But hey, that&#x27;s not a secret anymore - everyone knows about the crisis, from the Queen of England to the hounds of hell. Sabine Hossenfelder is a legend for me. A few years back, when I was taking a Physics101 class, even the lecturer almost begged for help after the last lecture at the end of the semester: &quot;my fellow students, please, please, consider (to continue your career in the field of) physics. Physics is stuck. It needs new ideas, new theories, new minds. Please consider this.&quot; I was stunned. That was some real thing. I guess the fast advancement of technology in the late ~100 years made even the most brilliant minds (relatively) lazy. They gradually stopped thinking, beating their brains out year after year and here we are. No serious discovery after the quantum theory. String theory? Yeah, gazillions of dimensions - good luck with that. Higgs boson, Gravitational waves? Come on, nothing revolutionary - we&#x27;re still waiting for the revolution to emerge from (upgraded!) LHC. For me, they are cleverly and beautifully marketed (minor) findings. (Maybe some of you have heard of, some (if not many) of the top universities have teams working hard doing all the &quot;scientific-marketing&quot; for the Nobel Prize - it&#x27;s a precious prestige win in this <i>popular</i> world we live in).<p>Minds get eroded by technology by heavily relying on it. And it&#x27;s getting worse and worse by the distraction caused by all the digital &quot;life&quot; surrounding us, pulling and tightening its ropes every day. I imagine a true scientist as a monk. S&#x2F;he doesn&#x27;t think about writing a pop-sci book, appearing on TV and s&#x2F;he got a distantiation even for interviews about her&#x2F;his latest important research&#x2F;discovery. &quot;Monks&quot; are needed more than ever for science nowadays.<p>Those were my humble 2 cents.
评论 #17379343 未加载
评论 #17379775 未加载
评论 #17379257 未加载
评论 #17379618 未加载
评论 #17379430 未加载
评论 #17379262 未加载
FrozenVoidalmost 7 years ago
Time could be composed of tiny frames(quanta) of time. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Chronon" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Chronon</a> <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.org&#x2F;details&#x2F;arxiv-hep-th0106273" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.org&#x2F;details&#x2F;arxiv-hep-th0106273</a>
评论 #17380257 未加载
GnarfGnarfalmost 7 years ago
Time does not exist. It is an abstraction based on the movement of matter. We use time to compare the relative motions of things.<p>Every instrument we use to &quot;measure&quot; time involves movement: pendulum, sandglass, rotation of Earth, translation of Earth around the Sun, vibration of atoms, etc.
评论 #17380084 未加载
评论 #17380667 未加载
评论 #17380392 未加载
评论 #17380534 未加载
pmoriartyalmost 7 years ago
Not to nitpick, but I&#x27;m not sure the nature of time is so indisputably the greatest remaining mystery.<p>The nature of consciousness, life, and death can all certainly give it a run for its money.<p>Incidentally, would anyone happen to have a direct link to a version of this article that could be read without enabling javascript?
评论 #17378289 未加载
评论 #17378179 未加载
评论 #17378291 未加载
评论 #17379497 未加载
评论 #17378251 未加载
评论 #17378471 未加载
评论 #17378441 未加载
Maroalmost 7 years ago
Disclaimer: I&#x27;m a physicist who didn&#x27;t finish the Phd and went to work in the tech field instead.<p>I wish physicists would stop writing these bullshitty popular science books. A lot of the books are popularizing unverified &#x2F; unverifiable things like String Theory or Multiverse or Arrow of Time. And when they&#x27;re talking about more plain things like Special Relativity, then I still cringe, because it&#x27;s not something that&#x27;s worth explaining to lay people: there is no situation in which some high-level bullshitty understanding of GR or SR or QM will be helpful or relevant in life, at best it will confuse you.<p>It is a good and necessary thing to tell students about this, so some of them become physicists, but you don&#x27;t need popular science books for that, it should happen in schools, for free.<p>If you&#x27;re going to speak about Physics to lay people, at least do it it in a way that&#x27;s relevant to them, eg. look at how Feynman taught Physics. Explain how a boomerang works, or how thermodynamics relates to photosynthesis.
评论 #17380502 未加载
评论 #17380383 未加载
评论 #17380902 未加载
crb002almost 7 years ago
Planck&#x27;s constant, speed of light travel when you chain across space which Planck himself should have understood if he thought about transmissions of information in series. Curves when gravity pushes&#x2F;pulls light from straight paths. What questions are there?
评论 #17378958 未加载