What is Time? A metaphysical perspective...

[utesfan100]

Thanks as well for joining in.

My pleasure!

For your first three points, I would suggest that your answers point to the idea that your ideas are not as mainstream as you suggest, but represent a gulf between your intuition and the mainstream expression of your ideas. In particular, the your chronosecond appears identical to covariant time measures.

Again, to answer your question properly, my understanding of what a static space-time means, must be correct. And for that it appears that I must first understand what Killing vector fields mean and how they relate to all of this. I need to look into this further, although I fear that it may be beyond my abilities of understanding.

Killing vectors are only needed when space-time curvature is dealt with. Space-time in special relativity is far simpler.

That being said if the main idea behind a static space-time means that we define our existence as a line of events in space-time in the way that you are describing, then I am inclined to answer that it means the same. What is important to understand is that although all events happen simultaneously in the present, they are perceived to happen at different moments due to our motion through the dimension of time. To clarify this further: if event X is perceived at certain time for observer A, it may take several more seconds for observer B to actually notice it as well, because from a global perspective observer A and B are both in different places on this line of events. However, from a local perspective they both perceive it in their present moment.

I would argue that, relative to some event, SR divides the universe into three regions. A future, time-like, region; A past, time-like region; and a space-like region. These regions are observer independent, and separated by light cones.

In mainstream theories, causality can only flow along time-like curves, and thus our causality can only flow through the past region through the event and to the future region. Events in the space-like region are independent of our event, with different observers disagreeing on which came first. It is only for events with space-like separation, where causality is prohibited, that ambiguity in temporal ordering exists.

I don't see a precise definition of causality in your work. Consider two related events shared by some observer. Since the observers path must be time-like, these events must be separated by a time-like distance. Thus which was earlier is invariant among all observers, and we can define the earlier event to have caused the later event.

Then again, in my theory, due to all events happening simultaneous, it is impossible to determine whether a past event causes a future one, or vice versa. And even then it depends on the observer. It is possible for observer A to witness event X first and then event Y, while observer B can witness event Y before X from his position in spacetime. In the moment in between two events, X happened in the past for A but will happen in the future for B and vice versa. But if event X and Y happen to be related in cause and effect, then we cannot know which one is the cause and which one is the effect either. I don't know if that makes sense.

Does this imply closed time-like curves then? I am also not certain to be honest...

It seems that your view is simple more Calvinistic than my more Armenian view of space-time.

It is presently a philosophical question as to whether things actually change with time, or whether our perception of time is simply a result of a predestined and inevitable course of history.

So yeah, it seems I am reaching the limits of my understanding, since I'm having trouble answering your questions here. My apologies.

Good. When we reach the limits of our understanding, we have a better idea where we need to grow.

[Seiryuu]

For your first three points, I would suggest that your answers point to the idea that your ideas are not as mainstream as you suggest, but represent a gulf between your intuition and the mainstream expression of your ideas.

You are probably right. It was always my goal to extend the standard model, rather than contradict it. It may very well be that in the process of doing so, I see things differently from what is generally accepted to be the mainstream.

In particular, the your chronosecond appears identical to covariant time measures.

This may very well be. I can't confirm nor deny, since I'm still having trouble in understanding the concept of what covariant time measures mean and imply.

Killing vectors are only needed when space-time curvature is dealt with. Space-time in special relativity is far simpler.

Alright. I will have to take another good look at special relativity it seems!

I would argue that, relative to some event, SR divides the universe into three regions. A future, time-like, region; A past, time-like region; and a space-like region. These regions are observer independent, and separated by light cones.

In mainstream theories, causality can only flow along time-like curves, and thus our causality can only flow through the past region through the event and to the future region. Events in the space-like region are independent of our event, with different observers disagreeing on which came first. It is only for events with space-like separation, where causality is prohibited, that ambiguity in temporal ordering exists.

This is interesting. This division is absent in my logical framework. And from what I understand of it, I think I know why. Allow me to elaborate.

SR defines spacetime as 3+1, with the extra coördinate being that of time that adds the when to the where of the event.

According to Wikipedia: "In relativistic contexts, time cannot be separated from the three dimensions of space, because the observed rate at which time passes for an object depends on the object's velocity relative to the observer and also on the strength of gravitational fields, which can slow the passage of time. ...
In spacetime, the separation between two events is measured by the invariant interval between the two events, which takes into account not only the spatial separation between the events, but also their temporal separation."

In my hypothesis, I'm using a 3+2 spacetime definition, with the extra coördinate being that of the chronology AND that of the duration of an event. I'm adding not only a when to the where in space (let's call this when the 'where in time'), I'm also adding a when to that 'where in time'! Does that make sense?

I've refered to this part in one of my earlier posts, so I'm going to use it again to make things more clear.

First of all, in order to progress further, it seems I must take a better look at the concept of "the when" and figure out its meaning. Or in this case, I'm thinking on its 'meanings' in the plural form. For the question that comes to mind is the following one: can it be that I have missed something crucial about the when? Can it be that I overlooked the fact that not just the word 'time' is used in two different ways and therefore covers two different aspects of nature, but that the same applies to the word 'when'?

I believe I have and that once again, there ARE two meanings to this concept as well. Allow me to elaborate:

In the dimension of chronology, we define the when as a location of a 'moment in time' that is taking place in between two chronological events.
The when could be anything ranging from the past to the future. Examples are: today, yesterday, tomorrow, last week, next year, etc...

In the dimension of duration, we define the when as a location of a 'moment in time' that is taking place relative to our position in space.
What I mean by this is that the when here is not calculated by looking at the order of events, but is instead determined by comparing the distance between two positions in space.

This is how our current time measurement works, is it not? As far as I know, the way that the second is defined as a base unit is that it is based upon the movement of the Earth and Sun. Therefore all our measurements of time happen by comparing any position in space as relative to that very movement. By doing so we all agree on an arbitrary value that we have chosen as a reference point that allows us all to have meaningful comparisons of how far away or in other words how long a movement is from one position to another position in time, therefore effectively enabling us to calculate the time distances in between two positions. However we must not forget that all our measurements of durations ARE based upon the original value we have chosen to express our durations in: the second, which in itself is probably nothing more than a frame of reference on its own.

So there you have it. I'm using the chrona to measure the distance between two events in a chronotime(a line of events), but I'm also using the second to measure the distance between two events in durational time. The difference is the chrona measures how many events are in between event A and B, while the second measures how long event A lasts compared to event B.

SR does not know this distinction, as they treat both as a variable for the same dimension of time. And this may be what you are referring to as the co- and contravariant measurements. So in order to get back to your first question: it does not seem that the chrona is identical to a covariant measurement, because in my case the quantity that is being measured is NOT the same quantity as the ones you are measuring. And the reason for that is that both measurements take place in a 4D coördinate system, while the chrona in combination with the second require a 5D coördinate system.

And from what I can tell, this is exactly why the three regions of SR are absent in my understanding: they exist in a 4D spacetime, but disappear once you extend spactime to 5D. Why? Because in my 5D logic, the spacetime interval between two events is no longer invariant, but variable, due to the extra time parameter! That is the key difference here!

So to summarize: while SR states that "In spacetime, the separation between two events is measured by the invariant interval between the two events, which takes into account not only the spatial separation between the events, but also their temporal separation.", I am stating that in spacetime, the separation between two events is measured by the variable interval between the two events, which takes into account not only the spatial separation between the events, but also their chronological separation AND their durational extent.

I don't see a precise definition of causality in your work. Consider two related events shared by some observer. Since the observers path must be time-like, these events must be separated by a time-like distance. Thus which was earlier is invariant among all observers, and we can define the earlier event to have caused the later event.

Correct. The invariance that is shared among all observers no longer exists in 5D, effectively meaning that in contrast to SR, my version of spacetime is observer dependent.

The notion of variable intervals in spacetime destroys pre-determined causal relations, as we can no longer differentiate between cause and effect in the first place. The reason for that is that two related events can only be shared by two different observers when both parameters of time have the same value.

It seems that your view is simple more Calvinistic than my more Armenian view of space-time.

Could be. Or perhaps it is neither of those! ^^

It is presently a philosophical question as to whether things actually change with time, or whether our perception of time is simply a result of a predestined and inevitable course of history.

I disagree. The paradox can be solved if we assume that all things are predestined in an unlimited amount of realities with an unlimited amount of possible outcomes. In this case, both the assertion that things actually change with time and the assertion that all things are predestined do not conflict with eachother, as they happen to be both true!

Good. When we reach the limits of our understanding, we have a better idea where we need to grow.

You are quite right! Thanks to you, I have gained a much better insight into how my own views relate to those of SR! I really appreciate that!

[Reality Check]

Your problem comes with the assertion that "the second measures how long event A lasts compared to event B". You are confusing your personal definition of event with the scientific definition of event.
Events do not have any duration.

In physics, and in particular relativity, an event indicates a physical situation or occurrence, located at a specific point in space and time. For example, a glass breaking on the floor is an event; it occurs at a unique place and a unique time, in a given frame of reference.[1]

[Seiryuu]

You are right. In the current scientific definition, events do not have any duration. That is my problem with SR and the whole reason why I'm extending it to 5D in the first place.

Thanks for pointing this out!

[utesfan100]

You are right. In the current scientific definition, events do not have any duration. That is my problem with SR and the whole reason why I'm extending it to 5D in the first place.

Thanks for pointing this out!

Yes. Events in relativity are DEFINED to be point-like objects, generalized to include a time component. As such they have no duration, just as a point has no width. This is somewhat distinct from our natural use of the word event that usually have some duration.

Rather than concoct a new space-time coordinate, it might be more efficient to define an object that better approximates the concept one has in mind. Let us define a process to be a curve connecting a start event and a stop event.

Then the start and end of a meeting are two events, but the meeting itself is a process.

Now, how long is such a process?

The most intuitive method of measuring time would be to subtract the time coordinate of the start and stop time relative to whichever reference frame we are using. This is a contravariant measure of the duration of the process, which will change based on the reference frame we use.

Another method would be to count the number of cycles of an intrinsic clock within the system we are examining. For example, if we are studying a distant solar system, we use the orbits of a planet around its star as a clock. Each tick of the clock would be an event, and the duration of our process is the number of tick events between the start and stop events. This is a covariant measure of duration, and would be independent of observer frame.

Most people intuitively believe these should be equivalent, and the fact they are not is evidence for why we must use SR.

In my hypothesis, I'm using a 3+2 spacetime definition, with the extra coördinate being that of the chronology AND that of the duration of an event. I'm adding not only a when to the where in space (let's call this when the 'where in time'), I'm also adding a when to that 'where in time'! Does that make sense?

I don't believe that my picture of a 3+2 space-time is identical to yours.

In the mainstream a 3+2 space-time would imply that time is not a line, but rather a plane. This adds an additional degree of freedom into our definition of future corresponding to the angle from some reference direction of time we can call seconds. Chronoseconds are now the orthogonal direction in the time plane counterclockwise from seconds.

How do we interpret the two orthogonal directions of future?

Specifically, relative to a fixed observer, what would effects relative to a cause at the origin look like with:
1) Seconds +, Chronoseconds +
2) Seconds +, Chronoseconds -
3) Seconds -, Chronoseconds +
4) Seconds -, Chronoseconds -

Addendum:
Seconds +, Chornoseconds 0 would represent a standard cause-effect.
Seconds -, Chronoseconds 0 would represent a physical foreshadowing of an event.

[Seiryuu]

Yes. Events in relativity are DEFINED to be point-like objects, generalized to include a time component. As such they have no duration, just as a point has no width. This is somewhat distinct from our natural use of the word event that usually have some duration.

This is ok. I accept that my definition of an event is different from how relativity defines them and more like our natural use of the word. I apologize for the confusion.

Then again, in my views, an event is also a point-like object, generalized to include two time components: one of them is used to define it's place in an line of sequences, the other is used to define it's place in an line of durations. (which is a roud-about way of saying that it has a duration after all )

That's the difference between 4D and 5D spacetime. In 4D spacetime, duration is a property of an event. In 5D spacetime, the event is located at a point that corresponds with a certain duration on a line of durations... I know it's the same thing, looked upon from a different perspective, but I like reversing concepts and turning them upside down. Especially if it enables me to see other things in different perspectives as wel ^^

Rather than concoct a new space-time coordinate, it might be more efficient to define an object that better approximates the concept one has in mind. Let us define a process to be a curve connecting a start event and a stop event.

Then the start and end of a meeting are two events, but the meeting itself is a process.

Now, how long is such a process?

Depends on how you measure it

The most intuitive method of measuring time would be to subtract the time coordinate of the start and stop time relative to whichever reference frame we are using. This is a contravariant measure of the duration of the process, which will change based on the reference frame we use.

Another method would be to count the number of cycles of an intrinsic clock within the system we are examining. For example, if we are studying a distant solar system, we use the orbits of a planet around its star as a clock. Each tick of the clock would be an event, and the duration of our process is the number of tick events between the start and stop events. This is a covariant measure of duration, and would be independent of observer frame.

I see. If that is what contra- and covariant measures mean, then yes, it is almost identical to what I'm doing. However, the main difference is that my hypothesis involves motion through time and it is precisely that motion that requires the extra coordinate.

You define the process as a curve connecting the start and stop event. The thing is, which curve? The curve that connects the start and stop over a line of time-durations or the curve that connects the start and stop over a line of time-sequences? There is a difference and it is an important one, for the route you are taking is totally different. That's why I'm calling it two-dimensional: one curve involves comparing the start and stop time coordinate to the start and stop time of a reference frame (= durations), the other involves counting the number of cycles of an intrinsic clock (= sequences). It's a totally different curve or path, among two different lines.

Another thing is that you see this as a measurement that is independent of the observer frame, but I do not. I believe that the observers frame has an intrinsic clock as well that lies in his or her perception. I believe that we are not just counting a fixed number of cycles, but that we are actually comparing the number of cycles of the intrinsic clock within the system we are examining, to the intrinsic clock of the observers frame. Meaning that the number of cycles or sequences we are counting for the system we are examining isn't fixed either, but relative to the observer's frame of reference!

Most people intuitively believe these should be equivalent, and the fact they are not is evidence for why we must use SR.

I agree. However it appears to me that due to SR operating in 4D it is impossible to use both the contra- and the covariant measure in one coordinate system. You have to transform them from one to the other, am I wrong?

On its own, that's not a big deal either. But if you start from the premise that we are moving through time, it involves a motion. And a motion requires a speed, which is a two-dimensional ratio. My 'speed through time' is precisely that ratio, which relates the number of cycles to the difference between the start and stop coordinates. While that may not seem to be useful at first, it relates the change in position among the curve of sequences to the change in position among the other curve of durations. In turn, doing this opens up a whole new perspective that leads to interesting results. That's what I've been trying to describe all along.

I don't believe that my picture of a 3+2 space-time is identical to yours.

Let's find out!

In the mainstream a 3+2 space-time would imply that time is not a line, but rather a plane. This adds an additional degree of freedom into our definition of future corresponding to the angle from some reference direction of time we can call seconds. Chronoseconds are now the orthogonal direction in the time plane counterclockwise from seconds.

Correct. The mere fact that you can use two different measurements that are not equivalent, hints that you are measuring two entirely different things, among two entirely different axises. One axis would be that of time-durations, the other of time-sequences. Indeed this corresponds with a plane instead of a line.

How do we interpret the two orthogonal directions of future?

Although orthogonal, I don't see them both as directions of future. Only one is: the line of sequences. Measurements among this line tell how far two events are apart in cycles (chronae). The other is the line of durations. Measurements among this line tell how far two events are apart in duration (seconds).

Specifically, relative to a fixed observer, what would effects relative to a cause at the origin look like with:
1) Seconds +, Chronoseconds +
2) Seconds +, Chronoseconds -
3) Seconds -, Chronoseconds +
4) Seconds -, Chronoseconds -

Addendum:
Seconds +, Chornoseconds 0 would represent a standard cause-effect.
Seconds -, Chronoseconds 0 would represent a physical foreshadowing of an event.

Interesting exercise, but I only have one direction of future, so I can't relate them like that. What I can do, before looking at causality, is show the relations between two events X and Y or between how observer A and B experience events.

First, let's check out the relation between two events. Let's assume that X is the fixed event and Y is the one in comparison.
Just to be clear: a duration the time between the beginning and end of the event in seconds, while a sequence is the amount of 'sub-events' in between the beginning and end of the 'main event' in chronae

1) Seconds +, Chronoseconds +
Event Y lasts longer than event X and contains more sequences (=sub events)
2) Seconds +, Chronoseconds -
Event Y lasts longer than event X but contains less sequences (=sub events)
3) Seconds -, Chronoseconds +
Event Y lasts shorter than event X but contains more sequences (=sub events)
4) Seconds -, Chronoseconds -
Event Y lasts shorter than event X and contains less sequences (=sub events)

Seconds +/-, Chornoseconds 0 would represent that event A and B are identical in sequence, but different in duration.
Seconds 0, Chronoseconds +/- would represent that event A and B are identical in duration, but different in sequences.

Now let's assume that A is the fixed observer and B is the one who compares his experience of the events to A. Then they would relate like this:

1) Seconds +, Chronoseconds +
Observer B experiences more events than A, over a longer period of time
2) Seconds +, Chronoseconds -
Observer B experiences less events than A, over a longer period of time
3) Seconds -, Chronoseconds +
Observer B experiences more events than A, over a shorter period of time
4) Seconds -, Chronoseconds -
Observer B experiences less events than A, over a shorter period of time

Seconds +/-, Chornoseconds 0 would repesent that observer A and B experience an equal number of events over a different period of time
Seconds 0, Chronoseconds +/- would represent that observer A and B experience a different number of events over an equal period of time

So what does this mean in a causal way? First of all: that A and B can experience different amounts of events over different amounts of time. We all know this to be true, from our everyday realities. But, more importantly, it also means what I've been trying to explain a few times without success: the sequence of events themselves can be different for observer A compared to observer B.

Does that make sense? Let me give some examples:

Asterix and Obelix attend a party. The party is the process between two events: event X is the start and event Y is the end. The process lasts two hours in durational time. In sequential time, Asterix experiences the party as three sequences in chronotime, while Obelix experiences the party as five sequences in chronotime. For Asterix, the party is composed of event A (getting a drink), event B (talking to friends) and event C (going on the dancefloor), while for Obelix, the party is composed of event D (paying the entrance), event A (getting a drink), event C (going on the dancefloor), event B (talking to friends) and event E (getting a snack).

As you can see, both Asterix and Obelix spend two hours at the party, but Obelix experiences far more events than Asterix. The fact that he did more in an equal amount of time, means he moved faster through sequential time than his friend and thus faster from the past to the future. His speed through time would be 5 chronae / 2 hours, while that of Asterix would be 3 chronae / 2 hours.

Notice also how Asterix' events not only differ from Obelix' events, but that two of them are also in reverse order: ABC to DACBE. In short, the order of events are observer dependent. Of course you could argue that in this scenario, event B and C for Asterix are not the same events as C and B for Obelix and you would be right. This is where the example fails.

***
Let me also use the exam example from Shaula:

I have sat through exams where for some people they were dragging on forever, for others they were over in a flash. However at the end we were all there, back at one point in time walking out of the room. These subjective moments are subjective and cannot be due to real physical effects. If they were then there would be observable consequences.

Consider the exam to be an event. It lasts 1 hour. Some people may experience the exam as one single event, which means that they experience a ratio through time of 1 chrona / hour. However, others experience the same exam as composed of three sub-events: reading questions, writing down an answer and verifying that answer. They experience the same exam at a ratio through time of 3 chrona / second. Sounds a bit over-simplified? You are right, but again, this is only an example.

***
The thing is: this is how it works. However, instead of just playing a trick by arbitrary defining events and sub-events to get different ratio's, my hypothesis states that this is exactly what happens on a physical level in the universe: due to our observer-dependent motion through time, we perceive certain events to last longer or shorter, despite an equal amount of seconds. It is as if one minute can appear to last forever, while two hours may fly by in no time. The reason for that? The amount of sequences in that minute or in those two hours vary and therefore the distance that has been covered in the dimension of sequential time varies as well. And the distance in sequential time = the rate at which we move from past to future...

[Luckmeister]

As you can see, both Asterix and Obelix spend two hours at the party, but Obelix experiences far more events than Asterix. The fact that he did more in an equal amount of time, means he moved faster through sequential time than his friend and thus faster from the past to the future. His speed through time would be 5 chronae / 2 hours, while that of Asterix would be 3 chronae / 2 hours.

Your examples seem to have a physical component to them in the lower dimensions but consider the following example:

I'm sitting motionless in my chair, thinking about something I plan to do in 5 minutes. For the first 2 minutes, time seems to drag but for the last 3 minutes, my mind wanders and that span of time seems to go by in a flash. How does your hypothesis account for that or do you feel that is a separate issue of simply misjudging time flow rate due to a change of focus rather than movement in time dimensions? If so, how do you know the same difference in perception isn't applicable in your party example?

In short, do you feel there can be altered movement in the time dimensions caused by mental activity alone?

[Seiryuu]

Good question. From the way that you are describing the situation, there is indeed a change of focus happening after 2 minutes.

In my hypothesis, that change in focus causes an acceleration, effectively increasing your speed through time. You are therefore not misjudging time at all, but you are in effect moving faster through time. The reason for that is that there is an increased activity in your mind during the last 3 minutes: it wanders from one thought to another. Every time your mind shifts its attention to another thought, this can be seen as an event that corresponds with a tick of your very own intrinsic clock.

In the party example, this difference in perception may have occurred as well. In fact, it is probably very likely that there was a difference in perception between Asterix and Obelix!

But in my example, I split up the party in arbitrary sequences or so called sub-events and claimed both were moving at different speeds through time. While it is similar, the truth is that this in this analogy, both observers are no longer experiencing the same sub-events, which makes comparison impossible. For in order to compare two speeds through time, both observers need to experience the same events. When is an event identical to another? If its start and stop times are identical as well!

In other words: both Asterix and Obelix experienced the same main event which corresponds with the party and therefore we can compare how many chrona they experienced during the process. On the level of the sub-events, however, Asterix and Obelix did not experience the same events at all, for the start and stop times were different for both. Even though the acitivity may be the same: 'getting a drink', Obelix' version of this event begun later than Asterix' as he had to pay the tickets first. Which means that on a physical level, these two events are NOT identical and therefore cannot be compared.

In short, do you feel there can be altered movement in the time dimensions caused by mental activity alone?

Yes! For the mental activity causes your intrensic clock to tick faster or slower! And no, for it's not really the mental activity that is the cause on itself, but rather your focus that has shifted onto the mental acitivity. By changing your focus, you are in effect synchronizing your clock to the speed at which the mental acitivity occurs, just like you are able to synchronize your clock to the rhythm of a beat by focussing on it.

What does this mean?

It means that if your intrensic clock ticks faster than mine, you will experience the same events as lasting shorter relative to me. You are moving faster through time relative to me.
Vice versa, if your intrensic clock ticks slower than mine, you will experience the same events as lasting longer relative to me. You are moving slower through time relative to me.

It also means that if your intrensic clock speeds up, the events from the outside world will shorten in duration. You are moving faster through time relative to your environment.
Vice versa, if your intrensic clock slows down, the events from the outside world will lengthen in duration. You are moving slower through time relative to your environment.

This explains the effect of 'time speeding up' which we are observing as we grow older. The intrensic clock of the Earth is speeding up and ticking faster. When we are not focused, our clock is usually synchronized with the clock of the Earth, so it is speeding up accordingly. This means that we are experiencing more events in a shorter amount of time.

[Luckmeister]

Your examples are based on behavioral observation, which can be interpreted in different ways. My hope is that you will be able to come up with some experiment which can help to validate your hypothesis. I'm afraid you're really going to need this for your idea to progress to theory. You've done your thought experiment. Now it's time for some nuts and bolts.

I wish you luck in taking this to the next level.

Mike

[Solfe]

It also means that if your intrensic clock speeds up, the events from the outside world will shorten in duration. You are moving faster through time relative to your environment.
Vice versa, if your intrensic clock slows down, the events from the outside world will lengthen in duration. You are moving slower through time relative to your environment.

This explains the effect of 'time speeding up' which we are observing as we grow older. The intrensic clock of the Earth is speeding up and ticking faster. When we are not focused, our clock is usually synchronized with the clock of the Earth, so it is speeding up accordingly. This means that we are experiencing more events in a shorter amount of time.

Wouldn't this carry the implication that your mind experiences these changes in time flow and your body does not? When you are idle, your slows heart rate (usually anyway) and when you are excited your heart rate accelerates. If by being idle, you are moving through time faster, to an outside observer you should have more heartbeats per minutes than "normal" and fewer when excited. Clearly this doesn't happen.

[Seiryuu]

Hey Solfe, that's a super question! I hadn't even thought about how the speed through time relates to the body, so it took me a while to figure out what it means and how it relates to all of this. Thank you very much for bringing this to my attention!

Now, to answer your questions:

Wouldn't this carry the implication that your mind experiences these changes in time flow and your body does not?

I don't believe so. If there are changes in time flow, I really do believe that your body should experience them as well!

When you are idle, your slows heart rate (usually anyway) and when you are excited your heart rate accelerates. If by being idle, you are moving through time faster, to an outside observer you should have more heartbeats per minutes than "normal" and fewer when excited. Clearly this doesn't happen.

Correct! I believe you are right in asserting that if we are moving faster through time, this shoud have an effect on the heart rate as well You are also right in asserting that when we are being idle, our heart rate usually slows down. This indeed suggests that being idle corresponds with a slower motion through time.

So far so good! But, and yes, there is a but: we seem to have a different idea of what being 'idle' means. For me, being idle is also being without mental activity. If there is increased mental activity, you are no longer being idle, since you are either thinking or observing. Therefore this would imply that if the mental activity is related to the heart rate, we would have to detect changes in that rate upon increased mental activity in order to match the increased motion through time.

The cool thing about this, is that it is verifiable by experiment! So I've done some quick googling about whether mental acitivity affects the heart rate and this is what I found:

Simple mental and verbal activities markedly affect HRV through changes in respiratory frequency. This possibility should be taken into account when analyzing HRV without simultaneous acquisition and analysis of respiration.

Source: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...35109700005957

The results—and the dissociation between HRV and blood pressure variables—indicate that HRV is a more sensitive and selective measure of mental stress. It could be speculated that heart rate-derived variables reflect a central pathway in cardiovascular control mechanisms (ldquocentral commandrdquo), while the blood pressure response is more influenced by local conditions in the working muscles that partly mask the effect of changes in mental workloads

Source: http://www.springerlink.com/content/tawr8yuyqt0fk0kf/

Physical exercise and mental stress are potent triggers of myocardial ischemia (10- 13). The neural mechanisms for mental stress-induced ischemia are not well understood but are likely to involve both the parasympathetic (14- 15) and sympathetic (16- 17) nervous systems. Physical and mental challenges provoke transient decreases in the high-frequency component of HRV (6,16).

Source= http://content.onlinejacc.org/articl...icleid=1127421

All the heart rate variables were sensitive to physical and mental stress.

Source = http://etd.lsu.edu/docs/available/et...ted/thesis.pdf

Based on this, it seems that increased mental activity does effect the heart rate. Or rather: the HRV instead. Personally, I wouldn't claim that a faster motion through time automatically implies a faster heart rate or more heartbeats minute, because I don't know if that's true. As far as I know, your heart can be very calm, despite an increased mental activity. But the physical reaction to a increased motion through time could be correlated to the HRV. Especially since this is about frequency measurements and the motion through time can be expressed as a frequency. Then again, I have no idea how we would be able to confirm this for sure...

[Seiryuu]

Your examples are based on behavioral observation, which can be interpreted in different ways. My hope is that you will be able to come up with some experiment which can help to validate your hypothesis. I'm afraid you're really going to need this for your idea to progress to theory. You've done your thought experiment. Now it's time for some nuts and bolts.

I wish you luck in taking this to the next level.

Mike

That's the hardest part, I guess. As far as I see it, there is plenty of observational evidence, but I have no idea which experiment would be able to confirm this all in a way that cannot be interpreted otherwise. Perhaps I should indeed be looking at the physical effects on the body, because just like Solfe asserts they should be measureable. But if it comes down to the HRV, well, I think there are so many factors involved that would make this almost impossible to prove.

Another idea is that I would have to be able to come up with an experiment that deals with frequencies. If motion through time is related to frequency, then a change in frequency would have to result in a change in time perception. But how do you measure that?

In any case, thanks for wishing me luck!

[Seiryuu]

Doing some further research, I've just found out something interesting!

Children's heart rate varies with age; the table to the right should serve as a rough guide.
In general, the heart rate in infants and children varies more with activity and fever than in adults.

Age Heart Rate
Birth 140
6 mo 130
1 yr 115
2 yr 110
6 yr 103
8 yr 100
10 yr 95

Source: http://bcs.medinfo.ufl.edu/sample/page03b.html

Heart rate variability showed an age dependence, being in general an increase in LF, HF and total power from 0–6 years, followed by a decrease to 24 years. The infant group showed some exceptions to this trend. Developmental changes of parasympathetic and sympathetic mediation of heart rate are postulated as important determinants of age dependence of heart rate variability.

Source: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...65183894001173

Aging is associated with depressed HRV, but little is known of the affect of aging on parasympathetic activity. *text in between* Thus, the study concludes that aging reduces the global measure of HRV and may reflect reduced responsiveness of autonomic activity to external environmental stimuli with age. However, the time-domain short-term components of HRV are not affected by age and, therefore, the fast and presumably vagal modulations of heart rate appear to be maintained.

Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...241.x/abstract

Gender and age are both known to affect heart rate variability (HRV). Their interaction is not known. *text in between* Heart rates were significantly higher, and all time and frequency domain indexes of HRV were significantly lower among the older than among the younger men. Among the women only the shorter term indexes of HRV were significantly lower in the older group. When HRV was compared by gender within age groups, there were no significant differences between men and women in the older group.

Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9264423

Interesting, don't you agree? If this is true, then the results are showing that there DOES appear to be a direct correlation between the heart rate variation and age, and this according to my hypothesis also to our perception of time! If that is true, then it would also mean that perhaps our own intrinsic clock can be measured and determined by our heart rate variation! And best of all: a heart rate qualifies as a frequency that can be linked to motion through time (see my implication about frequency and vibration)

[Seiryuu]

Wouldn't this carry the implication that your mind experiences these changes in time flow and your body does not? When you are idle, your slows heart rate (usually anyway) and when you are excited your heart rate accelerates. If by being idle, you are moving through time faster, to an outside observer you should have more heartbeats per minutes than "normal" and fewer when excited. Clearly this doesn't happen.

It appears you may be right after all, as these results show that there is an error in my reasoning. Up untill now, I've always believed that a faster motion through time, causes our perception to perceive events as 'shorter'. While this is true, it appears that this is NOT the same as perceiving events to fly by 'faster'.

On the contrary, counter-intuitively, it seems to be the other way around! The faster we move through time, the shorter we experience the events and the more time appears to 'drag on' if there are no new events to be experienced. Vice versa, the slower we move through time, the longer we experience the events and the faster time appears to go by. Even for me, this seems odd as I expected the opposite.

These results however clearly indicate that children have a higher heart rate and thus a higher speed through time, compared to adults. Therefore, we must assume that our speed through time decreases as we grow older. But how can it be then that we are perceiving time to go by faster if our speed is slowing down?

I believe the answer comes from relativity. In accordance with the laws of relativity, it makes sense that as our own intrinsic clock slows down relative to the environment, the clock of the environment appears to be speeding up relative to us. Vice versa, as our own intrinsic clock ticks faster relative to the environment, the clock of the environment appears to slow down relative to us.

So if we perceive an event to go by in a flash that took two hours, this means that we actually had a rate of one event per two hours or one chrona / 2 hours.
In contrast, if the event appears to drag on, we actually experience more of the sequences in between, effectively meaning we have a higher rate of events / hour.

If that is to be the case, it means that my original statement that our motion through time increases with the mental activity is wrong as well. Mental activity would actually decrease our speed through time instead of increasing it. Why? I honestly don't know. The only explanation I have is that somehow engaging in mental activity causes our focus to shift away from experiencing the events around us to the thoughts. Perhaps the answer is simply that in order to be able to think, we have to slow down our motion through time in the first place? I'm not sure.

[Solfe]

Well, I used heart rate as an example but what about all of the other physical processes going on in the body? There are hundreds processes and it is pretty clear that EEG's don't accelerate or vary when observed.

Second, you would have the further problem that the patient and doctor would disagree on even the basics.

There are toys and products that are based on EEG's which aren't effected by these "time variations". If there was such an effect, the products would have to take them into account to function. I happen to know that many toys do not take this effect into effect nor do EEG's. You can build your own EEG device (and a EKG) from plans on the internet (or better yet, old Popular Mechanics magazines). They are not that complex.

[Seiryuu]

Well, I used heart rate as an example

An example perhaps, but a very good one nonetheless as it seems to be spot on with the current observations of time perception relates to age!

but what about all of the other physical processes going on in the body?

Honestly? I don't have a clue.

There are hundreds processes and it is pretty clear that EEG's don't accelerate or vary when observed.

Well, if the motion through time affects the heart rate variation, rather than the electric activity of the brain, this makes sense. In that case, it's very much possible that the EEG's remain unaffected.

But honestly, I don't know the exact effects of a motion through time on the physical body, since I have never wondered about it before. The heart rate variation seems to be a perfect match that correlates with our perception of time, but what does this mean for the brain? I have no idea and would have to do some further research on it.

The best example however I can think of right now out of the blue is our altered time perception during unconscious states, such as sleep, in which the brain waves are also considerably different from our waking states. If time perception and brain waves are also related, then this makes perfect sense!

Second, you would have the further problem that the patient and doctor would disagree on even the basics.

Ironically, this matches with our observations! I cite from the Wikipedia article about sleep:

Moreover, self-reported sleep duration is only moderately correlated with actual sleep time as measured by actigraphy, and those affected with sleep state misperception may typically report having slept only four hours despite having slept a full eight hours.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep

There are toys and products that are based on EEG's which aren't effected by these "time variations". If there was such an effect, the products would have to take them into account to function.

I don't believe the toys need to take the variations into account in order to function. Quite the contrary, it may very well be that the EEG's are measuring these variations in the first place!

I happen to know that many toys do not take this effect into effect nor do EEG's. You can build your own EEG device (and a EKG) from plans on the internet (or better yet, old Popular Mechanics magazines). They are not that complex.

Interesting! I must admit that I'm not very good at practical science though.

[Seiryuu]

Following up on this, I checked out what the effects of sleep were on the heart rate. The results should come as no surprise, but still....

Sleep progresses from stage 1 through stage 4--progressively deeper stages of physical relaxation--which occupy about 80 percent of your sleep time. During this time your heart rate continues at its lower rate and may slow a few percent more as relaxation deepens, metabolism slows and your body temperature drops slightly. Differences in age (seniors have progressively less stage 3 and 4 sleep), general physical condition, your metabolic response to your previous day's work level and other factors prevent exact predictions of further heart rate decreases during stage 1 through stage 4.

Source: http://www.livestrong.com/article/10...rate-sleeping/

The spectral analysis of their heart rates showed that the low frequency power as well as the high frequency power was lower when the subjects were asleep.

Source: http://web.cecs.pdx.edu/~ssp/Reports/2005/Ghosh.pdf

The changes in heart rate associated with the different states of sleep and wakefulness are controled by both the sympathetic and parasympathetic section of the autonomic nervous system.

Source: http://www.springerlink.com/content/ae0d6bca73b0d492/

Twelve subjects were studied for a total of 30 nights of uninterrupted sleep by simultaneous recording of EEG, eye movements, heart rate, respiration, and systolic blood pressure. In agreement with previous reports, progressive decreases in heart and respiratory rates and an early fall followed by a sustained rise in systolic blood pressure were found to be consistent base-line trends.

Source: http://jap.physiology.org/content/19/3/417.short

We know that sleep has an effect on our time perception. We know that the heart rate goes down during sleep.
We also know that our heart rate goes down as we grow older. If heart rate and time perception are related, then it makes perfect sense that our time perception changes as well as we grow older!

To summarize:
If Heart rate = speed through time then,
Heart rate variations = altered time perception = observed during sleep

[Luckmeister]

We know that sleep has an effect on our time perception. We know that the heart rate goes down during sleep.
We also know that our heart rate goes down as we grow older. If heart rate and time perception are related, then it makes perfect sense that our time perception changes as well as we grow older!

To summarize:
If Heart rate = speed through time then,
Heart rate variations = altered time perception = observed during sleep

I have two activities that drastically alter my heart rate -- powerwalking and playing drums. Both elevate my pulse (to above 160 bpm for one hour when powerwalking). Music is determining my physical tempo with both. Neither causes a detectable change in my perception of time nor does it affect other observers of my activity. If it did, I don't see how playing drums would work without tempo getting all screwed up. When I come in from walking my pulse drops to below 60. Again, I detect no change in time perception with that physical change.

I see your comparison of age, sleep etc. to heartrate simply as cherrypicking coincidences to support your hypothesis. Try to remain objective (I know it's difficult) while exploring your ideas. There is so much variation when observing human activity and thought that it's easy to selectively focus on that which seems to support what you are trying to prove. Your experiments and observations need to have much fewer variables that can confuse the results.

[primummobile]

It appears you may be right after all, as these results show that there is an error in my reasoning. Up untill now, I've always believed that a faster motion through time, causes our perception to perceive events as 'shorter'. While this is true, it appears that this is NOT the same as perceiving events to fly by 'faster'.

On the contrary, counter-intuitively, it seems to be the other way around! The faster we move through time, the shorter we experience the events and the more time appears to 'drag on' if there are no new events to be experienced. Vice versa, the slower we move through time, the longer we experience the events and the faster time appears to go by. Even for me, this seems odd as I expected the opposite.

These results however clearly indicate that children have a higher heart rate and thus a higher speed through time, compared to adults. Therefore, we must assume that our speed through time decreases as we grow older. But how can it be then that we are perceiving time to go by faster if our speed is slowing down?

I believe the answer comes from relativity. In accordance with the laws of relativity, it makes sense that as our own intrinsic clock slows down relative to the environment, the clock of the environment appears to be speeding up relative to us. Vice versa, as our own intrinsic clock ticks faster relative to the environment, the clock of the environment appears to slow down relative to us.

So if we perceive an event to go by in a flash that took two hours, this means that we actually had a rate of one event per two hours or one chrona / 2 hours.
In contrast, if the event appears to drag on, we actually experience more of the sequences in between, effectively meaning we have a higher rate of events / hour.

If that is to be the case, it means that my original statement that our motion through time increases with the mental activity is wrong as well. Mental activity would actually decrease our speed through time instead of increasing it. Why? I honestly don't know. The only explanation I have is that somehow engaging in mental activity causes our focus to shift away from experiencing the events around us to the thoughts. Perhaps the answer is simply that in order to be able to think, we have to slow down our motion through time in the first place? I'm not sure.

I think that you are overcomplicating this, in that you are using subjective experience to somehow justify an observation of change in our objective motion through a time-like dimension. I won't argue that for most people, time seems to pass more quickly the older one becomes. But it has nothing to do with relativity. The present does not exist in a vacuum. It is tied in our minds to our entire life experience. When you are five years old, a summer seems to last forever because the time it takes for that summer to pass is 5% of your entire life. For someone who is fifty years old, that same summer is only .5% of his entire life. That's a tenfold difference. Every year is a smaller part of the whole than what the previous year was. If we could just forget all our past experience then the passage of time would be correspondingly longer. Since we are tied to our own life experience, we subjectively believe time to be passing more quickly, because each new second (or minute, hour, day, year, etc) is a smaller part of our experience than what the previous second was. I suspect that is why you see a contradiction. You are assuming children move more quickly through time, but they don't. We all move (with very little variation) at the same speed through the time dimension. It's our perception of it that changes.

Never trust your senses unless it's to save your life. In situations other than that, your senses are probably wrong.

[Seiryuu]

I see your comparison of age, sleep etc. to heartrate simply as cherrypicking coincidences to support your hypothesis. Try to remain objective (I know it's difficult) while exploring your ideas. There is so much variation when observing human activity and thought that it's easy to selectively focus on that which seems to support what you are trying to prove. Your experiments and observations need to have much fewer variables that can confuse the results.

You are right. I got a bit carried away in my enthousiasm.

Still, if I want to take it to the next level, I have to be willing to question my own assertions and look at ALL the observations that have something to do with time. Whether they are physical, perceptional, behavioural, biological, or whatever-ical. And since I'm looking for evidence based upon my hypothesis, I also think it's normal that I'm focussing on the subjects that are in support of it. I don't think this can be avoided at all. It shouldn't be a problem either, as long as I'm also willing to adress all the elements that are not in support of it in a satisfiable way.

The effect of motion through time on the physical body and the differences in HRV may be mere coincidences, I agree. But they do make sense as well. And, it's not like I deliberately tried to match tthe results from the studies on mental activity affecting HRV to those of HRV differences based on age or to those that deal with the heart rates during sleep. I didn't know on beforehand that all these 'coincidences' would match so well at all. Much to my surprise even, I found out that my initial response to Solve's remark may have been wrong based upon these results.

As for the experiments and observations needing to have much fewer variables, I would love to find a way on how to reduce them. But you also need to realise that since I'm operating in the domain of human perception, this may be impossible for me to do. Especially if it is observer dependent.

On the other hand, the concept of time is so fundamental, that it is present in nearly all the layers of our human existence. You would think that this makes it easier, but it doesn't. All the experiments and observations that can be considered as potential evidence, seem to require the a priori acceptance of my hypothesis regardless. So far, all I have been able to do is to list them as such and tell you: "if my hypothesis is right, this is how they fit in or why they can be interpreted as in support of it".

Then again I wonder, even without definite proof, if I can manage to list all these observations that have the potential to be in favour of what I am presenting and find a consistent way of dealing with those who are not, how many of them are needed in the first place to make a case in which people can agree that, although unproven, there just happen to be too many coincidences to ignore?

I have two activities that drastically alter my heart rate -- powerwalking and playing drums. Both elevate my pulse (to above 160 bpm for one hour when powerwalking). Music is determining my physical tempo with both. Neither causes a detectable change in my perception of time nor does it affect other observers of my activity. If it did, I don't see how playing drums would work without tempo getting all screwed up. When I come in from walking my pulse drops to below 60. Again, I detect no change in time perception with that physical change.

Interesting. For me this observation would suggest that indeed the heart rate on its own is not the factor that can be linked to a motion through time. However, what about the HRV? In both of your examples, the heart rate is drastically altered, but what about the fluctuations? As far as I can tell, all the studies prior the ones that I posted about the effect of sleep, point more towards the variations than to the actual rate.

If you insist that even the HRV is mere coincidence, then let me counter your examples with an activity that I'm familiar with: meditation.

During meditation, I can access states of deep relaxation and yet maintain an increased awareness of what is happening around me. Going even deeper, the awareness gradually shifts to a state of consciousness on a level that is beyond the control of the mind. I find myself consciously observing whatever it is that comes to my attention or mind, sometimes even without fully realizing it. However, as soon as I try to be in control by thinking about what it is that I'm actually doing or observing, it's gone and I find myself locked in a mental loop that is trying to explain something that is actually beyond my understanding.

What does this have to do with HRV and time perception?

Everything. Because since I'm familiar with meditation, I know that it can have an effect on both the mind and the time perception. I would also expect that the heart rate goes down and the variations tend to decrease, due to its states of relaxation. And yet, if I look up the effects of meditation on the HRV, it seems nothing could be further from the truth! Again, this is what I've found:

Conclusions: These findings suggest that different meditative/breathing protocols may evoke common heart rate effects, as well as specific responses. The results support the concept of a ‘‘meditation paradox,’’ since a variety of relaxation and meditative techniques may produce active rather than quiescent cardiac dynamics, associated with prominent low frequency heart rate oscillations or increases in mean resting heart rate.

Source: http://reylab.bidmc.harvard.edu/pubs...2004-95-19.pdf

The results clearly show that the heart rate sequence of all subjects exhibited increased mean value, increased variability, and increased power in the Low Frequency band. This can be interpreted as evidence of a change in the balance of the autonomic nervous system induced by meditation.

Source: http://web.cecs.pdx.edu/~ssp/Reports/2003/Matzner.pdf

And last but not least:

Many studies have shown that heart rate fluctuations are reduced during meditation types that involve slow breathing, according to Shr-Da Wu and Pei-Chen Lo in "Biomedical Research" in October 2008. Breathing alone could be the cause for heart rate fluctuations. However, Wu and Lo found these same outcomes when using Zen meditation, a technique that focuses thoughts inward. Therefore, the breathing alone might not be the only reason for heart rate changes.

Paradox
Since meditation is relaxing and is thought to regulate heart rate, it is surprising that a variety of meditation and relaxation techniques produce active heart states, according to C. Peng and colleagues in 2004 in the "International Journal of Cardiology." Meditation has been shown, instead, to lead to frequents shifts in heart rate, as the researchers explain.

Outcomes
Chinese Chi and Kundalini yoga meditation has been found to cause heart rate to shift frequently in a group of young adults, as cited by Peng and colleagues. Slower breathing also has been found to relate to marked irregular rhythmic flow in parts of the heart, as the researchers note. Peng and the research team found that relaxation and breathing practices lead to heart rate fluctuations.

Other Practices
There is common ground when it comes to meditation and other spiritual-type practices. Evidence supporting the relationship between heart rate fluctuation and Zen meditation was found with a group of monks, as cited by Peng and colleagues. Rosary prayers and yoga mantras produce heart rate fluctuations, as well.

Theory
Mindfulness is one part of a set of integrated practices aimed at helping the individual achieve spiritual freedom by revealing insight into the nature and cause of human suffering, according to Ellisa Epil and colleagues in 2009 in "Longevity, Regeneration, and Optimal Health." Therefore, mindfulness likely influences processes in the body that help regulate stress.

Mechanism
Studies have found that heart rate is linked to low telomeres, which are the structures that cap and protect the ends of chromosomes, according to Epil and colleagues. With age, the cell division of telomeres over time shortens them; this is what is considered to be cellular aging. Telomeres appear to be a predictor of death disease and shorten with chronological age and in people with age-related diseases like diabetes and atherosclerosis, or hardening of the arteries. Mindfulness meditation appears to help regulate processes in the body, such as heart rate, that affect the lifespan of telomeres, according to the researchers.

Source: http://www.livestrong.com/article/24...nd-heart-rate/

Do you still believe that these are all just mere coincidences? Because to me it seems that whenever activities are taking place that alter our perception of time, it appears to have an effect on the heart rate variations.

Can I prove this? Of course not! But rather than asking me whether I can prove all of this or not, ask yourself the question: do I need to prove this? Why should we ignore the results of these studies? Why do we not allow the studies to speak for themselves? After all, these people HAVE tested the effects by experiment!

I must admit that I'm a bit frustrated. I know you are helping me progress by challenging the aspects that simply cannot be right, but if none of what I have posted so far matters even a single bit in order to convince anyone, then what sort of experiments could you possibly expect me to come up with? An experiment that clearly shows that we are moving through time instead of time passing by? According to relativity, it's impossible! It was the first element on the list I posted with the initial obervations:

“The principle of relativity, according to which the laws of physical phenomena should be the same, whether for an observer fixed, or for an observer carried along in a uniform movement of translation; so that we have not and could not have any means of discerning whether or not we are carried along in such a motion.” — Henri Poincaré, 1904

Do you see now why it is so hard to come up with conclusive experiments? How do you prove something that cannot be discerned either way, other than through it's observational or circumstantial evidence?

I'm really pushing my limits here in order to do better and to come up with new elements that can support it, but sometimes it feels as if I'm just not making any progress at all.

[Seiryuu]

I think that you are overcomplicating this, in that you are using subjective experience to somehow justify an observation of change in our objective motion through a time-like dimension. I won't argue that for most people, time seems to pass more quickly the older one becomes. But it has nothing to do with relativity. The present does not exist in a vacuum. It is tied in our minds to our entire life experience. When you are five years old, a summer seems to last forever because the time it takes for that summer to pass is 5% of your entire life. For someone who is fifty years old, that same summer is only .5% of his entire life. That's a tenfold difference. Every year is a smaller part of the whole than what the previous year was. If we could just forget all our past experience then the passage of time would be correspondingly longer. Since we are tied to our own life experience, we subjectively believe time to be passing more quickly, because each new second (or minute, hour, day, year, etc) is a smaller part of our experience than what the previous second was. I suspect that is why you see a contradiction. You are assuming children move more quickly through time, but they don't. We all move (with very little variation) at the same speed through the time dimension. It's our perception of it that changes.

Never trust your senses unless it's to save your life. In situations other than that, your senses are probably wrong.

Although your take on this is once again, very interesting and thought provoking, I must disagree. The whole idea of my hypothesis and the motion through time is actually pretty much based on these so called 'subjective experiences' being very real rather than an illusion of the perceptions. As I stated in one of my earlier posts: as long as you resist the notion that this is primary observational evidence of a real phenomenon in physics, you are essentially rejecting the basic assumptions of the whole idea a priori.

So while I respect your opinion and find your post to be of great value (I really do, since it offers a reasonable alternative to what I'm presenting), it litterally goes against my very own take on this in which I am trying to show that it has everything to do with relativity!

Btw, now that I think of it: your take on this does not account for the observations in which some moments seem to fly by and others drag on forever. If time just appears to be passing by more quickly due to our senses because of our past experiences, this would not be possible at all.

[primummobile]

Btw, now that I think of it: your take on this does not account for the observations in which some moments seem to fly by and others drag on forever. If time just appears to be passing by more quickly due to our senses because of our past experiences, this would not be possible at all.

The key thing here is that they seem to fly by. How occupied your mind is with something is exactly the reason we perceive time to be flowing at different rates.

With SR, two people experiencing different time flow would also observe that their watches were moving at different rates. We don't observe that at non-relativistic velocities. In fact, an astronaut who spent six months in Low Earth Orbit would only see a difference of .007 seconds between his watch and the watch of an observer on the ground. What you are saying is time dilatioin effects that are several orders of magnitude I know that you're positing two different kinds of time, but I think that's too elaborate. Like I said before, you can't trust your senses. The brain does some really weird things with the information it receives from the external world. Just because it seems like something is true in no way makes it reality.

[Seiryuu]

The key thing here is that they seem to fly by. How occupied your mind is with something is exactly the reason we perceive time to be flowing at different rates.

While we are in agreement on this, you merely explain WHAT is happening and attribute its cause to the mind. My views however are capable of explaining WHY this is happening. That is also the key difference.

With SR, two people experiencing different time flow would also observe that their watches were moving at different rates. We don't observe that at non-relativistic velocities. In fact, an astronaut who spent six months in Low Earth Orbit would only see a difference of .007 seconds between his watch and the watch of an observer on the ground. What you are saying is time dilatioin effects that are several orders of magnitude

Simply not true. The observers are experiencing a different time flow due to their own intrinsic speed through time. It does not affect the watches at all, since the watches tick independently relative to both observers as well. The speed at which those watches are ticking is determined by their own speed through time. Since a watch is an non-living object, it is not capable of changing its own rate through time and hence it is bound to the time flow correponding with the gravitational potentials of the Earth.

I know that you're positing two different kinds of time, but I think that's too elaborate. Like I said before, you can't trust your senses. The brain does some really weird things with the information it receives from the external world. Just because it seems like something is true in no way makes it reality.

Which means you disagree on the a priori assumption that our perception isn't real. Since you are right in asserting that we have no way of discerning what is real and what is not based on our senses alone, I cannot prove you wrong. But what you are stating here is an assumption nevertheless, for you cannot prove it right either. This means that I can use the your own arguments against you: just because it seems to be a mere illusion of the senses that is interpreted by the brain, in no way this makes it any less real.

That is the key dilemma here. Do you trust your own assumptions or are you willing to open your mind to the idea that the reverse might be true as well? Imagine that it is real just for one second. Imagine that I'm right just for one second. And then read the list of implications again. Regardless of whether I'm right or wrong and regardless of whether they make sense or not, I ask you this: which assumption offers the most possibilities for taking GR to the next level?

Oh and before answering that question, don't forget that there exists a mathematical model out there that is capable of unifying the force of gravitation with the force of electromagnetism by extending general relativity to a five-dimensional spacetime. That model is called the Kaluza-Klein theory...

[primummobile]

While we are in agreement on this, you merely explain WHAT is happening and attribute its cause to the mind. My views however are capable of explaining WHY this is happening. That is also the key difference.



Simply not true. The observers are experiencing a different time flow due to their own intrinsic speed through time. It does not affect the watches at all, since the watches tick independently relative to both observers as well. The speed at which those watches are ticking is determined by their own speed through time. Since a watch is an non-living object, it is not capable of changing its own rate through time and hence it is bound to the time flow correponding with the gravitational potentials of the Earth.



Which means you disagree on the a priori assumption that our perception isn't real. Since you are right in asserting that we have no way of discerning what is real and what is not based on our senses alone, I cannot prove you wrong. But what you are stating here is an assumption nevertheless, for you cannot prove it right either. This means that I can use the your own arguments against you: just because it seems to be a mere illusion of the senses that is interpreted by the brain, in no way this makes it any less real.

That is the key dilemma here. Do you trust your own assumptions or are you willing to open your mind to the idea that the reverse might be true as well? Imagine that it is real just for one second. Imagine that I'm right just for one second. And then read the list of implications again. Regardless of whether I'm right or wrong and regardless of whether they make sense or not, I ask you this: which assumption offers the most possibilities for taking SR to the next level?

First the watch thing. It is true. This has been measured. A clock in orbit measures time more slowly than a clock on the surface of the earth. They tick at different rates. Most of the difference is due to the velocity of the clock in orbit, but a small part is also due to being further up the Earth's gravity well. The fact that clocks measure time differently has to be taken into account in some applications. For example, our GPS system would not function properly if time dilation was not accounted for.

I think that's the main problem that I have with your theory. According to SR, clocks actually do tick at different rates, and both rates are correct. This has been experimentally verified. That's why astronauts are "younger" than we are. They took a "shortcut" through time that we did not. It wasn't just something they perceived, because they didn't even perceive it. It's what actually happened.

I think it's pretty well proven that our perception of the world is skewed by how our brain interprets it. I'll agree that since we're trapped inside of our own minds it's very difficult, almost impossible, to divorce ourselves from our senses. What I'm saying is that you must. The saying "a watched pot never boils" has a pretty strong basis in subjective reality. If you start with the same initial conditions, how long it takes the pot to boil will be the same every time you try it. What will change is your perception of how long it takes that pot to boil, depending upon whether or not you are giving it your full attention. It doesn't mean that time is somehow changing. When you are doing something uncomfortable or unpleasant, it seems to take a longer time than what it would take if you are doing something enjoyable, regardless of your age. But I don't think that you would advocate that your enjoyment, or lack of, an activity makes the passage of time change. But that's exactly what you are advocating with regards to age.

And, it doesn't matter which assumption offers the most possibilities when you are considering whether or not something is true. I'm as guilty as the next person when it comes to thinking about incredible things and imagining what could be. But that alone doesn't make it right. In another thread on this board, I was in a discussion about whether or not animals can experience certain kinds of emotions or cognition. In general, my belief is that they are severely limited in comparison to humans. It offers great possibilities to me if my dog could understand me and my behavior and is just unable to communicate that understanding. But I know that is not the case because there are simpler explanations that are more plausible.

[Solfe]

An example perhaps, but a very good one nonetheless as it seems to be spot on with the current observations of time perception relates to age!

I don't see that connection. You are comparing older people to younger people. Are you claiming there is a difference between people who have experienced "more time"?

Honestly? I don't have a clue.

A heartbeat requires many systems to occur.

Well, if the motion through time affects the heart rate variation, rather than the electric activity of the brain, this makes sense. In that case, it's very much possible that the EEG's remain unaffected.

I don't see how that would be possible. Change the blood flow and the brain functions differently. Many imaging devices aren't observing what the does, but how blood flows; older imaging devices anyway.

But honestly, I don't know the exact effects of a motion through time on the physical body, since I have never wondered about it before. The heart rate variation seems to be a perfect match that correlates with our perception of time, but what does this mean for the brain? I have no idea and would have to do some further research on it.

More than one system would have to be affected to have heart rate change, how the brain adapts to the change in blood flow changes how the brain operates.

The best example however I can think of right now out of the blue is our altered time perception during unconscious states, such as sleep, in which the brain waves are also considerably different from our waking states. If time perception and brain waves are also related, then this makes perfect sense!

I don't follow this part. You are saying time flow is based on the observer, yet you have described an experiment with an unconscious person. The best that can be said of a sleeping person is they can observe internal states, but not external stimulus.

Ironically, this matches with our observations! I cite from the Wikipedia article about sleep:

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep

See above.

I don't believe the toys need to take the variations into account in order to function. Quite the contrary, it may very well be that the EEG's are measuring these variations in the first place!

Here is the wiki article on a few of these products. My issue here is you are stating that time is event/observer dependant. Are these devices observers and can they parse moments in to events?

Without taking a certain number of measurements per second, these devices wouldn't work. If time was that flexible, how does the device "know" when to operate?

Some devices are analogue while others are digital, that in and of itself would cause problems with the perception of time under an event/observer dependant theory.

[Seiryuu]

First the watch thing. It is true. This has been measured. A clock in orbit measures time more slowly than a clock on the surface of the earth. They tick at different rates. Most of the difference is due to the velocity of the clock in orbit, but a small part is also due to being further up the Earth's gravity well. The fact that clocks measure time differently has to be taken into account in some applications. For example, our GPS system would not function properly if time dilation was not accounted for.

Of course this is true! I'm not even contradicting that. It's one of the observations that I'm using to support the notion that a different rate of time is actually something that is physically real!

I think that's the main problem that I have with your theory. According to SR, clocks actually do tick at different rates, and both rates are correct. This has been experimentally verified. That's why astronauts are "younger" than we are. They took a "shortcut" through time that we did not. It wasn't just something they perceived, because they didn't even perceive it. It's what actually happened.

Exactly! It actually happened! Thank you for stating this so clearly, because that's the whole point what I'm trying to tell you: just like this example from SR, it looks as if we are perceiving a subjective change in time flow with our mind, but we're not. It is actually a physical real phenomenon.

The main problem you are having with my hypothesis is that you have no problem with it at all... Well, to be honest, I don't know what your main problem is, because the argument you are using against it is actually in favour of the premise?

I think it's pretty well proven that our perception of the world is skewed by how our brain interprets it.

Er, the only thing that is skewed is that you are interpreting a physical real phenomenon as a perception of the brain. I'll repeat your quote from the example above: "According to SR, clock actually do tick at different rates, and both rates are correct." What you don't seem to be getting is that we ourselves are also 'ticking' at different rates. That is all. Once you realise this, you will find my hypothesis to in perfect agreement with SR.

I'll agree that since we're trapped inside of our own minds it's very difficult, almost impossible, to divorce ourselves from our senses. What I'm saying is that you must.

It is your senses who are deceiving you, causing you to believe that something which SR predicts to be actually happening is nothing more than an illusion of the mind.

The saying "a watched pot never boils" has a pretty strong basis in subjective reality. If you start with the same initial conditions, how long it takes the pot to boil will be the same every time you try it. What will change is your perception of how long it takes that pot to boil, depending upon whether or not you are giving it your full attention. It doesn't mean that time is somehow changing. When you are doing something uncomfortable or unpleasant, it seems to take a longer time than what it would take if you are doing something enjoyable, regardless of your age. But I don't think that you would advocate that your enjoyment, or lack of, an activity makes the passage of time change. But that's exactly what you are advocating with regards to age.

Again, I never said that the duration of how long it would take for the pot to boil would change. It doesn't. But the actual experience of how it SEEMS to take a longer time is actually REAL. In this scenario, the observer paying attention to the teapot is 'ticking' at a different rate than the actual teapot. Which is why in effect it takes LONGER to boil, despite the fact that the amount of seconds for the pot to boil will be the SAME every time you try it.

This is a classic case of SR, in which two frames of reference in motion are being compared. Only this time, the motion does not happen amongst a line through space, but rather amongst a line through time.

In order to understand this, you really need to start thinking into two dimensions, for I cannot state it any simpler than this. I'm sorry!

And, it doesn't matter which assumption offers the most possibilities when you are considering whether or not something is true. I'm as guilty as the next person when it comes to thinking about incredible things and imagining what could be. But that alone doesn't make it right. In another thread on this board, I was in a discussion about whether or not animals can experience certain kinds of emotions or cognition. In general, my belief is that they are severely limited in comparison to humans. It offers great possibilities to me if my dog could understand me and my behavior and is just unable to communicate that understanding. But I know that is not the case because there are simpler explanations that are more plausible.

You are advocating the principle of Occam's razor. Which is great! But in my case there are no simpler explanations for all of the phenomena that we are observing. At least not in the domain of physics.

There simply IS no alternative theory in physics that can deal with all of these 'perceptional anomalies' regarding the matter of time and time dilation. I am offering you a plausible view that can explain all of them in one go from a (meta)physical perspective and that can actually explain as to WHY they are happening in the first place. I'm also doing my utmost best to deal with all of the concerns that have been raised in this topic. Either by explaining them or by admitting that I have made a mistake myself.

However, the ONLY real counter-argument so far in this topic has been that I need more than observational evidence alone to prove that it could be true. Even though the principle of relativity predicts that we can never distinguish between whether something is moving relative to us or whether we ourselves are carried in a motion relative to it (yes, this includes the phenomenon of time), in the end you all seem to agree on the fact that it's 'an interesting piece of unprovable verbal logic, but nothing more than that'.

Come on folks! You are all being very supportive, but it is completely dishearthening at the same time for me to know that the only real objection standing in the way of accepting my views merely as 'possible' is the lack of proof for something that cannot be proven...

[Seiryuu]

I don't see that connection. You are comparing older people to younger people. Are you claiming there is a difference between people who have experienced "more time"?

There is a difference in time perception. It has nothing to do about having experienced more time or not.

A heartbeat requires many systems to occur.

That's ok.

I don't see how that would be possible. Change the blood flow and the brain functions differently. Many imaging devices aren't observing what the does, but how blood flows; older imaging devices anyway.

You are probably right that a change in heart rate would have to show up on the EEG. But if the EEG measures brain activity, how would we be able to tell that it doesn't show up already? Perhaps we simply do not know what to look for.

More than one system would have to be affected to have heart rate change, how the brain adapts to the change in blood flow changes how the brain operates.

Roger that. I'm trying to figure out how it works.

I don't follow this part. You are saying time flow is based on the observer, yet you have described an experiment with an unconscious person. The best that can be said of a sleeping person is they can observe internal states, but not external stimulus.

The time flow of the observer is based on the observer. The time flow of the external environment is based on the external environment.

ISee above.

Both time flows are relative towards eachother, but the observer does not directly affect the externel environment and vice versa. They simply 'tick' at different rates, just like in SR clocks can 'tick' at different rates when you compare them, but tick at the same rate when you view them locally.

Here is the wiki article on a few of these products. My issue here is you are stating that time is event/observer dependant.

Thanks for the link! It is indeed observer dependent. In essence what I'm saying is that time flow is relative, just like everything else in relativity is relative. That's why it's called 'General Relativity' and that's why I'm calling it 'Absolute Relativity'

Are these devices observers and can they parse moments in to events?

These devices experience a time flow, but they cannot alter their own rate themselves. Since they are non-living objects, they are bound to the time flow that correponds with the gravitational potentials of the environment, in this case that of the Earth.

Without taking a certain number of measurements per second, these devices wouldn't work. If time was that flexible, how does the device "know" when to operate

The flexibility of time doesn't alter the seconds. It alters the so called 'proper time' of an object or an observer that corresponds with the number of events that 'fit' into one second.

Some devices are analogue while others are digital, that in and of itself would cause problems with the perception of time under an event/observer dependant theory.

Not really. The seconds remain the same in each frame of reference, just as SR predicts.

Observer dependent in this case means that the observer moves through time independently of the environment. Which means that his or her rate through time can be different from the environment. Therefore the observer moves relative to the time of the environment, just like the time of the environment moves relative to the observer. I am merely using the principles of relativity here in respect to the temporal dimensions. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Seiryuu]

Hey all,

I just wanted to express my sincerest apologies if my last posts may have felt bitter. You've all been very supportive to me and I have learned a lot thanks to all of you.

That is why I'm considering to leave my views on time for what they are. I do not wish to advocate them any further if it means I that I end up hurting the people who take the time and effort to help me progress by telling me what I NEED to hear instead of what I WANT to hear. So yes, I'm sorry to have failed you all in that aspect and I hope that one day perhaps you'll be able to look past my flaws and see through what I have written.

Maybe then, my words will start making sense and maybe then there will be someone who truly understands the full extent of what it is that I'm presenting. Know that my views on time are only the tip of the iceberg and that I have been holding back everything else. To that end, I would like to share with you two links.

The first contains the full document containing the hypothesis I have posted here, along with the missing prologue and with chapter 3, which I have not presented on baut so far, due to their... 'unorthodox' content. Should you be interested, then you can find the full and unaltered version of my ideas on https://docs.google.com/document/pub...JKVqN_78FxIwOc

I don't expect you to believe anything of these additional parts. I do not wish to advocate them either. I'm sharing this 'as is' for those who may take an interest in it.

The second link contains my original thought experiment dating back from 2008. A lot of ideas and concepts in it are based upon misconceptions or are flawed in other ways as they were based upon my understanding of back then. That is why I I felt to need to start over, because it no longer reflects my current views and understanding.

However, there are still some things in it of which I believe that they may be of some value. For example, the parts that talk about how I view the dimensions of space. I was planning on reworking those as well as they are in dire need of an update and simplification, but I haven't been able to do so yet. Either way, those who are interested can find the original draft on https://docs.google.com/document/pre...VyuIHl-hArrPzI.

Again I'm sharing this 'as is' for those who may be interested and I do not wish to advocate any of the items that are present in this draft. I know there's a lot of crap and speculation in it. But don't see this as something that is of great value, other than that it can give you an idea of how far my views on time can extend if you just open your mind to them.

For anyone else who is not interested in reading anything that is beyond the scope of what I'm willing to defend here on the ATM forum or who just can't be bothered to skip through all the crap of the past, please simply ignore this post for both links contain no extra scientific value to my original premise and should not be taken seriously on this forum.

Best wishes,
Kris

[primummobile]

Hey all,

I just wanted to express my sincerest apologies if my last posts may have felt bitter. You've all been very supportive to me and I have learned a lot thanks to all of you.

That is why I'm considering to leave my views on time for what they are. I do not wish to advocate them any further if it means I that I end up hurting the people who take the time and effort to help me progress by telling me what I NEED to hear instead of what I WANT to hear. So yes, I'm sorry to have failed you all in that aspect and I hope that one day perhaps you'll be able to look past my flaws and see through what I have written.

Maybe then, my words will start making sense and maybe then there will be someone who truly understands the full extent of what it is that I'm presenting. Know that my views on time are only the tip of the iceberg and that I have been holding back everything else. To that end, I would like to share with you two links.

The first contains the full document containing the hypothesis I have posted here, along with the missing prologue and with chapter 3, which I have not presented on baut so far, due to their... 'unorthodox' content. Should you be interested, then you can find the full and unaltered version of my ideas on https://docs.google.com/document/pub...JKVqN_78FxIwOc

I don't expect you to believe anything of these additional parts. I do not wish to advocate them either. I'm sharing this 'as is' for those who may take an interest in it.

The second link contains my original thought experiment dating back from 2008. A lot of ideas and concepts in it are based upon misconceptions or are flawed in other ways as they were based upon my understanding of back then. That is why I I felt to need to start over, because it no longer reflects my current views and understanding.

However, there are still some things in it of which I believe that they may be of some value. For example, the parts that talk about how I view the dimensions of space. I was planning on reworking those as well as they are in dire need of an update and simplification, but I haven't been able to do so yet. Either way, those who are interested can find the original draft on https://docs.google.com/document/pre...VyuIHl-hArrPzI.

Again I'm sharing this 'as is' for those who may be interested and I do not wish to advocate any of the items that are present in this draft. I know there's a lot of crap and speculation in it. But don't see this as something that is of great value, other than that it can give you an idea of how far my views on time can extend if you just open your mind to them.

For anyone else who is not interested in reading anything that is beyond the scope of what I'm willing to defend here on the ATM forum or who just can't be bothered to skip through all the crap of the past, please simply ignore this post for both links contain no extra scientific value to my original premise and should not be taken seriously on this forum.

Best wishes,
Kris

Seiryuu, if you're still reading this, I'd like to leave you with a thought. It's not scientfic in the least, but I think it gives a good example of why our perception of time changes.

In one episode of Star Trek:TNG, Data is pondering the reason for the "Watched pot never boils" saying. He is seen repeatedly heating a container of water, while he does different things... either focusing intently on the experiment or doing something else to distract him from the experiment. He then explains to Geordi that the time it takes the water to boil is exactly the same no matter what he does. I believe he says something like "according to my internal chronometer...." before explaining his results to Geordi. At this point, Geordi leaves the room, but he tells Data to "Turn off your internal chronometer". Data does this, and the next time he runs the experiment he is surprised when the pot of water begins to boil.

The point is that humans don't have an internal chronometer. Unless we are directly timing something, we have no real idea how long something takes. Whether we are surprised at how short a time it is taking or surprised at how long it is taking is purely a function of how we are perceiving reality at that moment, with a little bit of whether or not we want some event to happen thrown in. If you live in the United States, April 15th comes far too soon every year. It doesn't matter that it's about two and a half months from the time you receive your tax statements until that day. It seems to fly past in the blink of an eye. On the other hand, if you are planning to buy a new car with your tax refund, it seems to take an eternity for that refund to arrive, even though it is probably less than the two and a half months other people are fretting over going too fast. That's what I mean when I say that our perception plays funny tricks on us.

This has been a very interesting read, (and I have read every post) I just think you're trying too hard to assign a physical reason to our perception when our perception is a slave to our likes and dislikes.

[Seiryuu]

Thanks for the kind words. While I still disagree, I believe you are right in asserting that I'm trying too hard. You hold on to your beliefs and I hold onto mine.

In order for true communication to exist between us, we both have to be willing to let go of our own views and take time to consider that we may be the ones who are wrong instead of the other person.

Therefore it makes sense that unless I'm willing to admit that I can have it all wrong, I will never be able to get your point of view. But the reverse is true as well: unless you are willing to admit that my ideas may be right, then I will never be able to find the right words to convince you that how short or long something takes is not a function of how we are perceiving reality, but that it is actually the other way around.

There is nothing I can say or do that will suddenly make you realise that we as humans DO have an internal chronometer. That how we are perceiving reality IS in fact a function of how fast we move through time and space. That our focus is actually the mechanism we use to control the rate at which we are moving through the dimension of time. That the reason why a watched pot never boils, is because we are putting our focus on something that we expect to happen. And that an expectation automatically implies that it hasn't happened yet, so that it must be in the future instead of in the present. That the expectation is actually telling us that we need to move faster through time in order to bring that future event into the present. That doing so actually causes our perception of the time in the environment to slow down and the seconds appear to last longer. That all of this is actually happening according to the laws and predictions of relativity. That the principle of relativity follows the laws of physics which are the same everywhere in the universe. And that time itself is not an exception to the laws of physics and hence no exception to the laws of relativity.

All of that, no matter how hard I try to explain, no matter how much observational evidence I manage to come up with, it will never make sense to anyone who cannot let go of his or her own assumption that the reverse is already true, so therefore what I'm saying simply cannot be true. As long as you hold on to your assumption, your belief, that perception originates from the mind rather than from the physical reality and I hold on to mine that the reverse is true, we will never agree. And that's fine. We don't have to. I respect that you see it different.

Like I said earlier: nearly everyone I know sees it your way. But even if the whole world were to disagree with me, that still doesn't necessarily mean you all must be right and I must be wrong. There is no right or wrong. We just happen to look at our reality from a different perspective. If I look at it from your point of view, I would agree with you as well. But if you were to look at it from my point of view, you'd see the other side of reality that is hidden from your senses. Just like you will never be able to see the dark side of the moon by looking at it from Earth, you will never be able to see reality the way I do by holding on to your current views.

That is all there is to our differences. That is all there is to be said. Even if you would disagree with this post, it would still confirm that there is nothing I can say or do that will make you think otherwise. So I am not going to waste your time any further and would like to leave it at that.

In any case thanks for reading all of the posts. I am glad you found it to be interesting nevertheless and would like to express my gratitude for all the time and effort you spent on it.

Wishing you all the best in life,
Kris